Is this just Intel and AMD's version of the same thing?.

They are both "dual core" processors, "core duo" and "core 2 duo" is just a cute name for Intel's line of dual core processors. AMD uses the cute name of "X2" to designate a dual core CPU. Intel also has a chip "Core 2 Duo EXTREME" which actually has four working cores.

If I am not mistaken, all dual core processors in that last paragraph support 64-bit computing. I say "support" because, in reality, they are 32-bit processors with "64-bit extensions" which allow them to look, act and/or operate like a 64-bit processor.

Intel really is spanking the pants off of AMD and will continue to do so for at least the next 6 months (they've been doing it for approximately 6 months, also). They are using a smaller 65nm process on their chips (smaller = less heat + less power consumption) - AMD just released a chip that is also using 65nm process a week or two ago, but the Intel chips are still overall more powerful and benchmarking better with Windows XP than anything AMD has at market - Intel is offering the better bang-for-buck.

You will find a lot of "fan-boys" who like to bandwagon and say one chip is better than the other. If you encounter someone like this while shopping out, ask them WHY one is better than the other. As specific details - most cannot provide those details, they're just brand-loyal. In the computer world, there is very little room for brand loyalty if you want the best out there. Each line of CPU's has had shortcomings and strengths alike - the important part is knowing what those are (most people don't). Even I am at least a few weeks behind on this stuff a lot of the time (3-6 months with computers, your knowledge is obsolete).

Intel really is spanking the pants off of AMD and will continue to do so for at least the next 6 months (they've been doing it for approximately 6 months, also)...AMD just released a chip that is also using 65nm process a week or two ago, but the Intel chips are still overall more powerful and benchmarking better with Windows XP than anything AMD has at market - Intel is offering the better bang-for-buck.

Curious if this would be the same case with Vista...

As the current Intel chips are more powerful using XP, and Vista requires so much more sys resources, I would assume this to hold true.

I'm probably at least a year away from upgrading, however, when I do, I know that I will not be able to afford the fastest, most powerful, hot-diggity-doggest CPU. At that time, I will likely need to be looking at what is currently top-o-line chips and upgrade to Vista.

I am not read up well enough on Vista Benchmarks (not enough reputable ones out there). From what I've been reading, SLi with Vista isn't so hot. I expect that until it gets some heavy use, they will be ironing out bugs to get performance up. XP had its share of problems with drivers - CPU drivers, chipset drivers, etc. - and there were several downsides to an immediate upgrade in the first year or so after release.

Thanks shifty!. I'm still looking:crazy:

Shifty-

you are so right about the "fanboys".....the AMD lovers just need to admit defeat....Intel is spanking that ASS!!!!....AMD techs even admitted they are now about 18 months behind Intel. I myself have a FX60. But it's not as good as the basic 6600 from Intel. But cost is about the same and I don't have to buy a MB. But what are we talking really? If a system is good enough and can run 64 bit extensions, then I suggest keeping what you have now so investment isn't lost. Plus I'm not going to change over everything just because a newer configuration can render a 5 minute DVD 12 seconds faster.

I agree....but I'm a gamer at heart, so bigger, faster, better is always the goal and/or desire. No different from a gearhead who plays at the track :D

Intel has AMD by the balls right now but I suspect in the next year or so AMD will loosen that grip and spank Intel once again.
Core Duo can be single or dual core
Core2Duo is always dual core
Athlon X2 is always dual core
Athlon ####+ is never dual core without the X2
Pentium D is dual core
Pentium 4 is single core

AMD came out with the true consumer market dual core first and Intel needed something quick so they slapped 2 single cores together and called it dual core. These are the Athlon X2 versus Pentium D
Now with the Core2Duos Intel really kicked ass, my next computer build in the next few weeks with be a E6400 or 6600 (still deciding)

How much difference is there between AMD Athlon64 3800 and the Pentium D 915 processors for internet and email use?

in the case of those 2,
Performance-wise those two are even but when it comes to temperature, the 3800 will put off about half the heat and use half the power than the 915.

the Athlon64 ####+ is almost always better than the PentiumD's unless you're comparing a lowly 3200+ to a higher end 905 or something like that....
this is why I always suggest the Core2Duos anymore, a budget system can be built/had for around $500 for the E6300 yet this same budget cpu can spank 98% of cpus out there (AMD 4800+ X2 and the 5000+ X2 are the only ones that it can't at stock speed, although if it is overclocked to about 2GHz then it even beats them).

Thanks screwballl. I was just curious because I've never had a Atlon processor and I'm shopping for a really basic machine and one that still has XP on it. Most people say to wait for the bugs to get worked out of Vista so I'm still looking around.

AMD 3800+ = $~99 online
Pentium D 915 = ~$105 online
Pentium Core 2 Duo = $175 (E4300) or $185 (E6300)

You'll get more bang for the buck out of the latter of those three, for only $75 more, and have more future upgradability in case you wanted to do a lot more than email and surfing later.

I guess that's just my geek mentality talking though :D I just hate buying a processor that is already pretty much obsolete (The AMD 64 and AMD 64 X2 processors are obsolete and will not go higher than 4800+).

Thanks Shifty. I'll do an online search for those as well.

Those figures were pulled from www.newegg.com - my (and many others) preferred vendor for computer parts.

i have build a couple of computers for myself , usually lagging a year behind on the rest , the thing i notice with AMD is that windows gives a lot more bleu screens when running those .
i prefer intel processors never had problems with them and my puters run day and night

" (The AMD 64 and AMD 64 X2 processors are obsolete and will not go higher than 4800+)."[/QUOTE]


Shifty you are wrong here....you might want to clarify the socket. Yes the 939 is limited but the X2's are going full blast with the AM2 socket. Kinda pathetic though how my Dual Core FX-60 barely beats the 6400.

The AM2 socket (meaning Athlon 64 X2 cpus) are going to be here for another few years... there is talk of a Athlon64 6000+ X2 due out later this year and trying for consolidated 4 core on one die Athlon by sometime next year. The only thing from AMD that is dead is Socket 939 and older.

The Athlon64 simply blew away Intel (until the release of Core2Duos), the only reason Intel only lost 20% of the market versus the possible 40-50% loss is their marketing kept people buying them. Their Celerons through vendors like Dell were one of the few things keeping Intel from dropping like a rock with the market share.
LINK (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37509) - AMD is getting ready to make some price cuts to most of their Athlon/Sempron line and also going to announce the Athlon64 6000+
"The X2 6000+ will initially be priced at $465, the X2 5400+ at $267, and the X2 5600+ at $326" (vendor prices, retail prices will be higher).

Newegg has a 5600+ for sale (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103771)

As for "more blue screens on AMD than Intel" is rooted from the days of Socket 7 and 370. Ever since the AMD released the Thunderbird and AthlonXP, they have shown to be more stable than Intels, especially the super-hot space heater high end Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds.

One of my favorite PC forums is Hardware Logic. Loads of information and plenty of help for people needing it.

Shifty you are wrong here....you might want to clarify the socket. Yes the 939 is limited but the X2's are going full blast with the AM2 socket.

Agreed, and I apologize for being so vague. I'm a little bitter about the 939 pahse-out, AMD announced it 6-8 weeks after I built my new rig and left me feeling pretty well shafted with a dead-end CPU.



As for "more blue screens on AMD than Intel" is rooted from the days of Socket 7 and 370. Ever since the AMD released the Thunderbird and AthlonXP, they have shown to be more stable than Intels, especially the super-hot space heater high end Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds.



:agree:

I believe whattayaknow is another victim of VIA. Seems like damned near all of the big motherboards coming out during the huge AMD craze a few years ago used VIA chipsets, and, in an amateur builder's hands, the stupid VIA drivers and/or hardware would cause so many blue screens it wasn't funny. I can't tell you how many people I helped reinstall (or install the first time) the 4-in-1 drivers and miniport drivers for the VIA chipsets.

It probably wasn't AMD causing the blue screens. It was most likely the VIA hardware not liking the order, method, or presence of specific drivers on your system.

it where motherboards with via chipsets yes , from wat i remembered i did install the new VIA drivers for it .
i didnt liked the puter as it crashed at the most inconvenient times so i took it apart and gave the motherboard to my dad , he got it to run stable and does midi stuff on it , i bought a p 3 upgradekit build it intoo the case with the hardwhare from the last computer and thats the puter i still use today , its fast enough for me i usually put in lots of memory in my computers to make it faster.

does anyone know wish version of vista to take im running windows XP profesional now , dont need office stuff like exel and word and i use thirth party stuff to get newsservers watch movies and pictures and explorer to surf the net

You're running a Pentium3 and asking about Vista? NOOOOOOOOOO, not gonna work

The minimum suggested stuff for Vista from a computer tech perspective:
Athlon64 3000+ or better (SocketA 2800+ or better does work decent)
1GB RAM or more
128MB AGP or PCI-e video card or better
80GB hard drive or better, preferably SATA

I have a Beta of Vista running on a 3000+ with 512MB of memory but shared with the video so it is actually seen as 384MB memory and 128MB for video. It runs but not great. The video card is a must nowadays, and STRONGLY suggested for Vista. Certain special features will not even work if it sees less than 513MB of memory and less than 65MB of video memory.


As for VIA, yeah I forgot about that sad excuse of a chipset... been so long that I have never even looked back, most of mine for the past half a decade have been AMD (AMD761) or nVidia nForce or Intel

i had made a long winding text the first time about me having to get a new computer specially to run vista but deleted that part because of the topic , i was however curious about wish version would be bestfor me

Home Basic edition should be fine for you based on what you said you do in your previous post.

If you have a previous XP disc, just get the upgrade version, backup your shtuff, format the hard drive, start the install from the upgrade disc, at one point it should ask you to insert a previous windows version disc which is when you put in the XP disc.. from there everything else should run fine.

so that will also work with a "this XP disk has been put on to many computers "disk , thanks for the tip i upgraded that way to my first XP too

Because you're not going to be asked to type in the license key for the XP disc for the Vista upgrade, you shouldn't have a problem with "too many installs".

I haven't done an upgrade for Vista - it might do a WGA check on the system you're installing - I would not put it past Microsoft.

Intel has just made a 80 core processor. And yest the Zero after the "8" is correct. They said it won't be ready for a few years but this just goes to show where Intel really is in its development compared to AMD. AMD I'm afraid better lower prices all accross the board if they even want to compete.

AMD and Intel are supposed to be going two completely separate ways on their respective architectures. AMD is taking a huge gamble on the route they are pursuing supposedly, but ... if they pull off what they're saying they're going to pull off, the market between Intel and AMD is going to pull tight again within the next 12 months, and AMD will be doing well for months to follow.