Intel is now the better choice...for the same reason AMD once was!

so i was doing some poking around the xtremesystems forums, and apparently an Athlon FX @3600 Mhz hits around a 23 second superpi 1Mb. According to the users there, it only takes a Yonah @ 2700Mhz on a 920Mhz bus to hit that....

Anyone wanna contemplate how bad a Conroe @ 3.33Ghz stock on 1333fsb with 4mb L2 cache will whoop AMD?
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
so i was doing some poking around the xtremesystems forums, and apparently an Athlon FX @3600 Mhz hits around a 23 second superpi 1Mb. According to the users there, it only takes a Yonah @ 2700Mhz on a 920Mhz bus to hit that....

Anyone wanna contemplate how bad a Conroe @ 3.33Ghz stock on 1333fsb with 4mb L2 cache will whoop AMD?
Click to expand...

MHz means nothing...
 
PolarbearBigEd said:
MHz means nothing...
Click to expand...

Are all the AMD !!!!!!s in denial like this? Sheesh man, if Mhz meant nothing, why do ppl go nuts over OCing the Opterons to reach higher clock speeds?

Now remember that Conroe is supposed to be clock for clock faster than any Intel proc out now... and... Mhz means nothing??
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Are all the AMD !!!!!!s in denial like this? Sheesh man, if Mhz meant nothing, why do ppl go nuts over OCing the Opterons to reach higher clock speeds?

Now remember that Conroe is supposed to be clock for clock faster than any Intel proc out now... and... Mhz means nothing??
Click to expand...

QFT, mhz AND efficiency. if mhz means nothing then why does amd make cpu's above 2ghz? well obviously megahertz is still important

i love f a n b o y s and their retarded reasoning
 
MHz means something coherent when you look at two chips from the same product line.

Looking at a 3GHz Athlon 64 versus a P4, the Athlon 64 will be faster in everything, but, the Pentium 4 is limited to about 4.8GHz on air cooling, and given that the A64 and P4 have different strengths and weaknesses, it gets blury when comparing the two.

When a customer asks me which is faster, an athlon 64 or a pentium 4, I'll answer "what are you doing with the chip?" Since that's really the only correct answer to such a question.

So when you compare a 3.6GHz P4 to a 2.2GHz AMD, they will beat each other at different tasks (the AMD in MP3 encoding and games, the Intel at Video Encoding and multitasking).

As for contemplating a Conroe at 3.33GHz, we don't even have a grasp as to what 3.33GHz means for a Conroe chip. We know that a an Athlon64 at 3.33GHz is pretty damn fast, given its IPC, and Conroe looks to have a higher IPC than any other CPU, so it definately has the potential to be fast. I just hope that for once in a long time that Intel has a product that half-lives up to its hype.

FreshPrinceOfBellAir said:
Good thing Super pi is so fast, I love playing super pi online deathmatch. :D
Click to expand...

To be fair, the best SuperPI cpu (Dothan) is also really good at games. Unfortunately, it's shit for productivity and multimedia. That's what Intel made the Yonah for :D
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Are all the AMD !!!!!!s in denial like this? Sheesh man, if Mhz meant nothing, why do ppl go nuts over OCing the Opterons to reach higher clock speeds?

Now remember that Conroe is supposed to be clock for clock faster than any Intel proc out now... and... Mhz means nothing??
Click to expand...

Well, in this context he's correct.

Mhz is not a clear reference in comparing performance of Pentium to AMD chips.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Anyone wanna contemplate how bad a Conroe @ 3.33Ghz stock on 1333fsb with 4mb L2 cache will whoop AMD?
Click to expand...

Well we should hope so, it's their next generation chip.
 
Stellar said:
Well we should hope so, it's their next generation chip.
Click to expand...

but where is AMD's next gen? AM2 is nothing but a small bump from all early indications ... AMD has said nothing about any new architectures...
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
but where is AMD's next gen? AM2 is nothing but a small bump from all early indications ... AMD has said nothing about any new architectures...
Click to expand...

AMD doesn't need a new architecture yet. Just higher clockspeeds, which we could see with the improved SOI that IBM made.
 
robberbaron said:
MHz means something coherent when you look at two chips from the same product line.

Looking at a 3GHz Athlon 64 versus a P4, the Athlon 64 will be faster in everything, but, the Pentium 4 is limited to about 4.8GHz on air cooling, and given that the A64 and P4 have different strengths and weaknesses, it gets blury when comparing the two.

When a customer asks me which is faster, an athlon 64 or a pentium 4, I'll answer "what are you doing with the chip?" Since that's really the only correct answer to such a question.

So when you compare a 3.6GHz P4 to a 2.2GHz AMD, they will beat each other at different tasks (the AMD in MP3 encoding and games, the Intel at Video Encoding and multitasking).

As for contemplating a Conroe at 3.33GHz, we don't even have a grasp as to what 3.33GHz means for a Conroe chip. We know that a an Athlon64 at 3.33GHz is pretty damn fast, given its IPC, and Conroe looks to have a higher IPC than any other CPU, so it definately has the potential to be fast. I just hope that for once in a long time that Intel has a product that half-lives up to its hype.

To be fair, the best SuperPI cpu (Dothan) is also really good at games. Unfortunately, it's shit for productivity and multimedia. That's what Intel made the Yonah for :D
Click to expand...

Ever run LAME with an Intel patch? Your example should have went one step farther. A 3GHz Dothan would kick the shit out of a 3GHz Athlon64 more times than not.

Dothan does suck for most multimedia apps but Yonah solves that. Most of the time P4's stream better.

While prescott didn't live up to the hype, Northwood C did more than expected. Smaller K8s were hyped in another way. How many AMD F@ns bragged about smaller Hammers being cheaper? What happened?

I agree with much more than I disagree BTW!

Mark my word, the current Hammer Architecture will not see 3.3GHz=P Even after AMD moves to 65nm, AMD will have to do a Conroe and add at least two more pipes or etc.. FX60 already has a TDP of 110W. Thank goodness AMD has high IPC, if they did had to match MHz, they'd need a TDP of about 160W, hehehe!

I say again, Intel and AMD have had hits and misses or Champs and Chumps. We should be asking both, "What have you done for me lately?", LOL!
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Are all the AMD !!!!!!s in denial like this? Sheesh man, if Mhz meant nothing, why do ppl go nuts over OCing the Opterons to reach higher clock speeds?

Now remember that Conroe is supposed to be clock for clock faster than any Intel proc out now... and... Mhz means nothing??
Click to expand...


For your information, the last computer I owned was an intel machine... :rolleyes:
 
Donnie27 said:
Ever run LAME with an Intel patch? Your example should have went one step farther. A 3GHz Dothan would kick the shit out of a 3GHz Athlon64 more times than not.

Dothan does suck for most multimedia apps but Yonah solves that. Most of the time P4's stream better.

While prescott didn't live up to the hype, Northwood C did more than expected. Smaller K8s were hyped in another way. How many AMD F@ns bragged about smaller Hammers being cheaper? What happened?

I agree with much more than I disagree BTW!

Mark my word, the current Hammer Architecture will not see 3.3GHz=P Even after AMD moves to 65nm, AMD will have to do a Conroe and add at least two more pipes or etc.. FX60 already has a TDP of 110W. Thank goodness AMD has high IPC, if they did had to match MHz, they'd need a TDP of about 160W, hehehe!

I say again, Intel and AMD have had hits and misses or Champs and Chumps. We should be asking both, "What have you done for me lately?", LOL!
Click to expand...
No, I haven't ran LAME with an intel patch. But the only dothan system I have is a notebook and it's limited to 1.73GHz. I'm not looking to my notebook for CPU performance (only gaming performance, which is why I got a GeForce 6600 GO in it)

3.3GHz will be easily seen on AM2 with 65nm. Hell, I had an AMD cpu that was stable at 3.10GHz and it was 90nm and running on air cooling with ease! With more tweaks to the process, AMD could run Hammer up to 3.5 before requiring a new architecture.
However, I don't know how Merom/Conroe is. Hopefully those will kick ass, since I'm bored with my 939 (and the 1.86GHz Conroe is supposedly going to be around $200-250 :D)
 
Do we know how much of a clockspeed bump AMD will get out of AM2?

I realize that we have little basis for comparing Conroe and the A64 yet, but consider

brucedeluxe169 said:
so i was doing some poking around the xtremesystems forums, and apparently an Athlon FX @3600 Mhz hits around a 23 second superpi 1Mb. According to the users there, it only takes a Yonah @ 2700Mhz on a 920Mhz bus to hit that....
Click to expand...

Yonah > A64 (clock for clock)

We also know

Conroe > Yonah

and

Conroe clockspeeds > A64 clockspeeds

Therefore, one could reasonably argue

Conroe > A64

It will be fun to see how this plays out.
 
robberbaron said:
No, I haven't ran LAME with an intel patch. But the only dothan system I have is a notebook and it's limited to 1.73GHz. I'm not looking to my notebook for CPU performance (only gaming performance, which is why I got a GeForce 6600 GO in it)

3.3GHz will be easily seen on AM2 with 65nm. Hell, I had an AMD cpu that was stable at 3.10GHz and it was 90nm and running on air cooling with ease! With more tweaks to the process, AMD could run Hammer up to 3.5 before requiring a new architecture.
However, I don't know how Merom/Conroe is. Hopefully those will kick ass, since I'm bored with my 939 (and the 1.86GHz Conroe is supposedly going to be around $200-250 :D)
Click to expand...

Thousands of folks are enjoying the hell out of so-called notebook CPUs in Desktop systems. Though some folks might not believe, this hasn't went unknoticed by Intel. It's like some folks act as if Intel didn't make Dothan or Yonah.

That's (3GHz) NOT what I've seen. Getting Hammers to do 3GHz is like trying to get a P4 to do 5GHz, though not impossible, very rare indeed. Yes, I have AMDroid buddies who'll see this and go yeah right. Many talk of short term overclocks while others talk of day to day and every day use overclocks. Like, my 2.6C Ran at between 3.26 and 3.32GHz "9CNPS 7000CU" for two years. If not my Buds, I also visit Overclockers.com and Xtremesystems often.

I'm not saying AMD will NOT reach 3.3GHz or etc... I'am saying that NOT with the current Hammer Layout=P

The first AM2/Sc-F is 90nm and NOT 65nm BTW. All of AMD's new tech will be tested on 90nm prior to AMD moving it to 65nm. Yup, you'll pay to be Beta testers LOL! Just like now, when AMD does move to 65nm, they'll also need practice steppings before getting normalized yields. That's NOT a knock BTW, both Intel and AMD goes through this. Let's just hope it doesn't take two years for AMD to get it right (build process) again. There are exceptions like the first run of Northwood C's.

I'd probaly believe AMD overclockers more if the 20+ overclocked systems I've seen backed what was being said by online folks. If I overclock my 3 month old Venice 3500+ by more than 200MHz it cries like a little girl. Before you jump me or my overclocking skillz, I had another bud who uses only AMD systems and water cooling test it also, not much better.
 
It's almost hard to believe that I can OC my PD 930 chip to 3.75ghz on air on STOCK voltages! I bump the vcore to 1.4 and 4ghz is easy (and yes, prime95 = stable) :p
 
Duke3d87 said:
Actually, by the time AMD does full 65nm, Intel will be on the 45nm process. They are scheduled to ramp up the 45nm process next year. Some say 2008, but Intel says 2007. And in 2007, Intel will be firing all of its funs like it will be this year, but next year, they will have quad core. AMD will too, but when it comes to mass production, Intel kind of wins there. The lack of an integrated memory controller is bad, but it could be worse. The shared L2 and direct L1 to L1 connects allows for communication between the cores w/o having go to through the FSB. The quad cores are going to be seperate dies, but i'm inclined to think there will be a core to core communication system that does not involve the FSB.
Click to expand...


Teh new intel DUO's for laptops use a shared 2mb L2 cache allow for this already, they dont need to go out to the memory or what have you to access the same data - so intel is already on that road.

and yes this year and next Intel is going to be putting it hard to AMD - the AM2 is going to need alot more then the simple DDr2 ram support.

intel has already learned more Mhz is not the answer for some time now - intel is ahead of AMD in the process -65, then soon 45 - i dont even think AMD was planning quad core really until intel officially annouced they would have their's out ina year - if all goes well.

intel wants back on top, and if they want back on top - i do honestly think they have the $$$ to do it.

AMD is great right now, but i wont bet on them being on top for much longer in the server / desktop market - since right now AMD has NOTHING in the mobile market to compete with intel's systems.

Wasnt it pentium M's that were giving FX chips a run ?
 
robberbaron said:
AMD doesn't need a new architecture yet. Just higher clockspeeds, which we could see with the improved SOI that IBM made.
Click to expand...

OH, BTW I really hope AMD doesn't agree with you on that one.
 
I dont know if it has been mentioned yet. But Conroe is going to fcsking ROCK.

<3
 
product health during the early engineering phase provided intel with confidence to pull in Conroe's schedule.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
I dont know if it has been mentioned yet. But Conroe is going to fcsking ROCK.

<3
Click to expand...

I have a feeling it's going to come with a nice little price premium too, just like their endless alphabet soup of motherboard chipsets.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
Yonah > A64 (clock for clock)
Click to expand...

We don't know that. We know it's faster clock for clock in one test. Even if it's a fairly large difference, that doesn't mean it's faster overall.

We also know

Conroe > Yonah
Click to expand...

Yeah, but by exactly how much? Intel says 30%. In what?

and

Conroe clockspeeds > A64 clockspeeds
Click to expand...

Again, all we know is what Intel tells us. We should have a 3.33 Conroe by what, August? Who's to say there isn't a 3.4 A64 by then?

I'm looking forward to seeing a proper review of the Conroe. Multiple games, multiple benchmarks, etc etc. Honestly? I expect it *will* run faster than an A64 overall, clock for clock. But no one knows for sure just yet.
 
EQDuffy said:
Again, all we know is what Intel tells us. We should have a 3.33 Conroe by what, August? Who's to say there isn't a 3.4 A64 by then?

I'm looking forward to seeing a proper review of the Conroe. Multiple games, multiple benchmarks, etc etc. Honestly? I expect it *will* run faster than an A64 overall, clock for clock. But no one knows for sure just yet.
Click to expand...

AMD hit the limits of 90nm. They can't clock higher without heat becoming an issue. 65nm isn't coming to AMD till late this year or next year. AMD won't hit 3.0ghz before Conroe comes out.

I think the clocks are still to low for Intel to "blow" AMD away. I mean 2.6ghz just isn't going to get it done. And so far with yonah all Intel has shown is that A. They are good at Super Pi, B. Intel hit the 65nm process first.

I
 
HmmmDonut said:
AMD hit the limits of 90nm. They can't clock higher without heat becoming an issue. 65nm isn't coming to AMD till late this year or next year. AMD won't hit 3.0ghz before Conroe comes out.

I think the clocks are still to low for Intel to "blow" AMD away. I mean 2.6ghz just isn't going to get it done. And so far with yonah all Intel has shown is that A. They are good at Super Pi, B. Intel hit the 65nm process first.

I
Click to expand...
They actually are planning on releasing a 3 GHz Opteron, but expect that to put out a boatload of heat and require full usage of the new HSF that is on par with the XP-90

empoy said:
product health during the early engineering phase provided intel with confidence to pull in Conroe's schedule.
Click to expand...
Meaning? I never got this answered “officially” but how will Cloverton and Kentsfield’s dies be connected?

EQDuffy said:
We don't know that. We know it's faster clock for clock in one test. Even if it's a fairly large difference, that doesn't mean it's faster overall.

Yeah, but by exactly how much? Intel says 30%. In what?

Again, all we know is what Intel tells us. We should have a 3.33 Conroe by what, August? Who's to say there isn't a 3.4 A64 by then?

I'm looking forward to seeing a proper review of the Conroe. Multiple games, multiple benchmarks, etc etc. Honestly? I expect it *will* run faster than an A64 overall, clock for clock. But no one knows for sure just yet.
Click to expand...

Because you can barely get 200 MHz out of the FX-60. If they can release a 3.4 GHz Athlon that can run with the stock HSF, I’d be fairly impressed. BTW, Merom is supposed to have a 2:1 performance to ration over Yonah. Which means it’s going to be fast.


HmmmDonut said:
AMD hit the limits of 90nm. They can't clock higher without heat becoming an issue. 65nm isn't coming to AMD till late this year or next year. AMD won't hit 3.0ghz before Conroe comes out.

I think the clocks are still to low for Intel to "blow" AMD away. I mean 2.6ghz just isn't going to get it done. And so far with yonah all Intel has shown is that A. They are good at Super Pi, B. Intel hit the 65nm process first.

I
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure that they are scheduled for the 65nm process next year. They are going to try to get as much out of their process (and from the way it seems, they’re doing a good job), but when Intel goes full 45nm and AMD just starts 65nm, you gotta wonder. BTW, If IBM and AMD share the process that IBM is going to use for the Power6. God help Intel.
 
they are 2 merom dies in a single package similar to Presler's implementation
 
In a price war, intel is the sure winner.

Since:
1. they can afford to lose money
2. they can flood the market with cheap CPUs (think of no. of Intel vs AMD fabs)
3. Didn't AMD made a huge loan for its new fab and R&D or amd64?
 
I am no intel Fan however I will purchase and use whatever product is better (For my uses). Reguardless of money.

Right Now I do beleive Intel is in that spot. For me and what I do with my computer, and Intel Chip and Chipset is what I need. I dont build my PC for games, but I do game. So A Strong Intel EE and Radeon AIW is what I ususally go for. Works for me.

AMD Has some outstanding chips. Earlier in the year when the X2's came out, I hopped on one. And it was awesome as well. Just not what I was looking for at the time.

Now, I have a Core Duo with my iMac. Sure, its not running windows, but as soon as vista comes out it will be. And you best beleive as soon as we see some solid Conroe Chips come out, I will be hopping all over those.

Right Now, AMD has nothing to compete with Intel. The Athlon X2 is a solid chip, but they need something more than a speed bump now. Same with the FX.

I would love to see AMD come out with a new killer chip, because that means we are the winner. Competetion is good for you and me and my wallet. It brings down prices and makes these companies put out better products.

I am hoping that Intel Conroe XE will be 2 Cores @ 3.33GHz Each. Lookin for a 1333MHz FSB, 4MB Shared L2 Cache - Hopefully under 15 Cycles to remain strong, looking for a strong FPU and SIMD performance. Hopefully no more than 15 stage pipeline. Hopefully a strong L1 cache, I dunno maybe 64K or 128K but strong. 4 issue wide is good, will bring alot more IPC to the table. Lastly, I would like the XE to be able to support up to 2 Processors. So I can have 2 XEs in my Box at one time. Basically I would like a Conroe XE @ 2Ghz to compete with a Athlon X2 @ 2.8Ghz... That way when the XE comes out at 3.33Ghz, It will demolish everything. And be worth the 1000$ price tag.

Also, I am hoping for the New "AMD Chip" after the M2 Athlons to be amazing too. In short I would like to see nothing but the same from What Intel is doing now. AMD already has really efficiant chips, However I would like to see them become more competetive and at a lower price. Before in late 99 - early 2001. Thats why everyone bought AMD. They performed great, sometimes depending on the chip better than the Intel counterpart. AND offered at a lower price tag.... we dont see that anymore. The AMD Chips that are beating their intel counterparts are sky high in price. Thats not why AMD was successful, and I do beleive will be their downfall if they dont go back to this strategy.
 
empoy said:
they are 2 merom dies in a single package similar to Presler's implementation
Click to expand...
oh man so you're talking about two cores sharing a single FSB? Which in turn causes bottlenecks and t hen lower performance? Oh shoot.
 
I got about two pages into this thread before I couldn't stand the barely restrained !!!!!!ism on both sides anymore. As for all the armchair psychics who keep predicting this or that is going to mop the floor with whomever, get a hobby and quit trying to will the future to match your !!!!!!ism based on whatever latest opinions and speculation you read on the web.

Also (and I suppose I'm tipping my hand here, but oh well) some of you should consider that Intel would be nowhere close to AMD's performance level if it weren't for their excellently optimized compiler and the fact that the majority of software is more heavily optimized for Intel processors.
 
ChingChang said:
I agree, but lowend it's usually pretty easy to get a cheap Sempron + budget mobo, better than a celeron.
Click to expand...

Find me a decent s754 sff system for sub $120, good chipset & all. I can do it on intel (my "lowend" sff is a 939 though, heheeh..) and build a box for $395 OS included at the egg with a celeryD in a nice pretty little box my mom likes.

If you go to microatx & actually stick a mb in a case, I'd go AMD.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
semprons are more like Toyota Corollas or Ford Focuses... they are cheap, and they get the job done... very well

A64 X2 is the ultimate Toyota Camry... middle of the road price for top of the line performance and features, and excellent reliability, but excellent bang for the buck (9xx series fails this because it is a "gas guzzler".... aka, it sucks too much power)

Anyone wanna tell me what they think the Ferarri Enzo will be? Honestly, the power chip with the uber performance that doesnt care about economy?

Anyone know if there are any FX-60 @ 2.8ghz benchmarks vs a 955 XE @ 4.0+ ghz anywhere on the net? The winner of that would be the Enzo

I guess at stock the FX-60 takes the crown
Click to expand...

You are thinking too low.

In the "x86 compatible" world, I'd say the enzo is the opteron 880
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
I got about two pages into this thread before I couldn't stand the barely restrained !!!!!!ism on both sides anymore. As for all the armchair psychics who keep predicting this or that is going to mop the floor with whomever, get a hobby and quit trying to will the future to match your !!!!!!ism based on whatever latest opinions and speculation you read on the web.

Also (and I suppose I'm tipping my hand here, but oh well) some of you should consider that Intel would be nowhere close to AMD's performance level if it weren't for their excellently optimized compiler and the fact that the majority of software is more heavily optimized for Intel processors.
Click to expand...
That's the perk of being the industry leader. Also, with the Conroe series, Intel says that it will outperform the A64X2 series by 20%. That's architectual improvement.
 
Duke3d87 said:
That's the perk of being the industry leader. Also, with the Conroe series, Intel says that it will outperform the A64X2 series by 20%. That's architectual improvement.
Click to expand...

Intel says? Oh, OK. It must be true then ;)

Besides last I checked, AMD wasn't sitting around doing nothing, so statements like "Our new chip will be 20% faster than their old chip (in one or two specific tasks)" is a pretty worthless assertion anyway.

By the way, having a great compiler has squat to do with being the "industry leader," I'm not really sure how you made that connection. I was giving Intel credit for that. It wouldn't be as easy for software devs to optimize for Intel if the Intel compiler wasn't so good.
 
steviep said:
It's almost hard to believe that I can OC my PD 930 chip to 3.75ghz on air on STOCK voltages! I bump the vcore to 1.4 and 4ghz is easy (and yes, prime95 = stable) :p
Click to expand...

Prim95 is easy :) Try a make buildworld with like 18 threads on freebsd 5.x or 6.x off of a 4-8G mfs ;)
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
I am no intel Fan however I will purchase and use whatever product is better (For my uses). Reguardless of money.

Right Now I do beleive Intel is in that spot. For me and what I do with my computer, and Intel Chip and Chipset is what I need. I dont build my PC for games, but I do game. So A Strong Intel EE and Radeon AIW is what I ususally go for. Works for me.

AMD Has some outstanding chips. Earlier in the year when the X2's came out, I hopped on one. And it was awesome as well. Just not what I was looking for at the time.

Now, I have a Core Duo with my iMac. Sure, its not running windows, but as soon as vista comes out it will be. And you best beleive as soon as we see some solid Conroe Chips come out, I will be hopping all over those.

Right Now, AMD has nothing to compete with Intel. The Athlon X2 is a solid chip, but they need something more than a speed bump now. Same with the FX.

I would love to see AMD come out with a new killer chip, because that means we are the winner. Competetion is good for you and me and my wallet. It brings down prices and makes these companies put out better products.

I am hoping that Intel Conroe XE will be 2 Cores @ 3.33GHz Each. Lookin for a 1333MHz FSB, 4MB Shared L2 Cache - Hopefully under 15 Cycles to remain strong, looking for a strong FPU and SIMD performance. Hopefully no more than 15 stage pipeline. Hopefully a strong L1 cache, I dunno maybe 64K or 128K but strong. 4 issue wide is good, will bring alot more IPC to the table. Lastly, I would like the XE to be able to support up to 2 Processors. So I can have 2 XEs in my Box at one time. Basically I would like a Conroe XE @ 2Ghz to compete with a Athlon X2 @ 2.8Ghz... That way when the XE comes out at 3.33Ghz, It will demolish everything. And be worth the 1000$ price tag.

Also, I am hoping for the New "AMD Chip" after the M2 Athlons to be amazing too. In short I would like to see nothing but the same from What Intel is doing now. AMD already has really efficiant chips, However I would like to see them become more competetive and at a lower price. Before in late 99 - early 2001. Thats why everyone bought AMD. They performed great, sometimes depending on the chip better than the Intel counterpart. AND offered at a lower price tag.... we dont see that anymore. The AMD Chips that are beating their intel counterparts are sky high in price. Thats not why AMD was successful, and I do beleive will be their downfall if they dont go back to this strategy.
Click to expand...

SO if you got an intel dual core EE, even in intel optimized stuff (I'm guessing video encoding), would it still be faster than a nforce pro chipset board with NUMA and dual 265's or 270's ? Cost should be about the same.

Actually that should be a good comparison :)

[H] editors: review idea>
Best rig where cpu + motherboard cannot > $1200, everything stock first test, then OC test. Sam amounts of ram, same hard drive, same video card, same everything else...
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
Intel says? Oh, OK. It must be true then ;)

Besides last I checked, AMD wasn't sitting around doing nothing, so statements like "Our new chip will be 20% faster than their old chip (in one or two specific tasks)" is a pretty worthless assertion anyway.

By the way, having a great compiler has squat to do with being the "industry leader," I'm not really sure how you made that connection. I was giving Intel credit for that. It wouldn't be as easy for software devs to optimize for Intel if the Intel compiler wasn't so good.
Click to expand...
at this point in time, they have nothing to gain from worthless claims about speed. Ask the people who work for Intel that post here and they will tell you that Conroe will be amazing.
 
Duke3d87 said:
oh man so you're talking about two cores sharing a single FSB? Which in turn causes bottlenecks and t hen lower performance? Oh shoot.
Click to expand...

Of course it was going to use FSB as Intel hasn't mentioned a replacement for the forseeable future, I don't think(?) :confused:
 
perplex said:
Of course it was going to use FSB as Intel hasn't mentioned a replacement for the forseeable future, I don't think(?) :confused:
Click to expand...

they have. It's called CSI. I hear 2008 for Itanium and Xeon ish. I said shared FSB because the two cores on the Pentium D share one FSB, but to communicate, they have to go out to the bus and to the other core. Conroe would fix that by allowing direct L1 and a shared L2 cache for the cores to communicate therefore bypassing the FSB when it came to intercore communication. Now that it won't be there, you're back to the old way of doing things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top