Inter Pentium D 925 3 0GHz and AMD 3600 who is more cost effective

According to the cost-effective willing explanation, the accessories must be cheap and super good!

For the two CPU options, AMD 3600+ (preferably 65nm) is preferred

Because if you want to have similar performance, the motherboard with PD 925 will probably exceed 200-300 or so, so that it can be compared with 3600+!

See what you do.

If playing games, AMD3600+ is recommended

For other large data processing, it is recommended to use the Inter Pentium D 925

Inter D 925 may have more heat, and 3600+ is dual-core, so you have to choose 65nm. I must choose AMD, there are many boards, and it is cheaper

925 is also 65nm. The fever is not much. Words on performance. The overall performance of the 925 is definitely over 3600+. But it's not as cheap as 3600+. The motherboard that matches him is cheap!

Performance characteristics: 3600 has a slight upper hand in gaming and 3D performance, and 925 has a greater advantage in multi-** and entertainment office.

In terms of overall test scores, they are almost comparable.

Heating power consumption: The power consumption of the latest version of 3600 65nm is 65W, and the power consumption of 925 is 90W, and the 3600 has a large advantage.

Both**: 3600 is around 470-500.

925 is around 635-650.

Motherboard: The motherboard with AM2 series interface** is cheaper than the motherboard of Intel945 and above** by more than 150 yuan. And if you want to use DDR2 800 memory, the 925 must use the Intel 965 series motherboard, while the 3600 does not.

To sum up, 3600 is more cost-effective.

The performance is good, and it's dual-core.

The fever is relatively large, and it has long been eliminated, and it can still be used in general.

Pentium D, I have a friend who has been using AMD and has overhauled it several times, but it doesn't work, and I like Intel.

Generally speaking, the processing of inter is more ** information is good.

AMD has strong floating-point computing power and handles game data well.

The AMD X2 3800+ has about the same overall performance as the PD925.

Saying that Inter's processor stability is better may be due to the old opinion, in the past, AMD's processor generated too much heat, and the natural stability was poor, but now everything has changed, and I have used both processors now, and there is no difference at all in terms of stability.

It should be athlon athlon 4200+ to 4600+ like that, D925 has obvious bugs

A friend used D925 in Nanjing in June, and the CPU working temperature reached more than 70 degrees every day

It's not good to change the fan when it crashes, and it's very depressing

AMD positioning is 3800+, in fact, it may take 4200+ to compare with PD925 In addition to heating, 925 is a good U

At least 4000 or 4200 is the same.

3600 is 915 925 should be 3800.

All have their own benefits,Overall, AMD's performance is higher,It's equivalent to overclocking,And Inter's stability is relatively high,If it's commercial, it's still inter.,If it's a game, you can use AMD.,And you change it faster.。

AMD Athlon-2 45nm E240 E245 E250

Inter Core (Pentium) 65nm E2180

AMD Athlon-2 is better, 45nm heats less, energy saving, more stable, and has better performance.

AMD's Athlon is on a notch with Intel's Pentium. Phenom is on the same level as Core.

int is stable, so companies generally use int to process data and databases.

AMD is mostly performance-oriented, so some AMD CPUs also have more blue frequencies, and overclocking is common.

It's good to play games.

But now the technology is getting higher ... It's no big difference anymore. It is important to pay more attention to cost performance in the choice.

amd athlon(tm) 64x2 dual core processor 5000+

nvidia geforce 8400gs

These two dusty celery cong faction leader or good.

It depends on the frequency, Athlon 4800+ performance will be better than Pentium E2180 and 2160 but worse than 2200, because of the frequency of 4800+ and 2160 is and 2180 is, 2200 is, it can be said that Intel's Pentium dual-core at the same frequency is better than AMD's Athlon dual-core, this is because the core architecture used by Pentium is more efficient than AMD's K8 architecture, and Intel's Pentium processor has strong overclocking ability and lower power consumption, of course, ** is also higher.

It depends on the model and the use

Inter's Pentium is stronger than AMD's Athlon overall!! **Quite galloping to win!

AMD and Intel are more cost-effective if they are in the same grade.

Intel is more stable.

AMD has a slightly higher calorific value.

Athlon and Pentium ratio? Of course, athlon is good at the same frequency.

If it's compared to Core, it's worse.

Did you ask before or now???

Now it's a new technology, much better than Pentium, Celeron.

It must be that the former is better, because the former is more advanced than the latter in terms of process technology, the latter is a 90nm process, and the former should be 65 nm or 45nm I can't remember. Advanced manufacturing means more integrated transistors, faster computing speeds, and lower power consumption.

The Besturn dual-core has long been discontinued, and Intel and AMD are currently differentiated by market share.

AMD mainly occupies the low-end of the desktop, the market below 700 fast money, and Intel mainly occupies the high-end 700 fast money and above.

And the top of the notebook is the world of Intel.

From the analysis of performance and power consumption, the price of low-end AMD with the same performance is low, and the high-end performance AMD is not as good as Intel

In terms of power consumption of notebooks, AMD is far inferior to Intel