Conroe debunked

[Donnie27]

Check out: Investors practice tough love with AMD

Nothing we haven't discussed before. Just interesting to see it actually being said by industry analysts. I love how they pointed out the AMDfangirl analyst, JoAnne Feeney, an analyst at Punk, Ziegel & Co., claiming an absurd $45 target for AMD shares.

Oh well.

In other news, AMD tries to sink it's own ship by dragging Microsoft into this scuffle.

Intel knows that many customers will likely pass on existing processors, waiting instead for product designed around its "Core" architecture due out in the second half of the year. Such chips will help Intel compete with AMD on pure performance and performance per watt measures in the desktop and server arenas. With that in mind, Intel has trimmed prices to try and move inventory and issued conservative near-term guidance to analysts.

That's what I was trying to say LOL!.

 

[Donnie27]

Yeah , AMD is forgiven all the time and has plenty of excuses while Intel is hammered down..nice double standards.

Oh, I'm glad this was posted on the 13th. Hell a lot of that I already said.

While we're not Wall Street wizards, we expect AMD will have a tough time boosting its share price to $45 and beyond anytime soon. AMD wowed analysts and customers by beating Intel to 64-bits, beating it to dual-cores and shipping a much better performing product in Opteron. AMD was more than happy to brag about these achievements well before it actually delivered them to market.

These days AMD has gone largely silent on exactly how it will knock Intel's upcoming line of products. AMD now says it's bad business to reveal breakthroughs ahead of time. It also insists that Intel must talk about future product because its current product line isn't competitive. AMD would prefer to focus on the here and now.

AMD's silence seems to be making investors nervous and with good reason. It's much easier to fall in love with a glorious future than a shining past. ®

Erum Intel showed Dual Cores first.

Insiders say that Intel has gone discount mad with low-end processors, and has offered major incentives to channel partners to push product out the door.---->We believe high-end buyers discriminate more on quality than on price, and we expect AMD to continue to gain share over the course of the year, but the ride could be bumpy."

Damned right they do and High-end Buyers read reviews and do Evals, they'll not be suckered by AMD or Intel. High-end buyers are not Fanpersons hehehe! If Conroes Performance and Price fall into place, AMD is screwed. They'll survive and do OK but they'll be lucky to see 20 dollar stock prices and damned sure not $45.

LMAO

2.66GHz Conroe kicks ass, its Low end? This is the kind of crap that misinforms people. She's saying Intel will be cheaper but AMD will be faster.

 

[chrisf6969]

LMAO

2.66GHz Conroe kicks ass, its Low end? This is the kind of crap that misinforms people. She's saying Intel will be cheaper but AMD will be faster.

I think they were talking about the Pentium D vs X2.
And Intel using cheap/low end, like the 805 (2.66Ghz). Which at this point in released products is true.

 

[DejaWiz]

2.66GHz Conroe kicks ass, its Low end? This is the kind of crap that misinforms people. She's saying Intel will be cheaper but AMD will be faster.

She obviously hasn't seen the preliminary results of Conroe vs FX60!!

If you keep giving rosey projections, sooner or later you loose trust. IMHO, they could have been a little more honest without killing their Stock's Value. You can't keep saying you're on target when you're not. Then a bump in the road becomes and expected bump and the stock doesn't fall as fast.

True. But if they keep revealing weaknesses or troubled areas to investors, that means they are also revealed to competitors that might be able to take advantage of the situation...not that it matters much right now with Conroe on the near horizon.

This point I will have to a disagree with there is no such things as a "fair" comparison anymore, you compare whatever is out at a given time to whatever is out at a given time.

By "fair" I mean from independant reviewers taking a retail version of a product and putting it through a battery of tests. I don't trust any company when it comes to pre-production hardware and performance claims. If I recall correctly, this is the exact standpoint that Kyle and Co. takes...they will never post hardware reviews unless they can get one unanimously and in retail form.

Of couse there are going to be lots of "fair" comparisons the day Conroe comes out between it and AMD-whatever. I will just be waiting until the "fair" comparisons are made between 65nm tech from both companies before I get overly excited about one product or another.

 

[savantu]

I think they were talking about the Pentium D vs X2.
And Intel using cheap/low end, like the 805 (2.66Ghz). Which at this point in released products is true.

With the upcoming price cuts I'll take a 940 over a 3800+ any time of the day...

 

[Scali]

By "fair" I mean from independant reviewers taking a retail version of a product and putting it through a battery of tests. I don't trust any company when it comes to pre-production hardware and performance claims. If I recall correctly, this is the exact standpoint that Kyle and Co. takes...they will never post hardware reviews unless they can get one unanimously and in retail form.

But that's basically a blanket statement. Which is a good excuse for sticking your head in the sand as long as you can.
I believe in case-based reasoning, so to me the question would be: in what ways would the Intel Conroe samples and tests not be trustworthy?

Of couse there are going to be lots of "fair" comparisons the day Conroe comes out between it and AMD-whatever. I will just be waiting until the "fair" comparisons are made between 65nm tech from both companies before I get overly excited about one product or another.

I don't see why both brands have to be on the same tech. They aren't on the same tech today either, so basically you're saying that you don't think P4/Athlon64 comparisons aren't fair either? Even though you can get them 'unanimously and in retail form'.
Chances are that AMD still won't have 65 nm retail products out when Conroe et al hit the streets.
And chances are that Intel will move to 45 nm long before AMD will, so once again they won't be on the same tech.
Another excuse to stick your head in the sand.

 

[Dew]

Here is my personal view.

I am slightly AMD/NVIDIA biased. However, if conroe comes out and blows the socks off AMD64, I will be jumping ship. My !!!!!!sm is based on this factor: Price/Performance/Overclockability/Compatability. Intel may have the Price/Performance. But if AMD ends up being a better value to me because of the overclockability, I'll have no reason to switch. That said, it looks like Conroe will have three factors going for it. When it comes time to upgrade I will evaluate all four factors. The least important is Upgradability. Lets face it, motherboards are relatively cheap(Sub $120 for a really decent board).

Hell, I would be doing CrossFire right now if ATI's implimentation didn't suck(Master card, external cable, the ATI Southbridge, no mATX solution for CrossFire).

That might change in the next year or two, who knows. The point is this: Stop squibbiling over who had the best implimentation. Focus on who has the best implimentation when you purchase and will still provide a good value at minimal cost when it comes time to upgrade.

 

[morningreis]

I _still_ want to see some independent benchmarks on a Conroe machine. I will not take Intel's word for it, no matter who was allowed to fiddle with the box for an hour.

 

[Scali]

I _still_ want to see some independent benchmarks on a Conroe machine. I will not take Intel's word for it, no matter who was allowed to fiddle with the box for an hour.

Why not? What would Intel possibly have to gain from fake benchmarks?
They aren't selling the CPUs yet, so they won't boost sales in any way. By the time the retail CPUs come out, independent benchmarks will be all over the place, so if they faked anything, it would be found out soon enough.
To me it looks like Intel has nothing to gain and everything to lose by faking benchmarks.
Other than that, I don't know how they would even be able to fake benchmarks at all. From what I understood, the benchmarkers were free to install their own software, so Intel could not mess with that. So they could only mess with the CPU and the motherboard itself. But in what way could they mess with it, other than making separate designs and engineering samples? Seems like far too much effort for some fake benchmarks that anyone would figure out the minute the CPUs hit the street.
Other than that Intel didn't even bother to demo a high-end model, or use some kind of supercooling to try and reach clockspeeds that won't be available until much later.
They just took a 2.66 GHz model, that's all they needed.

 

[xcetera]

Conroe is compelling for me. I have been and am using a socket 478 3.2 Ghz. Prescott and a Socket A. I've not even considered a new system until now. If Conroe prices are similar to other Intel pricing at rollout (and reported at DailyTech), AMD will cost more for the approximately equivalent unit. Another factor is the OS, both processors offer the possibility of XP & Vista. Intel may offer another path in OS X leopard be it a Conroe built in a Apple or a boxed OS specific to Conroe. It's all about options & flexibility, Intel will offer more choices.

 

[chrisf6969]

Why not? What would Intel possibly have to gain from fake benchmarks?

Stock prices

Intel is lower than its been in years. And its hard to understand as they have some of the best products in the pipeline EVER.

<IMHO> I think now is a great time to buy Intel stock. I bought some a few weeks ago, its gone down a little since I bought it, but longer term I know its going to be a great investment. </IMHO>

 

[DejaWiz]

But that's basically a blanket statement. Which is a good excuse for sticking your head in the sand as long as you can.
I believe in case-based reasoning, so to me the question would be: in what ways would the Intel Conroe samples and tests not be trustworthy?

I'm not sticking my head in the sand....I'm waiting until Conroe is actually released before passing judgement. What's so wrong with that?

I don't see why both brands have to be on the same tech. They aren't on the same tech today either, so basically you're saying that you don't think P4/Athlon64 comparisons aren't fair either? Even though you can get them 'unanimously and in retail form'.
Chances are that AMD still won't have 65 nm retail products out when Conroe et al hit the streets.
And chances are that Intel will move to 45 nm long before AMD will, so once again they won't be on the same tech.
Another excuse to stick your head in the sand.

Again, you are accusing me of pointlessly sticking my head in the sand. As I've said numerous times in this thread...I'm not going to even consider buying Conroe until after I get my tax return next year. At that time, both intel and AMD will have 65nm cpus available. Whichever one has better performance/cost is the one I will go with...if it's even worth the upgrade for me. As I've also previously said in this thread, I might not even have to upgrade my system except for the gpu(s) depending on how demanding the games and programs I will be using at that time are.

For those that will be looking to do a full upgrade this summer/fall....Conroe will likely be the only candidate to consider in order to get the most bang for the buck.

Is this all clear enough for everyone?

 

[Donnie27]

She obviously hasn't seen the preliminary results of Conroe vs FX60!!

I think she did and is just discounting like many others.

True. But if they keep revealing weaknesses or troubled areas to investors, that means they are also revealed to competitors that might be able to take advantage of the situation...not that it matters much right now with Conroe on the near horizon.

YES but the market hangs with those they can half-assed trust more. No one likes being lied to.

By "fair" I mean from independant reviewers taking a retail version of a product and putting it through a battery of tests. I don't trust any company when it comes to pre-production hardware and performance claims. If I recall correctly, this is the exact standpoint that Kyle and Co. takes...they will never post hardware reviews unless they can get one unanimously and in retail form.

Again, what I beleive about Conroe has just as much to do with Dothan and Yonah. I agree with those who say Intel didn't cheat and if anything, seemed to hold Conroe back, 5-5-5-15 RAM, you kidding me?

Of couse there are going to be lots of "fair" comparisons the day Conroe comes out between it and AMD-whatever. I will just be waiting until the "fair" comparisons are made between 65nm tech from both companies before I get overly excited about one product or another.

Save this comment? It will make no difference to the 65 to 75% of the hardened AMD Fans who dominate Message Boards all over the web. It may mean a lot to you, but many AMD Followers are Dreading the day Conroe goes on sale.

 

[Donnie27]

I think they were talking about the Pentium D vs X2.
And Intel using cheap/low end, like the 805 (2.66Ghz). Which at this point in released products is true.

No, look again, they said short term and long term, not just current. I too thought they just meant 9xx, at first.

Numerous analysts suspect these pricing actions will harm AMD and cut into its margins. So, AMD's gains will be slowed by pricing pessure in the near-term and better product from Intel in the longer-term.

And, in fact, not all the analysts think Intel's pricing pressure will hamper AMD in the long-term.

"We continue to see a fundamental shift in the nature of competition between AMD and Intel and expect to see Intel's monopoly continue to erode," wrote JoAnne Feeney, an analyst at Punk, Ziegel & Co., in a research report. "At the same time, we believe we are facing a heightened level of near-term uncertainty.

"Over the longer term, even Intel’s forthcoming upgrades are unlikely to be able to reverse the flow of new AMD-based systems into the market. We see the recent design wins by AMD creating persistence in market share gains for AMD and see AMD growing relative to Intel in the microprocessor market. We believe high-end buyers discriminate more on quality than on price, and we expect AMD to continue to gain share over the course of the year, but the ride could be bumpy."

Ride could be bumpy? Hell Lady the phucking Bridge ahead is washed out! The Current 9xx, 6x1, and Dothan/Yonah are already putting pressure out the wa-zoo on AMD. If Intel says little about Conroe at IDF, then there would be higher sales. Opteron is AMD's only real clear cut winner Performance and Pricewise. Stock climbing back up to $45?

 

[DejaWiz]

It will make no difference to the 65 to 75% of the hardened AMD Fans who dominate Message Boards all over the web. It may mean a lot to you, but many AMD Followers are Dreading the day Conroe goes on sale.

And they should be dreading that day! I think intel has a real winner on their hands and I hope the many reviews prove that when it is released.

 

[Emission]

Intel FTW! Conroe to rule all! ......... . . -takes sip from intel cup, gazes at his numerous intel machines, and brushes off his intel shirt- ..........

All in all i'd say Conroe is ready to put up a good fight, both in price, and performance.

 

[Logan321]

Why not? What would Intel possibly have to gain from fake benchmarks?
They aren't selling the CPUs yet, so they won't boost sales in any way. By the time the retail CPUs come out, independent benchmarks will be all over the place, so if they faked anything, it would be found out soon enough.
To me it looks like Intel has nothing to gain and everything to lose by faking benchmarks.
Other than that, I don't know how they would even be able to fake benchmarks at all. From what I understood, the benchmarkers were free to install their own software, so Intel could not mess with that. So they could only mess with the CPU and the motherboard itself. But in what way could they mess with it, other than making separate designs and engineering samples? Seems like far too much effort for some fake benchmarks that anyone would figure out the minute the CPUs hit the street.
Other than that Intel didn't even bother to demo a high-end model, or use some kind of supercooling to try and reach clockspeeds that won't be available until much later.
They just took a 2.66 GHz model, that's all they needed.

Yeah, maybe... Truth is, you can get a cpu to report just about any speed you want to the OS by editing the bios. I'm not saying they DID do that, I'm just saying it's possible to do. Would it be smart for Intel to "fudge" the benchmarks by overclocking the chip and having it report it's regular speed? Depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Possible gains: Buy some time to work on performance improvements, and hope by the time they're shipping they actually do meet the benchmarks shown previous.
Encourage people to hold off on buying a new system until Conroe is out, instead of buying AMDs currently available offerings.

Again, I'm not saying Intel was doing anything shady... Just that it's certainly possible. Media spin is a huge part of the computer hardware business.

 

[Logan321]

Intel FTW! Conroe to rule all! ......... . . -takes sip from intel cup, gazes at his numerous intel machines, and brushes off his intel shirt- ..........

All in all i'd say Conroe is ready to put up a good fight, both in price, and performance.

Well, saying it's "ready" is a little premature, don't you think?

 

[Emission]

Well, saying it's "ready" is a little premature, don't you think?

Not at all! I've gathered enough information to state that its "ready".

 

[Scali]

I'm not sticking my head in the sand....I'm waiting until Conroe is actually released before passing judgement. What's so wrong with that?

Like I said, why would you not trust the current benchmarks then? Since you're not answering that question, it appears you don't have a good reason -> sticking your head in the sand.

 

[Scali]

Yeah, maybe... Truth is, you can get a cpu to report just about any speed you want to the OS by editing the bios. I'm not saying they DID do that, I'm just saying it's possible to do.

Yes, except Windows and most benchmarking programs also measure the clockspeed by using the RDTSC-instruction. It's a lot harder to fake that, and it could cause undefined behaviour in many applications that depend on proper functioning of RDTSC. So I don't think Intel would take the chance and fake that instruction.

Again, I'm not saying Intel was doing anything shady... Just that it's certainly possible. Media spin is a huge part of the computer hardware business.

I don't think it's possible. At least not in the way they did it, by giving other benchmarks full access to the system and having them install and run their own benchmarks.
They'd pretty much have to design a completely fake CPU and chipset in order to get away with it, which just doesn't seem like it's worth the trouble.

 

[Martel]

Why not? What would Intel possibly have to gain from fake benchmarks?
They aren't selling the CPUs yet, so they won't boost sales in any way. By the time the retail CPUs come out, independent benchmarks will be all over the place, so if they faked anything, it would be found out soon enough.

As mentioned, stock prices could be affected.

Besides, that logic is undermined by the question "What would Intel have to gain from accurate benchmarks?". If Conroe is truly faster, the aforementioned independent benchmarks will show this when it's released, why bother showing its superiority now when they aren't selling the CPUs yet... well, to begin with some early adopters will have preorders in from before release, some will buy before reading independent reviews, some buyers will be influenced by what Intel say inspite of what the independent benchmarks show, buyers looking for the best performance will hold out getting it now (which would mean buying AMD) for the Conroe thinking it'll be 20% better, if it turns out it's 1% better they'll be sorry they waited, but will still go with the fastest CPU available, aka the Conroe.

Also, information tends to filter down to casual users, so releasing these figures now will mean in the next few months it will become somewhat common knowledge that the new Intels are gonna be faster. If independent tests at release show that this isn't the case, that information will take months to filter down, or may never filter down like in the case of the Mac G5 and its claim to be the fastest PC based on early SPEC based tests. It was lies, they got in trouble with advertising standards for false claims and their ads were taken off the air, but if you asked the average pseudo tech head at the time, they'd tell you it was the fastest.

 

[Scali]

As mentioned, stock prices could be affected.

Yes, but as mentioned, the truth will come out soon enough, which would mean that stock prices would go back down, and Intel's reputation would be tarnished.
Intel doesn't seem like the company that should risk such a short-term success, especially not with those consequences.

Besides, that logic is undermined by the question "What would Intel have to gain from accurate benchmarks?". If Conroe is truly faster, the aforementioned independent benchmarks will show this when it's released, why bother showing its superiority now when they aren't selling the CPUs yet... well, to begin with some early adopters will have preorders in from before release, some will buy before reading independent reviews, some buyers will be influenced by what Intel say inspite of what the independent benchmarks show, buyers looking for the best performance will hold out getting it now (which would mean buying AMD) for the Conroe thinking it'll be 20% better, if it turns out it's 1% better they'll be sorry they waited, but will still go with the fastest CPU available, aka the Conroe.

Also, information tends to filter down to casual users, so releasing these figures now will mean in the next few months it will become somewhat common knowledge that the new Intels are gonna be faster. If independent tests at release show that this isn't the case, that information will take months to filter down, or may never filter down like in the case of the Mac G5 and its claim to be the fastest PC based on early SPEC based tests. It was lies, they got in trouble with advertising standards for false claims and their ads were taken off the air, but if you asked the average pseudo tech head at the time, they'd tell you it was the fastest.

But why this whole story?
It's highly likely that the Conroe actually is what Intel demonstrated. In which case nobody will be disappointed for waiting, and no information needs to be 'filtered down'.
You can't really compare the whole Mac G5 thing, since they had a point with the SPEC based tests, but you can't compare a PowerMac 1:1 with a Windows machine, because of the different OS, different architecture, different software, and different economies of scale (the CPU actually WAS faster than any x86-based processor at the time, but that doesn't guarantee that your software will also run faster. PhotoShop was a fine example where G4/G5 flexed their muscles though, and x86 has only recently caught up, partly because IBM/Motorola just gave up on PowerPC).
A Conroe is just a drop-in replacement for current x86 processors. Entirely different story. You'll be running the exact same SPEC-based software, and the exact same OS and applications on all of them, so you do get a 1:1 comparison.

 

[GilmourD]

Like I said, why would you not trust the current benchmarks then? Since you're not answering that question, it appears you don't have a good reason -> sticking your head in the sand.

Current benchmarks are based upon Engineering Samples. I think Kyle and crew have proven how Engineering Samples, regardless of manufacturer, can provide bubkis to real world. My thoughts are... If it worked as it's supposed to, then why isn't it being released now? Why in a plethora of months? Sure, you have to ramp up production... But something seems... off. I'm not saying it's going to be another Penium III 1.13GHz, but why say the technology is proven, but hold back on everybody?

Typically, a company previews product when it's in its final form and practically ready for release. They don't show their hand 2 quarters ahead of time. Rumors fly about, but that's about it. Why this pre-preview on a machine that they built that is obviously engineered to the hilt?

I've got nothing against Intel. I've owned a few. Without Intel, the Athlon would probably have never existed and AMD wouldn't be the player it is. However... Something seems misexecuted and it looks like Intel is throwing around marking FUD in a desparation move.

 

[DejaWiz]

Like I said, why would you not trust the current benchmarks then? Since you're not answering that question, it appears you don't have a good reason -> sticking your head in the sand.

Here's a reason: Hype.

I've fallen for the hype generated by benchmarks and previews before from intel, AMD, nVidia, and ATI only to get burned when the released product doesn't perform near what all those company claims had reflected/promised.

Even though the current pre-release Conroe benchmarks look promising, I'll continue to remain wary of these until the released products get some review time.

I'm amazed that this concept didn't strike some people out of plain common sense....

 

[Scali]

Current benchmarks are based upon Engineering Samples. I think Kyle and crew have proven how Engineering Samples, regardless of manufacturer, can provide bubkis to real world. My thoughts are... If it worked as it's supposed to, then why isn't it being released now?

Isn't that obvious? The Engineering Samples are basically their prototypes, so the first working examples of their new design. That's still a long way from having them mass-produced. They're still busy setting up the production lines to produce the new Conroe, and to tweak the CPU and production to get decent yields. That will take some time.
But the Engineering Samples will be a good indication of what to expect, since they use the same architecture as the production models.
Now with the Pentium III 1.13 GHz there was a lot of pressure on Intel, and it was a totally different situation anyway. the Pentium III was not a new architecture, they were just trying to squeeze as much performance out of it as possible, in order to stay ahead of AMD. Well, so they squeezed a bit too much out of it.
But in this case, they're only showing 2.4 and 2.66 GHz models. No pressure, no extreme speed or performance, just regular mid-end processors. I heard that the 2.4 models can even run on passive cooling.
So I really see no reason why the production models won't be at least as good as what Intel has shown here.
Heck, if you have any clue about CPU design then it should be pretty obvious that Intel's CPU performs as well as it does, given the way it's designed and the number of execution units it has.

However... Something seems misexecuted and it looks like Intel is throwing around marking FUD in a desparation move.

Pfft, you don't have anything to back that up.
To me it just seems like Intel has worked hard on their new architecture the past few years, and now that they've reached working silicon, they want to show it to the world, because that will increase stocks, and make people hold out for Intel processors instead of buying AMD.
Nothing desparate about that, just smart marketing. If you have a good product coming up, there's nothing wrong with showing it to the world.

To me it looks more like AMD-people such as you are spreading 'FUD in a desparation move', trying to make people believe the Conroe is too good to be true. You'll just look really silly in a few months when everybody knows Conroe is not too good to be true, and AMD is the desperate one.

In fact, AMD is also showing engineering samples of their new AM2 CPUs. They won't arrive until months later either... but there's no hype there because the CPUs perform poorly, there still are bugs in the memory controller, and well, it's AMD.

 

[Scali]

I've fallen for the hype generated by benchmarks and previews before from intel, AMD, nVidia, and ATI only to get burned when the released product doesn't perform near what all those company claims had reflected/promised.

So you're saying that you're not knowledgeable enough to tell hype from fact.
Well, I am usually right about hype or fact, and I'm 100% sure that Intel's Conroe is fact in this case.

 

[savantu]

...
In fact, AMD is not showing engineering samples of their new AM2 CPUs. They won't arrive until months later either... but there's no hype there because the CPUs perform poorly, there still are bugs in the memory controller, and well, it's AMD.

Just a small nitpick ; nice educational work btw.

 

[Emission]

...In fact, AMD is also showing engineering samples of their new AM2 CPUs. They won't arrive until months later either... but there's no hype there because the CPUs perform poorly, there still are bugs in the memory controller, and well, it's AMD.

Yeah, the fancy new AM2 socket misled most into thinking its a brand-spanking new core, and blah blah. Its just a socket with DDR2 support, the cores still perform like crap -_- .

 

[Donnie27]

Here's a reason: Hype.

I've fallen for the hype generated by benchmarks and previews before from intel, AMD, nVidia, and ATI only to get burned when the released product doesn't perform near what all those company claims had reflected/promised.

Even though the current pre-release Conroe benchmarks look promising, I'll continue to remain wary of these until the released products get some review time.

I'm amazed that this concept didn't strike some people out of plain common sense....

Then forget about Conroe for awhile. Hypo--> Let's say this is Yonah @ 2.66GHz riding a 1066MHz FSB with a 4MB L2 that's being shared instead of two 2MB caches side by side. Not the 2.13GHz riding a 667MHz Bus and out doing the 2.2GHz X2. Now instead of this Yonah having a Jerry-Rigged motherboard, it has true chipset support from the ground up. IMHO, not that I trust or believe Intel every time, this one is a no brainer. From Yonah to Conroe is a Big time upgrade and not a rushed quick fix or moving back to P3 as some of the Fud mongerers have trying to misinform folks. Sure Intel mixed new with on-the-shelf tech it has. But for someone to call this a P3, is like calling X2/FX a K6-2.

Do you honestly think it (a 2.66GHz fully supported Desktop Yonah on a 1066MHz) wouldn't kick they crap out of a 2.6GHz FX-60 at 2.8GHz? Kick the crap out of means about 15% faster in those same benchmarks ran?

Seeing someone here spreading FUD is one thing, but seeing folks like Joanne Freeny is another, she knows better and seems to be lying IMHO! Here. Six pics down?

JoAnne Feeney, Ph.D.
Nanotechnology / Nanoelectronics

Dr. Feeney covers Nanotechnology/Nanoelectronics in the Equity Research group at Punk, Ziegel & Company. Prior to joining the firm, Dr. Feeney served as Senior Business Strategist for Albany NanoTech, the University at Albany's (State University of New York) center for nanoelectronics innovation and commercialization. Using insights from over ten years' experience in the economics of technology and financial markets, Dr. Feeney facilitated partnerships for technology and product development with both established and emerging nanoelectronics firms. She provided expertise on commercialization strategy, IP valuation, pricing and product development, and technology and market risk. She holds an M.A and Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Rochester, was one of the founding faculty at the School of Nanosciences and Nanoengineering at the University at Albany and and held prior faculty appointments at the University of Colorado at Boulder and at the Stern School of Business at New York University. She has published in leading general and field journals in the areas of uncertainty, growth, and financial markets, and has spoken extensively in the U.S. and abroad to academic, business and general audiences.

Saying she missed the Conroe Demo is not realistic. It's her Job to know more than what we even *think we know. This is the person talking about AMD's stock going back to $45 before the end of the year.

 

[Emission]

^ Guess you could say she isn't forfilling her job duties .

 

[Scali]

Just a small nitpick ; nice educational work btw.

AM2 engineering samples are 'around'. Ofcourse AMD won't want to draw too much attention to them, given their poor performance, but I'm sure that AMD would be promoting their engineering samples just as much as Intel does with Conroe, if AMD had something to promote. They were promoting their Opterons and Athlon64s way ahead of release aswell.

 

[Emission]

Thing is, whenve youve got something crappy to show for a supposedly new product, you dont get much attention, and sometimes this loses sales for the company. It's like a flop in a new product, only thing is, if they flop the release of the new socket, this will potentially shy away new buyers.

 

[Donnie27]

^ Guess you could say she isn't forfilling her job duties .

You could.

 

[DejaWiz]

So you're saying that you're not knowledgeable enough to tell hype from fact.
Well, I am usually right about hype or fact, and I'm 100% sure that Intel's Conroe is fact in this case.

Don't insult my intelligence, Scali. I have never once said that Conroe will disappoint when it's released. However, because I choose to wait until both intel and AMD release retail versions of Conroe and K8L before passing judgment on how well one will perform over the other does not mean I am not knowledgeable. If you and anyone else want to go around insulting everyone that doesn't share your personal opinions about Conroe's image before it's even released, then you need to re-evaluate who's knowledgeable and who's not.

Do you honestly think it (a 2.66GHz fully supported Desktop Yonah on a 1066MHz) wouldn't kick they crap out of a 2.6GHz FX-60 at 2.8GHz? Kick the crap out of means about 15% faster in those same benchmarks ran?

I never said it wouldn't. The current benchmarks have shown this and I think Conroe is pretty damn impressive. What I have been trying to state here time and time again, though, is I will wait until both Conroe and K8L are simultaneously available before choosing my upgrade path sometime between February and April of next year. I will not place myself in a position to get my hopes up from marketing BS from either AMD or intel.

 

[Scali]

Don't insult my intelligence, Scali.

Relax, I'm just going by what you said yourself, that you've fallen for the hype before.
That rarely happens to me, because I always check stuff out for myself... What technology do their marketing buzzwords actually specify, and how will this technology actually be an advantage in the real world?
In the case of Conroe there's no buzzwords, no smoke and mirrors, just a new architecture with a shortened pipeline and 4 ALUs, and some other nifty new technology. It all makes perfect sense.
Same with AMD's Am2... Makes perfect sense that DDR2 does very little to aid performance, and since the rest of the core is virtually unchanged, it can't gain anything there either.
So in both cases the benchmark results tell the exact same story that I expect judging from the underlying technology, so I see no reason to doubt anything. And ofcourse both products are too close to retail for either company to actually make a lot of changes in the design at this stage.

Ofcourse it also helps that I am an experienced assembly and Direct3D programmer, so I know a lot about what goes on inside CPUs and videocards, and I don't get fooled easily by some smooth-talking marketing people.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

Then forget about Conroe for awhile. Hypo--> Let's say this is Yonah @ 2.66GHz riding a 1066MHz FSB with a 4MB L2 that's being shared instead of two 2MB caches side by side. Not the 2.13GHz riding a 667MHz Bus and out doing the 2.2GHz X2. Now instead of this Yonah having a Jerry-Rigged motherboard, it has true chipset support from the ground up. IMHO, not that I trust or believe Intel every time, this one is a no brainer. From Yonah to Conroe is a Big time upgrade and not a rushed quick fix or moving back to P3 as some of the Fud mongerers have trying to misinform folks. Sure Intel mixed new with on-the-shelf tech it has. But for someone to call this a P3, is like calling X2/FX a K6-2.

Do you honestly think it (a 2.66GHz fully supported Desktop Yonah on a 1066MHz) wouldn't kick they crap out of a 2.6GHz FX-60 at 2.8GHz? Kick the crap out of means about 15% faster in those same benchmarks ran?

QFT times 10... seriously, why is this so damn hard for people to see?? ppl are getting Yonahs clocked to 3ghz on air and at those speeds, getting bench results close to what Intel is saying Conroe will be getting.... so what the hell?? Why all the doubt? Yonah was a stopgap, Conroe is the real deal.... At this point, i'm willing to go on record saying that I bet we will see OC'ed Conroes well in the 3.0ghz+ range.... maybe even to the magical 3.5ghz..... and at those speeds.... well... pray for AMD....

 

[Emission]

Only thing is, the Conroe's have a shorter pipeline than NetBurst. Going to 3.5 on Conroe will be similar to ramping up 3.5 on AMD. A little more lee-way but its still tight.

 

[coldpower27]

Only thing is, the Conroe's have a shorter pipeline than NetBurst. Going to 3.5 on Conroe will be similar to ramping up 3.5 on AMD. A little more lee-way but its still tight.

Hopefully shouldn't be too too difficult if the rumors of the 3.33GHZ Extreme Edition are true...

 

[Emission]

The good part is, with this new architecture we get a lot more per megahert than a FX-60 ...ok, so maybe not a LOT more, but its still quite a step from NetBurst. I hope this architecture develops its own mobile line. Users have said the 2.4 is able to be used with a passive sink, and im thinking that makes it a great candidate for a mobile solution. Ideas?