http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819117057 Intel Xeon Processor - 3.6GHz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103590 Single Core AMD Opteron - 2.8 GHz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103582 Dual Core AMD Opteron - 2.4GHz The dual core would probably run about the same as the intel, but im not 100% sure, youd have to wait fordefuzion to answer, those are just the fastest GHz (which is what im assuming is all your asking, you didnt specify multitasking support and everything else). The AMD would for sure run cooler and you could OC it more, making it operate at a lower GHz than the intel still, but an overall higher performance speed (i think... as i said wait for .DeFuZiOn)
bad core architecture, overheating problems, and the inability to scale the clock speed any higer. It's kind of sad when a 2.6ghz FX55 can outperform a 5.0ghz P4 in certain instances and such a thing does not exist. as for the fastest proc, at this time, it is the AMD Athlon FX FX60(two 2.6ghz cores). 2nd fastest would be an overclocked and liquid nitrogen cooled PXE 955(with two cores at 4.5-5.5ghz) the PXE is too much of a hassle to cool for most though and costs moe than the FX60 which outperforms it royally at stock and can't be fully taken advantage of until faster ram is out. fastest single core proc i FX57 at 2.8ghz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103608 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819116246
i tihnk you meant to say FX-60, kinda a big difference in the two. FX-57 is probably one of the fastest single-core's. but yeah, i ?think¿ that the FX-60 is still the best. I just can't wait for the Conroe to come out in Q3 later this year, intel might actually own AMD for the top processor (no matter how long that lasts)
for a brief period of time, yes. Conroe has quite a few advancements. Improved guessing algorithms, very good core architecture(better than the Athlons in most regards but the pipeline, though it's more or less a canibalization of past parts from planned procs so there is a bit of room to improve in terms fo getting each part of the core to interface well) Hyperthreading for improved multitasking(though on a dual cor eproc this isn't nearly as relevent and slightly hurts single threaded processing) pretty good energy efficiency and the ability to be produced in volume due to the 65nm process. With the exception of Conroe XE, AMD will have the overall performance crown. Conroe XE will likelyrequire a proprietory motherboard due to greatly increased die size though, and is more or less a factory OC-ed chip. AMD will continue to have the performance crown clock/clock though. the HTT bus is revolutionary and offers far greater bandwidth and is a far better interface than the FSB. Also the integrated memory controller helps reduce system latency greatly. When AMD comes out on the 65nm manufacturing process, they will recapture performance.watt and will be able to greatly increase ther volume though not up to par with intel. Athlons will on the whole be marginally more expensive than the core duo in terms fo performance/$ though.
if you spend that much money on a processor and dont get the fx- 60, then your just dumb. many ppl are into gaming, including me, but i run many more processes then just the game at one time. and as some one said another time, its worth going from 120 fps to 110 fps in order to play a game as pop ups invade you. anyways, who really notices the difference between that high of a frame rate, i thought the human eye couldnt see the differnce past a stable 30 fps, since that is what movies use.
