Originally Posted by Andymancos
Originally Posted by UnseenMenace
the most powerfull dual-core x86 processor in terms of performance-per-watt is still the AMD and this is why Intel never took up AMD on the challenge they made
Although intel can compete on pure performance, they can not compete performance per watt which means that the Intels always require more power to run and create more heat !!
You do know that a standard clock E6600 (£220) will waste a AMD FX62 (£500) ?????? so where did u get that from
Where exactly did I state that ANY specific processor such as the E6600 would waste any other specific processor ??? I believe I even stated earlier on that...
Each processor has good and bad points, its not as simple to say that one is better than the other because they excell in different ways.
If you are running Windows XP and talking about pure grunt in this OS then I would have to agree with your statement regarding the E6600 'wasting' a AMD FX62... however I was of the opinion that the post which you replied to was about power respective to the power consumption of each processor's architecture.
ie power-per-watt
I was just stating that the 'processor competition' suggested by AMD was written with rules bias to AMD as the processor's architecture is capable of producing more power for each watt if power used.. this is the reason that Intel did not contest it and why AMD never went for a straight head to head performance fight between specific processors !!! -- its was an processor's architecture test nothing more
At no time do I recall suggesting that ONE specific processor is better than another.