original test
Full Version: AMD annihilates Intel in dual core benchmark tests
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
| QUOTE |
| A SO-CALLED "prizefight" set of benchmarks run by news.com has pitted a heavyweight champion against a dead lightweight failure, if the results are to be believed. News.com pitted AMD versus Intel dual core CPUs and tested areas including day to day computing, gaming, multitasking, photo editing, MP3 encoding, video encoding and bangs per buck, or price performance as others call it. |
| QUOTE |
| According to this, out of a total points of 100, AMD got 100 and Intel got zero. |
now does it surprise anyone that Intel had turned down the fight gauntlet for dual-core server prosessors?
Good to see, I don't like Intel anyways there chips are usually far to pricey.
Had 1 AMD, no never again. Too many problems with it.
I prefere Intel. Most games are based on Intel anyway
I prefere Intel. Most games are based on Intel anyway
| QUOTE |
Had 1 AMD, no never again. Too many problems with it. I prefere Intel. Most games are based on Intel anyway |
To each there own I guess, I mostly prefer AMD because Im a cheap bastard.
| QUOTE (Ratrap @ Dec 26 2005, 10:08 AM) |
| Had 1 AMD, no never again. Too many problems with it. I prefere Intel. Most games are based on Intel anyway |
.... *cries from laughter*
Pfff
Are you pffting me? *growls* 
| QUOTE (Ratrap @ Dec 26 2005, 10:08 AM) |
| Had 1 AMD, no never again. Too many problems with it. I prefere Intel. Most games are based on Intel anyway |
You probably had an Athlon XP .... those things ran hot enough to fry an egg and weren't particularly well supported.
The current generation of Athlon single and dual core processors run cool, quiet, stable and most importantly - flog the ass off their equivalent Intel rivals for speed. At the store I manage, we sell 5 AMD systems to 1 Intel. Don't get me wrong, the Intel systems we build run nice and stable, but the heat (and subsequent fan noise) coming from them is just unforgivable on Intels behalf.
The X2's (AMD dual core) are in a class of their own .... blisteringly fast, almost silent and still run nice and cool even with hefty overclocking.
As for "games are based on Intel" - I'll agree with Pikaporeon here with the laughter .... that hasn't been the case for quite some time.
I love my AMD 64, it runs cooler and quieter then my old Athlon XP. <3
awk.. cant wait to get to upgrade my computer.. want amd 64 x2 =) and some nice DDR2 with SATA2 HD's on RAID-0.. sweet speed =P
Im only running 3000+ venice at the moment, new ram next week and a dual core in about a month or so.
My 3800x2 has been running nicely. Especially coming up from an AMD 1700+ ;p
I'm still running that one, pikaporeon.. have overclocked it to around 2000+ though 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.