| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2006 06:24:59 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by ionyou:
First of all, that's just blatantly false, it's more like 10-15% on average. Only floating point operations see ~30% improvement. Secondly, by the time 64 bit apps become widely in use, so will both manufacturer's 64bit capable chips. On the Intel side of things Core Duo is 32-bit, while Core 2 Duo is 64-bit. |
so filters and processing RAW images don't use floating point?
and like i said if you want to spend more money and upgrade to a 64bit CPU next year get a Duo now.. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 08:59:11 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bobster:
if you don't mind and are willing to spend out another load of $$$ when everything goes 64bit by all means buy an Intel DualCore ;) |
Core 2 is 64 bit.
More specifically, you seem to be confusing, or not aware of the differences in the various Intel Core lines. The original Core/Core Duo units are 32 bit, being more directly derived from the Pentium M.
The Core 2 Duo is a 64 bit processor, and is currently the king of CPU performance, and I believe also leads in performance per watt metrics(which correspondes to thermal dissipation).
On topic: The fastest Core 2's are faster then the fastest Athlon64X2s. That said, the Athlon 64X2's are hardly slouches. You will pay a premium obviously at the fastest end of things, Intel's being slightly more(about 200$ currently on Newegg comparing the top end Intel Core 2 Extreme Edition vs the Athlon 64 FX-62)
3rd Edit:
BTW, do not mess with processor affinity if you don't know what you are doing/have a specific reason to. I am not 100% positive on XP's behavior in this regard, but if you lock the affinity and it also locks the child processes to that processor, it means you'll effectivly cause your app to run as though you were on a single core/processor. There are some cases where an app may have issues if it gets split across multiple cores, which is when you would want to set affinity, but otherwise, you should not do so. You should definately not do so for the Photoshop executable.
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 09:18:39. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 10:07:24 AM · #28 |
The original poster doesn't really need to be concerned with the real or imagined superiority of one processor type over the other.
As I said earlier, jumping up from an AMDK6-2 to any modern full processor (as opposed to the current versions of the Celeron and Sempron series processors from Intel and AMD)will provide a significant boost in productivity that will feel almost beyond measure.
What the OP needs to ask is, "How much money am I willing/interested in spending?"
If saving money is important and there is a need to save some of tha tmoney for future upgradeability in terms of OS and Software packages, then the clear choice is the most for the money.
From what I understand of the latest in pricing, the most power for the money happens to be in the AMD camp with the 64X2 Processors.
Everything else is secondary, tertiary or hardly relevant in regards to how much money one is willing or able to spend. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 10:35:02 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by pgirish007:
With my understanding and what I know, Intel processor are mainly designed for numerical calculations where as AMD processor are mainly for graphical and multimedia purpose. I did notice the difference between Intel processor and AMD processor, I noticed my self that playing same graphical application on both the systems, AMD works well as compare to Intel. |
Actually incorrect...
For several years now until very recently the AMD processors have in fact been superior in numerical calculations to Intel's. Only with the Core2 has Intel regained numerical calculations.
In fact, it was AMD's faster performance with floating point math (decimals) that gave it the advantages in the graphic arena.
Most math done on computers falls into one of two categories. Integer (whole numbers 4+4=8 4x4=16) or Floating Point (decimals 2.2x1.06=2.332). Many things simply rely on the Integer. But many complex tasks are more reliant on the floating point.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 10:41:34 AM · #30 |
| CNN has reported that Intel is cutting 20000 jobs to reduce costs, as it is losing market share to AMD. HP has started using AMD, and now Dell has placed a large order with AMD, which is a bad sign for Intel. In almost every benchmark tests I have seen, AMD seems to clearly beat Intel. However, it is better to have a decent processor and a lot of RAM and HD space and a powerful graphics card, than to have the latest and greatest processor and not have enough of the other essentials. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 11:39:33 AM · #31 |
From what I understand the Core 2 Duos are currently the fastest all-around chips right now and are "faster" than the current Socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2s. But keep in mind that AMD has a few things up it's sleeve for the next couple of quarters. In comparison to the Dual Core Pentium D's, the 9xx series, the Athlon 64 x2s were definitely the clear winner in all around processing IMO. I know that both AMD and Intel already have plans for even Quad Cores coming the first quarter of next year. Ahould be an interesting battle. This is an exciting time for processors, there's a good healthy competition and that only means we as the consumers win and get the benefits.
For the poster, go with whatever the best price/performance combo best suits you. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:54:42 AM · #32 |
|
|
|
09/07/2006 06:31:26 AM · #33 |
Thanks, looks very helpful ;-) |
|
|
|
09/07/2006 10:54:19 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by ignite:
CNN has reported that Intel is cutting 20000 jobs to reduce costs, as it is losing market share to AMD. HP has started using AMD, and now Dell has placed a large order with AMD, which is a bad sign for Intel. |
AMD also bought out ATI, so there's yet another hit to Intel. I am personally an AMD fan and only have an intel CPU right now because it's in my laptop. For what it's worth, if/when I build myself a desktop, it will have an AMD in it.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2006 01:21:11 PM · #35 |
Personally, I'm looking to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo at some point, and I like Athlon's a lot too. But the thermal characteristics of the Core architecture are thus far noticibly better then the Athlon64s which means less cooling required which means a quieter machine, which I've come to value a lot over time, from my full tower heavily OC'd jet engine noise cooling days. It's a moment of epiphany filled with wrong when you realize you can hear your machine over the vacuum cleaner.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2006 06:37:53 PM · #36 |
| ahhh i stand corrected with the Dual Core Duo - didin't see the Core 2, right now i'd go that route, AMD needs to release its next line of CPU's to counter Intel, but until that happens 64bit Duo is king of the hill.. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 07:06:02 PM · #37 |
| Anybody looking to upgrade at the moment would be well advised to wait if that upgrade requires new memory. As I mentioned in another thread, RAM prices have shot up (+35% on the sticks I bought) over the last week due to a combination of component shortages and the big system builders putting together their christmas stock. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:41:15 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by bod:
Anybody looking to upgrade at the moment would be well advised to wait if that upgrade requires new memory. As I mentioned in another thread, RAM prices have shot up (+35% on the sticks I bought) over the last week due to a combination of component shortages and the big system builders putting together their christmas stock. |
Yep!
FWIW, I usually time my system builds for January/February/March, when prices drop after the Xmas rush :-)
that timing is looking particularly fruitful this coming year, and given that this box is going to be 4 years old then, I'm planning to build a complete new box in Q1 '07. |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 01:22:04 PM · #39 |
Hi dear friends STOP MADNESS AND READ IT!!???
BEST INTEL / AMD i will research it and get a result intel is Better
I am an 3d modeler and photoshope designer
My studio palced two systems
one Amd's Popular X2* other one Intel core 2Duo
I am manualy test two processors is the better and winner INTEL.
Please read More Other comparisions:
please Full read and press under of the page Next>>>
//www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014685,00.asp
|
|
|
|
09/20/2006 01:28:38 PM · #40 |
INTEL CORE 2 DUO THE BETTER ?????
Yes intel is better in dual core this is not a joke it's true
i am a old user of AMD x2 (old mean some weeks)
i will compare it Must And Must Winner intel I LOVE IT
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:11:38 PM EDT.
