Intel Core 2 Duo's have 2MB or 4MB Cache VS AMD's Athlon 64X2 which only has 512 or 1 MB. Also Intel has a FSB of 1065MHZ vs AMD FSB of 1800 MHZ (or something close to this). This question is meant for the desktops processors only.
2007-02-12 14:11:08 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Computers & Internet ➔ Hardware ➔ Desktops
Intel Core 2 Duo now performs faster than AMD Athlon X2. The cache is meant to store temporary data, the bigger it is, the better it will be. Anyways, one of Intel's current processor can also be overclocked to an amazing speed which can save you a lot of money. Go to www.tomshardware.com for more information regarding the overclock process.
2007-02-12 14:17:41 · answer #1 · answered by ronaldo1287 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We computer enthusiasts are funny people when it comes to talking about Intel & AMD.
They are both fine manufacturers of excellent processors, yet most seem quick to condemn one or the other.
If you find a good deal on AMD PCs go for an X2-4600+ or greater.
If you find a good deal on Intel PCs go for an E6400 or greater.
Either with at least 2GB of RAM & a video card with 256MB of onboard (not shared) memory.
This will get you a PC with powerhouse graphic, multimedia & multitasking capabilities.
It doesn't matter whether it's Intel or AMD.... they are both fine companies & make excellent & equally reliable processors.
Both their products are used by Fortune 1000 companies for workstations & servers. There is no bad or good & neither is better than the other ... such criticism should be processor & not brand specific.
Yes, Intel presently makes the fastest home CPU on the market (the quad core), however, that is not a logical reason to buy strictly Intel.
That would be like telling you you should only buy Chevrolet because they make the fastest car in the U.S......the Corvette ........ nonsense.
regards,
Philip T
2007-02-12 15:06:11 · answer #2 · answered by Philip T 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Based on the link provided by the first person the AMD offers way better value and performance. Which is what i have also heard from others.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html
Why s/he would say it sucks i have no idea. maybe s/he didnt actually read the link, maybe s/he got the data around the wrong way. AMD seems to be the way to go - at least based on the linked review.
Curious to see what else comes up here as i am interested in this question as well.
2007-02-12 14:47:19 · answer #3 · answered by darklydrawl 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
that E2160 will KILL the AMD once you overclock it previous 3.0Ghz it truly is very possible on inventory cooling. and what's with the guy that announces that the AMD will burn CDs speedier? Are you loopy? That has to do with the speed of your optical force, no longer the CPU...
2016-11-27 19:20:08 · answer #4 · answered by barnhardt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Intel core 2 duo is way way better!!! IN every way, amd sucks in every way!! never get amd
2007-02-12 14:17:29 · answer #5 · answered by Romashkin 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋