[Izzjess]

same as subject

[brady]

AMD > Intel



Hey by the way, this topic might be locked up pretty quick. There are a bunch of topics identicle to this one. There is a search link on the top of the page that will link you too all the other amd vs. intel threads.

Just a heads up. Happy hunting.

[vaderpro]

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/3800/index.htm

[Vybuni]

Right now AMD's X2 series PWNS Intel's Pentium D's. The AMD X2 3800 outperforms pretty much every Pentium D except the most expensive. However, Intel's new Conroe core based and 65nm chips look very promising. So it could be Intel who takes the crown in a little bit.

[cedjunior]

If there was a search button processor, thats what I'd use

[Nitestick]

the smithfield cores are absolutely no competition for the x2 series. however the presler coress seem to be closing the gap a lot. keep in mind the presler's are basically part of intel's next generation so AMD's next series of dual core would more effectively line up with it

[idiotec]

Originally posted by nitestick
the smithfield cores are absolutely no competition for the x2 series. however the presler coress seem to be closing the gap a lot. keep in mind the presler's are basically part of intel's next generation so AMD's next series of dual core would more effectively line up with it

I wouldn't call Presler part of Intel's next generation. They are still P4 Netburst based CPU's, just on 65nm.

[Nitestick]

yeah i suppose you're right there :/ it's just i think the transition to 65nm is significant and that it should not be put in quite the same category as the x2's for now because the x2 has remained the same since it's release

[Vybuni]

Yeah, Intel's new dual cores should be pretty good. I guess I didn't make it very clear in my last post. I meant to compare the X2's to the pre-65nm CPUs. I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing X2's to the new 65nm intels.