Next Gen CPUs: AMD's Socket AM2 Lineup and Intel's Core2 CPUs
 

I've been battling with myself for a while now on the issue of processors. AMD's new AM2 Processors are supposed to be great, but I've heard that they are having a slow start, with only minimal imrpovements. On the otherhand, Intel's Core2 CPUs have been tested against the high-end AMD CPUs, and even with a lower clock speed, perform better. Hopefully AM2 CPUs will start to pick up speed.

In addition, AMD is cutting prices signifigantly this month to compete with the performance of the Core2 processors. This means more bang for your buck, even though Intel will have the upper edge on performance.

It appears that Intel is focusing not so much on clockspeed, but instead FSB, caches, and other things that contribute to the overall performance of a CPU. I'd like to see both though; a large advancement in clockspeed and cache/whatnot, but I guess that would = $$$.

In this thread we discuss the two leading CPU developers, and debate the pros/cons of each.

I also have one question for you. Having only ever owned a Celeron, I have little first-hand experience with the high-end CPUs. Assuming my video card is allpowerfull, would a system with an AMD X2 4200 AM2 or equivalent CPU handle modern/next gen games at full settings with ease? I realize that CPUs have little to do with this, but my little experience with them makes me ask.

I'm not up really for debating the two brand's models right now, but as for your question, yes. My system is running that exact same proccessor you mentioned with a Geforece 7900 GT and 2 GB RAM and it can play all the modern games I have (Battlefield 2, FEAR, Half-Life 2) on all high settings with all effects on.

And what (roughly) is your FPS, and do you think that that CPU will be able to handle the next generation of games (while still on max settings)?

I don't have an exact FPS measurment, but it's enough to ensure the games can run smoothly to the point that I don't notice any studder, so if I were to guess anywhere from 50-60. Pretty sure it will handle next-gen games to, I assume your talking about stuff like UT2K7 and Quake Wars?

Yeah. Thanks, it's good to know that it will be effective for a while.

Here is great article on high-end gaming with both CPU's in comparison.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
It's really easy to get caught up in the numbers game, but you can see in the above link that both CPU's give actual game performance almost identical. Now you must also check out this too.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...hlbnRodXNpYXN0
Here you can see how the Core 2 Duo is just pushing more raw number crunching than AMD. This is very important for encoding and the like.

I would advise you to get what you want. An AMD X2 is going to blow your socks off with speed, especially if you have a threaded application. But 995 out of 1000 games are not multithreaded, so for gaming, its a moot argument. If you go with the Core 2 Duo, you will be very happy as well.

A quick check here -> http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA== <- and we can see the best bang4buck is the E6600 Core 2 Duo @ $316, and we can see here -> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ubcategory=343 <- that the AMD X2 4200 is $358 (and will probably drop a bit soon). So take your bets and pick.

BTW, I think i'd get a Core 2 Duo...

Is this the same thing as the new generation AMD QuadCore crap that I was reading about in a random magazine earlier? I dunno because I just saw that and I was like, god damn. But still....a little competition has never hurt the consumer. Sweet, I might be looking forward to build a fresh computer to replace this Dell once my graphics card becomes genuinely outdated. It's a GeForce 6600GT....lol....and what I mean by outdated is when the games I want to run no longer run at an acceptable level. (20FPS or lower)

Between a buddy and I, we've done a TON of research on this topic. We've basically chosen each specific part of our new computers already.

The Core2 Duo (everyone calls it by it's codename, Conroe) is at the heart of our new systems. There's been countless benchmarks I've read, and they are nothing short of totally amazing. For example, the 2.7GHz version of Conroe (est. price: $600) outperforms AMD's new FX-62 which retails for like $1500.

The biggest "feature" of the Conroe architechture is the overclockability. I've seen screenshots posted by the Intel gurus of hardforum.com over INSANE clock speeds with a simple replacement of a new heatsink. Anywhere beween 2.4GHz to 4.0Ghz was completely possible and stable.

As far as I know, AM2 changes NOTHING in relation to speed over S939 versions of the same chip. AM2 chips are simply S939 chips that use less wattage and require (slower) DDR2. If anything, performance has decreased because of the new RAM.

For me, it's Conroe all the way. This is quite shocking to me because I've been an AMD fanboy since the 486 days.

I think that's AMD's counter to the Conroe, and it's called 4x4 something. It's basically 2 Dual-Core chips on the same board, which gives you 4 phisical processors, and an additional 4 logical processors, for a total of 8 "CPU"s, I guess you could say. It is indeed impressive, but it will cost quite a bit.

I am hoping that AMD bust out some new chips that aren't just the same ones with different socket. As I said before, the AM2 socket appears to be moving slowly, but, but maybe some new CPUs for AM2 will come out that really are improved over 939.

I'm also a fan of AMD, so this pressure to switch to Intel is really difficult. The difference between the X2 and the Conroe is pure numbers, and both will perform as amazing as anyone would want. However, if AMD cuts their CPU prices by 50% (which is rumored), an X2 at about $200 is very tempting, even over the $316 Conroe. You've got to remember; Is the increased performance of the Conroe actually going to be noticable over the X2? I mean, you'll get better benchmark numbers, but as far as doing the things to do from day to day (games, encoding, etc), I don't think you'll be able to say "Wow, this Conroe sure is better than my X2".

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/...md4x4_diag.jpg

Jeez....this is crazy. I don't know how this is going to work, but if its anything like the pic above, then I'm all set. Not to downplay the Conroe, but this is VERY IMPRESSIVE if it's exactly how it's supposed to work.

That image is a little wrong.. but I think you get it. It's simply a motherboard with 2 sockets for 2 processors. The fact you could put dual core CPUs in that thing is a bonus. Also, I see that being retardedly expensive for something that just isn't necessarily going to increase the speed of the system.

edit: it's TWO sockets for TWO processors. my bad

AFAIK the Core Due 2 beats the shit out of the X2 at the moment, in every possible way (heat produced, price, watts eaten, and of course performance), but AMD has that "Reverse Hyperthreading" hidden feature for which they are currently making drivers for, which can possibly be a huge hit in some applications.

If I was informed right, it will allow both cores to be used with only 1 thread, so applications not supporting the dualcore function will be able to use the power of both cores.

I've been all about the AMD since they first hit the market, but next time I buy a CPU, I'm going to pick whichever next generation model runs coolest. That's more important than raw horsepower to me.

But AMD will soon have price on their side.

That sounds great, if it's true, but I guess we have to wait and see.

What can I say? The Core 2 lineup is impressive not just in terms of price/performance, but power consumption as well... AMD will cut prices again, I'm sure, but it's nice to see Intel become competitive again. I'd buy their stuff just to endorse the death of NetBurst (can't come fast enough in my opinion).

Then again, I'll be buying Apple's Intel boxes, so I guess I don't actually have much of a choice, do I? Just good to see that Apple wasn't wrong when they said Intel had the best looking roadmap.

I would honestly conisder getting a Core2 Duo, except I heard prices are going to be high until this fall (or even later) due to the OEMs hogging the CPUs. AM2 is not going to be as fast, but we could be getting more bang for the buck.

Here's a price list of almost all current AMD 64bit processors with their current and post-July 24 price cut:

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/2...icing_1023.png
Tempting, isn't it?

Their X2-5000 is going to be $282? Holy crap! This is CPU war and the consumers are getting the benefit :D all the way to the bank...

Those are some surprising price drops. However, the lower end Intel 6600 outperforms even the FX-62 in every aspect and is expected to be around $300. That is still a better bang for your buck than a X2-5000+ for $282. We're also talking introductory prices to a whole new line of Intel chips. I would expect a price drop of the Intel chips in a very short time after they have improved their yields and such.

Availability on these Core 2 Duo's is gonna be the biggest thing for early adopters. We'll see if Intel pulls out the stops on fabbing these things. That 6600 does look soooooo good too doesn't it? Then again, an X2-4200 for around $175 is absurdly good for the price...

Where did you hear that? The Core2 CPUs are actually really cheap.

Well, the prices that Intel sets are cheap. A lack of supply and a high demand will drive up prices for the end user at the beginning—that's just basic economics. If a retailer can charge more and still move units because some people want 'em, why not take the extra profit? Once units become more plentiful, prices will go down.

Even if retailers decide to charge more, you can sometimes get them for wholesale/near-whole sale prices (if you know the right people, or buy from the right place). I don't expect the Core2 prices to be much higher than the prices that Intel sets.

I must admit, my AMD obsession (created after the Willamette Core, the orginal Pentium 4 failed to impress) plays a part in my choice. But all in all I'll be getting much more of a better deal than I would've before 7/24.

If I were building a regular powerful PC, i'd get a Core 2 Duo as it's simply the better processor in all aspects. I love AMD and their initiative over the last few years but at present, none of their CPUs can compete with what Intel has to offer. The 4x4 plan though has the potential to radicalise how people plan their machine builds. Imagine dropping in a dual-core Opteron in one socket, and in the adjacent socket plugging in a specific co-processor for whatever your needs were; rendering, physics, anything. For me, this would be a godsend. Anyone who knows much about 3D design knows that hardware-based rendering systems are tens or hundreds of times faster than workstations with CPUs alone. If I had a rendering coprocessor my productivity would fly through the roof, and for a lot less money than buying ten separate workstations and networking them together.

The possibilities are endless. I recall that in the dim and distant past, Macs used to have a socket somewhere in the machine where dedicated graphics coprocessors could be plugged in. I don't know if they still have that feature, but it was a good idea then and I think it is high time for a return of that idea.