the E4300 is the cheapest dual core Core 2 Duo on the market, and usually overclocks to about 3.2 GHz

Quote from pb32000 :

Amd X2 4400+ is better than the outdated, stupidly hot Pentium D family.

Very well said.

And he means hot not in the way that Paris Hilton means it. He means hot as in the there is a small sun inside that CPU.

Quote from Dygear :

Very well said.

And he means hot not in the way that Paris Hilton means it. He means hot as in the there is a small sun inside that CPU.

Well to be honest, she isn't hot in any meaning of the word.

I'd vote for the AMD. I use dual AMD at home and core2duo at work. Amd is 2.0 ghz and core2duo is 2.4 ghz.So there should be a performance difference of min.%20 percent.And maybe even more because the Core2Duo is a newer computer which means better ram speed and better harddisks and better mainboard and vista... But the real speed difference is %17(for cpu-intensive rendering process).This makes me think of AMD is still the better price-performance cpu in the market. I'd go for an AMD instead of Core2Duo.

erm, for every MHz a Core 2 Duo does 33% more than an AMD because of its architecture (9 ops per clock VS 12), that means a 2.0 GHz C2D is like a 3.2 GHz AMD

Go for the Core 2 Duo

Quote from Jakg :

erm, for every MHz a Core 2 Duo does 33% more than an AMD because of its architecture (9 ops per clock VS 12), that means a 2.0 GHz C2D is like a 3.2 GHz AMD

Go for the Core 2 Duo

you must be joking Jakg.2Ghz C2D is not definatelly like 3.2Ghz AMD.Depend on type of application but its not definately so huge difference.

I can give you a proof.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl ... lay/dualcore-roundup.html

By the way if some is going to buy C2D wait a 1-2 weeks.On the 22th April Intel will announce price reduction, for example E6600 will drop around 30 percent.Other C2D processors as well.

ah, wait a second, i think i may have done the maths wrong :S

a 2 GHz C2D is like a 2.66 AMD, a 2.25 GHz C2D is like a 3 GHz AMD

In the same way a 2 GHz C2D is like a 4 GHz P4, but due to the massive improvement Intel made over netburst, its a lot faster.

AMD is quicker if you can't afford C2D, as the 3600 Brisbane is budget, and overclocks like hell, but if you can afford C2D then do it

add bit more.Seems someone need math lessons again
2.4Ghz C2D is like 3GHz A64 X2

I prepared a scene in 3dmax with gi and things on. Rendered it home on 2ghz AMD2x and note down the time it took to render.Saved the file and rendered it at work on 2,4ghz c2d.The difference was exactly %17. Intel cpu's are not as fast as they declare.

According to this test, Intel 2.4ghz C2D works like a 2.34ghz AMDx2

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

2.4Ghz C2D is like 3GHz A64 X2

what?

9/12 = 1 1/3 (Ops per clock)

3 / 1 1/3 = 2.25

so a 2.25 GHz C2D = a 3 GHz AMD (although the C2D is a little faster actually)

Can't i make it clear enough Jakq??
The test is very simple to understand. Mental ray *rendering a scene in both cpu's. And the result 2.4GHZ C2D = 2.34GHZ AMDx2.I did this test.

*rendering a scene is highly cpu-intensive job.So there's no doubt that it is using full cpu power.

Although I haven't been able to confirm it scientifically, I noticed that my C2D system did not perform as expected against Athlon 64 systems in LFS, at least judging by the Unofficial LFS Benchmark. It seemed to me that my C2D needed to be the same clock speed as the Athlon 64 in order to perform on par under LFS.

Quote from ZORER :

Can't i make it clear enough Jakq??
The test is very simple to understand. Mental ray *rendering a scene in both cpu's. And the result 2.4GHZ C2D = 2.34GHZ AMDx2.I did this test.

*rendering a scene is highly cpu-intensive job.So there's no doubt that it is using full cpu power.

To be fair, your findings that the A64 X2 is faster per clock goes in the face of everything ever found out besides your test.

Going back to that review that DEVIL 007 posted, here, the Core 2 Duo's outperform comparably clocked A64 chips.

Here's the rundown that X-bit labs found (all are dual core) for their 3ds Max 8 (Space Flyby) test:

A64 6000+ 3.0GHz 230 sec
C2D E6600 2.4GHz 235 sec
A64 5600+ 2.8GHz 247 sec
C2D E6420 2.13GHz 263 sec
A64 5200+ 2.6GHz 265 sec

And so on and so forth, the Core 2 Duo's do outperform even higher clocked A64 X2 processors.

EDIT: Can you tell us more about the specs of your two systems? Given that you're using two entirely different systems, they're probably unequal in more than just what CPU's they have.

Quote from pik_d :

To be fair, your findings that the A64 X2 is faster per clock goes in the face of everything ever found out besides your test.

Going back to that review that DEVIL 007 posted, here, the Core 2 Duo's outperform comparably clocked A64 chips.

Here's the rundown that X-bit labs found (all are dual core) for their 3ds Max 8 (Space Flyby) test:

A64 6000+ 3.0GHz 230 sec
C2D E6600 2.4GHz 235 sec
A64 5600+ 2.8GHz 247 sec
C2D E6420 2.13GHz 263 sec
A64 5200+ 2.6GHz 265 sec

And so on and so forth, the Core 2 Duo's do outperform even higher clocked A64 X2 processors.

EDIT: Can you tell us more about the specs of your two systems? Given that you're using two entirely different systems, they're probably unequal in more than just what CPU's they have.

ok i'll post a more detailed message soon.

Quote from Jakg :

what?

9/12 = 1 1/3 (Ops per clock)

3 / 1 1/3 = 2.25

so a 2.25 GHz C2D = a 3 GHz AMD (although the C2D is a little faster actually)

You really cant count.Look at the link I posted.The difference is about 400-600Mhz not more.

I am looking how much it cost and at the same priced AMD X2 and C2D you get almost same performance.Just check again the link to the tests I have posted above.

Stock for stock an AMD is a better deal than an Intel right now because AMD is selling their chips as low as possible to stay in business until they get K10 out. Though if you overclock both processors, Intel will pull ahead in the price to performance value.

I have athlon 4600+coreduo and 8600gt,2 Gb ram.LFS is the great with this!!!!!!!