[vraknari]

Looking over some benchmark comparisons of Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD X2 AM2, I see that in certain games, the Intel E6300 outperforms the AMD 4600+. [source]

Pricewise, the 4600+ is roughly $50 more which isn't a big deal to me.

But it's only 1.83GHz while the 4600+ is 2.4GHz - is that a significant difference? For a bit more, I can go the E6400 route which is 2.13GHz.

I am looking to build a box that will be able to handle gaming & some video editing. I know dual core is the way to go, just not sure which one to select. I can't see choosing a low end chip over something more middle road, but the performance results says that's exactly what I should do.

[Advertisements]

The clock speed in processors matters much less today than it used to. Back in the days of the Pentium 3s and 4s, clock speed WAS the easiest way to compare CPU speeds, but that is no longer the case in this new age of multi-threaded, multi-core systems. Some CPUs do more work per clock cycle than others and some CPUs communicate more seamlessly between their cores to produce overall higher performance. You have to compare CPUs by real-time benchmarks and tests in order to properly compare, especially when you are differentiating between different brands.

Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs tend to outperform AMD's rival chips at the lower clock frequencies, but once you enter the 3+ ghz realm, the differences are far less striking. For example, my system has an Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3ghz and it is, in many ways, faster than the comparable 3ghz C2D. Some of the benchmarks in high end games are very slightly lower; some are higher. Overall, in my opinion, it is the best CPU for the price, since you get just as much power for less.

In my opinion, regardless of clock speed, AMD CPUs give you more bang for the buck. You might get slightly (nearly unnoticably) lower performance but they tend to always cost less. And just so you don't think I'm biased, the notebook I just built has a Core 2 Duo, so I DO have experience with both.

[pyrocajun2707]

The clock speed in processors matters much less today than it used to. Back in the days of the Pentium 3s and 4s, clock speed WAS the easiest way to compare CPU speeds, but that is no longer the case in this new age of multi-threaded, multi-core systems. Some CPUs do more work per clock cycle than others and some CPUs communicate more seamlessly between their cores to produce overall higher performance. You have to compare CPUs by real-time benchmarks and tests in order to properly compare, especially when you are differentiating between different brands.

Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs tend to outperform AMD's rival chips at the lower clock frequencies, but once you enter the 3+ ghz realm, the differences are far less striking. For example, my system has an Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3ghz and it is, in many ways, faster than the comparable 3ghz C2D. Some of the benchmarks in high end games are very slightly lower; some are higher. Overall, in my opinion, it is the best CPU for the price, since you get just as much power for less.

In my opinion, regardless of clock speed, AMD CPUs give you more bang for the buck. You might get slightly (nearly unnoticably) lower performance but they tend to always cost less. And just so you don't think I'm biased, the notebook I just built has a Core 2 Duo, so I DO have experience with both.

[Thebinaryman]

i have worked on quite a few core 2 duo systems, and even the "quad core" models. i was not that impressed. pyro brought up that AMD is usually the "best bang for the buck" and i echo that. i think the 5000+ to 6000+ X2 series processors are a great deal. they're very affordable, and put out pretty good benchmarks.

[fenzodahl512]

If you look for "best bang for buck", I'd say AM2 is the way.. But in term of top performance, nothing from AMD offerings beat hi-end C2D or C2Q at the moment.