Which has better overall performance? OC core 2 duo or OC Phenom - Page 3 - Overclock.net

_Marvin_ · 09-20-08

right now, Intel is the way to go

blitz6804 · 09-30-08

Apparently, no-one reads. The original poster did not ask "Should I go AMD or Intel?" The original poster did not ask "Should I go Quad-AMD or Quad-Intel?" The original poster asked "Should I go Quad-AMD or Dual-Intel" People's opinions of Q6600s are not relevant to this discussion.

That said, allow me to present my discourse.

No benchmark is perfect. Every benchmark will favor a particular processor in some way. For example, SuperPi favors Intel and its comparatively larger cache. 3DMark does this as well. Crysis is known to be optimized for Intel. RAM on an AMD rig can knock the stuffing out of any comparable Intel. My RAM is often a good 2 GBps faster than the RAM in my friends' Intels. Further, my RAM latency is as low as half as much. Benchmarks do not a computer make however, and real-world gaming performance is rather similar on either.

Given the parameters for this experiment, let me present my pros/cons for either:

An AMD Phenom 9950 BE is a 140 W (or 125 W) TDP CPU whereas an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 is a 65 W TDP CPU
The Intel will invariably clock higher; as you note, it is starting out faster out of the box; this is great if you like to do a limited number of tasks at a time or do not use programs that permit multiple threads
The AMD will be better at multitasking given its extra two cores. On programs that permit up to four threads, any speed penalty should be mitigated by the extra two cores
Intel is at the end of its life; Core i7 will not be released on Socket T, but instead, Socket B
AMD is also at the end of its life; two Deneb models will be released on AM2+ however and the AM3 models are supposedly backwards compatible with a performance hit (An AM3 uses a 5200 MHz HT 3.0 much akin to the present Phenom's 5200 MHz HT 2.0. As I understand it, the AM3 processors will come equipped with HT 3.0 and HT 1.0 and NOT HT 2.0. Lacking HT 2.0 requires the CPU instead to run at HT 1.0 speeds, that is, 2000 MHz.)
Intel will want a higher-latency, high-clocked RAM circa DDR2 1066, 1200, or faster
AMD will want a lower-latency, lower-clocked RAM circa DDR2 800; if you have the budget for it, CL 3 RAM is tasty (Potential pitfall: CL 3 only comes is 1 GB densities; using 4 GB would knock you down to a Command Rate of 2T, which defeats the purpose of low-latency in the first place. If you want 4 GB, go with 2x2048 of the tightest CL 4 RAM you can find.)
The black-edition version of the Phenom I have linked you to does not come with a cooler, thereby making it more expensive than the Intel counter-example; this is not a problem if you have sufficient cooling from other sources

I know I have more I would like to add to this, but it is late and I am exhausted, so I am finding myself at a loss right now.

As to what YOU should do:

If you tend to do only a few things at a time, or play games that do not support threading, go Intel Core 2 Duo.
If you tend to multitask (6+ programs open at a time) or play games that support quad threading (not just dual threading), go AMD Phenom.*

*(This is what I would have done had I had the ability to do so. At times, I use upwards of 90% of both cores and use about 3.5 GB of Page File.)

sktfreak · 09-30-08

I would go with AMD, personally.
For example, Intels have set CPU speeds (eg, Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz, will run @ 2.4GHz)
But with AMD, they make processors like this:
AMD 1900+ is 1.1GHz but that 1.1GHz runs at the time when intel was making 1.9ghz, and will run as fast as that, even though its 1.1ghz!
This may confuse you a bit though.
Also, AMD are cheaper!
^^ Hope it helps ! ^^

**txtmstrjoe** · 09-30-08

Given the OP's question:

Dual-core Intel vs. Quad-core (or even tri-core) Phenom? Phenom, on the basis of value (performance) for the money.

OCed or at stock, more cores will be better especially if the software is optimized for multiple cores.

Just an opinion.

xguntherc · 09-30-08

I'd go Intel Dual Core.. but get the new 45nm chips. like a e8000 series. they are great chips. and if you get a E0, it will overclock better than any AMD, other than maybe a FX chip..

blitz6804 · 09-30-08

I am going to disagree with you xguntherc; it will likely beat even an FX-series chip. Intels have, since the days of the P1 and K6, always clocked higher than their AMD counterparts. Until the advent of the Core architecture though, AMD used to get more done per work cycle, which is what made them faster. In the present game, Intel has both factors in their court.

The advantage of AMD is that you can have the entire build from one manufacturer. CPU, Motherboard, and Graphics cards that are all from the same vendor decreases risks of incompatibilities. (I am one of those who were burnt by the nForce 3 / ATI / Vista bug. I am STILL bitter over how nVidia did not handle the situation and the attitude I received while trying to get help.)

But this is a topic for another day.

hawaiian_geek · 09-30-08

Any Intel 45nm E8X00 series....hands down when it comes to cooler temperatures. Just my 2 cents!

oregonducks45 · 09-30-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by oregonducks45

correct me if i am wrong but,
i have heard that the benches are coded in a way (intentianly or unintentianly) that favors intel processors so that is why they blow amds out of the water.
kind of like ati and nvida where the benches just test raw speed and not how the image it is displaying looks.

though intel does overclock better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

Apparently, no-one reads. The original poster did not ask "Should I go AMD or Intel?" The original poster did not ask "Should I go Quad-AMD or Quad-Intel?" The original poster asked "Should I go Quad-AMD or Dual-Intel" People's opinions of Q6600s are not relevant to this discussion.

That said, allow me to present my discourse.

No benchmark is perfect. Every benchmark will favor a particular processor in some way. For example, SuperPi favors Intel and its comparatively larger cache. 3DMark does this as well. Crysis is known to be optimized for Intel. RAM on an AMD rig can knock the stuffing out of any comparable Intel. My RAM is often a good 2 GBps faster than the RAM in my friends' Intels. Further, my RAM latency is as low as half as much. Benchmarks do not a computer make however, and real-world gaming performance is rather similar on either.

Given the parameters for this experiment, let me present my pros/cons for either:

An AMD Phenom 9950 BE is a 140 W (or 125 W) TDP CPU whereas an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 is a 65 W TDP CPU
The Intel will invariably clock higher; as you note, it is starting out faster out of the box; this is great if you like to do a limited number of tasks at a time or do not use programs that permit multiple threads
The AMD will be better at multitasking given its extra two cores. On programs that permit up to four threads, any speed penalty should be mitigated by the extra two cores
Intel is at the end of its life; Core i7 will not be released on Socket T, but instead, Socket B
AMD is also at the end of its life; two Deneb models will be released on AM2+ however and the AM3 models are supposedly backwards compatible with a performance hit (An AM3 uses a 5200 MHz HT 3.0 much akin to the present Phenom's 5200 MHz HT 2.0. As I understand it, the AM3 processors will come equipped with HT 3.0 and HT 1.0 and NOT HT 2.0. Lacking HT 2.0 requires the CPU instead to run at HT 1.0 speeds, that is, 2000 MHz.)
Intel will want a higher-latency, high-clocked RAM circa DDR2 1066, 1200, or faster
AMD will want a lower-latency, lower-clocked RAM circa DDR2 800; if you have the budget for it, CL 3 RAM is tasty (Potential pitfall: CL 3 only comes is 1 GB densities; using 4 GB would knock you down to a Command Rate of 2T, which defeats the purpose of low-latency in the first place. If you want 4 GB, go with 2x2048 of the tightest CL 4 RAM you can find.)
The black-edition version of the Phenom I have linked you to does not come with a cooler, thereby making it more expensive than the Intel counter-example; this is not a problem if you have sufficient cooling from other sources

I know I have more I would like to add to this, but it is late and I am exhausted, so I am finding myself at a loss right now.

As to what YOU should do:

If you tend to do only a few things at a time, or play games that do not support threading, go Intel Core 2 Duo.
If you tend to multitask (6+ programs open at a time) or play games that support quad threading (not just dual threading), go AMD Phenom.*

*(This is what I would have done had I had the ability to do so. At times, I use upwards of 90% of both cores and use about 3.5 GB of Page File.)

so i was kinda right?

The_Rocker · 09-30-08

Ever wondered why all the speed records are held by intel rigs?

The_Rocker · 09-30-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by xguntherc

I'd go Intel Dual Core.. but get the new 45nm chips. like a e8000 series. they are great chips. and if you get a E0, it will overclock better than any AMD, other than maybe a FX chip..

FX CHIP HAHAHAHHAHH

No mate...

Put an FX up against an E8600...

There is no competetion anymore!

View Poll Results: Which should I go with?
OC AMD Phenom	9	12.00%
OC Intel Core 2 Duo	66	88.00%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Intel > Intel CPUs
Which has better overall performance? OC core 2 duo or OC Phenom

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)