AMD Athlon 64 X2
Intel Pentium dual core CPUs
What would the results of a dual-core desktop CPU fight look like? Many people equate Windows PCs with Intel Pentium processors (and soon will likely be doing the same with Macs), but we've seen dual-core CPU AMD systems power ahead of dual-core Intel-based PCs on more than one occasion.
To answer the question once and for all, we set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck. Skip ahead to the official ruling if you want, but the match itself is interesting.
 Round 1:
Day-to-day computing |
Round 5: MP3
encoding |
| Round 2:
Gaming |
Round 6: Video
encoding |
| Round 3:
Multitasking |
Round 7: Price
vs. performance |
| Round 4: Photo
editing |
The winner
is... |
Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!
MANINDERPAL SINGH
03/09/2006 10:42 PM
HI ,I WAS AN INTEL USER A FEW MONTHS BEFORE BUT I SWITCHED TO AMD BY KNOWING ITS PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THE CHANGE MYSELF . I THINK THAT INTEL FAVOURES JUST TO EARN PROFITS AND AMD FAVOURES CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WHICH IS SUPREME BECAUSE A CONSUMER IS AT THE TOP.
Report offensive content
AMDED
29/11/2006 05:30 PM
AMD will always lead in Price/Performance chart. Initially they set out to beat Intel, they wont and I dont think they will drop the title anytime soon
Report offensive content
MickB
17/01/2007 03:08 PM
I've been in IT, building PC/Server based systems for many years. And I think the test you have shown are very one sided. I have always found Intel to be faster all round. Using real life performance tests, not hand picked test as shown. But the big picture is my Intel will still be running in 3 years time, I bet the AMD will be a problem child after 12 months. You have to ask yourself, have you ever seen a 4 year old AMD system, still functioning like the day you purchase it, "because I havn't ???"
Report offensive content
Oinquer
26/01/2007 11:13 AM
well my amd duron 700 still runs from the day i bought it.... my amd 2500 its working in my sister bedroom and my amd 3.5 runs like wind...never had a problem with processors...once with a board... ECS but those boards are nothing good with quality...
Report offensive content
intel is the devil
14/02/2007 01:14 PM
MickB, you are clearly delusional... Intel Currently produces the fastest processor (the Core-2-Duo), however before that AMD was been making the fastest processors for the past 6 years!! where were you? Intel's PentiumIII's were decent performers, but that's where the high performance stopped. Pentium4's and pentiumD's (both use netburst architecture) and were continually outperformed by the superior architecture of AMD's AthlonXP, Athlon64, Athlon64 X2, and Athlon 64 FX processors. the only thing Intel had was fast clock speeds (which mean nothing when in terms of actual CPU performance). the fast clock speeds were offset by the poor IPC and FP of netburst. since they didn't actually have a good product, they sent their marketing slime out to convince the world that clock speed was all that mattered. sadly most people know nothing about CPUs and fell for it. many, many people have been using AMD for years and are well aware of their proven real world (and benchmark) superiority to the under-performing Pentium-4/Pentium-D processors. there is absolutely nothing to back up your ignorant claim that Intels have always been faster because has held the performance crown for the last 6 years.
Report offensive content
wenjam
19/02/2007 09:43 AM
I have had an AMD Athlon for 5 years - my son dropped it last night so I am now looking for a replacement. Guess what? It will be another AMD
Report offensive content
letsbusy
22/03/2007 03:14 AM
guys what i think about both AMD or INTEL is that i have buy 1 AMD X2 with 2GB DDR and ASUS board and my friend have intel D with 256 DDR when we put it againt intel pentium D it was a Drama we make and rendered on both systems what we findout is shocking intel takes 3 hours and AMD taker 5 hours we were surprised by the results it all happend on 15 March 2007 n now im change my AMD X2 with INTEL Core 2 Duo and i don't know about u guys but for me INTEL ROCKS
Report offensive content
Parveen
20/11/2007 09:45 PM
Hi Guys, it is really a fact that AMD always beat intel on speed and price, if u dont know it go back to history and check Cache and Speed of both u find result there , ok i was a user of intel but now i m using amd why?????? due to its speed in Game, graphics, and many other applicatin
Report offensive content
anonymous
16/01/2008 05:57 AM
Hi! As a professional I've used both Intel and AMD CPUs. It is untrue that AMD CPUs collapse after a period of time. They don't. I still have an old AMD 486 50MHz system that well... still works. Of course I have an old Intel Pentium D system too. Both systems still work. My mainframe is an AMD 64X2 4000. My older system was an AMD Sempron 2200+. The system before that was an AMD Athlon running at 1333. My friends wear either Intel or AMD. I never saw much difference though. Of course, they don't use as much CPU as I do. I am completely satisfied with my 64X2 since I just can't get it to 100%. I used to have that. Now, I don't.
Report offensive content