Which Processor?

[Uncle_Ken]

Originally Posted by aussiefalcon

you gotta be kidding, you should buy the best damn CPU you can afford. graphics can always be updated later. to update a CPU you might have to buy a new motherboard.

also note that a top-end graphics card will suffer a bottleneck effect if the CPU isn't up to scratch.

Good point and I don't disagree with it. I supposed that Franky does not upgrade often and money was an issue. Over the years I have found games tend to look for lots of RAM first, a good graphic cards second and a fast CPU third (mind you this was last century).
Uncle Ken

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

Actually if you look at the way the architechture has evolved it would be the Intels that just try and go as fast as possible. Ramping up the clock speed in an attempt to go faster but failing because the AMDs are so much more efficient.

I assume you are just refering to desktop architecture. Intel's mobile architecture is the best CPU architecture available for a end user bar none. The quality, performance, stability and incredibly small power consumption of the Core Duo product is fantastic .

They both work, Intel just have used some dodgy technology. Hyper-Threading anyone?

Hyper-Threading works extremely well in many applications. Esspecially now it teams with their dual core offerings to offer 4 virtual processors. Multi-tasking benefits as well as multi-threaded applications take great advantage of this.

LOL at them going into Macs and the software not working. That and their adds insulting their largest customer base.

The ads you are refering to are MAC ads, not Intel ads.

[foxtrot]

Originally Posted by Deadman

I assume you are just refering to desktop architecture. Intel's mobile architecture is the best CPU architecture available for a end user bar none. The quality, performance, stability and incredibly small power consumption of the Core Duo product is fantastic .



Hyper-Threading works extremely well in many applications. Esspecially now it teams with their dual core offerings to offer 4 virtual processors. Multi-tasking benefits as well as multi-threaded applications take great advantage of this.



The ads you are refering to are MAC ads, not Intel ads.

LOL.

Intel Wins!!

[DivHunter]

"Dual Core was the only way Intel could salvage the Netburst system, and it has done a reasonably good job in order to put the Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition CPU’s on the map. While having two high speed clocks on one small package, Intel really needs to abandon the FSB connection between the two CPUs for core to core communication, as AMD has already shown that there is another much better way to do things."

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/86...ion/index.html

This next review is from last year but looking at the benchmarks for the latest Intels they are only marginally faster than their predecessors.

"After reading the round-by-round account of our dual-core desktop CPU prizefight, it should come as no shock that AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the runaway victors here, laying out the Intel Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition 840 chips pins up. If we had to call out one chip, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is an outstanding bargain given the competition, but as our results show, any AMD dual-core CPU will serve you better than its similarly priced Intel equivalent.

If you're wondering why there's such a striking performance difference between the two companies' processors, it likely has something to do with the memory controller. Among the technological differences between the two, AMD's memory controller--the component that sends information back and forth between your system's CPU and the memory--is an integrated part of the Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, however, exists as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time and likely plays a part in Intel's lower scores.

Whatever Intel's strategy, it doesn't seem to have held up. We're very interested to see what happens when the next generation of chips and chipsets hits the market starting in January. But until then, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 should be your dual-core processor of choice."

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