AMD Triple core vs. Intel Dual Core

TigerLinux · 07-04-2011, 09:30 PM

I want to buy a new notebook,
the AMD triple core one is cheaper than Intel dual core,
is 3-core better than 2-core?

kingbeowulf · 07-04-2011, 09:58 PM

I all depends. Which triple core and which dual core? How are you going to use the notebook? If for just surfing the internet, of office apps, it doesn't really matter. See http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...marks,112.html

BTW, memory and hardrive are lot more important these days.

TigerLinux · 07-04-2011, 10:09 PM

it is the lower End CPU,
Intel P6620 vs. AMD N830

TigerLinux · 07-04-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

The AMD Phenom II X3 N830 is a tripple core processor for laptops that clocks with 2.1 GHz. It is based on the desktop Athlon II X3 processors (at a lower clock speed) and therefore features no level 3 cache. The performance should be on average on par with an old Core 2 Quad Q9000. The lack of a Turbo Boost / Core function and level 3 cache and the slow core clock limit the performance of the CPU. In single threaded applications, the performance is only as fast as a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo (CB10) or even slower (SuperPi). Compared to a modern Core i3-330M, the N830 stays nearly always clearly below (except in the CB11.5).

Core i3 is cheaper now, I think it is better to go for Core i3 or i5.

cascade9 · 07-05-2011, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerLinux

it is the lower End CPU,
Intel P6620 vs. AMD N830

Intel P6620? I cant seem to find any CPU with that naming....

You might be suprised at how close the i3s and N830 can be. Some of the i3s and i5s are actually a lot slower than the N830 (the 'UM' models).

TigerLinux · 07-05-2011, 05:21 AM

But the comment on N830 is bad;
it is intel P6200

cascade9 · 07-05-2011, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerLinux

But the comment on N830 is bad;
it is intel P6200

You can find bad reviews for any product if you look hard enough. The P6200 doesnt have turbo boost either...and neither does the i3-330M.

By the way, if you are going to quote an article, its always good to provide a link.

TigerLinux · 07-05-2011, 09:45 AM

I would rather pay more for Core i5 second generation CPU.
I trust AMD for its desktop CPU, great value for lower price, its 4 and 6 core Phenom II can meet my requirements very well.
But for notebook, it is better to go for Intel.

Dani1973 · 07-05-2011, 10:13 AM

found this : http://starredreviews.com/amd-phenom...um-p6200/7629/

While th intel has a L3 cache the AMD has 3 times more L2 cache in this case, seems like the AMD will perform better.

TigerLinux · 07-05-2011, 10:25 AM

Thanks, my budget allows me to go for Intel core i5.

cascade9 · 07-06-2011, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dani1973

found this : http://starredreviews.com/amd-phenom...um-p6200/7629/

While th intel has a L3 cache the AMD has 3 times more L2 cache in this case, seems like the AMD will perform better.

Quote:

Q. So which one is better ?

A. Phenom ii N830 seems to be better in overall performance and in real life computing. The Pentium P6200 does takes lead in the Super Pi calculation, but it is not reflective of the real world performance.

Goes to show what I've said many times- benchmarking can be good, but sometimes people pay far to much attention to dinky little benchmarks that mean nothing, and dont pay enough attention to real world performance.

Thats because "CPU 'X' is 35% faster than CPU 'Y' in superPI!" looks better than "general use was similar between system 'X' and system 'Y', but system 'Y' did respond better under heavy load".

Dani1973 · 07-06-2011, 06:24 AM

Who cares about Super Pi anyway :
It depends more on core speed then core count.

Quote:

Super PI is single threaded, so its relevance as a measure of performance in the current era of multi-core processors is diminishing quickly. Therefore, Hyper PI has been developed to support multiple threads of Super Pi to be run at the same time so you can test stability on multi-core machines.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_PI

Anyway, benchmarks only influence your decision but are mostly irrelevant because, like cascade9 mentioned, they don't reflect what a user will do with his system.
Every user has different needs whille system A will be faster one user it might be slower for others.

Personally I prefer AMD because they seem to have more democratic prizes and less bulls**t.
The reason I don't like Intel is the same why I don't like Microsoft, I don't like how they run things and their attempts to monopolize everything.

I remember a few years ago when AMD lauched the first desktop 64bit CPU, Intel didn't have one so they just took their 64bit XEON, overclocked it and switched of ECC because it was having troubles when overclocked. I think it was the guys from Tomshardware who found out about it.
It took Intel years to finally see the benefit of incorporating the memory controller into the cpu but meanwhile they claimed "our cpu's run cooler", of course they do when you have less stuff in it and move it to the MB chipset.
Oh well, there are stories like that about AMD, but the 64bit story was abit too much imho.

In the end it also comes down to buy something that you feel good about.
If you want to buy a certain brand even though it's not the best, who cares, it's your money.
It doesn't make sense to buy something that you don't like just because others said you should buy that.
What's the point to have a state of the art system if you don't like it for some other reason?