Is the X2 truly that bad?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

AeroB1033

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2007
204
0
18,680
Everyone knows that the Core 2 Duo has been dominating for awhile, and it's become almost habitual to assume it's the best solution... but lately it seems to me that people have been recommending it to the exclusion of everything else in almost every situation.

Funny thing is, when you look at the benchmarks for low to mid-range systems, things aren't really that clear-cut. AMD and Intel tend to trade blows in the same price range, especially when you factor in the reduced price of decent AM2 motherboards as compared to the latest (too expensive) 775 chipsets.

Granted, the C2D pretty much smacks most AM2 processors around when it comes to overclocking, but again, people are ignoring actual tests that have been going around lately. The Brisbane line (especially the X2 3600+) have shown some pretty great OCing results, including fairly easy 3GHz+ overclocks on a 1.9GHz processor which comes in at half the price of an E4300.

Even around the $200 range, AMD isn't getting crushed as handily as most people seem to think. Processors like the 4600+, 4800+, and 5000+ are solid offerings and trump the comparably priced E6300/E6400 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

Yes, the high-end and overclocking crowns belong to Intel right now, but does this warrant the kind of exclusivity enthusiasts have been giving them lately?
 
Your point is pretty good, however, most people here are enthusiasts; people who seek maximum performance and at the moment, Core2s are offering that maximum performance and often, money is not a problem for them.
Yes, the X2s are not bad at all but AMD is not Intel; We're in 2007 and their market is still in large part composed of enthusiasts, who will promptly switch to Intel if AMD is even slightly inferior in performance. On the other hand, whatever Intel does, they sell. Most people on this world still buy the CPU 'with more GHz', that is P4s/PDs and still see AMD CPUs as a second hand, defective, almost illegal choice. Many stupid vendors will even recall the early Athlons' (Palomino etc) thermal problems.....this is the sad truth; most people just follow like sheep when it comes to CPUs.
A friend of mine who has a small PC shop was switching from X2s to Pentium Ds because, as he said, people just want the CPU with higher GHz rating, no matter how much you try to convince them... Not even Core2 but crappy PentiumDs, would you believe it 8O
 
I agree on that CPU performance is a driver for the masses however I wish they'd take a look at the overall package. I for one am probably going to go with AM2 as the performance is at least adequate and the platforms are solid. I've seen too many posts of weird behaviors on the P965 motherboards and won't bother with something that is essentially still in beta.
 
Your post is a nice summary of a main part of the irritation I feel towards Intel. It's both the hangover from the false advertising (that made it as if Intel Inside was so much better in 2005, 2006), and of course the market-limiting behind-the-scenes anti-competition tactics.

It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

So there's the good and the bad, mixed. I'm glad Intel is around. I wish they had different management. I'll keep my Intel stock, because of Asia, and possible management change.
 
The X2 is competitive IF:

1. The E6600 is too expensive for you and
2. You are positive you will never overclock and
3. You cannot wait for the April 22 price cuts.

Otherwise the C2D is simply the best choice at this time.
 
Everyone knows that the Core 2 Duo has been dominating for awhile, and it's become almost habitual to assume it's the best solution... but lately it seems to me that people have been recommending it to the exclusion of everything else in almost every situation.

Funny thing is, when you look at the benchmarks for low to mid-range systems, things aren't really that clear-cut. AMD and Intel tend to trade blows in the same price range, especially when you factor in the reduced price of decent AM2 motherboards as compared to the latest (too expensive) 775 chipsets.

Granted, the C2D pretty much smacks most AM2 processors around when it comes to overclocking, but again, people are ignoring actual tests that have been going around lately. The Brisbane line (especially the X2 3600+) have shown some pretty great OCing results, including fairly easy 3GHz+ overclocks on a 1.9GHz processor which comes in at half the price of an E4300.

Even around the $200 range, AMD isn't getting crushed as handily as most people seem to think. Processors like the 4600+, 4800+, and 5000+ are solid offerings and trump the comparably priced E6300/E6400 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

Yes, the high-end and overclocking crowns belong to Intel right now, but does this warrant the kind of exclusivity enthusiasts have been giving them lately?
Click to expand...
You're right. However, you may have not been around in situations when X2s were in fact recommended. Generally, Core 2 Duos are recommended to people who are willing to pay a little extra for a performance advantage, while Athlons are recommended to people who want good performance for a good price.
 
In the low to miod range you are correct the AMD's compare with the E6300 and E6400 before overclocking, however, there is no upgrade path for the AM2 socket processors the AM2+ will work in an AM2 socket but with limited functionality. The AM2 socket processors require higher speed memory than the Core2Duo does unless you want to over clock. The twist comes in that most AM2 boards are cheaper then a comperable 775 socket board making the AM2 package cheaper than the Core2Duo which offsets the higher memory cost.

The "enthusiast" you refer to is the one buying the E6600 and higher where AMD doesn't have a competitive offering so of course to them AMD sux. They are also the one's buying the 8800's in sli configuration so they can get 120FPS instead of 110FPS on their 24" monitor.

Now personally when I change out a processor the board goes with it as well because the whole works is like 3 or 4 years old anyway. But with 5 in use at my house I still update something regularly.
 
That is YOU and most people on this forum, but have you tried to put yourself in the role of a poor unconscious, unaware buyer that opens a glazed door and finds in front of him a terrifying, crap-selling master who immediately hypnotizes the victim by claiming his products as the most avantgarde, and spells those alien GHz ratings the poor buyer has barely touched with his mind. :twisted: "3.0 GHz" of crappy PentiumD... Pentium, how many times he has hared this name, how sweetly familiar it is :) ... against "only 2.0" of a certain Athlon64 X2 :roll: ...
I'm not ending the story because you will certainly guess how it ends. My IT at work had the good idea of buying me a 3.0GHz P4 instead of a X2 4400+ I had proposed :evil: and I was tempted so much to break the nose of that f****** seller who kept claiming the P4 was better when I came back to return the PC.
 
Everyone knows that the Core 2 Duo has been dominating for awhile, and it's become almost habitual to assume it's the best solution... but lately it seems to me that people have been recommending it to the exclusion of everything else in almost every situation.

Funny thing is, when you look at the benchmarks for low to mid-range systems, things aren't really that clear-cut. AMD and Intel tend to trade blows in the same price range, especially when you factor in the reduced price of decent AM2 motherboards as compared to the latest (too expensive) 775 chipsets.

Granted, the C2D pretty much smacks most AM2 processors around when it comes to overclocking, but again, people are ignoring actual tests that have been going around lately. The Brisbane line (especially the X2 3600+) have shown some pretty great OCing results, including fairly easy 3GHz+ overclocks on a 1.9GHz processor which comes in at half the price of an E4300.

Even around the $200 range, AMD isn't getting crushed as handily as most people seem to think. Processors like the 4600+, 4800+, and 5000+ are solid offerings and trump the comparably priced E6300/E6400 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

Yes, the high-end and overclocking crowns belong to Intel right now, but does this warrant the kind of exclusivity enthusiasts have been giving them lately?
Click to expand...

CPU power is overated.....depenind on what you are doing... in gaming... you would need to run benchmarks to tell the difference between the x2 and the c2d.... you wont see it on game at like speeds
 
I agree on that CPU performance is a driver for the masses however I wish they'd take a look at the overall package. I for one am probably going to go with AM2 as the performance is at least adequate and the platforms are solid. I've seen too many posts of weird behaviors on the P965 motherboards and won't bother with something that is essentially still in beta.
Click to expand...

The whole package is always important. If someone doesn't want super speed, they might even consider an AGP based solution or even integrated graphics. For your money that you work hard for, the Core 2 Duo systems are the ones that provide the best performance for the best value. If all you do is write word documents and print them, then you might consider a Pentium (like... P75). Each person's situation is unique. However, the fact is is that most people want to buy one computer that fits a lot of needs. In most households, surfing the internet or playing games is one of those needs. Why not get the best for your buck? Low power isn't a bad thing either.

And the P965 chipset being essentially in beta is a crock. The boards are proven technology and offer no less stability than any AM2 offering. You could say you should avoid Intel because you see more posts about Intel computers having problems than AMD computers (it would be hard not to have that as the case when Intel sells 3 chips for every chip AMD sells).
 
Therein lies Intel's most significant advantage over AMD: Marketing and advertising power. Propaganda in any sort of war is one of the most overlooked, yet most potent, weapons in the arsenal.

The essential question that not enough people ask when they're in the market for a computer is: Will it do what I need it to do? The funny thing is, when distilled to that level, the answer to this question is 100% YES. There are very few universal truths, but like the sun rising from the east tomorrow morning, modern computers, whether AMD- or Intel-based, can do any job demanded of them today.

For most (non-enthusiast) consumers, this is enough.

What skews and distorts the picture somewhat is the enthusiast crowd, including members of the trade media. Whether we want to admit it or not, because we're all human, we tend to harbor loyalties to certain groups. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but sometimes we carry these loyalties too far and engage in rhetoric that is purposely hostile and antagonistic towards the other side.

At the end of the day, it's all about choices. That's the beauty of an open market. The consumer should always be aware that he has the ultimate power, the power to choose whichever option is best for him. And this is where enthusiasts like us can do the most good: We can educate the masses about what we know, but without revealing our tendencies to be prejudicial towards one side and against another.

It's not about who has the biggest, fastest, most expensive toy on the block, after all. At least, it's never been that way for me. It's about finding ways to do the things we do as effectively as possible.
 
😀I beg to differ on this point. In my opinion, the C2Ds trump the X2s in price and performance. This is because I got my E6600 for $215 in a day-after-christmas sale at Fry's. So much for the April prices! 😀
 
Listen i am IFB thats a intel biased pc builder i like intel better for many reasons i skip for now --X2 IS A GREAT CHIP! semprons suck!

C2D is better


why buy amd

1) you have an existing crappy single core (they sux if you ask me)

2) you can get a cheap amd mobo an/or low cst X2

3) your friends will laugh at you if you go to your lan parties with the intel sticker on your frag box!
 
A small clarification:

I'm not one to engage in denial, or to be delusional.

Unquestionably, Intel's current offerings are better than AMD's. Only a fool would deny that.

But a fool would also deny that, even during the height of K8's dominance over NetBurst, most consumers still believed the Megahertz Myth. And why is that? Because of Intel's advertising and marketing superiority.

Today, Intel IS on top. But it's so easy to forget that, not so long ago, they weren't.
 
At the low end, AMD still makes sense.

an x2 3800+ is $109 on Newegg right now, and if all you have to spend is $109, its a better deal than the $122 Intel D925.

An x2 has, from Toms charts, a Performance Index of 1.35, while the D925 (Using the D930 data point, as they are the same CPU other than virtualiztion) has an index of 1.29 - So the AMD is a tad cheaper, and a bit faster - uses less power too in the EE version.

Typically, an AMD motherboard with similar features is also a bit less money than an Intel board.

An x2 4200+ is on at Newegg at $155 (Performance index = 1.44)
An E4300 is $169.00 and at stock speed is a bit faster, and if you overclock it will utterly destroy the x2 4200, but at strock speed, most people would not notice the speed differential, and given the AMD motherboard is also a tad cheaper, on a really tight budget a x2 4200+ is a reasonable choice.

At the 5000+ level (which performes almost exactly at E6400 levels) the $222 E6400 is, unless you overclock, pretty much the same deal as the $215 x2 5000+

If you are looking medium to high end (say E6600 or better) Intel utterly destroys AMD, it's not even close.

But below that point, AMD is very much still in the game actually.

This may change, intels new Core2dues with 1 meg of cache will be out soon.

A 1.6 ghz duo core at $79, with the 1.8 ghz part at $89 basically wipes the floor with the x2 3800 value wise.

But as of now, yes there are several very rational AMD solutions.
 
damnit i ain't reading this forum... tooo many LONG posts.

anyway the x2 isn't a bad proc, the C2D is just better. hopefully the K10 will close the gap or even beat the C2D.
 
Everyone knows that the Core 2 Duo has been dominating for awhile, and it's become almost habitual to assume it's the best solution... but lately it seems to me that people have been recommending it to the exclusion of everything else in almost every situation.

Funny thing is, when you look at the benchmarks for low to mid-range systems, things aren't really that clear-cut. AMD and Intel tend to trade blows in the same price range, especially when you factor in the reduced price of decent AM2 motherboards as compared to the latest (too expensive) 775 chipsets.

Granted, the C2D pretty much smacks most AM2 processors around when it comes to overclocking, but again, people are ignoring actual tests that have been going around lately. The Brisbane line (especially the X2 3600+) have shown some pretty great OCing results, including fairly easy 3GHz+ overclocks on a 1.9GHz processor which comes in at half the price of an E4300.

Even around the $200 range, AMD isn't getting crushed as handily as most people seem to think. Processors like the 4600+, 4800+, and 5000+ are solid offerings and trump the comparably priced E6300/E6400 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

Yes, the high-end and overclocking crowns belong to Intel right now, but does this warrant the kind of exclusivity enthusiasts have been giving them lately?
Click to expand...



They live vicariously through the fastest CPU. Pathetic isn't it? CPUs are just tools, not the second coming.
 
They live vicariously through the fastest CPU. Pathetic isn't it? CPUs are just tools, not the second coming.
Click to expand...

Actually, hobbiest and enthusiast who enjoy the field, yes, like the fastest CPU ... which is why forums like this exist, where hobbiest and enthusiast come to talk about their rigs, the experience, exchange information and ideas... and *gasp* learn something new from someone that which they may have not know about before....

Alas, I feel you are posting in the wrong forum.... you should leave and go try this .... http://www.someidiots.com/forum/ it may be more your speed. :)

Toodles, and good luck.


I thought the idea of a forum like this is just for people to share in the fact that they all have a CPU, if not the same make, model, or speed.

I guess I am a tool.
 
The fact of the matter is that AMD needs to stay in the game and that means people need to keep buying them. They are solid processors and I really am trying to stay away from Intel. The P4 was garbage even though today they are the Kings but prices are the cheapest they have ever been and that is because Intel actually has some competition. I liked the comment about Intel leaving a bad taste in your mouth cause its true. It is one thing after another and paying dell to not use AMD is just affirmation. Not to say that they haven't made a winner with core2 cause they certainly have.
 
Most people on this world still buy the CPU 'with more GHz', that is P4s/PDs and still see AMD CPUs as a second hand, defective, almost illegal choice.
Click to expand...

Very salient point there. I heard a lot of the same from a few non-techies when I built my computer and they asked what was in it.
 
At the low end, AMD still makes sense.

an x2 3800+ is $109 on Newegg right now, and if all you have to spend is $109, its a better deal than the $122 Intel D925.

An x2 has, from Toms charts, a Performance Index of 1.35, while the D925 (Using the D930 data point, as they are the same CPU other than virtualiztion) has an index of 1.29 - So the AMD is a tad cheaper, and a bit faster - uses less power too in the EE version.

Typically, an AMD motherboard with similar features is also a bit less money than an Intel board.

An x2 4200+ is on at Newegg at $155 (Performance index = 1.44)
An E4300 is $169.00 and at stock speed is a bit faster, and if you overclock it will utterly destroy the x2 4200, but at strock speed, most people would not notice the speed differential, and given the AMD motherboard is also a tad cheaper, on a really tight budget a x2 4200+ is a reasonable choice.

At the 5000+ level (which performes almost exactly at E6400 levels) the $222 E6400 is, unless you overclock, pretty much the same deal as the $215 x2 5000+

If you are looking medium to high end (say E6600 or better) Intel utterly destroys AMD, it's not even close.

But below that point, AMD is very much still in the game actually.

This may change, intels new Core2dues with 1 meg of cache will be out soon.

A 1.6 ghz duo core at $79, with the 1.8 ghz part at $89 basically wipes the floor with the x2 3800 value wise.

But as of now, yes there are several very rational AMD solutions.
Click to expand...


Do you realize hat you have all changed the definition of high end? I mean PD was considered high end when it was 1GHz slower than X2 but now even though 5000+ - 6000+ will still run any game at 2560 it's not high end because Intel has a chip that is faster.


Talk about hypocritical. No wonder I refuse to put "Evil Inside" my computer.
 
Everyone knows that the Core 2 Duo has been dominating for awhile, and it's become almost habitual to assume it's the best solution... but lately it seems to me that people have been recommending it to the exclusion of everything else in almost every situation.

Funny thing is, when you look at the benchmarks for low to mid-range systems, things aren't really that clear-cut. AMD and Intel tend to trade blows in the same price range, especially when you factor in the reduced price of decent AM2 motherboards as compared to the latest (too expensive) 775 chipsets.

Granted, the C2D pretty much smacks most AM2 processors around when it comes to overclocking, but again, people are ignoring actual tests that have been going around lately. The Brisbane line (especially the X2 3600+) have shown some pretty great OCing results, including fairly easy 3GHz+ overclocks on a 1.9GHz processor which comes in at half the price of an E4300.

Even around the $200 range, AMD isn't getting crushed as handily as most people seem to think. Processors like the 4600+, 4800+, and 5000+ are solid offerings and trump the comparably priced E6300/E6400 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

Yes, the high-end and overclocking crowns belong to Intel right now, but does this warrant the kind of exclusivity enthusiasts have been giving them lately?
Click to expand...
Good point.

With 90%(maybe its closer to 80%) of the market being value systems. AMD still has allot of fight left in that segment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom