DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Intel Core 2 Duo vs AMD X2
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 40, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/20/2006 01:28:38 PM · #1
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


09/20/2006 01:22:04 PM · #2
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

09/11/2006 08:41:15 PM · #3
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.
09/11/2006 07:06:02 PM · #4
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 06:37:53 PM · #5
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..
09/07/2006 01:21:11 PM · #6
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.
09/07/2006 10:54:19 AM · #7
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 06:31:26 AM · #8
Originally posted by bod:

Dual Core CPU Buyers Guide


Thanks, looks very helpful ;-)
09/06/2006 11:54:42 AM · #9
Dual Core CPU Buyers Guide
09/05/2006 11:39:33 AM · #10
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.
09/05/2006 10:41:34 AM · #11
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 10:35:02 AM · #12
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 10:07:24 AM · #13
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 08:59:11 AM · #14
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 06:24:59 AM · #15
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 01:30:00 AM · #16
Originally posted by Bobster:

Originally posted by ionyou:

Wow I guess I shouldn't be too surprised to find misinformation about computer hardware in a photographer's forum but this is ridiculous.

#3: No 64bit won't make much of a difference in performance.
Hope this helps.


30-40% increase insn't much of a difference? and thats on 64bit apps running under XP64..


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.
09/04/2006 07:39:52 PM · #17
First the disclaimer: I've been a fan of AMD for a long time. I love my Athlon in my home machine.

With that said, my employer bought a new laptop for me a few months ago. While this machine predates the Core 2 Duo, it *does* have the Core Duo processor in it. So I can expect the Core 2 Duo to only be *faster*.

I process a LOT of raw images. I love RawShooter Premium because it has a very responsive UI while allowing me to turn out good looking images, straight out of the conversion without resorting to PhotoShop.

Well... on my old laptop (Pentium-M), and on my home machine (Athlon), the conversion process, while fast compared to other raw converters, was so slow that if I had 300 pictures to choose from, and I picked about 100 and applied appropriate settings to each, I would have to then wait for about 45 minutes for RSP to finish the conversion. (in other words, the UI was responsive enough, that I could get about 45 minutes ahead of the conversion process)

On my new laptop (Core Duo), I can barely get one or two images ahead of the converter! RSP is converting images *almost* as fast as I am reviewing them, selecting them, and applying settings to the ones I want.

I am *so* wanting a Core 2 Duo for home!!!

----

Edit to say: My guess is that the "dual processor" is what allows RSP on my laptop to provide not only a fast UI but also an ultra fast converter.

Message edited by author 2006-09-04 19:42:15.
09/04/2006 06:44:20 PM · #18
Originally posted by ionyou:

Wow I guess I shouldn't be too surprised to find misinformation about computer hardware in a photographer's forum but this is ridiculous.

#3: No 64bit won't make much of a difference in performance.
Hope this helps.


30-40% increase insn't much of a difference? and thats on 64bit apps running under XP64..
09/04/2006 05:09:21 PM · #19
Wow I guess I shouldn't be too surprised to find misinformation about computer hardware in a photographer's forum but this is ridiculous.

Here are a couple of useful links you can learn about computer hardware on. The first is the main site, and the second link are the forums for that site. You should be able to learn a lot just from using the search function on the forums.

Couple of quick facts before I go.
#1: Yes Intel Core Duo processors are faster than AMD's latest offerings.
#2: No AMD's processors do not run 'graphical' apps faster than Intel's
#3: No 64bit won't make much of a difference in performance.
#4: Yes Photoshop CS2 should see better performance under dual core processors.

//www.anandtech.com/

//forums.anandtech.com/

Hope this helps.
09/04/2006 04:52:16 PM · #20
Originally posted by Bobster:

i have spent along time thinking about upgrades (i'm waiting until next year and vista and 64bit apps hit the street)

Intel Dual Core - currently fastest kid on the block for 32bit Photoshop - but remember if you go this route you won't get the extra speed when everything goes 64bit next year, where those who have bought AMD will (looking at current 64bit apps) gain 30-40% speed increase.

so while those who buy Dual Core Intels will currently have a speed advantage - that will disapear by next year when those Opteron and X2 owners gain the full advatage of their systems..

if you don't mind and are willing to spend out another load of $$$ when everything goes 64bit by all means buy an Intel Dual Core ;)


Yup... last Thursday I built a Dual Core/Dual Processor, 1.8T (1.2T after RAID 5), 4G RAM server for work.

Took all day to initialize and install Windows Server 2003 x64, only to find that BackupExec doesn't support IA64 processors (not even in 32bit mode)...so needless to say I ended up spending another day re-initializing and loading Windows Server 2003 x86 version.

x64 OS and Processors rock but not everything is cool with em yet.
09/04/2006 03:49:14 PM · #21
Originally posted by Leok:

[quote=NovaTiger]
After all Apple are now using Intel - this new fast, efficient design is why. I'm sure Apple had a close look at AMD too...
yeah and they decided that AMD couldn't produce the volume of CPU's they needed at the cost they wanted..
09/04/2006 03:48:04 PM · #22
i have spent along time thinking about upgrades (i'm waiting until next year and vista and 64bit apps hit the street)

Intel Dual Core - currently fastest kid on the block for 32bit Photoshop - but remember if you go this route you won't get the extra speed when everything goes 64bit next year, where those who have bought AMD will (looking at current 64bit apps) gain 30-40% speed increase.

so while those who buy Dual Core Intels will currently have a speed advantage - that will disapear by next year when those Opteron and X2 owners gain the full advatage of their systems..

if you don't mind and are willing to spend out another load of $$$ when everything goes 64bit by all means buy an Intel Dual Core ;)
09/04/2006 09:10:30 AM · #23
I use an HP with Intel dual core 2.8 Ghz. The speed is a HUGE improvement running cs2 versus anything else that I have tried. I highly recommend it for any photo, video, or graphics work.
09/04/2006 08:37:28 AM · #24
before the intel core 2 duo i was a die hard amd fan getting through loads of amd shuttles and laptops but have just made a intel core 2 duo for my main pc and it was so good i swopped my laptop from a sempron to a core 2 duo, if anybody from the uk is looking into one the £599 laptop from tesco is the cheapest / bestest one i could find for the money, very good runs photo stuff faster then my old amd athalon 64bit main pc!
09/04/2006 03:18:31 AM · #25
Have a play around with the CPU comparison chart at Tom's Hardware. There's a few benchmarks using Photoshop to choose from, including a multitasking one.
I found that Intel did outperform AMD at the same pricepoint ... but you pay 2 to 3 times more for an Intel motherboard, or have to take a lower performance board which kinda defeats the objective.

As for power - my new AMD X2/Asus mobo combo scales the speed down when it isn't needed so that's worth looking out for on your mobo whichever way you go.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/25/2021 12:25:33 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/25/2021 12:25:33 AM EST.