|
|
|
Intel vs. AMD
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 02:18 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I also consulted a good friend who builds real high end rigs (in the $7,000 range) and even he likes my choice of CPU , MB and memory for my use.
I'm curious what your friend is putting in those cases to rate $7000. Paying big bucks for components doesn't equate to knowledge in building PCs. A Striker with X6800, OCZ or Corsair premium PSU, 4GB Dominator PC2 8888 with fans, Twin 150 Raptors and dual Seagates for storage, twin Plex optical drives, along with a ridiculously priced case and liquid cooling. That's buying the best instead of using any builder expertise. Not that I wouldn't love to own one, I just refuse to pay the price. That's still well shy of $7000 if my calculator isn't broke. It isn't used to working with such high figures. LOL
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 02:25 |
Link to this message
|
Sammorris,
Quote:
Like the 5400+, 5600+ and 6000+ will be?
I suspect! Look at it this way, people have been overclocking the hell out of the 64x2s for quite a while now with great success. I don't think it would take too much development at the core level to raise the playing field. AMD knows that the Conroe can't stay at current prices forever, while thier 64x2s can! If it wasn't for thier share of the Mobile market Intel might even be in real trouble. That and chipsets are the only place Intel is making any real money. Even the server market that Intel was so bent on making a dent in AMD's sales has been a bit of a flop. Intel has the better mousetrap in the Quad-Core but AMD can catch more mice for less money with the 4x4 as thier R&D was much cheaper to develop it.
Intel is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they raise the price of the Conroes, they will lose more sales to AMD which will only increase AMD's profits even more. People will only pay for performance if it's worth it. Hard core gamers and enthusiasts will pay anything for the fastest but the consumer market, which is where most PC sales are made, won't! The real money won't be made for either company at Newegg or Tigerdirect, but at Wal-Mart and K-Mart because that's where the average Joe shops!
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 02:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
I think he's referring to the percentage gain. I'm sure I've seen somewhere an E6400 that got to 3.3Ghz on air, whereas the highest air cooled E6600 I've seen is 3.6 (correct me if I'm wrong on these) which although that would make the E6600 faster when OCed by 300mhz versus the 266mhz difference at stock, at this level of overclock, the difference should be 400 (266+50%) so in fact the 6400 has caught up. That and the E6600 has gone up 50% versus 55% for the 6400. Realistically, the performance is better from the 6600, of course it is, but like Russ I'm not convinced the extra dollars are worth it if you're on a constricted budget. If there's $100 extra left for PC in the E6400 zone I'd be tempted to recommend more RAM than going up to the 6600.
On the cache issue, in theory 4MB should make a real difference, but if so, how come my 4200+ with 2x512KB performs close to the E6300 with 2x1MB when that's supposedly a better CPU as well?
Glad you didn't say as good. Plus doing benches with 512MB sticks of RAM gives faster access than with 1GB sticks. So, for bench racing 512(s) have the advantage. Any advantage starts getting lost in the real world where the extra RAM comes into play for memory intensive tasks. To do a good comparison, CPU tests should be run on the same test board using the same RAM. That way the only variable is the the CPU. To test RAM you use the same board and CPU with the different RAM. You can't mix and match and then compare because you can't tell what is making the difference.
I pointed out what one gets for the money on moving up from the 6400 to the 6700. Unless on the strictest budget, the choice should be a no brainer without the need for doing OC percentages. Just the stock advantages support the decision for the E6600, that is unless the builder is destitute. Then you're talking about a budget build instead of a performance build. From what we've all noted, the E6600 is the best bang for the buck, which theonejrs mentioned Intel said. As for the difference between a 6300 and the 6400, lay off the burgers for a couple days.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. January 2007 @ 02:53
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 02:48 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Intel has the better mousetrap in the Quad-Core but AMD can catch more mice for less money with the 4x4 as thier R&D was much cheaper to develop it.
When did this come about? Intel has the better mouse trap in the dual core Conroes than the quad core. Tests have proven that. As for the AMD quad core, so far they've not stacked up and AMDs best dual cores still don't compare to the Conroes. Don't you think AMD would crank up their processors if it was that easy? Over 6 months later and it still hasn't happened.
I build with both AMD and Intels and don't favor one over the other except when one shows a marked superiority. Until Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo architecture, their processors were a failure compared to the AMD HT technology. What everyone was saying couldn't be done got done by Intel. Now AMD has to play catch up and in 6 months or so, they still haven't done it. Plus they were aware that Intel was getting ready to unload on them over a year in advance and they made fun of Intel instead of cranking up R&D at AMD. Obviously it isn't that easy for AMD to just crank up the technology they currently have. As for the lesser cost of development, that shows. They'll have to add a few more bucks before they get the lead back at AMD.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. January 2007 @ 03:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'd hardly say destitute, the E6600 is still something of a high end CPU. I've recently outlined a build for a friend who is not destitute, but wants a reasonable low cost PC. I've recommended him the X2 because he doesnt need a lot of processing power for video work or folding, he just needs a PC that's faster than his Pentium M laptop (with integrated graphics, ugh), so I could set him up an X2 4200+ (although considering the price drop of the 3800 to £85, I may mention that, that means AMD's cheapest X2 is under 40% of the price of an E6600 here!), 2GB RAM, an X1900GT graphics card, a 250GB hard disk, Seasonic PSU, a big quiet case, a dedicated PCI sound card, a mouse, keyboard, 17" LCD monitor, and some 2.1 speakers for just over £700. That's a pretty competent PC capable of playing all the games you can throw at it for a fair while, and within his price range. Lots of custom builds are like this, but in the mainstream market, where the real sales are made, most people don't buy PCs as powerful as an E6600-based system, for that money you can build far better yourself or with a custom-build store, the "average joe" buys the cheaper system, and they're sold by the millions, and since AMD still have the better CPUs there, they're raking it in. I hear there's going to be a competent Core 2 Solo (or an equivalent name) released in the near future. We'll see what happens then!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 03:31 |
Link to this message
|
PacMan777,
Quote:
I think he's referring to the percentage gain.
First off, thanks Sam for that quote as you are right. I didn't say the 6400 was better only that it overclocks better. Second, I've heard lots of claims for 3.5 to 3.6GHz on air, but I've yet to see benches to support it. Sam and I both know a number of very knowlegable people that are presently tweaking thier 6600s and no one is close to 3.6 yet.
Here's a quote from Anandtech on the subject!
Quote:
Our first look at the E6300/E6400 with overclocking generates some interesting results. There has been speculation that one of the reasons Core 2 Duo chips perform so well is that they have so much L2 cache. Dropping from 4 MB to 2 MB of cache does hurt performance a bit, but with a little bit of overclocking both of our budget Core 2 Duo chips perform very well. The net loss appears to be about 200 MHz, so the 2.88 GHz E6400 roughly equals the 2.66 GHz E6700, and the 2.59 GHz E6300 roughly matches the 2.4 GHz E6600. Drilling down into the individual benchmark results for SYSmark 2004, the impact of the reduced cache is more apparent in Office Productivity applications than it is in the Internet Content Creation results, but the 2MB Core 2 chips preform respectably regardless of the application being tested. Perhaps a Core 2 with 1MB or less of L2 wouldn't perform all that well, but since those parts don't exist there's no reason to worry about hypothetical bottlenecks right now.
Now I'll be the first to admit that the 6400 was a better "bang for the Buck" CPU last week than it is today because the gap in price between it and the 6600 has dropped to below $100. I'm of the mindset that 300MHz isn't worth the price difference to me. I agree with Sam there! I'de put that $96 difference toward another 2 sticks of 512MB memory.
On the $7,000 price tag, I meant to say that his systems compare to and often exceed the performance of a 5 to 7 thousand dollar custom Alienware rig. I had to go back an read what was said so my error! Sorry!
What we really need is to see Tomshardware or Anandtech do an updated comparisun with the better motherboards and memory available and see what thier techs can get out of them. When I do build the 6400, I will be posting benches so if I fall on my face you guys will be the first to know. I'm expecting 3.2GHz, which is a 50% OC! I'm pretty fair at overclocking Intels as I've gotten 3.94 on air with a E630 P4 3.0/800 Prescott and 4.1 on air out of my D-940, both stable. I know I can do better with the D-940 but it will take a better MB with better voltage regulation than the P5P800 SE I'm using now. Great MB when I bought it, but technology has passed it by! That's why I run it at 3.71GHz folding at 95% CPU usage. Folding is one of the best tests for stability. Better than Prime 95 or even the new kid on the block, OCCT! I've run both for 24 hours without any errors!
Stay Tuned,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 03:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
I think he's referring to the percentage gain. I'm sure I've seen somewhere an E6400 that got to 3.3Ghz on air, whereas the highest air cooled E6600 I've seen is 3.6 (correct me if I'm wrong on these) which although that would make the E6600 faster when OCed by 300mhz versus the 266mhz difference at stock, at this level of overclock, the difference should be 400 (266+50%) so in fact the 6400 has caught up. That and the E6600 has gone up 50% versus 55% for the 6400. Realistically, the performance is better from the 6600, of course it is, but like Russ I'm not convinced the extra dollars are worth it if you're on a constricted budget. If there's $100 extra left for PC in the E6400 zone I'd be tempted to recommend more RAM than going up to the 6600.
On the cache issue, in theory 4MB should make a real difference, but if so, how come my 4200+ with 2x512KB performs close to the E6300 with 2x1MB when that's supposedly a better CPU as well?
Your math is off a bit. Actually if those figures are correct, the 6400 is OCed by 60% going from 2.13GHz to 3.4GHz. The 2.4 to 3.6 is an easier calculation at an even 50%. But getting to the actual differences at those percentages, note that the E6400 (2.13GHz) improves by 1.27GHz and the E6600 (2.4GHz) improves by 1.2GHz. That's 70MHz that the 6400 OCs better than the 6600 while the 6600 OC is a total of 200MHz greater. Assuming the extreme OCs are correct which most of us won't be using, I'll still take the 0.2GHz and 2MB cache difference anyday for an extra $100 compared to any of the other noted model differences.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. January 2007 @ 03:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
You would, yes, because you can afford it, but for people with less to spare, I think 2GB RAM would be more important than a bit of extra cache and mhz. It gets me that THG havent reviewed a 6300 (to my knowledge) and done the extreme overclocking test on it. They don't even include the 6300 in their supposedly comprehensive CPU charts, I have to use the 6400 and guesstimate.
As far as I can see my maths isn't off, I just used a different example, choosing 3.3Ghz rather than 3.4Ghz as the overclocked value.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. January 2007 @ 03:47
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 05:27 |
Link to this message
|
Sammorriss
Excuse me on the 3.3 and 3.4. With both you and theonejrs, I became a bit confused. The difference between 50 and 55% would be even more negligible. The end numbers I used, which are pushing those CPUs, shows only a negligible difference in OC ability and the E6600 as a clear winner. To each his own and we'll budget the money where we think most important. But for the sake of comparing CPUs, it's obvious where the bang for the bucks lies. By all means, for those who are on a strict budget, get a 6300, use the cheapest RAM possible, along with a cheap board and buy the cheapest case and psu available. Do the budget build up right. Out of curiosity, how much did your CPU cost?
Theonejrs
Quote:
Our first look at the E6300/E6400 with overclocking generates some interesting results. There has been speculation that one of the reasons Core 2 Duo chips perform so well is that they have so much L2 cache. Dropping from 4 MB to 2 MB of cache does hurt performance a bit, but with a little bit of overclocking both of our budget Core 2 Duo chips perform very well. The net loss appears to be about 200 MHz, so the 2.88 GHz E6400 roughly equals the 2.66 GHz E6700, and the 2.59 GHz E6300 roughly matches the 2.4 GHz E6600. Drilling down into the individual benchmark results for SYSmark 2004, the impact of the reduced cache is more apparent in Office Productivity applications than it is in the Internet Content Creation results, but Perhaps a Core 2 with 1MB or less of L2 wouldn't perform all that well, but since those parts don't exist there's no reason to worry about hypothetical bottlenecks right now.
That's a questionable example for our discussion. They're comparing OCed processors to stock models without saying where those stock models can go. The review shows the larger cache is useful in memory intensive applications which agrees with what I said. The only thing of note is that the author concludes "... the 2MB Core 2 chips preform respectably regardless of the application being tested". No one appears to disagree with that. So, what's the purpose of the quote?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. January 2007 @ 11:25
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 05:56 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Intel is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they raise the price of the Conroes, they will lose more sales to AMD which will only increase AMD's profits even more. People will only pay for performance if it's worth it. Hard core gamers and enthusiasts will pay anything for the fastest but the consumer market, which is where most PC sales are made, won't! The real money won't be made for either company at Newegg or Tigerdirect, but at Wal-Mart and K-Mart because that's where the average Joe shops!
That sounds familiar. LOL Just go back to the closed AMD-Intel thread. I browsed that one as well as this one. The everyday working PCs are the majority of sales, not the performance models enthusiast builders prefer.
To your list of vendors you should add Dell stores and their online sales along with Gateway. They make up a lot of sales for the average consumer, plus they handle a lot of group sales such as businesses and government offices.
Your words are true and you should add most users won't be overclocking or fully using the multitasking capabilities of their PC. For many users a good socket 478 P4 would be more than enough. I'm surprised we haven't seen the new single core that was promised.
As for Intel and the pricing, I wonder. Looking back, everyone was paying some stiff prices on AMD processors that don't hold a light to Conroes that are selling for half the old prices and near what those high priced lower performing AMD processors cost now. A good example would be the 4800 X2 and the E6600. Last year the 4800 sold in the "sticker shock" category and it still sells for over $260. Newegg has an OEM for $250. I used one not too long ago that was still $300. Apparently the pricing is continuing to drop on the old tech processors. Meaning even less profit for AMD.
I don't know what the market will bear, but Intel has yet to test it. The Conroes are at giveaway prices compared to what the AMDs were not long ago.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. January 2007 @ 07:10
|
|
Ace_2
Senior Member
|
6. January 2007 @ 08:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
I had just seen on Intel's website two different versions of a more advanced Intel Core 2 Duo, the Intel Core 2 Extreme, this one is sold in dual core and QUAD-CORE(has anyone found a computer with that processor, the quad-core Core 2 Extreme?). Should I save even more for one of those or will the Core 2 Duo E6600/E6800 be enough for now(I want to keep my computer for a long time, as the one I have, a cheap 800MHZ Pentium III, is outdated, bought 7 years ago, in 2000)?
My console collection: Version 14A PlayStation 2(chipped), Version 7 PlayStation 2, PlayStation(both models), Wii, Gamecube, N64, Super NES(original from US and Japan and Mini), NES(front and top loader)Model 1 & 2 Genesis, Sega CD, Sega 32X, Atari 2600, Sega Saturn, Sega Dreamcast, Sega Master System(Model 1 and 2), Atari Flashback 1 & 2, FC Twin(2 in 1 NES/Super NES clone), GN Twin(2 in 1 NES/Genesis clone), Atari 7800, Intellivision II, TurboGrafx 16, GameBoy Color
My guides: Cardboard and Straw MOD: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/308926
3-method exploit for PS2s: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/337567 |
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 11:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
There's a huge price gap between the E6600 and the X6800. The X denotes Extreme. There is an E6700 for about $200 more, but the X6800 goes for about $950 US. The quad core QX6700 is also an Extreme selling for about $1000. I've not noticed an E6800, at least not yet. Had you looked up the prices, that should have been a deterrent.
Tests have shown the quad core holds no significant superiority over the X6800. Check Tomshardware and Anandtech for reviews. There are no apps that give quad core an advantage currently in the real world, so the jury is still out. If I had the bucks to spend and a need for the Extreme processor, my choice would go with the X6800 over the QX6700. But I wouldn't go there. I'd build a nice E6600 or splurge for an E6700 at about half the cost of an Extreme.
After all that, my suggestion is build a Core 2 Duo that is reasonable within your budget. Whether an economy build with a lower model Core 2 Duo or a more performance oriented starting with the E6600 you can't beat the present Intels. Even the E6300 will be mind blowing in comparison to your current P3.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. January 2007 @ 11:20
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 12:15 |
Link to this message
|
PacMan777
Quote:
So, what's the purpose of the quote?
The purpose of the quote was to be sure everyone knew and understood that we were talking about OC'd compared to stock. I could have quoted just the line about the cache, but I try to be fair and not try to skew the results! You will note that's how Sandra shows the results, your overclock vs stock speeds of various processors. True, you can overclock the higher end processors to better performance too. It's just that there are too many variables to just say you can OC a 6600 to 3.6. Choice of MB, memory, Power supply and so on, not to mention the skills of the builder.
As far as percentages go, I just take the processor speed for the 6400 at 2.13, multiply that times 50% and add the result to the base to get 3.195. It's the same way the MB manufacturers do it. If I take my A64 at 2.40GHz, multiply that times 15% and add the result to the base 2.40 I get 2.76GHz. If I set the automatic to 15% in the bios set-up I get 2760MHz which is 2.76GHz.
I would like to point out something to newbies reading this thread. None of the current dual-cores are slugs, except maybe to the hard core enthusiast. Any dual core will run rings around the fastest single core. If you decide to build a computer buy the best you can afford. This applies to the CPU only!!! Your performance will be directly geared to the quality that you support that CPU with. You can't buy cheap memory, motherboard and power supply and expect good numbers, no matter how good the processor is. You can build a better PC than you can buy from Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway and e-Machines but you have to use quality components for the best result as you can't make a race horse out of a mule!
Quote:
To do a good comparison, CPU tests should be run on the same test board using the same RAM. That way the only variable is the the CPU. To test RAM you use the same board and CPU with the different RAM. You can't mix and match and then compare because you can't tell what is making the difference.
What's that footnote you always see? "Results may Vary"! Actually there are many more variables to be considered. For instance, with CPUs there's binning, stepping and electrical tolerence to consider. A guy that gets the better binning or better stepping will have the faster computer using the same MB. Differences in the allowed tolerences will also make a difference as no two electronic components are exactly equal. That's precisely why NASA was precision grinding resistors with high speed fine diamond dental drills back in the 70s and 80s to get the best spec possible for thier needs. It all boils down to a certain amount of luck. If you wind up with the best binning, best stepping and best tolerences in all of the components, you wind up with the best machine. At the other end If you have something where all the tolerences are within spec, but on the low side, then that machine will not be as good!
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
6. January 2007 @ 17:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
The Gigabyte GA-965P-S3 and the other parts are here. I got it Friday. But a friend came over and we've been hanging out. So I'll build monday night and tell how it runs.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
|
MichaelP1
Suspended permanently
|
6. January 2007 @ 18:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
the best of luck with the new build Estuansis
We shall go to the end,we shall fight in France,we shall fight on the seas and oceans,we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be,we shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight on the landing grounds,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills;we shall never surrender
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 19:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Estuansis,
Good luck and enjoy your new toy!
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
The Gigabyte GA-965P-S3 and the other parts are here. I got it Friday. But a friend came over and we've been hanging out. So I'll build monday night and tell how it runs.
I'll be interested in what you do with the RAM.
Theonejrs
I'll not qoute you. That reply was a bit long. Rule 1: you don't compare OCed models to stock ones unless as a guage or improvement for the OCed CPU, much as the SiSandra benches; Not As A Comparison Between The Two. If you're going to say things like an E6400 outbenches the E6600, give a link or show the benches like I asked with both being OCed on the same test boards. You may have put some PCs together, but building for performance and doing comparisons is a different arena. As the end figures I provided show, the difference is insignificant and the E6600 has a noticable superiority over the E6400.
Talk budget, but $100 isn't that big when you're talking about a PC over $1000 US. So, as most people agree, the E6600 is the best overall bang for the bucks. We all know that the lower end Conroes are good, and much better than what was past. My suggestion to Ace_2 just that, but thanks for restating it ... again.
Thanks also for adding all the little variables that affect performance. That does cloud the point though. What was being stated was that test results should be derived using the same test boards and keeping the hardware the same except for a particular piece of hardware being compared. Variables down to the silicon used make a difference, but those are out of the control of the enthusiast. What we can do is compare the performance between 2 processors keeping the test variables as close as possible and not skewing with the use of different RAM or a different board. The only thing we can do with binning is try to find a good one, such as some of the Opteron 170(s) not long ago. Throwing in the trivia only muddles what was being said. When testing, keep the variables limited so the item being tested will be giving the results, not a group where each component can add to a change.
Seems we mostly agree on the processors, if not on the budget and some of your questionable test methods.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 20:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Theonejrs
You were talking about benching and doing the torture tests. What do you do about "SpeedStep" and "Cool 'n Quiet"?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. January 2007 @ 00:34 |
Link to this message
|
PacMan777,
Quote:
Rule 1: you don't compare OCed models to stock ones unless as a guage or improvement for the OCed CPU, much as the SiSandra benches; Not As A Comparison Between The Two. If you're going to say things like an E6400 outbenches the E6600, give a link or show the benches like I asked with both being OCed on the same test boards.
While we do agree on some things, I can't agree with rule #1. The sole purpose of the Sandra benchmarks is to compare your overclock to known stock benchmarks so you can see what your overclock matches up to in terms of stock processors. While it would be nice to own all the high end Conroes and AMDs, as it would be the only real performance test head to head, it wouldn't be practical for most people to do. Back before I got sick I could well afford to do it. I'm no longer able to afford it.
I'm not complaining as I've had a wonderful and very adventurous life. I chose to liquidate everything and take care of my children's future now while I can enjoy it with them without them having to fight the Government for years in court after I'm gone, for what should be rightfully be thiers to begin with. I hadn't counted on being fourced into early retirement so things changed drasticly for me since I had to retire last May for health reasons. After years of 5 and 6 figure income I,ve had to learn to count my pennies to get the most out of my money.
As far as my saying that the 6400 outbenches the 6600, I never said that! I said it overclocks better, meaning percentage wise as Sam understood. When Ace_2 asked the question, he asked about low end AMD and Conroe processors. I only suggested the 6400 because of the small price difference between it and the 6300 that would yield significant gains for him performance wise without having to spend much more money. At the time the 6600 was $165 more and probably out of the question for his indicated budget. You could make your case for the X6800 on the same basis. After all it's only $958! If we all bought one there would be no need for this thread!
I have one more thing to say an I'll drop this discussion.
Quote:
Seems we mostly agree on the processors, if not on the budget and some of your questionable test methods.
When I do a build, I like to take my time and be very through in my personal test methods. I use Sandra, Cpuz and OCCT and provide benchmarks. I usually run Prime 95 and now OCCT for 24 hours and then I set it up for folding. I'm only satisfied if it passes all of these tests and folds without errors. I don't bench race as I think it's stupid and totally impractical in the real computing world. Since I first joined this forum this thread has always been about making lesser processors run more like higher end ones. Everyone understands that you can overclock the higher end ones as well to even better benchmarks. All that takes is more money! We even have several folks here that have more than enough income to be able to afford any processor on the market. Yet most of them enjoy taking a lesser processor and seeing what they can do to improve it's performance. It's a total learning and sharing experience that we all enjoy doing. This thread is made up of a great bunch of folks from all over the world who enjoy the experience and thrill of seeing thier computers become all that they can be. I have a friend in another Forum who is folding with 5 different computers he built, at the moment. None have top of the like CPUs. A couple of Opterons, a Smithfield, a Pressler and a Conroe. He could well afford all X6800s, but there's no, challenge for him in that. That's what this thread is all about!
Opps, you asked another question!
Quote:
You were talking about benching and doing the torture tests. What do you do about "SpeedStep" and "Cool 'n Quiet"?
I usually turn them off in the setup if the bios allows it. I've only come across one that you couldn't and that was on a Panasonic Toughbook CF-48X with a mobile P4 that I recently repaired.
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
Senior Member
|
7. January 2007 @ 04:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
as much as love this banter i think somone needs to step in before the mods do and this thread gets closed again.
this is the bitchy intel sucks no amd blows thread, also known as intel vs amd.
you are wandering into the dark art of overclocking, which as you both know has its own place.
come on guys we all like this thread but going off topic was why it was closed last time. if you want to talk ocing go into that thread. if you you want to box for the green or the blue corner, ding ding.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. January 2007 @ 06:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Marsey 99
I don't see where you get the thread is going wrong and there is a need for a mod. If there is never disagreement, then the thread is not likely to be very useful, except for telling others how to insert their RAM. Neither theonejrs nor I are attacking each other, just discussing opinions on processors and testing methods. I regret you got the uncomfortable feeling there was a flamer pending. I'd leave the thread first as Kivory666 did. It's not worth the hassle.
I don't see overclocking as a dark art. It is one reason why enthusiasts like all those boards that include the ability. The reason the manufacturers lock their BIOS(s) is to keep novices from damaging systems and costing them in warranty claims. Interesting is the fact that some board manufacturers will honor the warranty when it's obvious the user fried the solder on the circuits by turning the power too high. Any thread dealing with processors and platforms is going to get a question or 2 about OC(ing).
As far as blue and green go. I don't think that is an issue. History proves the facts on that one. I don't have a favorite as I've built with both. Intel was the leader for the longest with their PC processors. AMD came along and got into the market and played second fiddle for a long time. Then they came up with Hypertransport. At the time Intel was using Netburst and switching from the Northwood architecture to the Prescotts as their main processor. We all know how Intel suffered in comparison to AMD following that. This past summer Intel released the Core 2 Duo (Conroe). Magazines such as PC World gave the Intel Core 2 Duo architecture credit as being among the top innovations of the year. That's the short history of the situation with no bias toward either AMD or Intel.
If we're discussing AMD and Intel how can we be going off topic?
Edited to add content.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. January 2007 @ 06:22
|
|
Ace_2
Senior Member
|
7. January 2007 @ 06:21 |
Link to this message
|
PacMan 777
The only Core 2 Duo I was able to come across is the cheaper 1.86GHZ E6300. Here's the computer I found with that: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddet...10080558&catid=
You could also PM me with your thoughts on all the other aspects. After all, this is a PROCESSOR discussion thread.
My console collection: Version 14A PlayStation 2(chipped), Version 7 PlayStation 2, PlayStation(both models), Wii, Gamecube, N64, Super NES(original from US and Japan and Mini), NES(front and top loader)Model 1 & 2 Genesis, Sega CD, Sega 32X, Atari 2600, Sega Saturn, Sega Dreamcast, Sega Master System(Model 1 and 2), Atari Flashback 1 & 2, FC Twin(2 in 1 NES/Super NES clone), GN Twin(2 in 1 NES/Genesis clone), Atari 7800, Intellivision II, TurboGrafx 16, GameBoy Color
My guides: Cardboard and Straw MOD: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/308926
3-method exploit for PS2s: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/337567 |
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. January 2007 @ 06:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ace_2
I suspect discussing a platform falls within the thread, since most other things get included. I just noticed in a January review in PC World on PCs there was a Micro Express Microflex 668 with an E6600 and it comes with a 17" monitor for $999. It was listed as #1 best buy in PCs for the month.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. January 2007 @ 07:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
theonejrs
Had you not misunderstood what I said about Sandra benches, we would be in closer agreement. We pretty much said the same thing only in a different way. Sandra benches are just a measure of how a system we're testing stacks up against the stock systems in the Sandra database. Plus, we get readings on the tested system that we can compare to other readings we've gotten with other settings. Most helpful when OCing and tweaking a system. When talking about overclocking Sandra still shows how the tested PC stacks up against stock, but the results are skewed as far as comparing OCed against stock (apples and oranges). There is no data in the Sandra database for OC(ed) systems (just stock). You'd have to go to test systems and run individual benches for comparing OC(ed) processors because that can't come from the Sandra database. Unfortunately, I don't have the funds to test a full line of AMD and Intel processors.
I also regret your misunderstanding where I was going with Rule:1. Maybe I should have stated it differently. It's not a "rule" I'm trying to set up for anyone. What I meant is that anytime there is a scientific or quasi-scientific attempt at comparison of items, such as processors, the variables should be isolated as much as possible. That's standard analytical procedure. That's why legitimate test centers use test boards set up the same and also strive to have system drivers as close to the same as possible. That's sometimes difficult between AMD and Intel, but poses no problem when comparing different models from the same line, such as various Core 2 Duo processors.
Outbenches, overclocks; take your choice. The ability is very slight between the E6400 and the E6600, but the significance is in the overall performance superiority of the E6600 over the E6400 for about $100 difference. I gave the end figures which mean more than just swapping percentages. We can leave the rest to enthusiasts' budgets. In the real world and even according to Intel, as you mentioned earlier, the E6600 is currently the best CPU for the money. Not saying everyone wants to pay $318 for a processor. I suspect many of us here have paid $250 or more for a processor, but that's budgeting, not the quality of the processor.
I would have said set the BIOS to manual and then turn off the "speedstep" or "Cool 'n Quiet" (depending on whether Intel or AMD respectively) for the benefit of any novices reading the thread. But most of us know what you mean. If not done, the test is invalid because the system will never be fully loaded. Just including that for the novices out there. I wasn't aware you'd gotten into AMDs and started learning their BIOS setup. Building and working with systems gives more experience than just comparing benches.
Unfortunately there are those here who appear to want to protect their turf or become argumentative over little to nothing. I know I don't know it all and came here to share what I know and hopefully to learn a few things. So far what I've observed is the best you've had on here for a while get driven from the thread by poor behavior. It doesn't take a rude outburst like the one that drove away Kivory666. I won't tolerate the behavior either. I'd rather just stop posting to the forum.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. January 2007 @ 08:43
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
7. January 2007 @ 09:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes, well said, this thread's been plagued with that time and time again. You've conducted yourself well in the discussion pacman.
|
|
