AMD processors

Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+

Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
choice? And am I better off with Intel?


--

You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you,
if you could know how seldom they do.

....Olin Miller

Speed, speed and more speed. Or the need for speed. Or balancing speed with
the money left in ones pocket after making the buy. Check the specs on these
three processors elsewhere, not on the Dell web site, which obfuscates tech
specs now and again.

I am in the Intel camp, but there are people who swear by AMD CPUs... Ben Myers

On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:20:34 -0800, Steve <pdg@wvn.inv> wrote:

>Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
>X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
>
>Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
>options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
>choice? And am I better off with Intel?

At this time, all AMD CPUs are the wrong choices.

Steve wrote:
> Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
> X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
>
> Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
> options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
> choice? And am I better off with Intel?
>
>

Steve wrote:
> Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
> X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
>
> Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
> options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
> choice? And am I better off with Intel?
>
>
My son recently bought a E521 AMD Athlon, 3200+, 2GHZ with 1 GB ram.
He was on a budget and also wanted Windows XP Home instead of Vista. He
loves it and it is much faster than I thought it would be. At some tasks
it is even faster than my 9200 core 2 Duo with 2 Gb Ram. Maybe with
Vista it would be another story but with XP Home it is great!

And this opinion is based on .... ?

Personal experiences for which you have hard data? Published articles?

Tom S.
Houston, TX

Barry Watzman wrote:
> At this time, all AMD CPUs are the wrong choices.
>
> Steve wrote:
>> Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
>> X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
>>
>> Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
>> options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
>> choice? And am I better off with Intel?
>>
>>

Pick a benchmark, any benchmark. Currently the Core 2 Duo offers
significantly more bang for the buck. They leapfrog each other, but for
now, Intel wins.

Check out the CPU page at www.tomshardware.com Core 2 Duo will win
every time, for the same or less cost.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Simchak [mailto:not.today@thankyou.org]
> Posted At: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:17 PM
> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
> Conversation: AMD processors
> Subject: Re: AMD processors
>
> And this opinion is based on .... ?
>
> Personal experiences for which you have hard data? Published
articles?
>
> Tom S.
> Houston, TX
>
> Barry Watzman wrote:
> > At this time, all AMD CPUs are the wrong choices.
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >> Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon
> 64
> >> X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
> >>
> >> Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
> >> options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive
> this
> >> choice? And am I better off with Intel?
> >>
> >>

Steve wrote:
> Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
> X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
>
> Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
> options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
> choice? And am I better off with Intel?
>
>
>
Great box, I like mine. The AMD 3800+ was the default when I ordered
mine. When I ordered I upgraded to the 4400+, but Dell upgrade the
4400+ to the 4600+ instead for the same price as the 4400.
4400 runs at 2.3mhz, the 4600 runs at 2.4mHz. And Vista rates my
windows Experience Index base score at 4.2

More details about my computer


Component Details Subscore Base score
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ 5.0
4.2
Determined by lowest subscore

Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB 5.9
Graphics 256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO 4.7
Gaming graphics 1019 MB Total available graphics memory 4.2
Primary hard disk 115GB Free (223GB Total) 5.8
Windows Vista (TM) Home Premium


System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Dell Inc
Model Dimension E521
Total amount of system memory 2.00 GB RAM
System type 32-bit operating system
Number of processor cores 2
64-bit capable Yes

Storage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total size of hard disk(s) 309 GB
Disk partition (C 115 GB Free (223 GB Total)
Disk partition (D 5 GB Free (10 GB Total)
Media drive (E CD/DVD
Media drive (F CD/DVDCD/DVD
Disk partition (G 16 GB Free (76 GB Total)

Graphics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display adapter type 256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO
Total available graphics memory 1019 MB
Dedicated graphics memory 256 MB
Dedicated system memory 0 MB
Shared system memory 763 MB
Display adapter driver version 8.31.100.0
Primary monitor resolution 1680x1050
DirectX version DirectX 9.0 or better

Network
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Adapter Broadcom 440x 10/100 Integrated Controller
Network Adapter Microsoft Tun Miniport Adapter

On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:20:34 -0800, Steve <pdg@wvn.inv> wrote:

>Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
>X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
>
>Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
>options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
>choice? And am I better off with Intel?


Well if you have to rely on benchmarks, Intel is better bang for the
buck but realistically in most average uses, either is fine. That
said, my preference is for Intel only because they seem to be more of
the standard by which people compare to regardless of speed.

The Intel Core 2 Duo series of processors wipes the floor with every AMD
processor. They are faster, [MUCH] lower power and simply better. In
every way.


Tom Simchak wrote:
> And this opinion is based on .... ?
>
> Personal experiences for which you have hard data? Published articles?
>
> Tom S.
> Houston, TX
>
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> At this time, all AMD CPUs are the wrong choices.
>>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
>>> X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
>>>
>>> Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
>>> options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
>>> choice? And am I better off with Intel?
>>>
>>>

Another advantage of Intel CPUs is that Intel chipsets are generally
better than almost all non-Intel chipsets; faster, more stable, fewer
problems. Granted, it's not a CPU issue per se, but if you get an AMD
CPU then you must get a chipset from what I consider to be an inferior
chipset source.


RnR wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:20:34 -0800, Steve <pdg@wvn.inv> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the Dimension E521. Choice of 3 processors - AMD Athlon 64
>> X2 Dual-Core 4400+ or 5000+ or 5600+
>>
>> Clicked on Help Me Choose, no useful info for choosing among these
>> options. As a practical matter, what considerations should drive this
>> choice? And am I better off with Intel?
>
>
> Well if you have to rely on benchmarks, Intel is better bang for the
> buck but realistically in most average uses, either is fine. That
> said, my preference is for Intel only because they seem to be more of
> the standard by which people compare to regardless of speed.