real world difference - amd vs intel?

[Hamster]

Not a fanboy thread!
I've got an opty 165 at the moment running at 2.85Ghz. If i went for a conroe 6600 and ran it at the same clock speeds but with decent 6400 ram and something like a ds3 motherboard, where and when would i notice any differences in speed between the two?
I know that it would depend on the way in which i use my pc but for simplicity sake let's say i use it for 'a bit of everything.'

m

 

[snowdog]

All depends on usage, Tbh i don't expect a diff in normall usage ( a little bit of gaming, occasional photoshop, browsing, mail), however you will definatly notice difference in stuff like unpacking heavily compressed files, decrypting/encrypting files, a lot of photo or video editing, sound editing and heavy gaming with games that have a lot of physics turned to the maximum, one game (fsx) will definatly give you a boost that is visible without a fps counter...

 

[james.miller]

my 3ghz opteron 148 encoded lame mp3 at ~17x. with the same settings, my e6600 @ 3.2ghz does it at just over 30x.....on each core. encoding video is a similar story. in gaming, its not so obvious unless you have a high end card which is cpu limited.


oh and windows in general just doesnt stutter anymore when doing a few things at once, task switching ect.

 

[Hamster]

ok, thanks!
think i will wait for quad core to mature and more importantly drop in price.


m

 

[dark4orz]

intels are crap, thats why im going to sell mine ? And yes I've heard it before why would you wanna sell a decent chip, im fed up with it !

Stick with your amd mate, your not gonna gain much. But mind you this thread might get deleted as its going against the Grain.

 

[Rroff]

intels are crap, thats why im going to sell mine ? And yes I've heard it before why would you wanna sell a decent chip, im fed up with it !

Stick with your amd mate, your not gonna gain much. But mind you this thread might get deleted as its going against the Grain.

maybe tell use why intels are crap... why are you fedup with it?

 

[BillytheImpaler]

maybe tell use why intels are crap... why are you fedup with it?

Because he has a crap motherboard?

 

[Tombo]

Because he has a crap motherboard?

EXACTLY what i was thinking.

 

[Rroff]

Asrock ain't entirely crap... slightly on the dodgy side and not the best performance but they do a good job of blending different generations of technology...

 

[Raikiri]

intels are crap

Must be something you're doing

 

[easyrider]

intels are crap, thats why im going to sell mine ? And yes I've heard it before why would you wanna sell a decent chip, im fed up with it !

Stick with your amd mate, your not gonna gain much. But mind you this thread might get deleted as its going against the Grain.

I'll have your carp 6600

email in trust!

 

[kablooey]

I can go one better and swap it for a supreme AMD goodness Athlon 64 3000+ I guarantee you will notice the performance difference!

 

[easyrider]

I can go one better and swap it for a supreme AMD goodness Athlon 64 3000+ I guarantee you will notice the performance difference!

 

[H0wz3r]

Not a fanboy thread!
I've got an opty 165 at the moment running at 2.85Ghz. If i went for a conroe 6600 and ran it at the same clock speeds but with decent 6400 ram and something like a ds3 motherboard, where and when would i notice any differences in speed between the two?
I know that it would depend on the way in which i use my pc but for simplicity sake let's say i use it for 'a bit of everything.'

m

I have an Opty 170 at the moment running at 2.67GHz - how did you get your 165 to run at 2.85GHz? What settings did you use i.e. FSB/HTT speed, multiplier, memory timings etc?

Going to donate my setup - Opty 170, Asus A8R32MVP mobo and Corsair PC4400 RAM to work and get myself a Core 2 Duo E6600 instead. You really do notice the difference in games by as much as 15fps!

A friend of mine has the E6600 which is oc'd to 3GHz on air with no problems whatsoever, completely stable! Clock for clock the Intel does more work than the AMD so at these speeds the performance difference is quite big.

In normal desktop use, I wouldn't say you could notice that much difference but games is where the performance margin is at. Trust me, go for the E6600!

 

[sniper007]

my 3ghz opteron 148 encoded lame mp3 at ~17x. with the same settings, my e6600 @ 3.2ghz does it at just over 30x.....on each core. encoding video is a similar story. in gaming, its not so obvious unless you have a high end card which is cpu limited.


oh and windows in general just doesnt stutter anymore when doing a few things at once, task switching ect.

Nice fair comparison there then... a single core opty vs a dual core e6600.

 

[james.miller]

yes because i had an opteron and i upgraded to the dual core e6600. yes that entitles me to make a direct comparison betwen the two. whats your problems with that?

 

[sniper007]

yes because i had an opteron and i upgraded to the dual core e6600. yes that entitles me to make a direct comparison betwen the two. whats your problems with that?

What I was getting at was...

oh and windows in general just doesnt stutter anymore when doing a few things at once, task switching ect.

..is due to the upgrade to dual core generally regardless of CPU manufacturer.

 

[james.miller]

yup, thats what i found in going from a single to dual core however the dc a64's weren't quiet as good as this

 

[H0wz3r]

What I was getting at was...



..is due to the upgrade to dual core generally regardless of CPU manufacturer.

I agree - it isn't a fair comparison as a dual-core CPU will always perform better than a single core in general use no matter how good the architecture may be on a single core be it from Intel OR AMD.

The big difference is in how the two dual-core CPUs work. The Intel Core 2 Duo chips do more work per clock cycle than the Opty or A64 Dual-Core chips and therefore are more comparable in terms of performance.

 

[Chris Beard]

OP did say this wasn't a fan boy post. I don't the OP wants to compare AMD and Intel, just his chip and the 6600.