Processor · DIGIT-ARC

which processor is better?
AMD Athlon64 X2 6000+
OR
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700?
and y?

i guess E6700 is better.

I voted for E6700

though availibility of Both are Hard to find in India (Kolkata).... X2 5200 what they are manage to find, while E6600 is common,

anyway, now Y E6700 is better ??

Here is why, *www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/

well the athlon 6000+ runs at 3.0 ghz with 2 Mb L2 cache whereas the e6700 runs at 2.66ghz with 4mb shared l2 cache

nvidia8800 said:
well the athlon 6000+ runs at 3.0 ghz with 2 Mb L2 cache whereas the e6700 runs at 2.66ghz with 4mb shared l2 cache

That does not tell that 6000+ is better , E6700 will beat it anytime so if you've got the bucks , go for the E6700

nvidia8800 said:
well the athlon 6000+ runs at 3.0 ghz with 2 Mb L2 cache whereas the e6700 runs at 2.66ghz with 4mb shared l2 cache

Lol.. anyway in that case, E6300 a 1.86 GHz 2 MB L2 procy beats Intel Pentium Dual Core 3.8 GHz with 2x2MB L2 with ease :lol:

one more point, even AMD X2 comes with Double of L1 Cache Memory but still C2D's are much faster than X2

but yes, with Normal Desktop computting u wont feel the difference

V

E6700

c'mon evrybody i need more votes

nvidia8800 said:
c'mon evrybody i need more votes

Sounds like u are running for Election :lol:

I also have question related to this
will Intel E6700 works faster than Intel Pentium D 3.4Ghz

I

satyamy said:
I also have question related to this
will Intel E6700 works faster than Intel Pentium D 3.4Ghz

wow i cant believe someone is asking such a dumb question. of course dufus, it works faster than ur so-called brain also.

Intel Core 2 duo... (ting...ting... ting ting)

Choto Cheeta said:
but yes, with Normal Desktop computting u wont feel the difference

What about gaming??? AMDs wont make you cry if you use them to play the latest games???

cynosure said:
What about gaming??? AMDs wont make you cry if you use them to play the latest games???

Well like Running top 8800 in SLI with two 30" HD Display !! then i think running top of the line games in Full performance will make some difference !!

games are good enough in both the pros

Is this thread a joke, why are we comparing two random pocessors, the E6700 I guess is much costlier than 6000+.
E6700 is a better processor, the 6000+ should be compared to E6600, and IMO, that too is not true comparison, the different pricing of bare sockets from AMD and Intel make things complicated, reason, AMD still has pins on CPU, and Intel on the sockets.....

satyamy said:
I also have question related to this
will Intel E6700 works faster than Intel Pentium D 3.4Ghz

hmm... funny aomeone would ask this...
The two processors performance are not even remotely near..
If u got a dual socket motherboard, and put two Pentium D 3.4Ghz in it, it will still loose out to a single E6700.
I hope u get my point now.

Dude the 6000+ was launched to compete with the e6700 and the fx series of amd pros are targeting the extreme editions of intel although they are no match for the extermes

nvidia8800 said:
Dude the 6000+ was launched to compete with the e6700 and the fx series of amd pros are targeting the extreme editions of intel although they are no match for the extermes

and dude, how did u reach this conclusion.....

AMD has priced 6000+ equal to 6600, which clearly means it is meant to be compared to E6600....

dude all amd pros are really less they cost less than their intel counterparts and the price difference is around 5k

Kniwor said:
The two processors performance are not even remotely near..
If u got a dual socket motherboard, and put two Pentium D 3.4Ghz in it, it will still loose out to a single E6700.
I hope u get my point now.

hey how u determine which processor is faster. does clock speed does not count so much. howz 2.6GHZ E6700 is faster than 3.GHZ dual core pentium processor. how u guys tell it. plz tel me more. i dont know much abt it

fun2sh said:
hey how u determine which processor is faster. does clock speed does not count so much. howz 2.6GHZ E6700 is faster than 3.GHZ dual core pentium processor. how u guys tell it. plz tel me more. i dont know much abt it

dude, there's much more to clock speed/L2 cache in a processor, the core is what makes the difference, given two processors of same core, and same L2 cache, the one with higher clock speed will be better.....

ho do we decide? we look at the benchmarks of the processors, after years of looking at them continuously, a tree is formed in the mind..lol... u know which is better than other, just go out and look for benchmarks, it's that simple

The Core 2 Duo is really fast. The lowest Core 2 Duo is faster than the fastest Pentium 4/D. Its because has adopted a new architecture (Core is it?) than the Pentium's "Netburst"(?) so the clock speeds are on a different planes so to speak.

dude the 3ghz intel pros are all older makes

can any1 tell abt processors in detail n how exactly is C2D 1.6Ghz is fater than PD 3.4 Ghz

just wait for amd's new processor release and c tat time intel will b nowhere near amd's proccy

you are right vish you all have to wait until the amd AM2+ socket pros are in the market then youll see

fun2sh said:
can any1 tell abt processors in detail n how exactly is C2D 1.6Ghz is fater than PD 3.4 Ghz

A Pentium D is just two processors crammed in one single package. So, both the cores operate Individually.
A C2D, on the other hand, is a native dualcore processor, with a total of roughly 291 million transistors.

So, a 4MB Cache in Pentium-D is nothing but 2 x 2MB, but in a C2D, it is 4MB.
This is just like a 1GB RAM giving a better performance than a 2x512MB RAM.

And, the instruction sets in both the processors are completely different.

a single 1gb ram can never give better performance than 2X512 mb rams

LOL. EC10304 was dead on until he pulled off that RAM example... Dual channel 512*2 gives much better performance than 1GB*1....

nvidia8800 said:
a single 1gb ram can never give better performance than 2X512 mb rams

do u hav some basis on tat point .... or r u making just a rough guess

lets launch a poll and see

nvidia8800 said:
lets launch a poll and see

why poll???... i asked on wat basis r u telling tat???... dont u hav a why for the statement u make earlier :shock:

when you have two rams the load is shared between them makin them work faster dont you get it? if i ask you to do several things at a time it would be hard to you the same thing i give you an extra person then your work is eased its tht simple dont you get it?????!!!!!!!!

nvidia8800 said:
when you have two rams the load is shared between them makin them work faster dont you get it? if i ask you to do several things at a time it would be hard to you the same thing i give you an extra person then your work is eased its tht simple dont you get it?????!!!!!!!!

this is hardware dude... (not people)... i dont understand from where u got tat idea :idea:

... the load which 2 rams can handle... the same load will be handled with the single ram.

^^^ Uh....Anyone forgetting Dual Channel here?

vish786 said:
this is hardware dude... (not people)... i dont understand from where u got tat idea... the load which 2 rams can handle... the same load will be handled with the single ram.

what lame discussion is going on here....

two ram sticks do not work faster by themselves...

But, all modern solutions support Dual channel for ram, so If u have two identical ram modules in a motherboard, u can run them in dual channel mode, and increase the bandwidth/read/write speed dramatically..... almost double I must say.

so in the end 2x512Mb is better than single 1Gb stick
and 2x1Gb is better than single 2Gb stick

goobimama said:
^^^ Uh....Anyone forgetting Dual Channel here?

idea is somewhere in my mind... but its not flashing right row

Kniwor said:
what lame discussion is going on here....

two ram sticks do not work faster by themselves...

But, all modern solutions support Dual channel for ram, so If u have two identical ram modules in a motherboard, u can run them in dual channel mode, and increase the bandwidth/read/write speed dramatically..... almost double I must say.

so in the end 2x512Mb is better than single 1Gb stick
and 2x1Gb is better than single 2Gb stick

finally the idea clicked almost forgot about it... thanks for reminding... tat is y never trust memory

this does not hold good for sdrams

My apologies guys... I forgot about the Dual-Channel thing here...

Correction to my post. Since all RAM is dual-channel these days, 1 GB < 2x 512MB

But I hope I have cleared fun2sh's doubt to a little extent atleast...

Intel Core 2 Duo E6700.

Intel CPU is used my most of the computers in this world due to its HIGH performance.

The Unknown said:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700.

Intel CPU is used my most of the computers in this world due to its HIGH performance.

I would disagree with that... AMD is a relatively new player and it was moving at a very good pace, when Intel upset the party by introducing the C2D.

AMD will Hit back, sooner or later. Then, maybe we wud have C4Quad instead of the Normal Quadcore proccy that Intel's come out with....

@EC1003: The 2 in Core 2 Duo doesn't stand for the number of cores. Core is the name of the processor, 2 is the version number (at least, to my knowledge). Duo/solo/quad is where the number of processors are defined.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....

AMD had its lead, not it's intel's turn.

goobimama said:
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....[/quute]

I agree with you... !!! Core 2 Duo / Core Solo / Quad these are all names !!

i think AMD vs intel is like tom & jerry , sometimes jerry is ahead & sometimes tom gets the chance to shine , & both of them are in the never ending cat- mouse chase

6700 is slightly better.the performance of X2 6000 Is in between that of E6600 and E6700

+1 for e6700

goobimama said:
@EC1003: The 2 in Core 2 Duo doesn't stand for the number of cores. Core is the name of the processor, 2 is the version number (at least, to my knowledge). Duo/solo/quad is where the number of processors are defined.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....

AMD had its lead, not it's intel's turn.

It was just a figure of speech dude... We had Pentium-D and then went to C2D..
So, we have C2D Quad. So, in all probability, we might have C4D as well..

And no, I don't work for Intel, so this is not a Scoop... ;-)

just incase the media gets a sniff of this...