OT - AMD x2 AM2 -vs- Intel Duo Core 2

Cliff Etzel wrote on 10/11/2006, 5:22 PM
I'm posting for a colleague as I can't seem to find where the rubber meets the road type of information.

A friend/colleague of mine has asked me to research which way to go - I know this has been beaten to death, but he want's real world answers from other users out there. Is Opteron worth it?

I'm very happy with my AMD setup and have recommended highly he go the same route (He's editing with PPro 2.0 and AE7) - I run Adobe's apps along side SONY's on my AMD setup with no problems - but he's sure that somehow Intel is just "Better" because it is Intel. So I convinced him that Opteron is spec'd on quite a few high end AE workstations and that he would see similar performance out of X2 processors but at a lower cost - am I correct? Also, trying to find any useful information about using Opterons in a workstation is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. He's now thinking maybe doing a dual dual core Opteron setup. I think it is overkill but maybe he's just wanting to make sure he doesn't have to buy again for awhile.

Any thoughts? Is Intel REALLY that much better for the amount of money they charge? Or is it spin-doctoring from the companies and websites looking for something to write about.

I spec'd the following AMD parts from NewEgg:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+(65W) Windsor 2.4GHz Socket AM2 Processor
GIGABYTE GA-M55SLI-S4 Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD Motherboard
XFX PVT42EYDF3 Geforce 6800XT 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel
Antec TRUEPOWERII TPII-550 ATX12V 550W Power Supply

He has parts he want's to recycle but will eventually add new HD's when he goes HD editing.

Any changes, recommendations???



TheHappyFriar wrote on 10/11/2006, 5:36 PM
The core 2 duo's beat the pants off anything AMD CURRENTLY offers. It's also cheaper (tigerdirect currently has a sale on core 2 duo's). The really high end AMD's (FX & 64's) compete, but they compete against the mid/lower end Core 2's.


the AMD Opteron is a "real" 64+32 bit cpu. It's not 32+64 instructions like the Intel & AMD chips (minus the intel itanium, which is 64-bit with 32-bit emmulation). So, if you have something that uses 64-bit, I'm betting (can't find any benches myself right now) that the Opteron would out do the Core 2 Duo.
auggybendoggy wrote on 10/11/2006, 5:58 PM
guys I'm looking at this myself.

There is a core d- for 350 at newegg and compared to Extreme for 900. Is this chis any good?

what is a Core-duo vs. a dual core?
is core-duo a special series that rocks?
are all dual cores "core-duos"?

DGates wrote on 10/11/2006, 6:08 PM
After years of AMD kicking sand in it's face, Intel went home and lifted weights. It came back to the beach and punched AMD, knocking it out.

That's essentially what the Duo 2 Core has done. It now has the bragging rights as the fastest processor. How long it will last is anyone's guess. But if you can get better performance for the same price as AMD's offerings (even cheaper in many cases), the smart money's on Intel.

But I've certainly not been a fan of Intel in the past, after they conspired to keep AMD down. I was happy that AMD was sticking it to the man. Intel had to compete legally this time, and it worked. They have the better product.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 10/11/2006, 6:08 PM
My thinking was that by going AMD, beings that it is a true 64 bit processor, that when apps begin to be released native 64bit, you are already ahead with the AMD chips. That was my thinking when I finally settled on the AMD platform - I'm already awaiting the release of the rumored 6000+ x2 AM2 processor.

I am sure Intel is mopping the floor with AMD right now - it was bound to happen with the way AMD did that to Intel for as long as they did before the release of Conroe.

But is Intel worth it since my understanding is - they are still using 184pin DIMMS, whereas AMD has moved ahead with 240pin? Is Intel really the best bang for the buck currently? What still about Opteron? The announcement today of AMD's Quad Core is interesting and of course we as users of the technology benefit, but is it apples -vs- oranges?

My friend doesn't want to buy into an outdated technology like he did when he had Premiere 6 and one of those bloody hardware accelerator cards that doesn't work with anything other than Premiere 6. Should I be stearing him towards Intel?

Oh the joys of technology - I personally just use what works - he's a little more cynical about anything other than Intel, but he is open minded to the idea.
auggybendoggy wrote on 10/11/2006, 6:08 PM
also guys,
does Vegas utilize 64 bit? I've read elsewhere on this forum that it does not. So does that mean dual core will speed things up?
any info sure would help cause my northwood 3.0 ht chip is laggin.

fldave wrote on 10/11/2006, 6:10 PM
Intel's latest is "Core 2 Duo" or "Core 2 Extreme".
"Core Duo" is older tech.

Core 2 Duo E6600 was the chip I saw with the sweetest price/performance ratio. $315 at NewEgg. Slightly faster than AMD's $811 Fx-62 chip.

Anandtech E6600
ibliss wrote on 10/11/2006, 6:10 PM
I was under the impression that the Core 2 Duo is 64bit capable too. (Core Duo is not).
fldave wrote on 10/11/2006, 6:11 PM
Win 64 handles memory better than XP. That is where some people are finding better Vegas performance.
GlennChan wrote on 10/11/2006, 9:42 PM
Does anyone have rendertest.veg results for Core2??? Please... let me update my list. :)

39s - AMD X2 4600+
SOURCE: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=4

*39s/74s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: philfort@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=399447&Replies=26

*39s - AMD X2 4400+ overclocked to 2420mhz
SOURCE: Jayster @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=465519&Replies=0

*40s/76s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: TheRhino@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=61

44s - Pentium D 3.0ghz
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=454055
see also: http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=8 (45s)

47s - Core Duo 1.83Ghz (laptop)
SOURCE: FrigidNDEditing @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=477142&Replies=3
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=454055

*75s - P4 3.6ghz overclocked from 3.0 Pentium. A new 5xx-series 3.6ghz should be as fast or slightly slower.
SOURCE: Stormcrow@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57

78s- AMD64 3700+ (san diego core??? [2.2ghz, 1MB cache], vegas 6, dual channel RAM)
SOURCE: Charley Gallgher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45178&page=2&pp=15

*78s- P4 3.2 overclocked to 3.8ghz (Northwood core???, 800FSB [it's overclocked, so the FSB is actually higher])
SOURCE: jamcas@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422

79s- AMD64 3400+ (unknown core, Vegas 6)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45178&page=2&pp=15

89s- 3.0E Pentium Prescott (865 chipset, dual channel RAM, Vegas 5)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57

90s - 2.8ghz Pentium (Prescott)
SOURCE: TalawaMan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=262716

90s - Opteron 246 2.0ghz X 2 (dual channel memory, old 2004 core, *VEGAS 5*)
SOURCE: rohde@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422
*Please keep in mind Vegas6 has optimizations for dual processors, while Vegas 5 does not.

93s - AMD64 3200+ (2004, so probably old core)
SOURCE: PH125@ http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422
99s is Sid Phillip's report in the same thread.

95s - AMD64 3000+ (2.00ghz, 512kb cache, single channel, socket 754, 2004 core)
SOURCE: ibliss@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422

114s - Pentium-M 1.7ghz laptop
SOURCE: The_Jeff@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=262716

128s - Sempron 2400+ 1.4ghz (Palmero core, S754, 256KB cache)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan

These results are for the original rendertest.veg, not the new one. You can download it from:
whiplash wrote on 10/12/2006, 12:07 AM
I don't have a Duo Cpre 2 but I have one of the faster non FX AMD chips.

36s on a AMD X2 4800+ overclocked to 2.7 GHz with 2 Gig DDR RAM on a DFI LANParty Nforce4 motherboard.

If I were to build the PC today I would look at the Intel chips.
jaydeeee wrote on 10/12/2006, 1:41 AM
>>>The core 2 duo's beat the pants off anything AMD CURRENTLY offers. <<

Jesus...this is just typical "tech" website forum crap, more abuse of obvious and common upgrade knowledge.The words "beats the pants off" are always thrown around so loosely. Geek terminology is so baseles and overused.
When we look at the point difference between REAL WORLD a/v usage, this high school mentality of "it smashes it to bits, blah-blah" is laughable - as usual.

Ok, reality check. I've always liked amd...and intel - screw this bullsh*t "war" everyone hypes - it means nothing today. It used to hold SOME validity, but today's dual-core tech has provided a new reality in performance on both sides.

Do a reality check witth a render with a x2 or x2 oc'd 4800 and the core 2 6600, the difference is there of course (inherent in newer tech upgrades)...but it's not as vast as these words lead to believe.

The one true bottleneck will always be I/O.
It's win-win right now and yes, one who is UPGRADING would prob choose the new core 2 OBVIOUSLY, but you aren't "failing" by moving to amd's latest offerings either.
Let's cut the hype sh*t and talk honestly.

i have them back to back in our editing rooms and render times aren't vastly separated at all. This is real world usuage we're talking, not more benchmark bullshit.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 10/12/2006, 7:42 AM
Yo Jaydee - wasn't trying to start a flamewar here about Intel -vs- AMD :-)

I agree with you on not "failing" by going with AMD over Intel - but I do think that there is some truth to when an app is specifically coded to run more efficiently on say an Intel chip -vs- an AMD chip. Example: You can install the generic x32 distro of Ubuntu on an AMD chip - but the install usually hangs for a long time before continuing - the x64 AMD specific installs very quickly due to optimization of the code and does run quite a bit faster due to the natve instruction set inherent in the code. The same could be said about apps that do seem to run faster on Intel over AMD. But I'm no fanboy of Intel, I personally view it as best bang for the buck, and I still feel that AMD provides that.

But there are those who are enamoured with a 2 second increase in performance - whatever - just give me decent render times and I'm happy. my "lowly" 3800+ X2 does that just fine ;-)
TheHappyFriar wrote on 10/12/2006, 8:46 AM
there's no hype when i say "it beats the pants off current AMD chips." It does. in every brenchmark i've seen. And the benchmarks i've seen are the same software i use in the "real world" so i trust them. That doesn't mean AMD's are crap (i own two), it's just a fact. Between the first P4's & the Core 2 Duo's, AMD beat the pants off Intel's chips. That's a fact also. The only difference was Intel was running commercials/adds saying they were the "best processor" & were lieing. Now they are not.

Even if the rendering time is slightly better, people just don't render in Vegas. They use programs that do heavy # crunching, they use photoshop, they have a budget. I'd rather buy a $300 Intel Core 2 Duo that compares to a $800 AMD FX any day. Right now I'd rather just upgrade my MB, vid-card & CPU (I bought an AGP mb when I should of spend the extra $150 on getting a decent PCIE vid card so I can actautly upgrade to a decent ATI card). I don't want to switch memory currently cuz that would cost more. But if i was buying a whole new PC, i'd go for a core 2 (alienware currently has faster core 2 laptops cheaper then the amd equivilent's)
Guy Bruner wrote on 10/12/2006, 10:59 AM
After being a longtime AMD user, I switched to Intel with the new Core 2 Duos. It is true that these CPUs are significantly faster than anything AMD currently has out. In addition, in November, Intel will release a Quad Core 2 that will drop into the socket of your compatible motherboard.

If anyone is interested in the comparison results, Anandtech.com did a comprehensive review of the Conroe processors and how they stack up against AMD...no contest.

Also, if you are interested, I wrote about my new hardware and the tests I ran to compare it with my other computers here.
DGates wrote on 10/12/2006, 12:39 PM
Calm down, Jaydeee. The improvements over AMD are more than just hyperbole, they're significant.

GlennChan wrote on 10/12/2006, 5:37 PM
Guy, would it be possible for you to take a few minutes and try the rendertest.veg?

It would provide some objective results about *vegas* performance. The problem with benchmarks is that they are heavily usage-dependent... rendertest.veg is probably the best Vegas benchmark, because it has lots of results for it.
jaydeeee wrote on 10/12/2006, 6:03 PM
Whaa? I am calm, perhaps it's the latest tech forum freaks that should "calm down". All i'm saying is, terminology like "beats the pants off of...blah-blah, ad-nauseum...is just typical tech forum garbage. More of the same-ol-same-ol.
I like both amd and intel, i don't play into the garbage blabberfest witha "cpu wars", it's a different game now.

To Guy (and with much respect for your work and help on the incredible pana3ccd site):

>>AMD Athlon XP 2800+ Barton (not overclocked)
>>1 GB Crucial DDR3500 RAM
>>Maxtor IDE133 40GB with 2MB Cache (7200 RPM)

>>Intel E6300 CPU (1.86 GHz overclocked to 2.412 GHz using stock Intel heatsink)
>>2 GB Crucial 800MHz DDR2 RAM
Samsung SATA 3G 250GB with 8MB Cache (7200 RPM)

Uh...what kind of a comparison is this?

Take a look at these components, their running status...
Of course you're going to get a noticeable performance boost.

With all respect due, i think you need to understand the difference between a system upgrade, and a real world comparison between two LIKE/latest dual-core systems. What you got right there is called a system upgrade - nothing more. It's a "duh" IOW.

another result list on that page:
Athlon XP 2800+ = 50 seconds
Acer Core Duo 2.0= 22 seconds
Intel E6300 2.412 = 15 seconds

xp 2800+ ???
What were you expecting there?

No, take the latest amd x2's in comparison to the E6300-6600 and what I'm saying is..in real world usage we aren't seeing DRASTIC perf differences.
That is all.
Is it obvious new upgraders will choose the latest faster proc (intel OC'd) ?...yes
But "beating the pants off"...blah-blah? ridiculous.
stay away from the tech forum geek babble and start thinking real world - I think that's what users HERE want to know.
jaydeeee wrote on 10/12/2006, 6:59 PM
to add:

I think a more important discussion is what new motherboards best fits solid/pro DAW + NLE needs (Intel core2 conroe, or amd's latest x2's).

For example: As for quality audio tracking with your NLE...
I'm telling ya,...with limited PCI (regular pci) slots sadly slimming away it's awful to see most are relegated to either Fwire audio interfaces (unreliable overall compared to pci interfaces). Not to mention how pcie video cards can play into performance (especially when considering ocing).

How many pro pcie audio interfaces do you see out there? (*talking minimum 8-in/out 24/192khz)?

Why don't you discuss that rather than measley cpu performance points between LIKE competitive procs? It holds more merit.
Your excited about a few benchmark points...while missing the painful fact that mobo's are getting less NLE/DAW friendly.
Look at their left hand ...and the right slaps ya.
Guy Bruner wrote on 10/13/2006, 10:13 AM
I don't do head to head CPU/Motherboard comparisions. I can only test with what I have on hand. Of course I expected the Core 2 Duo to blow away my 3 year old 2800+. But, that was not the point. I was simply posting some comparisions so others who were thinking about a system upgrade could judge the performance difference for themselves. In no way was I trying to make a statement vis-a-vis AMD vs. Intel with this comparison.

If you want head to head comparisions, read the AnandTech and Tom's Hardware reviews. There is a significant difference in performance between a Core 2 Duo and any of the dual core AMDs. AMD was doing this to Intel just a year or so ago and now things have turned around. Of course, if you have already invested in AMD hardware, it is probably not economical to switch to Intel. I was facing a new motherboard, video card and memory situation. So, I chose to go with Intel because it outperformed the AMD system and at lower cost.

I will see about running the render test, perhaps this weekend.
deusx wrote on 10/13/2006, 11:41 AM
>>Calm down, Jaydeee. The improvements over AMD are more than just hyperbole, they're significant.<<

not really. It depends what you use them for. You really need somebody to test vegas with both. In cinebench which is a pretty common 3d rendering benchmark equally/lower priced athlon was actually still faster

amd 4600+ is around $235, core duo that can beat it in most cases is still $100 more.

Overall, you are probably better off with intel right now, but it's not such a big deal.
jaydeeee wrote on 10/13/2006, 2:29 PM
I don't do head to head CPU/Motherboard comparisions. I can only test with what <<

Yes, understood Guy.
And like I said, it's makes perfect sense to go core2 right now. We have the core2 6600 and x2's, and they're both just wonderful performers (thank god for dual-core ...and more coming soon ;).
I'm just responding to the "beats the pants off..." stuff and pointing out that it might be better to clarify this (your upgrade comparison) for some users here.
I just don't subscribe to this inane "cpu war" game with where we're at in tech.
Of course, mobo, I/O, and ram also play into comparisons...but the truth is in the real world NLE usage between new tech offerings.
jaydeeee wrote on 10/13/2006, 2:35 PM
>>>amd 4600+ is around $235, core duo that can beat it in most cases is still $100 more.<<<

Just to note (4600 related): a (1mb cache) 4400+ oc'd (to say 4600 or more) will offer a better bang-4-buck. Although it's a semi-slight oc, it can shave some pennies.
OCing the e6600 is a smart route right now though for new upgraders.
GlennChan wrote on 10/13/2006, 7:43 PM
Hmm someone emailed me and said that their result with the E6600 (Core 2 Duo) was 28 seconds. Vegas 6d, no overclocking. This clearly tops the list.

Anyone other Core2 users seeing such substantial gains?

28s - Intel E6600 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 6d)
SOURCE: Emailed submission.

39s - AMD X2 4600+
SOURCE: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=4

*39s/74s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: philfort@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=399447&Replies=26

*39s - AMD X2 4400+ overclocked to 2420mhz
SOURCE: Jayster @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=465519&Replies=0