locked
AMD Vs. Intel??? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Which processor is best Intel Vs. AMD equivalents???
    Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:13 PM

All replies


  • I SUPPOSE YOU COULD SAY, The release of Windows Vista and a round of price cuts by AMD prompted us to hatch a devious plan involving Vista, a new test suite full of multithreaded and 64-bit applications, fifteen different CPU configurations, and countless hours of lab testing. That plan has come to fruition in the form of a broad-based comparison of the latest processors from AMD and Intel, ranging from well under $200 to a cool grand, from two slow CPU cores to four fast ones, from the lowly Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and Core 2 Duo E6300 to the astounding Athlon 64 FX-74 and Core 2 Extreme QX6700.



    Friday, November 30, 2007 11:10 AM
  • The matchups :
    The setup for this one is fairly simple. We're directly comparing processors from Intel at AMD at a range of price points. Intel has had a lock on the overall performance lead since the Core 2 Duo first hit the scene, but AMD has made clear its intention to maintain a competitive price-performance ratio. To do so, AMD will have to meet or beat each of the processors in Intel's current desktop lineup, which looks like so:

    Model Clock speed Cores L2 cache (total) Fab process TDP Price
    Core 2 Duo E6300 1.83GHz 2 2MB 65nm 65W $183
    Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 2 2MB 65nm 65W $224
    Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz 2 4MB 65nm 65W $316
    Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 2 4MB 65nm 65W $530
    Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 2 4MB 65nm 75W $999
    Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 4 8MB 65nm 105W $851
    Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 4 8MB 65nm 130W $999


    Intel does offer lower cost options like the Core 2 Duo E4300 and its Celeron value-oriented processors, but our list includes the meat of the lineup.
    Friday, November 30, 2007 11:14 AM
  • AMD, on the other hand, offers a dizzying array of Athlon 64 X2 models, from 3600+ to 6000+, generally in increments of 200 (or is it 200+?). Not only that, but AMD often sells multiple products under the same performance-related model number, just to keep smug members of the general public from becoming overconfident. For instance, the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ comes in a 90nm "Toledo" flavor that runs at 2.2GHz, has 1MB of L2 cache per core, and is intended for Socket 939 motherboards. The X2 4400+ also comes in the form of a 65nm chip code-named "Brisbane" that runs at 2.3GHz, has 512K of L2 per core, and slips into Socket AM2 mobos. Several of these features—fab process, clock frequency, cache size, and socket/memory type—may vary within the same model number.

    With that said, we've chosen the following members of the Athlon 64 lineup as the most direct competitors to their Core 2 counterparts. Because we live in the now, all of these are newer-style Socket AM2 processors:

    Model Clock speed Cores L2 cache (total) Fab process TDP Price
    Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz 2 1MB 65nm 65W $170
    Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz 2 1MB 65nm 65W $222
    Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.8GHz 2 2MB 90nm 89W $326
    Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHz 2 2MB 90nm 125W $459
    Athlon 64 FX-70 2.6GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $599
    Athlon 64 FX-72 2.8GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $799
    Athlon 64 FX-74 3.0GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $999
    Friday, November 30, 2007 11:15 AM

  • As you can see, AMD has a fairly direct answer for most members of the Core 2 range. Things start to get shaky at the high end, where the Athlon 64's lower performance takes its toll. The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ sells at a discount versus the Core 2 Duo E6700, and AMD has no answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800, Intel's fastest dual-core processor. If you match up the two product lines against one another, the results look something like this:
    Model Price Model Price
    Core 2 Duo E6300 $183 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $170
    Core 2 Duo E6400 $224 Athlon 64 X2 5000+ $222
    Core 2 Duo E6600 $316 Athlon 64 X2 5600+ $326
    Core 2 Duo E6700 $530 Athlon 64 X2 6000+ $459
    Core 2 Quad Q6600 $851 Athlon 64 FX-72 $799
    Core 2 Extreme QX6700 $999 Athlon 64 FX-74 $999
    So the comparisons are remarkably direct, by and large.

    These things are never entirely simple, though, so we should roll out some caveats. One of the big ones involves those FX-series processors. You'll need two of them in order to populate a Quad FX motherboard, so they're priced (and listed above) in pairs. However, there's currently only one Quad FX motherboard available, and it costs about $350, which throws the value equation out of whack.

    The value equation sometimes goes off-kilter the other way when AMD employs guerrilla price-war tactics like selling the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ for $125.99 on Newegg, well below the slower 4400+. AMD has several of these "Crazy Hector" deals going at Newegg right now, and none of them seem to involve the Athlon 64 models we've identified as direct competitors to specific Core 2 Duo models. That's probably an intentional facet of AMD's strategy. This practice throws a wrench in our nice, neat comparsion, but there's little we can do other than tell you about it.

    One other thing we should tell you about is why i've included two versions of the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in my testing. Regular readers may recall that we've already tested the 65nm version of the 5000+ against its 90nm predecessor and found that the 65nm one had lower power consumption. But the 65nm version also has a slower L2 cache, so we've tested the 65nm and 90nm chips head to head to see how the slower cache affects performance.


    Friday, November 30, 2007 11:17 AM
  • The data given by you is really very beneficial for me but it suprises me too because this is the US price list and it is clearly visible that the difference between the price of an AMD and a corresponding INTEL processor is a few dollars only

    but in India this price gap is very much large about half. Can anyone tell the reason Why?
    Friday, November 30, 2007 7:20 PM

  • Intel is best Bcoz more heat is generated in AMD processor.....
    Tuesday, December 4, 2007 5:36 PM
  •  

    xactly our summers r very hot..

    so it can burn up the machine in summers..

     

    thnx sharing u all..

    Wednesday, December 5, 2007 3:24 AM
  • You may recall a few months back when AMD took out full-page newspaper ads to challenge Intel to a dual-core server duel. Intel declined to take up AMD on its offer, but the challenge got us thinking: what would the results of a dual-core desktop CPU fight look like? Many people equate Windows PCs with Intel Pentium processors (and soon will likely be doing the same with Macs), but we've seen dual-core CPU AMD systems power ahead of dual-core Intel-based PCs on more than one occasion.

    To answer the question once and for all, we circled up a bunch of cars in an abandoned parking garage and set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck. Skip ahead to the official ruling if you want, but the match itself is interesting.

    Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:48 PM
  • Hey that case was earlier....

    But now that AMD has took all needed measures for the heat problems....

    Really now ppl buy INTEL because of they are unaware of this fact....
    Friday, December 7, 2007 4:04 PM