What's the consensous bang for buck AMD or Intel dual core?

[Retard]

I know that Intel has a far faster processor clock-for-clock than AMD, but I believe you can get a much higher clocked AMD for the same amount of money.

What is the best dual core processor bang for buck wise? INCLUDING the cost of the motherboards (Intel based mobos used to cost a good bit more than AMD ones, not sure if that is still the case).

Thanks.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

AMD = INTC based on MSRP. $70 E2160 should be able to hit 3.0GHz with a capable MB like $70 AR Abit IP35-E at MWAVE. AMD doesn't have anything on the pipeline that can keep up with an overclocked 3.0GHz C2D chip.

 

[Retard]

Thanks serpent. That motherboard looks like its $89.99 at mwave----you talking about some other place?

And I think you are saying based on overclockability the E2160 beast any AMD chip in bang for buch category, right?

Thanks again.

 

[AllGamer]

i say wait until fall season, when they release new CPUs

then decide

from buzz AMD might take the lead again, but right now as of today, Intel still has the lead

 

[MarcVenice]

Based on overclockibility yes. This thread, http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2089329&enterthread=y shows how AMD fairs though. For fairly cheap

 

[kokal]

I also can't agree with Serpent that AMD don't do fine with cheap CPUs. Look at this review Anandtech had recently. F3 Windors and BE2300 are cheap dual cores from AMD that offer similar or better performance than Intel based 2xxx series. Only problem I see is that most cheap boards do 350-360 HTT and will support Barcelona based Phenoms in future but you will have to buy processors with 9-10 multiplier to hit 3000+ Mhz speeds. With Intel you can get P965 Based MB for around 100-130$ that will hold to 450+ FSBs. Anyway if you need a pc now I would go either AMD because they are cheap or Intel and buy P35 based motherboard and upgrade next year to quad. There is a Jetway M25GT6-SG motherboard that I had my hands on recently which did 300x10 with F2 Windsor but couldnt get it stable - the MB is 76$ and with F3 should be enough to hit 3000 Mhz similar to Biostar TF560 A2+ which is around 20-30$ above it( prices may differ in your part of the world )

 

[bryanW1995]

I read a thread yesterday with an AT member, lopri, who got 3.2 on his windsor 3800+ with a uATX board. That would beat a 2160 at 3.0 in just about anything, and should be about the same money. All of the brisbanes seem to get great oc's, too.

EDIT to mention that the amd is faster clock for clock than the pentium e.

 

[Accord99]

The 1.8GHz Pentium E2160 matches up quite well vs the 2.1GHz BE-2350 Brisbane, so I would say a 3GHz E2160 would still be faster than a 3.2GHz Windsor:
http://www.digit-life.com/arti...-e2140-2160-page3.html

 

[Retard]

Haha, you guys are so far ahead of me knowledge wise I'm confused already


So is it safe to say that the E2160 and an accompanying mobo, if not THE best in the bang for the buck category, is at least very strongly in the running?

 

[CurseTheSky]

Basically, it comes down to what you're going to do with it.

If you're going to keep it at stock speeds (at least for a long time), go with whatever is best at stock performance - that's pretty easy to figure out. If you're going to overclock, you have to factor in how easily a processor overclocks, then figure in how much you're going to spend on a decent overclocking motherboard, memory, and heatsink. That gets a bit more tricky.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: Retard
Thanks serpent. That motherboard looks like its $89.99 at mwave----you talking about some other place?

And I think you are saying based on overclockability the E2160 beast any AMD chip in bang for buch category, right?

Thanks again.

$90 plus $20 rebate = $70 AR.

Yup, overclock the E2160 up to at least 3.0GHz and it will blow away virtually all current offerings from AMD.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: kokal
I also can't agree with Serpent that AMD don't do fine with cheap CPUs. Look at this http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3051">review</a> Anandtech had recently. F3 Windors and BE2300 are cheap dual cores from AMD that offer similar or better performance than Intel based 2xxx series. Only problem I see is that most cheap boards do 350-360 HTT and will support Barcelona based Phenoms in future but you will have to buy processors with 9-10 multiplier to hit 3000+ Mhz speeds. With Intel you can get P965 Based MB for around 100-130$ that will hold to 450+ FSBs. Anyway if you need a pc now I would go either AMD because they are cheap or Intel and buy P35 based motherboard and upgrade next year to quad. There is a Jetway M25GT6-SG motherboard that I had my hands on recently which did 300x10 with F2 Windsor but couldnt get it stable - the MB is 76$ and with F3 should be enough to hit 3000 Mhz similar to Biostar TF560 A2+ which is around 20-30$ above it( prices may differ in your part of the world )

Are you saying that a 3.0GHz AMD is faster than an E2160, also at 3.0GHz?

 

[kokal]

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal

Originally posted by: kokal
I also can't agree with Serpent that AMD don't do fine with cheap CPUs. Look at this http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3051">review</a> Anandtech had recently. F3 Windors and BE2300 are cheap dual cores from AMD that offer similar or better performance than Intel based 2xxx series. Only problem I see is that most cheap boards do 350-360 HTT and will support Barcelona based Phenoms in future but you will have to buy processors with 9-10 multiplier to hit 3000+ Mhz speeds. With Intel you can get P965 Based MB for around 100-130$ that will hold to 450+ FSBs. Anyway if you need a pc now I would go either AMD because they are cheap or Intel and buy P35 based motherboard and upgrade next year to quad. There is a Jetway M25GT6-SG motherboard that I had my hands on recently which did 300x10 with F2 Windsor but couldnt get it stable - the MB is 76$ and with F3 should be enough to hit 3000 Mhz similar to Biostar TF560 A2+ which is around 20-30$ above it( prices may differ in your part of the world )

Are you saying that a 3.0GHz AMD is faster than an E2160, also at 3.0GHz?

First sorry for the broken link above I corrected it. I am not saying that that AMD is faster - Anandtech are showing some results and AMD have a minimal lead in performance in games - not synthetic benchmarks. If you look from this point both E2xxx and X2 3800, BE2300 feature 1MB or 2x512KB Cache - they perform similar at same speeds. I think AMD's lead is based on the fact that they have an OnDie Memory Controller as you all know. So I would say that for gaming on the cheap I would go with AMD. But If I were to spent more money on hardware I would go with Intel and 6xxx series or what I think should be choice now - Q6600 G0.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Accord99
The 1.8GHz Pentium E2160 matches up quite well vs the 2.1GHz BE-2350 Brisbane, so I would say a 3GHz E2160 would still be faster than a 3.2GHz Windsor:
http://www.digit-life.com/arti...-e2140-2160-page3.html

yeah, uh, right...pentium e is faster by 10% or so...whoops

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: kokal

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal

Originally posted by: kokal
I also can't agree with Serpent that AMD don't do fine with cheap CPUs. Look at this http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3051">review</a> Anandtech had recently. F3 Windors and BE2300 are cheap dual cores from AMD that offer similar or better performance than Intel based 2xxx series. Only problem I see is that most cheap boards do 350-360 HTT and will support Barcelona based Phenoms in future but you will have to buy processors with 9-10 multiplier to hit 3000+ Mhz speeds. With Intel you can get P965 Based MB for around 100-130$ that will hold to 450+ FSBs. Anyway if you need a pc now I would go either AMD because they are cheap or Intel and buy P35 based motherboard and upgrade next year to quad. There is a Jetway M25GT6-SG motherboard that I had my hands on recently which did 300x10 with F2 Windsor but couldnt get it stable - the MB is 76$ and with F3 should be enough to hit 3000 Mhz similar to Biostar TF560 A2+ which is around 20-30$ above it( prices may differ in your part of the world )

Are you saying that a 3.0GHz AMD is faster than an E2160, also at 3.0GHz?

First sorry for the broken link above I corrected it. I am not saying that that AMD is faster - Anandtech are showing some results and AMD have a minimal lead in performance in games - not synthetic benchmarks. If you look from this point both E2xxx and X2 3800, BE2300 feature 1MB or 2x512KB Cache - they perform similar at same speeds. I think AMD's lead is based on the fact that they have an OnDie Memory Controller as you all know. So I would say that for gaming on the cheap I would go with AMD. But If I were to spent more money on hardware I would go with Intel and 6xxx series or what I think should be choice now - Q6600 G0.

My point is that one should be able to overclock the E2160 to 3.0GHz or higher. At that speed, it is faster than the BE2300...with or without benchies!!! The C2D architechture is more efficient than the K8.

Very few AMD CPUs can break 3.0GHz. About 50% of the E2160 should be able to crack 3.2GHz.

 

[dreddfunk]

I don't see the e2160 for $70 anywhere online. The cheapest I can find is at buy.com for $86.99.

If I could find an e2160 for $70, I'd probably scrounge the money for it somewhere.

 

[SickBeast]

On a new platform, intel is a better value IMO (but that might change with Barcelona).

For someone with a Socket 939/AM2 rig, it's way better value to just upgrade to a better AMD chip. The same goes for someone with an intel rig.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
I don't see the e2160 for $70 anywhere online. The cheapest I can find is at buy.com for $86.99.

If I could find an e2160 for $70, I'd probably scrounge the money for it somewhere.

Special promo few weeks back. Same with E4300 at Fry's for $78.

 

[dreddfunk]

Serpent - that's cool. Unfortunately I don't have a Fry's anywhere near me (living in the Saint Louis are), so online deals are the only ones I have available to me. *Sigh*

SickBeast - I generally agree there, though I'd leave 939 out of the equation. Since 939 uses DDR (not DDR2) and there are very few 939 CPUs left out there, you don't have many easy upgrade options. The first means that you can't just upgrade your MB and CPU, without getting different RAM (except in the special case of using some ASRock MBs that allow DDR and Core 2s). The second means that there aren't many options for just upgrading your CPU. If you've got an old single-core, you can pick up a cheap, low-end dual core, but that's about it for the 939 upgrades out there. Unless you can find someone selling off faster 939 dual-cores on FS/FT. If you're like me (754) or have a 939 of any speed at all, then you're looking at an entirely new platform anyway. But you're right, that anyone with an AM2 platform is likely better off just getting a better CPU and/or overclocking.

I've been tempted to just get a MB that allows me to use my current fast DDR, but DDR2 prices are so cheap right now that if I upgrade at all, I'll get new RAM.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

E4300 deal was online. They go FASSST.