AMD 64 X2 windsor vs. Brisbane

[jleonard711]

First of all, I'm new to this site and this forum. I think this is probably one of the most informative and up-to-date sites I have ever found relating to building your own PC. Most sites out there are full of info from 5 years ago, which will do you absolutely no good. Hell, even info from 1 year ago is outdated in the PC world! So kudos to the owner of this site, you're doing a hell of a job.

So on to my topic. I was reading the page that discusses choosing your processer and whether to go Intel or AMD, and more specifically the choice between the Windsor or Brisbane CPU. The point was made that the architecture between the Windsor & the Brisbane is slightly different and the costs are marginally different, but one main difference was not mentioned - and that is the Brisbane uses less power than the Windsor. And in a PC, less power = less heat = lower system temps = a good thing! This may not be a concern if you are building a gaming system that's going to have a lot of fans and running fairly hot anyways due to intesive graphics, but I think it's a very important point to consider if you are building a Media Center or HTPC. By using a lower powered (and thus cooler) CPU, you can run your fans at lower rpms and your PC will be much quieter. Just a thought to keep in mind if you're building and HTPC.

[The Wise Monkey]

... or you could just go for a C2D and thrash any AMD CPU at the moment. :D

[Jamie Nixx]

They are cooler and more energy efficient than AMD anyway XD.

[jleonard711]

... or you could just go for a C2D and thrash any AMD CPU at the moment. :D

That's true, but this post has nothing to do with AMD vs. Intel. If you read the title it's about Windsor vs. Brisbane, and it's meant for those who have decided they want an AMD processor and are contemplating between the Windsor or Brisbane. And besides, if you're building an HTPC then you don't need a very powerful CPU and therefore the AMD 64 x2 is a great choice since it will save you some money it will perform just fine.

[jleonard711]

Oh, and one more thing - if you compare clock speed-to-clock speed, then yes the Intel Core 2 Duo does have the edge over the AMD 64 x2. However, if you compare price-to-price then AMD is the clear choice. You can get an AMD that will ourperform a C2D for less than what the comparable C2D would cost. Case in point - there are plenty of benchmarks and reviews out there that compare the 64x2 and C2D processors, and if you read most of them you will see that the C2D E6300 is about equal in performance to about the 64X2 4600+ or maybe even the 5000+. But the E6300 costs $180 and the 4600+ is only $90 (and the 5000+ is about $110). Same performance, but 1/2 the price.

If you're considering spending $180 on the lowest performing C2D (E6300), then why not spend the same amount and get the highest performing AMD FX-62 which will be faster than the E6300?

[Jamie Nixx]

Your telling us information we already know dude ;)

Btw the Core 2 duo E6750 is $189.99 which will outperform any AMD dual core.

The old C2D are expensive, e.g E6600, the E6400 and the E6300, because they have now been phased out, they are expensive not because of their performance, but because they are hard to source because they have been taken over by more efficient models which are a lot cheaper and perform a lot better, much like the BTX boards Vs ATX.

If you want to compare bang for buck, then compare the E4400 which costs $135, or the E1240 which only costs $75.

AMD have nothing over Intel, not even in the best bang for buck category anymore, they have failed miserably.

Let me prove this to you in one fell swoop, the AMD X2 5200 costs around $119 and it is beaten heavily in performance terms by the E4400 which costs $16 more, we are not talking about slightly better performance, we are talking in every category, cooling, overclocking, power consumption, sheer pound for pound performance.

If you want an even more damning verdict, you may find this hard to believe, but even the E2140 gives the X2 5200 a run for its money, and if your overclocking, it has no chance and look how much less it costs.

I am an AMD fan, big fan and i have been for years, but they are sinking without a trace, the only thing keeping them afloat is the fact they own ATI which are producing some good graphics cards at the moment, although if they don't do soemthing quick they will go out of business, only Intel producing CPU's for the world, that would suck, they need to pull their fingers out quick and give us a reason to buy from them again, until then i am sticking with Intel.