jouno53
Palin 2012
join:2006-03-04
United State
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to signmeuptoo
Re: Processor Comparrison
Yep, thanks to you too.
After taking a look at those benchmarks in several different categories, it actually looks like the AMD x2 4200+ did better than the Core 2 Duo 4300.
This is a good idea for now, but when I actually do get my computer later in the year (hopefully), I'll have to pay closer attention to what they have out then. 
--
The Creator is not subject to the laws of His creation. |
|
signmeuptoo
Folding and Crunching Not just Breakfast
Premium
join:2001-11-22
LOSTinSpace
clubs: 
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jouno53
Like our very wise BA is saying: CPUs are logic devices, so simple frequency values are only PART of what dictates their "speed" or efficiency. The logic scheme, how things flow, size of busses, and on and on are involved in over all performance. Sure, if all other things are equal, clocking one CPU faster than another will yield better speed, but all things are not equal.
AMD ended the clock speed war a while back and used other strategies in their design to accomplish superior processing speed. Now Intel also does this. Sure, they still are looking for ways to run processors faster, but there are huge problems with running CPUs faster, all kinds of physics effects occur AND there is much more heat, heat is one of the banes of existance to x86 processing.
--
You know your life has gotten "DICEY" when it turns into an episode of LOST, like my ex wife, who I swear is one of "The Others"... !!!Save Lives: Join Team Discovery AND Team Helix, it is easy and painless to do!!! |
|
jouno53
Palin 2012
join:2006-03-04
United State
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to BA
Okay, thanks. I plan on playing games, and doing some light and medium applications. Most likely a bunch of multitasking too.
I don't know how to overclock, but if it's easy to do than I'd most likely try. 
--
The Creator is not subject to the laws of His creation. |
|
BA
The Old Man's Gonna Roll the Hard Six
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-24
Vancouver, BC
clubs:
| reply to jouno53
said by jouno53  :Because of the price similarity, what would be better to get. An AMD Athlon 64 X2 (65W) 4200+ (2.2 Ghz), or an Intel Core 2 Duo 4300 (1.8Ghz)? The E4300 is the more attractive processor, in my opinion. It depends what applications you plan on running because the E4300 performs better in some cases and not as good in others. But overall, I'd give the nod to the E4300. It's likely to be a better overclocker as well, if you're into that hobby.
Some benchmarks: »www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di···420.html
said by jouno53 :Also, I noticed on Newegg that there are a lot of "in-between" Core 2 duo processors. Like the 4400, the 6320 etc. What are those supposed to be? Core clock is not the only factor in determining performance. FSB and L2 cache also play a major role.
The E4300 is a 1.8 GHz processor with an 800 MHz FSB and 2 MB of L2. The E4400 simply raises the core clock to 2.0 GHz.
E6300 is 1.86 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB and 2 MB. E6320 bumps up the L2 cache to 4 MB. |
|
jouno53
Palin 2012
join:2006-03-04
United State
·AT&T DSL Service
|  Hello, I know this question has most likely been asked before in a different variation, but I need to be sure.
I am looking to build my own computer, hopefully by the end of the year. I know there is going to be new technology and prices, but I have one question as if I was going to build it now...
Because of the price similarity, what would be better to get. An AMD Athlon 64 X2 (65W) 4200+ (2.2 Ghz), or an Intel Core 2 Duo 4300 (1.8Ghz)?
The only thing that makes me ask is because the clock difference...
Thank you very much for your opinions!
Also, I noticed on Newegg that there are a lot of "in-between" Core 2 duo processors. Like the 4400, the 6320 etc. What are those supposed to be?
--
The Creator is not subject to the laws of His creation. |
|
