Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Whats the best dual core OC'er?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Whats the best dual core OC'er? - Page 3

post #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
If you would like to see a head to head comparison, look at these results and ask yourself if you're still willing to spend $980 on that processor.

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...33885-4,00.htm

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav

To be fair, both those tests used the 8xx series Intel's, not the 9xx. I'm sure the AMD still squeezes out impressive results, but 10-20 second faster CloneDVD times don't make me want to throw out my system and start from scratch.


FX-60 vs 955 EE

And you'll notice the Intel beats the AMD in MPEG-2 encoding........and it's a close race, in most of the tests. It's not like the AMD is 5 times faster, or even 2 times faster......most times it's less than a 15% increase.......




As to a 6Ghz setup.....yeah, 15 minutes would be generous, and nothing more than a lab result, nothing real world.
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumper
To be fair, both those tests used the 8xx series Intel's, not the 9xx. I'm sure the AMD still squeezes out impressive results, but 10-20 second faster CloneDVD times don't make me want to throw out my system and start from scratch.


FX-60 vs 955 EE

And you'll notice the Intel beats the AMD in MPEG-2 encoding........and it's a close race, in most of the tests. It's not like the AMD is 5 times faster, or even 2 times faster......most times it's less than a 15% increase.......

As to a 6Ghz setup.....yeah, 15 minutes would be generous, and nothing more than a lab result, nothing real world.
You're not getting it.....he's about to spend $980 on an inferior processor. There's nothing to throw out, he's building a new system. It just doesn't make sense to spend nearly a grand and not get the best.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
It just doesn't make sense to spend nearly a grand and not get the best.
Seriously. I agree completely, if you're gonna spend that kinda money, get the BEST. Even if it's only a 5% performance difference, I'd want that 5%.

-Sean
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-60 Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe 2x eVGA 7950GT KO's G.Skill DDR400@510MHz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2xRaptor RAID 0, 500GB WD Vista Home Premium x64 Samsung 204T 20.1" Logitech G15 KB 
PowerCaseMouse
Enermax Liberty 620W Thermaltake Armor Black Logitech G7 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-60 Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe 2x eVGA 7950GT KO's G.Skill DDR400@510MHz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2xRaptor RAID 0, 500GB WD Vista Home Premium x64 Samsung 204T 20.1" Logitech G15 KB 
PowerCaseMouse
Enermax Liberty 620W Thermaltake Armor Black Logitech G7 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
You're not getting it.....he's about to spend $980 on an inferior processor. There's nothing to throw out, he's building a new system. It just doesn't make sense to spend nearly a grand and not get the best.

I get it. I understood your point, the statement about throwing away a system was in reference to me, hence I said "throw MY system away." It was also an indirect statement that AMD systems are pretty different from Intel systems, for someone used to building Intel systems, it's starting from scratch.......

Perhaps you missed my point though.


While it's technically accurate to call it an "inferior processor", I once again ask you why 6 seconds make such a big deal?? The FX-60 and the 955 EE are almost the same price depending on where you look. And the only place the FX-60 pulls far ahead is FPS in most games. So if it's not vastly cheaper and it's not vastly faster, why is it "throwing away" money?

No offense, but I am just tired of AMD fans throwing out terms like "inferior processor" making it sound like intel's are rusty 76 Pinto wagons, when in fact, the differences are usually pretty minor.
post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumper
I get it. I understood your point, the statement about throwing away a system was in reference to me, hence I said "throw MY system away." It was also an indirect statement that AMD systems are pretty different from Intel systems, for someone used to building Intel systems, it's starting from scratch.......

Perhaps you missed my point though.


While it's technically accurate to call it an "inferior processor", I once again ask you why 6 seconds make such a big deal?? The FX-60 and the 955 EE are almost the same price depending on where you look. And the only place the FX-60 pulls far ahead is FPS in most games. So if it's not vastly cheaper and it's not vastly faster, why is it "throwing away" money?

No offense, but I am just tired of AMD fans throwing out terms like "inferior processor" making it sound like intel's are rusty 76 Pinto wagons, when in fact, the differences are usually pretty minor.
There's simply no reason to choose it over the FX-60 equivalent. It's not only slower, but it runs a lot hotter. Read the review that you linked, I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know. Also, not all of the benchmarks are merely 6 second difference. Some of the applications have a much larger difference, especially gaming. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Intel atm, but it doesn't make sense to choose an inferior processor with an equal price. If he's a diehard Intel guy, I strongly suggest doing whatever you can to wait for Conroe. I've had several Intels myself and hold nothing against them, but at the current time, it just doesn't make sense. As far as building a machine being different between Intel and AMD, I wouldn't say either is easier or harder....there's really no difference at all.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
There's simply no reason to choose it over the FX-60 equivalent. It's not only slower, but it runs a lot hotter. Read the review that you linked, I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know. Also, not all of the benchmarks are merely 6 second difference. Some of the applications have a much larger difference, especially gaming.
And I mentioned that, if anyone is building a machine JUST to game, heck yeah, go AMD........but that's like saying a Pickup truck sucks cause it can't corner like the Corvette. Intel chips are not made for gaming. How many company's do you know that run AMD based computers for their offices? Intel is made for applications, and that's what they do well. It's only been recently within the last year or so that AMD has started to pull even with Intel on application usage.

Yes, some applications were bigger than a 6 second difference, but as I mentioned first, overall, it's less than a 10% difference. A 10% difference that you won't notice, so who cares?

Newegg doesn't show the FX-60 that I could see, but the 955 EE is about $960-1060 last I looked, and the prices I've seen around for the FX-60 are about $1140.....roughly 10% more money.......if the FX-60 was $700-800, i'd be right next to you agreeing wholeheartedly.......

100 FPS in Call of Duty 2, you're gonna notice that differnce.

I doubt most people would notice as much when you're talking about 100 seconds on WinZip, or DVDShrink......and I'd love to see a test of an AMD running WinZip, while running 4 internet browser windows, downloading a file, and listening to a MP3 vs. an Intel doing the same.


I never said the act of building an AMD or an Intel was harder or easier. I simply pointed out that the knowledge used in building an Intel system would do a person little good in building an AMD. There are differences, not good or bad differences, just differences.


I don't want to argue about it
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumper
And I mentioned that, if anyone is building a machine JUST to game, heck yeah, go AMD........but that's like saying a Pickup truck sucks cause it can't corner like the Corvette. Intel chips are not made for gaming. How many company's do you know that run AMD based computers for their offices? Intel is made for applications, and that's what they do well. It's only been recently within the last year or so that AMD has started to pull even with Intel on application usage.

Yes, some applications were bigger than a 6 second difference, but as I mentioned first, overall, it's less than a 10% difference. A 10% difference that you won't notice, so who cares?

Newegg doesn't show the FX-60 that I could see, but the 955 EE is about $960-1060 last I looked, and the prices I've seen around for the FX-60 are about $1140.....roughly 10% more money.......if the FX-60 was $700-800, i'd be right next to you agreeing wholeheartedly.......

100 FPS in Call of Duty 2, you're gonna notice that differnce.

I doubt most people would notice as much when you're talking about 100 seconds on WinZip, or DVDShrink......and I'd love to see a test of an AMD running WinZip, while running 4 internet browser windows, downloading a file, and listening to a MP3 vs. an Intel doing the same.


I never said the act of building an AMD or an Intel was harder or easier. I simply pointed out that the knowledge used in building an Intel system would do a person little good in building an AMD. There are differences, not good or bad differences, just differences.


I don't want to argue about it
To say that Intel desktop processors aren't built for gaming is ludicrous. Once of the most commonly used applications are video games,period. Do you deny this fact? However, I wasn't talking about merely gaming. It's a faster processor that runs cooler. I have no idea where you're getting a 10% performance difference from, but I disagree with that. Ignoring everything else, I leave you with 1 question...tell me 1 reason to buy the Intel over an AMD? I can drop down several hundred dollars and get a processor with equivalent speed, so I'd like to hear a single reason to purchase the $980 Intel.
PS. AMD has stolen some of the largest companies in the world and they are now using AMD servers. When money is involved, loyalty goes out the window. I'm the same way, I don't care who makes it. I want the best for my money,period. I have 0 brand loyalty to anyone.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
To say that Intel desktop processors aren't built for gaming is ludicrous. Once of the most commonly used applications are video games,period. Do you deny this fact?
Yes. I deny it solidly.


My office employs over 1000 people who spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week in front of a computer terminal.

Not a single minute of that time is spent gaming. I know for a fact that my friends at Bank of America spend 0 minutes a day playing games, I am sure every business office is the same. And every one of them uses Intel machines. If you want to talk just home PCs, then it's mor elikely that games take a lead, but I doubt it's a blow out. And that would bring us back to personal preference again.

I, personally, play video games about 20% of my time at home, the rest is spent running Excel spreadsheets, CloneDVD, internet browsers, and a mass of other multi-tasking operations. I have no need for a chip that runs Doom 3 at 600 FPS, but has trouble swapping between 4 spreadsheets, 6 internet pages while downloading 100MB files and ripping music.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
I have no idea where you're getting a 10% performance difference from, but I disagree with that.

If you take the specs I linked to, add up ALL the results, the unit to unit difference is about 10%. For instance it shows that the AMD runs WinRar in 195 seconds....the 955 EE takes 206 seconds. What is the percentage increase between 195 and 206? Roughly 5%. Running VirtualDub takes the FX-60 364 seconds, while the 955 EE needs 391.....what's the percentage increase there? That's about 9-10%. It's a simply method of determining an average increase from several different results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
Ignoring everything else, I leave you with 1 question...tell me 1 reason to buy the Intel over an AMD?

I already have, you keep ignoring it because you refuse to see anything from a perspective other than your own.

I understand your perspective, and have agreed with you on those terms. If you must have the absolute highest performance chip out there in accepted benchmark numbers* then the AMD is the chip for you....and 6 months later when a new chip is .0001 seconds faster in one benchmark, that chip should be immediatly purchased, and so on, and so on......speaking of money, that sounds expensive.


* - I still have not seen an AMD vs. Intel battle that benchmarks several programs running at once, as I stated


I have nothing further to say, as I mentioned, I am not interested in an arguement.....we have both repeated ourselves at least once each.......I have to get back to work.
post #29 of 30
I'm not quite sure why you insinuate that the AMD is only faster in gaming and that the Intel is faster in multitasking. If you would like, I can link you to several multitasking benchmarks that show the Intel is inferior. You keep saying that you'd only build an AMD machine for a gamer, why is that? It's faster in nearly every application on the market, including encoding,decoding, multitasking,etc. I can provide links to back all of this up, but I'm sure you've seen it before. Intel's dual core lineup wasn't impressive and that's been admitted by spokesman from Intel directly. They, however, have massive manpower and money and their current project should surpass the competition, but for now, it's not theirs and they've admitted it. Regardless whether it's a kid playing games at home or Bank of America's headquarters, the AMD dual core is a faster processor and runs much cooler. I'm not sure why this is rubbing you the wrong way, it's not a secret. Do you think it was chance that Intel denied the challenge by AMD? The result was a forgone conclusion, but this is getting way off the subject. Bottomline, buying a $980 Intel dual core processor isn't the smartest choice atm and I stand by my recommendation and there are multiplie reviews backing that, including the link you provided.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 30
Running multiple apps does not just involve the cpu.. it involves more the ram than anything. If you have an FX-60 and only 256MB of ram.. that is not going to get you anywhere. Each chip has pros and cons. I personally have had bad experiences with intel's, so I dont use them. Unfortunately I have to use them at work. But as far as my own personal use, the only intel system I have is a laptop.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
XP-M 2500 Abit AN7 XP/Ubuntu 2x P1110 21" flat CRT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
generic black OCZ Powerstream 520W black MX1000 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
XP-M 2500 Abit AN7 XP/Ubuntu 2x P1110 21" flat CRT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
generic black OCZ Powerstream 520W black MX1000 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Whats the best dual core OC'er?