AMD VS Intel (Intels and AMD's Trunk Cards)

S

Serge84

Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
693
Intel = Must show off performance ES's ASAP. Make Hype known with benchmarks. Keep ppl waiting for 9months. Conroe beats AMD for a year. K10 comes out. Intel needs wolfdile and yorkfeild to stay conpeditive. Cus a 2.5ghz K10 quad star processor beats anything intel currently has by 40% witch is a 3ghz xeon still Conroe core based. Wolfdile at 4ghz and yorkfeild at 3.73ghz come out the same time K10 does... Funny how its the SAME TIME... Kuma is clocked at 2.9ghz the 4ghz equivlent of wolfdine and Agena is clocked at 2.6ghz the 3.4 to 3.73ghz equivlent of yorkfield.

Wolfdile and yorkfield are Intels trunk card to delay AMD's 40% dominance.

http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/RoadmapQ307.htm

AMD = Keep quite, show NO benchmarks until release date has been met. Make NO HYPE. Keep customers guessing and waiting for a year. Only sell truth with worlds never backing up their clams. They never showed benchmarks of K8 until it was released on production, they just said it was going to make intel 2nd best for a few years. Did they lie about it? Nope, killed netburst until Conroe came along. AMD does the same. So is this 2003 all over again? Sure it IS!!!

I'm impressed with AMD. But this will force AMD to show off its trunk card very soon in the game. According to AMD... HKEPC and mobo manufactures state 3.5ghz capable K10's after 2008. AMD must tell mobo manufactures K10 specs to prepare for K10 compatiblity with current gen and next gen sockets to maintain compatiblity stability.

http://badhardware.blogspot.com/2006/10/amds-k8l-revealed-in-cray-rainier.html
 
I do not agree with Serge,and think anyone who is 'impressed' with AMDati's current performance whether financially,or in the cpu/gpu game needs to give thier head a good
shake.. but making fun of him because he obviously is not english speaking is dumber
still. :rolleyes:
 
Good points Serge, but we just have to wait and see...

also, just wanted to correct you on the Trunk... it's supposed to be "Trump" ;)
 
Manny Calavera said:
I do not agree with Serge,and think anyone who is 'impressed' with AMDati's current performance whether financially,or in the cpu/gpu game needs to give thier head a good
shake.. but making fun of him because he obviously is not english speaking is dumber
still. :rolleyes: But I never owned a super fast dual core OCed AMD setup in the 1st place on a 64-bit OS such as yours, so how should I know? I'm pro 32-bit Intel... >_>;
Click to expand...

Apperently a X2 6000+ is $230 and is a single socket AM2 flag ship processor and a E6700 is still $500 and a XE series cost a K too much. Nobody in their right mind would pay 1K for a cpu unless they just want to show off or say look at me I'm the rich boy shooting $ out my A$$. Who has the price performance advantage here in cpu and mobo combo area? A E6600 with a decent mobo.

$300 + $150 compared to $230 + $90 for over performance in 64bit. Get the picture? You need a $500 cpu to match a $230 cpu plus the extra $60+ bucks on mobo features. Most highend AMD's start at $90 but I can get a $70 mobo that can OC better then any intel mobo worth $100 cus even then intels mobos are crap at that price. You want OCability you got to pay the $150 $200+ for a decent mobo.

Sad even the best MATX's OC like crap Intel related. I stayed away from intels cus they are too damn expencive and I am not going to put $500 into a cpu just to get decent performance from a MATX setup. AMD allows me to get what I can't from a Intel MATX setup. Until Intel shoot out wolfdile and yorkfield into the market I won't be impressed.

Besides I am only talking about stock speeds here. AMD can sell a cpu at $230 that matches the X6800 A 1K processor in 64-bit yeah I'd buy it over a E6600. Then somebody says just wait until the price cuts. I still won't buy a over priced cpu from Intel when K10 is going to be 40% faster. Look at the prices now, AMD will sell their lowest end K10's at about $300 since K10 1.9ghz outperforms a K8 X2 6000. Intel knows AMD is comming out with K10Q's and going to make C2Q's at $266 just to stay compeditive with X4's at a much lower speed.

It depends really if AMD is going to do another price cut to make all K8's under $100 to get rid of inventory for the 70% faster K10's vs K8's and price dual cores 1.9 to 2.9 at $100 to $300 then price quads on up to $300 2.1ghz to 2.5ghz to $500. Then leave AFX's at $999 for a pair. Funny how AMD is slashing prices like mad to get rid of all their K8's to make room for K10 wafers witch are being made like crazy since they can make nearly double the cpus with 65nm on 300mm wafers. I can understand why prices are so low. Because they are getting ready to launch K10 soon. Prices are so low mainly cus they are saying K8 is junk compared to K10.

Intels responce is price QX's at $266 yeah for what? The didn't need to before. Well cus they didn't have compitition this stiff before for a year. They wouldn't price cpus accordenly if AMD wasn't giving them a challange. If K10 is only sipose to be 5% 10% faster then why in the hell price a high end chip nearly 70% below normal price? Cus the differences AMD is clamming are actoully true and Intel is taking it very seriously. You'll see QX6900's "those are 3ghz quads btw", priced at $400 as a responce to AMD's move when K10 comes. They will need wolfdile and yorkfield to match AMD evenly.

Penryn is only 3.2ghz. That is slower then wolfdile and yorkfield on the same process and further more only limited to single socket desktops still on a FSB. Penryn will not beable to match Quad opterons on a 2P and up system sadly. The AFX's will out match Intel in desktop market by 80% because intel simply doesn't have and can not have a 8 core desktop system to counter it. All intel has is 2P servers. AMD will take it upto 8P servers. They will retake the server market with quad cpu oct-socket setups. Thats all on one mobo ppl 32 cores with better then C2D and C2Q TDP's combined.

AMD's FPU is 300% better then current K8's clamed by AMD so Intel won't even be compeditive in FPU performance. All that bull about Penryn is right here.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?o...ticle&sid=7491

Don't expect a saving grace. Both won't be out before wolfdile or yorkfield anyways because there will not be a 1600FSB until the end of the Q3 2007 it won't even be chipset compattible. But these will... Wolfdile and yorkfield will outperform penryn from a speed perspective anyways so those are the ones to look forward to on a 1333FSB and are prob supported today.

http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/RoadmapQ307.htm

Nehalem will not be out until the end of 2008 around when AMD will have APU's K1X around the same time that feature 4 or more cores, a replacement of the CPU with Fusion type cores in desktops and servers to counter Nehalem. But AMD is generations ahead of Nehalem in CSI With HT-4 (In 2008 on AM3 also DDR3), memory controllers, PCI-E controllers, North bridge on die, CPU/GPU cores because of ATI's superior GPU tech agenst Intel, and Direct connect arc. Intel isn't going to be in the lead with just minimal editions that have been around for oh since about 2003 for most of the stuff. CSI is a rip off of hyper transport.

http://rubyworks.net/forumz/viewtopic.php?t=363

Just because they copy AMD doesn't mean it will be as good, they have no experionce in the field. AMD however has the most advanced GPU market, and development experionce to backup the performance agenst cheap imitations of something thats been out since 2003 for the most part. And don't even talk about where Intel is VS another GPU company, cus they don't compare to even the 4XXX series of anything invidea has much less the FX5XXX series or Radeon 9XXX series. I seriously doult intel can come close to any of them anytime soon when they do put GPU's into CPU's as editions vs something remotly close to the 2K series or 8XXX series build into a die with cpus.

http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/Roadmap20XX.htm

I hate repeating myself. Besides even if you managed to OC the FSB your FSB is saverly limiting your OC because apps can't take full advantage of your speed or dual cores, doesn't do much good over 3ghz for anything realworld because of the bottle necks at 3.4ghz on a C2D with half the cache Intel's are so dependent on. No true conroe performance. Specially of the lower class E's. In japan "E" was a failing grade. lol Conroe is so good because it can shell out 32-bit single thread apps twice as fast as AMD's. And ppl tend to take advantage of this and brag how over hyped their performance is when they know the secret of performing benchmarks. Also conroes cache is one of its main reasons of this dominance in 32-bit. In 64-bit its a whole diff ball game because AMD isn't cache dependent and has true 64-bit instruction sets not emulated like in intels. Try multi core 64-bit able benches then we'll talk. You prob lose some performance with out VT on those lower end "E"'s when you run vista. Most of this performance shown in benchmarks won't be seen in the real world when apps use 100% dual threads. Now its prob less then 90% despite OS's capabilities. In the real world when 64-bit is 100% used and 32-bit is phased out and dual cores are 100% utalized. Conroe's performance will only be truly realized as only being just as good as K8's currently.

Until wolfdile and yorkfield like I said I won't be impressed with magic tricks performed by really large cache, and perpously known single thread 32-bit benchmarks. Even in 64-bit Intel loses 30% of its performance because of fake 64-bit instruction sets. And it lags behind compared to 32-bit apps from my experionce with one. So I don't see what all the fuss it about but thats just my opinion. So live with it.
 
very nice response with the long post I read every last word except the links, it what I was thinking when all this hype started to come around. History is going to repeat its self and it is going to be a really ugly war going on for the next couple of years. I will stay with AMD because I just like always supporting them. I just can't wait till stuff starts settling down a little so I don't wast 2K on a compy that wont be able to play a game that comes out 2 weeks later.
 
AMD-air-bubble must be running thin on oxygen....
You should get out (of it) more Serge84....:rolleyes:
 
A little of something that has been in Intel's slides Serge, is that Penryn also brings in a 20% IPC improvement.
 
The real problem isn't with the CPU's. It's with the fact that AMD can't sustain a long drug out price war with Intel. They are in too much debt.
 
Intel could probably raise the stock speed of their CPUs 700 to 800MHz across the board with out much problem. They will, too, if they need to.

kirbyrj said:
The real problem isn't with the CPU's. It's with the fact that AMD can't sustain a long drug out price war with Intel. They are in too much debt.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that the reason they're in debt is so they can handle larger volumes of chips. Before Conroe, they lost a lot of possible revue because they couldn't keep up with demand. It's more of an investment than anything. If they can keep their performance up, it will be more than worth it in the end.
 
I like how you're already privy to the real world performance of K10 when compared to conroe. While you're at it, can you tell us how NVIDIA's DX 12 cards will be benching in 2011? I'm really wondering about that.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
You have to remember that the reason they're in debt is so they can handle larger volumes of chips. Before Conroe, they lost a lot of possible revue because they couldn't keep up with demand. It's more of an investment than anything. If they can keep their performance up, it will be more than worth it in the end.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, they can't afford to be selling the product that they spent all the time and money in R&D for sub $250 prices (e.g. 6000+ right now). Even their 65nm Brisbanes are $65 or so. The only real reason for these prices is Intel's pricing, which AMD can't control (however, Intel can control AMD's prices to some extent).
 
Oh wow, I just noticed that last line in his sig.

Serge = Sharikou,

On topic...first of all, you can't say AMD isn't trying to hype K10. AMD has been casually dropping that 40% number for months now. My idea of no hype would be if we didn't know K10 was coming until it was here.

A difference between AMD and Intel when it comes to this hype is that Intel provided hard numbers to back up their facts. Intel allowed independent sources like Anand access to their testing platforms. The 40% that Conroe supposedly beat K8 by didn't come from Intel, it came from looking at the numbers from people like Anand. AMD has simply been dropping percentages, with nothing to back it up but their word. That doesn't mean they're lying, but even exaggerating, but it does make me hesitant to say Conroe is dead just yet.

What I'm really interested in is Penryn vs K10.

Also, one thing from your second long post I'd like to address is your contention that ATi's graphics technology is superior to Intel's. You're comparing apples and oranges. Intel has only been interested in making graphics chipsets that can be included on a northbridge without taking up too much space and without producing too much heat. Also, an important objective for them is keeping cost down, since business users (their target audience) couldn't care less how many FPS in Doom 3 their computer gets, as long as the OS can draw windows.

Don't kid yourself. If Intel wanted to make a competitive, discrete GPU, it could.
 
No it came from Intel giving custom compiled benches to !!!!!! sites that in turn copied and pasted the results into there reviews....

When the chip was released real world difference was no greater then 6-12 percent...
 
kirbyrj said:
The way I see it, they can't afford to be selling the product that they spent all the time and money in R&D for sub $250 prices (e.g. 6000+ right now). Even their 65nm Brisbanes are $65 or so. The only real reason for these prices is Intel's pricing, which AMD can't control (however, Intel can control AMD's prices to some extent).
Click to expand...

I thought that the X2 is an old tech and the C2D is newer so Intel should still have more R&D cost for C2D to cover than AMD. Btw if people are really buying a lot of Intel's CPUs, Intel don't need to cut the price at all. The fact that Intel cut the price shows that they are producing more CPUs than the demand for it. I really doubt that Intel will say something like this "since people are supporting us and there is a high demand for our product, let's just cut the price of our product to help our customer". Afaik, AMD have sold their overpriced A64 longer than Intel sell their overpriced C2D.
 
duby229 said:
No it came from Intel giving custom compiled benches to !!!!!!
sites that in turn copied and pasted the results into there reviews....
Click to expand...
No, 40% was vs Pentium-D:

http://img5.pcpop.com/ArticleImages/400x300/0/268/000268581.jpg

Intel estimated a 20% advantage over competing AMD processors at the time of Conroe's release:

http://news.com.com/Intel+strikes+back+with+next-generation+chips/2100-1006_3-6041120.html

When the chip was released real world difference was no greater then 6-12 percent...
Click to expand...
The real-world has the 2.4GHz E6600 matching the 3GHz 6000+. If Intel is guilty of anything, it was being conservative with respect to the performance of Conroe before it was released.
 
1. Spell check
2. Do you remember why you were banned on XS (fud)?

"Cus a 2.5ghz K10 quad star processor beats anything intel currently has by 40% witch is a 3ghz xeon still Conroe core based. Kuma is clocked at 2.9ghz the 4ghz equivlent of wolfdine and Agena is clocked at 2.6ghz the 3.4 to 3.73ghz equivlent of yorkfield."

Did AMD say that?

"Make NO HYPE."

But what about their 40% with no proof?
 
alg7_munif said:
I thought that the X2 is an old tech and the C2D is newer so Intel should still have more R&D cost for C2D to cover than AMD. Btw if people are really buying a lot of Intel's CPUs, Intel don't need to cut the price at all. The fact that Intel cut the price shows that they are producing more CPUs than the demand for it. I really doubt that Intel will say something like this "since people are supporting us and there is a high demand for our product, let's just cut the price of our product to help our customer". Afaik, AMD have sold their overpriced A64 longer than Intel sell their overpriced C2D.
Click to expand...

Intel isn't really interested in profits now as their primary objective, currently their goal is to regain marketshare, hence the very aggressive pricing on Intels' front. They are dropping prices to put financial pressure on AMD, either way they achieve something, gain back marketshare, or bleed AMD like crazy.

Demand for Conroe is reasonable, Intel has enough 65nm capacity that there are no issue related to supply. And if you hadn't noticed this is the 1st Core 2 price drop we're going to have, so they did hold prices constant for a substantial period of time. At a level which took AMD till February to match in Price/Performance, AMD has better price/performance ratios for the moment but it will be short lived the April 22nd price drops will equalize that. The only points where AMD will have an advantage is against NetBurst inventory so that is the sub $113 market.
 
I would be amazed if AMD came out with a better product then Intel. As far as the market goes, Intel has every advantage possible. More cash flow so they can sink much, much more into research and development compared to what AMD can. I have no idea how many fabs they've got churning out procs compared to AMDs what, 2 or 3 I think? So they can produce more, faster and at a cheaper price then AMD. Not to mention AMDs stock has been tanking and they took on loads of debt by buying ATi. So investors are getting scared and once you start to lose investors your multinational corporation is in pretty dire straits.
 
coldpower27 said:
Intel isn't really interested in profits now as their primary objective, currently their goal is to regain marketshare, hence the very aggressive pricing on Intels' front. They are dropping prices to put financial pressure on AMD, either way they achieve something, gain back marketshare, or bleed AMD like crazy.

Demand for Conroe is reasonable, Intel has enough 65nm capacity that there are no issue related to supply. And if you hadn't noticed this is the 1st Core 2 price drop we're going to have, so they did hold prices constant for a substantial period of time. At a level which took AMD till February to match in Price/Performance, AMD has better price/performance ratios for the moment but it will be short lived the April 22nd price drops will equalize that. The only points where AMD will have an advantage is against NetBurst inventory so that is the sub $113 market.
Click to expand...

Well this is the first time I've heard that a company is not interested in profit. Even if Intel can produce more CPUs than AMD but if the demand is low, the price will drop. If demand for a product is higher than the supply, the price will automatically go up. I would rather make 10 products and sell them for $10 each than make 100 products and sell them for $1 each.
 
alg7_munif said:
Well this is the first time I've heard that a company is not interested in profit. Even if Intel can produce more CPUs than AMD but if the demand is low, the price will drop. If demand for a product is higher than the supply, the price will automatically go up. I would rather make 10 products and sell them for $10 each than make 100 products and sell them for $1 each.
Click to expand...

You didn't really read, read my post again, they aren't interested in profit as their primary objective, it is still a concern but it is secondary to regaining marketshare.

What you quoted only works in theory, it doesn't come into play with a large manufacturer such as Intel which can deliver products in quantity.

Intel prices on current products rarely drops any lower then what Intel sets them to be. There is a very hardlock on what prices will drop on current CPU's. Prices won't drop any further then +/- 5% within Intel's range, unless they are discontinued products. If in theory demand was low which is hardly the case with CPU's, then the price will remain stagnant around what Intel sets it at.
 
duby229 said:
No it came from Intel giving custom compiled benches to !!!!!! sites that in turn copied and pasted the results into there reviews....

When the chip was released real world difference was no greater then 6-12 percent...
Click to expand...

Anand said:
F.E.A.R. gets its own page for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only gaming benchmark that we're using that doesn't use an Intel provided demo. This is the same demo we use in our tests.

<snip>

If you had any doubts about the results on the previous page, this one should convince you. Even when running a non-Intel created demo, Conroe offers a 20% performance advantage over the 2.8GHz Athlon 64 X2.
Click to expand...

From here.

Anand said:
Although we mentioned that there’s not much you can do to make a timedemo really favor one CPU architecture over another, you all demanded that we try with one of our demos. We put our Quake 4 demo file on a USB drive and copied it over to the Conroe and Athlon 64 FX-60 systems that Intel had setup. Note that the version of Quake 4 installed was 1.0.5.0 which is newer than what we test with in our CPU reviews, so you can’t directly compare the numbers to previous AnandTech results but at least we’d be able to see if Intel’s Quake 4 demo was somehow giving Conroe the unfair advantage.

We re-ran Intel’s Quake 4 demo to confirm our initial results. Much to our surprise, we actually short-changed Intel the first time around. We noted that Conroe held a 28% performance advantage over the 2.8GHz Athlon 64 FX-60 with SMP disabled, but with it enabled the performance advantage shrunk to 15%. We re-tested and confirmed our suspicions that Conroe’s Quake 4 performance with SMP enabled was more in line at a 24% advantage:

But what we’re really interested in is how Conroe performed in the very same Quake 4 demo that has been favoring AMD processors in all of our CPU reviews. We loaded up our Quake 4 demo and had at it:

With SMP enabled we see that Conroe holds an even larger 31% performance advantage and with it disabled, the unreleased CPU was 29% faster. If anything, Intel’s own demo was a little more conservative on Conroe and definitely not optimized to make AMD look bad.
Click to expand...

From here.
 
alg7_munif said:
Well this is the first time I've heard that a company is not interested in profit. Even if Intel can produce more CPUs than AMD but if the demand is low, the price will drop. If demand for a product is higher than the supply, the price will automatically go up. I would rather make 10 products and sell them for $10 each than make 100 products and sell them for $1 each.
Click to expand...
Of course, Intel being so large would rather sell 10 products at $10 profit and at the same time, also sell 90 products at $1 profit each.
 
David Kanter: AMD has claimed an advantage based on performance models, which are extremely accurate but may not account for faster speed grades from Intel, of around 10-15% for TPC-C and 40% for SPECfp_rate.

So we're primarily talking about a significant boost in floating point performance which is important for scientific work loads based on a future 2007 Q3 AMD product against a 2006 Q4 product from Intel
Click to expand...

Although I'd like to remain optimistic about amd and barcelona, the "40% ass kicking" is only in specfp. You can't just transfer that 40% across the board and say barkie kicks intels ass by 40% in everything. When the benches start coming out for photochop, 3dsmax, divx/dvd encoding, supcom, etc.....then we'll see how well it really is.

All this speculative, matter of fact opinion bs being regurgitated over and over is getting harder
to digest every time I see it being spewed. Only amd knows at the moment how fast their shit is, and until they decide to share some info all we can do is wait and hope it's as good
as they claim.
 
This thread has to be one of the top 10 most useless threads on [H] of all time. Lots of pointless and self-contradicting ranting by the OP and somehow it gets all these replies? WTF?
 
arentol said:
This thread has to be one of the top 10 most useless threads on [H] of all time. Lots of pointless and self-contradicting ranting by the OP and somehow it gets all these replies? WTF?
Click to expand...

When something is controversial it tends to raise alarms bells, people don't bitch if the information is exactly as expected.

At Core 2 Duo's launch HardOCP "CPU" benchmarks brought in a lot of responses due to the testing methology that they used. Let's just say it was not inline with the conclusions of everyone else.
 
arentol said:
This thread has to be one of the top 10 most useless threads on [H] of all time. Lots of pointless and self-contradicting ranting by the OP and somehow it gets all these replies? WTF?
Click to expand...

You can't expect people to just led him get away with FUD.
 
Now heres a question:

Will the new X4's be compatable with the AM2 boards? I sure hope so...
 
I was wondering when you would come out of your shell Serge. Shit you're pretty deluded man if you truly believe what you are typing. Don't get me wrong, some of your points have merit but most are just your hopeful wishes of AMD crushing Intel with K10. ;)

I still remember you claiming Brisbane will allow overclocking up to 3.6GHz... LOL

Someone accused you of being Sharikou, I can see why. You don't give up, even when you're arguing over things that are clearly out of your league. ;)

Btw, I don't actually believe you are 'the great one' Sharikou :D, but do correct me if I'm wrong. :D ;)

Dude, just outta curiosity, is English your first language? 'Trunk card' was pretty funny... :p
 
Unless AMD can get their clock speeds up with Barcelona, I think both AMD and Intel will be on relatively even terms for a while. Barcelona will probably be architecturally superior to anything Intel has to offer, but Intel will have clockspeeds to their advantage. It doesn't matter if one processor runs at 2.4ghz and the other at 3.8ghz, the only thing that matters is which one is the fastest overall.

That and yields.
 
harpoon said:
I still remember you claiming Brisbane will allow overclocking up to 3.6GHz... LOL
Click to expand...

I actually read an article on this... That's what they were hoping with it and also being able to have a stock voltage of 1.1, but it never happened... *sniff* :(
 
noobtech said:
I actually read an article on this... That's what they were hoping with it and also being able to have a stock voltage of 1.1, but it never happened... *sniff* :(
Click to expand...

Exactly, keyword being hoping. AMD is also hoping K10 will regain them the performance crown, but without knowing exactly how Penryn will perform, it is too early to tell who will come out on top. That is all I am saying. I don't pretend to have a crystal ball like our friend Serge here who declares the war over before it has even begun! :rolleyes: :p
 
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=663&Itemid=1

A 33 to 66 percent faster

In Sandra multimedia benchmark Agena / Barcelona K10 2.5 GHz scores over 400.000 it/s (instructions / second) in integer test and about 300.000 it/s in floating point test. Yeah there are some Agena / Barcelona parts runing at 2.5 GHz at press time and we got the chance to share the scores with the world.


Intel's fastest QX6800 Quad core at 3 GHz scores about ~300.000 it/s in integer and ~180.000 it/s in floating point test.

So at least in multimedia stuff and this synthetic benchmark AMD's native quad core is 33.3 percent faster than Intel's fastest Quad core, while in the floating calculations it is a massive 66 percent faster.

The QX6850 with FSB 1333 might improve the situation a bit, but it won't be enough save the day. Intel needs to go much higher than 3 GHZ to match the 2.5 GHz K10 part.

Exactly like I said. They need a 4ghz wolfdile and 3.7ghz yorkfield to be compeditive. Penryn BS this BS that, thats what wolfdile and yorkfield are based off of. They are the superior cpu's over Penryn. And who said AMD would stop at 2.5ghz, this is launch speeds, no where around the limit. Like the launch of the 1st K8's was 2ghz at max? Now its 3ghz. What of K10. Should be far over that because its not a reworked arc its 90% totally new. Thats why it kicks intels conroe by 80%+ at the same clocks. Yeah just think if both where turned down to 2.5ghz intel would cry. Wile intels 3ghz chip is killed by a 500mhz slower cpu that is 66% faster clock for clock. Amazing how progress works eh? ;) Theres your proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top