AMD or Intel?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 28 Jan 2007, 15:20

You mean You cannot resist

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 28 Jan 2007, 15:46

Hhahaaha

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Mar 2007, 17:55

I've probably asked this before but it's time to get serious

-

AMD Turion 64 X2 OR Intel Core 2 Duo???

At similar processor speeds which is generally considered? -

1. Faster
2. Offers better battery life

As usual AMD is cheaper but that's comes secondary to the above.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 29 Mar 2007, 18:03

Laptops are an odd one, but we know what people on this forum will probibly say

But most sites still say Intel Core 2 Duo are still by far the best, apart from some games obviously.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 29 Mar 2007, 18:31

Easy, Core 2 Duo. Blows away all current AMD CPUs. Be sure that it's at least an E6300 though.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 30 Mar 2007, 00:40

I must admit Intel is better when it comes to laptops.

In a "proper" PC there's no contest, though.
My new overclocked AMD 64 X2 4600+ is pretty much unbeatable.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 30 Mar 2007, 11:42

tom2681 wrote:In a "proper" PC there's no contest, though.
My new overclocked AMD 64 X2 4600+ is pretty much unbeatable.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 30 Mar 2007, 18:02

Nice Eva.

Tom, you just threw your money away. The Opterons are the same but so much cheaper. Although IMO they're still a waste, better to save a bit more and go C2D.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 30 Mar 2007, 19:47

romerojpg wrote:But most sites still say Intel Core 2 Duo are still by far the best, apart from some games obviously.

I don't play games so please take them out of the equation entirely.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Easy, Core 2 Duo. Blows away all current AMD CPUs. Be sure that it's at least an E6300 though.

Isn't that a desktop processor? We're talking mobile processors here.

In a "proper" PC there's no contest, though.
My new overclocked AMD 64 X2 4600+ is pretty much unbeatable.

I thought that was going to be the case. It was 4-5 years ago when I knew about PC CPU's too. Sadly space will be a major issue for me so it must be a laptop.

Lourdes wrote:Tom, you just threw your money away. The Opterons are the same but so much cheaper. Although IMO they're still a waste, better to save a bit more and go C2D.

Tom has an AMD and that's a server processor not for desktops, is it not? What's a C2D?

p.s - As is often the case I don't get Eva's humour

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 30 Mar 2007, 19:52

tom2681 wrote:I must admit Intel is better when it comes to laptops.

* Why? Why is it a bad thing Intel's are better? Price aside.

I have no allegiance to either. I get whichever is better at the time.

Please give more detail I need to make sure I buy the best I can afford, as it won't be upgraded for some years (except RAM maybe). Are Intel Core 2 Duo's faster in laptops? Do the batteries generally last longer? Why?

* Oh and why are laptops processors always way less? Sure I understand there are space and battery issues but a 1.8Ghz desktop processor would run like a dog yet that's standard in a laptop. The OS is the same, weird.

* One more question what Intel processor is the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ equivalent to?

I'm going to sell my computer the next few weeks and it's the question people always ask. I'm sure it's faster than a P4 2.5Ghz but could be wrong.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 30 Mar 2007, 20:04

Lourdes wrote:The Opterons are the same but so much cheaper.

Which ones ?
The AM2 opterons are too expensive.
The socket F opterons.... *checking* are too expensive as well.
The socket 939 opterons are pretty much dead.

I did a lot of research before choosing an X2.

Lourdes wrote:better to save a bit more and go C2D.

I'll go back to Intel when Hell freezes over.

Brad wrote:Are Intel Core 2 Duo's faster in laptops? Do the batteries generally last longer?

No they are not faster. In fact they are ridiculously slow (I've seen a few recent Intel laptops).

However:
- AMD CPUs have a tendency to get hot (not a good thing in laptops).
- AMD CPUs use more electricity than Intels.

So, as much as it pains me to say it: go Intel.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Mar 2007, 01:32

Even though they're ridiculously slow? And therefore I presume the Turion is faster? That sounds bad. Core 2 Duo vs. Athlon 64 x2 is of no concern to me remember

Most of the Core 2 laptops use the 1.66GHz Mobile variant and to upgrade (if it's even possible) to 1.83Ghz costs loads.

Would I A: notice a difference under general usage?

B: How much percentage wise would I notice a difference under more heavy work? 1.83Ghz to 1.66Ghz is a 0.17Ghz difference that's nothing compared to the price difference. Also if you don't mind please:

What Intel processor is the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ equivalent to?

I'm going to sell my computer the next few weeks and it's the question people always ask. I'm sure it's faster than a P4 2.5Ghz but could be wrong.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 31 Mar 2007, 11:39

Brad, Tom is just a fanboy. I really fail to understand fanboyism when it comes to something like a processor. Even with say ATi vs nVidia there are various points of contest but with a processor and chipset you have transparency.

C2D is cheaper, faster and uses far less power. Better for mobile and static systems.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 31 Mar 2007, 14:32

Lourdes wrote:I really fail to understand fanboyism when it comes to something like a processor.

I see dozens of PCs every day. In fact, most of my pocket money comes from fixing them.
Fact: I have yet to find a C2D that offers good performance, that's all.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Mar 2007, 15:06

Could someone answer my question above please?

Even if Tom is a fanboy I'd still be interested in his opinion Core 2 Duo is ridiculously slow? Just so I can make an opinion. I have asked elsewhere and everyone is saying Intel Core 2 Duo.

Oh C2D Core 2 Duo

, oops. I'll go and re-read Lourdes comments now I get what he means.

C2D is cheaper, faster and uses far less power. Better for mobile and static systems.

I'm finding the Turion to be cheaper than C2D myslelf. I've not been looking at AMD 64's.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 01 Apr 2007, 00:47

bradavon wrote:p.s - As is often the case I don't get Eva's humour

He's in De nile - get it now?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 01 Apr 2007, 12:49

Now I get it that's rather good

. I should've paid more attention in geography class

According to this article the Core 2 Duo beats the Turion 64 X2:

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/02/27/du ... age12.html

If I were comparing desktop processors things maybe different but I'm not.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 01 Apr 2007, 14:20

According to every article I have read Core 2 Duo pisses on any other chip, laptop or desktop. Your lucky if a few people think otherwise, Tom is one of them people

he obviously knows his shit mind you, but I am sure all the other experts do as well.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 01 Apr 2007, 15:14

Someone/anyone? -

bradavon wrote:1. Most of the Core 2 laptops use the 1.66GHz Mobile variant and to upgrade (if it's even possible) to 1.83Ghz costs loads.

Would I A: notice a difference under general usage?

B: How much percentage wise would I notice a difference under more heavy work? 1.83Ghz to 1.66Ghz is a 0.17Ghz difference that's nothing compared to the price difference.

2. What Intel processor is the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ equivalent to?

I'm going to sell my computer the next few weeks and it's the question people always ask. I'm sure it's faster than a P4 2.5Ghz but could be wrong.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 01 Apr 2007, 15:26

Go ask on a pro forum, you will get massive help. Bullets to me isnt what I call a forum for quick help, its not big enuff at all.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 02 Apr 2007, 07:05

Ask over at Hardforum.com, you'll get far more and far better answers than you would from here.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 03 Apr 2007, 00:25

Thanks guys but I only want a quick answer on both, particularly the second one. It's overkill to join a whole new forum just for that (IMO).

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 03 Apr 2007, 07:46

bradavon wrote:2. What Intel processor is the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ equivalent to?

Pentium 4 1.8A Northwood.

1. Most of the Core 2 laptops use the 1.66GHz Mobile variant and to upgrade (if it's even possible) to 1.83Ghz costs loads.
Would I A: notice a difference under general usage?
B: How much percentage wise would I notice a difference under more heavy work? 1.83Ghz to 1.66Ghz is a 0.17Ghz difference that's nothing compared to the price difference.

You're after the T5500 vs T5600.

bradavon wrote:Thanks guys but I only want a quick answer on both, particularly the second one. It's overkill to join a whole new forum just for that (IMO).

Oh please, you're just a lazy cunt.

Here, I asked on your behalf, since Google turns up fuck all. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1 ... 1030856861

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 03 Apr 2007, 19:17

EvaUnit02 wrote:Pentium 4 1.8A Northwood.

Thanks Eva. That looks to be a P4 2.4Ghz in layman's terms. Which is what I read on another website.

The P4 model numbers completely lost me back in the day, the P4 moniker was in production for way to long.

You're after the T5500 vs T5600.

Correct. There is also a 1.60Ghz version but it's FSB is 533 vs. 557. The two above are the more common types, with the former most common.

Oh please, you're just a lazy cunt.
Here, I asked on your behalf, since Google turns up fuck all. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1 ... 1030856861

I found the same. Thanks for the answer btw, that's just the ticket. I guess I should sign up to that forum.

The Toshiba Satellite A100-049 it is:

http://www.comet.co.uk/cometbrowse/prod ... cification

That's the best price too. The only alternative (assuming you're quick enough and can find it on Dell's VERY annoying website) is a Dell for £70 more which would've got me the T5600, a 1440x900 resolution, Wireless-N as well as G and an ATI Radeon X1400 (which I understand is faster than a Nvidia 5300).

But the Dell doesn't support more than 2Gb of RAM (4Gb, 3/3.5Gb in real terms on the Toshiba), lacks DVD-RAM support and the Toshiba extended warranty is reasonable. They look otherwise all but identical. The Dell deal is also now over, so I'd have to wait in hope (current deals are rubbish).

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 03 Apr 2007, 21:57

bradavon wrote:
EvaUnit02 wrote:Pentium 4 1.8A Northwood.
Thanks Eva. That looks to be a P4 2.4Ghz in layman's terms. Which is what I read on another website.

Ah no. 1.8 = 1.8GHz dummy.

You're after the T5500 vs T5600.

Correct. There is also a 1.60Ghz version but it's FSB is 533 vs. 557. The two above are the more common types, with the former most common.

ATI Radeon X1400 (which I understand is faster than a Nvidia 5300).

No shit, of course it would obliterate a Geforce FX series 5, considering that it's 2002 vs. 2005 technology.

That laptop has a GF7300Go.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=68669
But honestly you should be happy with either or, both should be able to handle Aero fine.

You going to uninstall Windows Media Center? That seems to be the most useless feature in Home Premium. Business looks to be so much better, with shit like Shadow Copy. Too bad it's like 1/3+ the price of Home Premium. I can get Business for free legally.

Bullets 'n' Babes

AMD or Intel?

So, which is it?