Athlon 64 X2 vs Intel Core Duo

[Removed]

so why is the Intel processor faster? (if it is) differences in architecture?

 

Just can't be bothered googling and seeing as we have been having dual core Athlons for ages, surely the Intel ones must be more advanced having just recently been launched??

[ir_fuel]

No idea, i used to follow that kind of stuff, but i lost track a couple of years ago (got more into hanging around on car and motorcycle forums than on sharkyextreme.com or other geek sites )

[neo]

if you have a socket 939 or the newer 940 amd motherboard then the x2 chip should be a easy swap (may need a bios update tho)

 

yes the core duo will be slightly faster but also more expensive plus you will need a new motherboard and ram too, this may help -

 

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/07/14/co ... lon_64_uk/

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=2795

 

depends how much money you wanna throw at ya pc

 

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/112728

 

Just over £600 just for the chip yes there are cheaper ones

[Beavis]

The intel chip is much better than the Amd chip at video encoding and in games, but the Amd processer is still very good. I dont think the high end Duo 2 chips are worth the money but you can still get a very good and fast processor by going for the slightly lower speed ones.Any how there should be a price drop shortly as Intel are bringing there quad core chips out

[Removed]

just thought I'd ask, I've had my 64 X2 3800 for about a year now (with a 7800GT), only game I found I had to downscale th details a bit was Dark Messiah but I have the feeling it was more an issue with the game itself as it'd been reviewed by many as rather buggy (although I did finish it with no crashes)

[Beavis]

Im running a x2 4600 with an ATI 1900XTX and have no issues at all with anything, i have overclocked the processor too so i am perfectly happy

[hagar]

try playing fear then, I am running a 4400x2 with SLI 7800GTX and 2gig ram and that game bitches the machine a bit

[hagar]

oh and Dual core is only of use if the app can multithread - most patches seem to cover Intel but not AMD I've found

[Beavis]

try playing fear then, I am running a 4400x2 with SLI 7800GTX and 2gig ram and that game bitches the machine a bit

 

You must have a set up problem then because i have no issues with fear at all.

[Removed]

try playing fear then, I am running a 4400x2 with SLI 7800GTX and 2gig ram and that game bitches the machine a bit

 

 

actually had fear on and was rather smooth on 1280x1024 and most details set on highest iirc

[hagar]

try playing fear then, I am running a 4400x2 with SLI 7800GTX and 2gig ram and that game bitches the machine a bit

 

You must have a set up problem then because i have no issues with fear at all.

 

oh i have no problems and get a lovely fat FPS with most settings on but turn everything up and it will kill non-dx10 cards flat. Well I mean drop down to 40fps which is not acceptable

 

go give it a try, whack all on full and tell me a single card copes...

 

admittedly I aint played it in 8 months so new drivers may be out to help with dual-core etc

[ByteJuggler]

so why is the Intel processor faster? (if it is) differences in architecture?

 

Yes, the architecture. The Core 2's do slightly, to substantally, more work than the X2's per clock cycle, depending on what's being done. (As you probably know, the reverse was true for quite a long time.) There are cases where the Athlons are still slightly quicker, primarily memory internsive combined with computational intensive stuff (e.g. large scale matrix multiplications etc), largely attributable to the on-chip memory controller (thus running at core speed) whereas the Core 2's still use the more conventional external chipset to house the memory controller (which runs at FSB speed.) Intel still need to catch up in that regard. Anyway, hopefully AMD will hit back soon with something new, all this competition is very good for us as customers/consumers!