Conroe vs. AMD FX-62

ronerik

n00b
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
3
StealthyFish said:
wait, why not give your ES processors out to dependable and trusted overclockers and review sites who know what they're doing. Why not give the processor to some noobie who can barely build a computer?

Anandtech and Firingsquad noobs???? If the article I posted is somewhat true, doesn't it seem fishy that they have to review the chips at Intel on Intels machines, release what they saw on June 4th, then get chips to test themselves? Has this ever been done this way before? I knew I was flamebait as soon as I posted this but I don't know, I won't be convinced until the actual retail chips are benched.
 

Stoney

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
149
Good things come to those who wait.
i see a price war on the horizon. (amd will have an answer for conroe)
and we all know better then buying the first batch of anything ta hit the market.
better ta wait till all the dust settles.
in any event, it's a win win situation for the 939 camp, as higher end cpu prices will drop to affordable prices.
i see no reason to do a complete upgrade for a few years. ;)
 

MrWizard6600

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
5,784
ronerik said:
Anandtech and Firingsquad noobs???? If the article I posted is somewhat true, doesn't it seem fishy that they have to review the chips at Intel on Intels machines, release what they saw on June 4th, then get chips to test themselves? Has this ever been done this way before? I knew I was flamebait as soon as I posted this but I don't know, I won't be convinced until the actual retail chips are benched.

im all for that. Intel test systems 100%. no one but intel knows exactly whats inside there test boxes.

and i still dont get it. no Nforce 500 for intel. and Nforce 500 pwns. Better Memory controller for AMD, and memory controllers pwn. faster FSB for amd, and fast FSBs pwn. what is the explaination for conroes denyal of the rules? and why is it that intel clung to net burst for so long when this is such an obviosly better path!

i agree. i want to see some "reviews" as opposed to "previews"

edit: one more thing. AMD has 65nm tech promised for us X-mas this year.
 

savantu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
1,325
MrWizard6600 said:
im all for that. Intel test systems 100%. no one but intel knows exactly whats inside there test boxes.

And why don't you tell us what you think it is inside those boxes ?

Alien technology ? The 10GHz P4 ? DDR2 2000 or RAMBUS 8000 ? Geforce 8900 ? Martin Luther King ? What is inside those boxes ? Really do tell us.

and i still dont get it.

That's quitte obvious but you're kind of last one.Most who disagreed about IDF scores accepted the situation and are quiet now.Unless you are called sharikou and have a POS blog full of idiots who agree with him.

Nforce 500 for intel. and Nforce 500 pwns.

Who gives a *** about Nvidia when I have Intel chipsets ? Doh , this isn't AMD were NVIDIA is a must.

Better Memory controller for AMD, and memory controllers pwn. faster FSB for amd, and fast FSBs pwn. what is the explaination for conroes denyal of the rules?

The CPU itself is much better and it was designed to minimize I/O limitations.

and why is it that intel clung to net burst for so long when this is such an obviosly better path!

Probably because it takes 4-5 years to design a cpu...Do you think it is done in a month ? No wonder why to quote you , you "don't get it" ...
i agree. i want to see some "reviews" as opposed to "previews"

edit: one more thing. AMD has 65nm tech promised for us X-mas this year.

Agree to what ?
First 65nm CPUs from AMD are K8 based.No magic stick here...sorry.Also , word has it that AMD got the short stick on 65nm and pretty much screwed it.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
savantu said:
Probably because it takes 4-5 years to design a cpu...Do you think it is done in a month ? No wonder why to quote you , you "don't get it" ...


To be fair, Intel's had Pentium M for years now and they didn't just move it to the desktop like they shoulda back in 2003.... they continued pushing netburst... why?? Ehh... they easily coulda had Netburst for most processors and P-M for low power/Xeon/XE processors.
 

savantu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
1,325
brucedeluxe169 said:
To be fair, Intel's had Pentium M for years now and they didn't just move it to the desktop like they shoulda back in 2003.... they continued pushing netburst... why?? Ehh... they easily coulda had Netburst for most processors and P-M for low power/Xeon/XE processors.

Because Conroe is very very different compared with PM and secondly the PM core had a lot of problems , especially with FPU power where it lacked and still lacks ( look at Yonah ) compared with its Pentium 4 counterparts.Games aren't everything.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
Games aren't everything, but Intel still coulda put out a good low power proc for servers (since power is becoming a primary concern for server banks now), and especially the Pentium XE... since this proc was *made* for the gaming crowd.... so yea, while games aren't everything, they mean alot to the vast majority of the hardcore market, and I'm sure they are THE primary concern of 90%+ of the people on these forums, and others like us...

Intel missed a golden opportunity to sell us a *real* XE processor for the past 3 years
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
brucedeluxe169 said:
Games aren't everything, but Intel still coulda put out a good low power proc for servers (since power is becoming a primary concern for server banks now), and especially the Pentium XE... since this proc was *made* for the gaming crowd.... so yea, while games aren't everything, they mean alot to the vast majority of the hardcore market, and I'm sure they are THE primary concern of 90%+ of the people on these forums, and others like us...

Intel missed a golden opportunity to sell us a *real* XE processor for the past 3 years

Hindsight is always 20/20. Surely there was someone at Intel who wanted to move Pentium M to desktop sooner. I'm sure there are some 90nm Northwoods that don't suffer from Prescott's problems but just Saying Netburst isn't right IMHO! My #2 computer is 2.6C and after the Games stop, it kicks the crap out of my newer 3500+/A8N SLI. What apps? Video Impressions, DiMage Viewer, MS Movie Maker 2, WinMP 10, Most of Roxio and Nero software, Creative Wave studio, Premiere Pro 7 and Elements and etc........

Sure X2 shipped and layed the smack on P4s. But those last Preslers and Cedar Mills don't suck as BAD as many on this forum think or say!

I wish Intel would have shipped a 90nm P4 and even an Extreme Version with a 4MB L2 with a wider bus to it. Not have it suffer 17% higher latency and 31 pipes.
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
perplex said:
What X2 would the Conroe 1.83GHz be equivalent to?

It will be app dependent. Some apps it will out do 4800+ and others barely beat the new 4000+ X2. I could easily be wrong, it's just an estimation on my part.

Intel seems to be hiding two 1.8 GHz models are the 6xxx and the other a 4xxx series. The only difference being the first a 800MHz FSB for $150 and the second $169 with a 1066MHz FSB. Both 2MB L2s.

AMD will have a hard time matching these processors' Sempron type prices.

Then there are LV models that are only hinted at.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
Donnie the funny part is AMD's naming scheme.

a 2.4 that is called a 4800.

When conroe comes out what will they say then.

a 2.4 that is called a 4800(implying a 4.8G) that won't run as fast as a 2.0?

WTF are they going to do now.
4800++2.0-------speed+++++price
maybe they will shorten it to 4800BS

if not they are going to need a bigger box LOL


sparks
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
sparks said:
Donnie the funny part is AMD's naming scheme.

a 2.4 that is called a 4800.

When conroe comes out what will they say then.

a 2.4 that is called a 4800(implying a 4.8G) that won't run as fast as a 2.0?

WTF are they going to do now.
4800++2.0-------speed+++++price
maybe they will shorten it to 4800BS

if not they are going to need a bigger box LOL


sparks

HAHAHAHA!
 

chrisf6969

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
9,013
Donnie27 said:
It will be app dependent. Some apps it will out do 4800+ and others barely beat the new 4000+ X2. I could easily be wrong, it's just an estimation on my part.

Intel seems to be hiding two 1.8 GHz models are the 6xxx and the other a 4xxx series. The only difference being the first a 800MHz FSB for $150 and the second $169 with a 1066MHz FSB. Both 2MB L2s.

AMD will have a hard time matching these processors' Sempron type prices.

Then there are LV models that are only hinted at.

I want an LV model packed in to a Mac Mini type box with (upgradeable) MXM PCIe graphics card. Something small that I can tuck underneath my desk on a hidden shelf, but still powerful enough to get a little fragging in on, when noone is around in the office!
 

osalcido

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
1,481
Donnie27 said:
The only difference being the first a 800MHz FSB for $150 and the second $169 with a 1066MHz FSB. Both 2MB L2s.

AMD will have a hard time matching these processors' Sempron type prices.

thats actually (current) 3500+ and Opteron 144 prices

and by the time Conroe comes out (is it July?) that will most likely be 3700+ SanDiego and Opteron 148 prices

hell maybe even the 3800+X2 price will be dropped that low
 

visaris

Gawd
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
842
Donnie27 said:
AMD will have a hard time matching these processors' Sempron type prices. [ 'prices' == $150, $169 ]
The 64-bit semprons range from $68 - $104 on the egg.

----

Oh. I just noticed someone already made almost the exact post I was about to. :)
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
visaris said:
The 64-bit semprons range from $68 - $104 on the egg.

----Oh. I just noticed someone already made almost the exact post I was about to. :)

Hahaha! Knew that would draw you out!

$139 - sempron mobile
$114 - sempron 3400+
$108 - sempron 3400 am2

Note, I said cheap Sempron like, NOT the same price. 1.6GHz 2MB 800MHz FSB is closer to the Sempron $139 than $180 for the 3500 or $144.

$211 - opteron 146 socket 939
$211 - opteron 146
$170 - opteron 144 socket 939
$167 - opteron 144

And of Course the Conroe are going to kick the crap out of these low end Semprons, Opterons and A64's. No contest.
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
osalcido said:
thats actually (current) 3500+ and Opteron 144 prices

and by the time Conroe comes out (is it July?) that will most likely be 3700+ SanDiego and Opteron 148 prices

hell maybe even the 3800+X2 price will be dropped that low

Try again?

I'm not talking about only Dual Core processors. 2.4GHz is priced like a 3800+ X2, you're kidding right? $290 X2 3800+ will be slower than the $183 1.83GHz Conroe.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2532

65nm single-core Conroes for all

Intel's newest roadmap has an unusual addition: Conroe-L. Intel defines Conroe-L as a single core processor, which we assume is based on the Conroe Core 2 Duo architecture. The most recent roadmaps have Conroe-L designated as a Q2'07 component as a supplement to Cedar Mill chips.

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/1556_large_conroe_launch_small.png

Please look at the 805 and 820 price at $93 and $113 respectively? What would you get, an 820/805 or ANY Sempron as I said?
 

fan_83

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
77
lets see if i understand the amd guys correctly,
they are willing to take a sempron over a pentium d 805 which is way better than the entire sempron range and will cost less than 100 come july :eek:

is that the defense of the amd believers? cos thats the vibe i am getting at the moment,
the conroe isn;t designed to go up against hte sempron range, they are for the fx range as i understand it. the pentium d's are the ones being used to spank the sempron's behind all the way
 

MrWizard6600

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
5,784
savantu said:
And why don't you tell us what you think it is inside those boxes ?

Alien technology ? The 10GHz P4 ? DDR2 2000 or RAMBUS 8000 ? Geforce 8900 ? Martin Luther King ? What is inside those boxes ? Really do tell us.

That's quitte obvious but you're kind of last one.Most who disagreed about IDF scores accepted the situation and are quiet now.Unless you are called sharikou and have a POS blog full of idiots who agree with him.

Who gives a *** about Nvidia when I have Intel chipsets ? Doh , this isn't AMD were NVIDIA is a must.

The CPU itself is much better and it was designed to minimize I/O limitations.

Probably because it takes 4-5 years to design a cpu...Do you think it is done in a month ? No wonder why to quote you, you "don't get it" ...

Agree to what ?
First 65nm CPUs from AMD are K8 based.No magic stick here...sorry.Also , word has it that AMD got the short stick on 65nm and pretty much screwed it.

umm... ok.... sure......

Martin Luther King... exactly what I was thinking :D. you sure do suck at picking out sarcasim huh:rolleyes:. I retract the statement about what's in those boxes, as some systems have been opened up, but I was thinking more along the lines of obscene amounts of ram, raptors (as in Western digital), w/e, stuff that's not really possible to get as the average consumer.

"That's quite obvious but you're kind of last one." --engrish 101. and I have no idea who sharikou is.

I like this next paragraph, especially how you said "Doh" for me. hmm lets see, why would I prefer Nforce 500 to an Intel 975 (what is the newest one? 975?). One: Ntune 5. how cool is that? everything in your bios in a simple app. all you have to do is set it to max time and go watch the hockey game. saves me a day of tweaking. not to mention its simple enough to go into that app, and change stuff, as opposed to rebooting, entering bios, saving and exiting, rebooting, making sure stuff works etc. Two: most Nforce 5 chipsets use integrated Creative live sound. Pretty schveet. Three: and I have some benchies to back me up in this, the memory access is wayyyyy better. Oh and my favourite point, does Intel support SLI?

And I was agreeing to the several people who stated several pages ago, I want to see some reviews.

ok, that one statement, is the whole of your point, I applaud you on your actually stating something that wasn't flaming bull. not that I didn't already know this, but its nice that now everyone can read it!

ahh. yes it does, but they still got started a tad late. they pushed the net-burst architecture for far to long. I think I probably know as much as or more then you about the architecture of Conroe. so I; as a matter of fact, do "get it"

ooooooooooh I like this one. they "screwed" 65 nm technology. it has been screwed up the !!!!!!!!. because its REALLY possible to do that right? All sexual innuendo aside, how exactly did they "screw up" 65 nm technology? Where is "the word" man! When stating something like that, link(s) are necessary.

Please note this is my first, and last response to Savantu.
 

osalcido

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
1,481
coulda swore I saw the X2 3800 for 230 at the egg

ill withdraw that part

but i stand by the rest of my post :)
 

xcetera

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
96
Stoney said:
Good things come to those who wait.
i see a price war on the horizon. (amd will have an answer for conroe)
and we all know better then buying the first batch of anything ta hit the market.
better ta wait till all the dust settles.
in any event, it's a win win situation for the 939 camp, as higher end cpu prices will drop to affordable prices.
i see no reason to do a complete upgrade for a few years. ;)

AMD's answer is 4x4, buy two AMD2 processors for a dual socket motherboard. While performance may be better, you are paying for two CPU's and a motherboard which will look alot like a dual socket server motherboard (which aren't cheap or value oriented)Link to news release

Good things may come to those who wait for Kentsfield.

As others have mentioned, how are you going to mount two good heat sinks with proper air flow.
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
xcetera said:
AMD's answer is 4x4, buy two AMD2 processors for a dual socket motherboard. While performance may be better, you are paying for two CPU's and a motherboard which will look alot like a dual socket server motherboard (which aren't cheap or value oriented)Link to news release

Good things may come to those who wait for Kentsfield.

As others have mentioned, how are you going to mount two good heat sinks with proper air flow.

Will cost too much right off the bat.
 

Calefaction

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
335
I just wanted to point out that all of you saying "Omg, AMD is so dead, they will never catch Intel" are just as stupid as the AMD fan-bois who are trying to ignore Conroe.

I use AMD, I like AMD. Is Conroe a great chip? Absolutley, it's damn impressive, hell, I might buy a Conroe system. Will AMD catch up and eventually take the crown back? More than likely, yes. This is not some kind of death knell for AMD. It's just a wake up call that they need to get their engineers back in the lab coming up with a new architecture.

This is good for both Intel and AMD users. In the short term, Intel users get some much deserved respect after the whole Netburst fiasco. In the long term, AMD users get a re-engergized AMD which has admittedly become a little lazy since the A64 started to dominate Intel's Netburst chips. Intel users should be happy A64 was so succesful, it woke the sleeping giant that is Intel and here you go, Core 2. Just like AMD users should be happy the Core 2/Conroe architecture is turning out so well. It will push AMD to release a better architecture down the road.
 

chrisf6969

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
9,013
Calefaction said:
I just wanted to point out that all of you saying "Omg, AMD is so dead, they will never catch Intel" are just as stupid as the AMD fan-bois who are trying to ignore Conroe.

I use AMD, I like AMD. Is Conroe a great chip? Absolutley, it's damn impressive, hell, I might buy a Conroe system. Will AMD catch up and eventually take the crown back? More than likely, yes. This is not some kind of death knell for AMD. It's just a wake up call that they need to get their engineers back in the lab coming up with a new architecture.

This is good for both Intel and AMD users. In the short term, Intel users get some much deserved respect after the whole Netburst fiasco. In the long term, AMD users get a re-engergized AMD which has admittedly become a little lazy since the A64 started to dominate Intel's Netburst chips. Intel users should be happy A64 was so succesful, it woke the sleeping giant that is Intel and here you go, Core 2. Just like AMD users should be happy the Core 2/Conroe architecture is turning out so well. It will push AMD to release a better architecture down the road.

Intel has had the "crown" most of the past 20 years of the "PC era".

AMD had a performance advantage for a little over a year. (Taking in to consideration that A64's hadn't ramped up at first & they were still selling plenty of Athlon XP's)

AMD also had a slight advantage when Thunderbirds were at about 1.4GHz, and Intel had a broken P3, and slow ass Williamettes. But soon as Northwood hit, Intel was back on top. So the likelyhood, of AMD "taking the crown back" IMHO isn't very likely. They will have their moments I'm sure over the next few years, if Intel makes any mistakes, like missing its deadline for 45nm, etc... BUT I seriously doubt, it will have a clear cut win for any extended period of time like it did for a while with X2.

<my analogy>
Its like the case of the hare & tortoise. The hare (rabbit) being Intel b/c its huge resources are like the rabbits huge speed. Intel / the rabbit took a nap and let AMD / the tortoise get ahead. AMD was driven and kept pushing and pushing and it passed up Intel, while it made a mistake. It's taken a while for Intel to wake up and realize it had to catch up. But once its awakened and realized the potential danger of letting AMD /the tortoise catch up, I doubt it will let it happen again. The rabbit will pace itself better in the future and set an alarm clock (schedule) if it needs to take any naps.
 

fan_83

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
77
calefaction: looking at intels july price list, i can forsee no reason for anyone to get an amd system after conroe is released, unless they are a believer of amd. Intel has set up to take over the market from all point. from the budget to the extremes. the 805 at under a 100 is near unbeatable for the lowend.not to mention that its dual core, and going up to mainstream, you have either the 9xx serires or conroe. either way. form the looks of things, unless amd does serious price cuts to compete or release a set of new chips soon to compete, there is absolutely no way for amd to hold out very long.

logically speaking, the majority of the buyers and system builders will go with the one with the most bang for the buck, and can you tell me at anypoint of the buyer spectrum will amd stand out against intel come july? except of course the server platform. lets focus on the home computing segment shall we
 

noobtech

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
2,663
fan_83 said:
calefaction: looking at intels july price list, i can forsee no reason for anyone to get an amd system after conroe is released, unless they are a believer of amd. Intel has set up to take over the market from all point. from the budget to the extremes. the 805 at under a 100 is near unbeatable for the lowend.not to mention that its dual core, and going up to mainstream, you have either the 9xx serires or conroe. either way. form the looks of things, unless amd does serious price cuts to compete or release a set of new chips soon to compete, there is absolutely no way for amd to hold out very long.

logically speaking, the majority of the buyers and system builders will go with the one with the most bang for the buck, and can you tell me at anypoint of the buyer spectrum will amd stand out against intel come july? except of course the server platform. lets focus on the home computing segment shall we


This man has a strong point.
 

squishy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
1,209
I'm looking to upgrade processors but I see no need to buy another AMD right now (my 3500+ will only do 2.42GHZ)

If AMD wants to sell me a FX57 right now for $250.00, I'd probably buy it. Paying anymore than that would be a waste IMHO. I'm patiently waiting for an E6700.
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
squishy said:
I'm looking to upgrade processors but I see no need to buy another AMD right now (my 3500+ will only do 2.42GHZ)

If AMD wants to sell me a FX57 right now for $250.00, I'd probably buy it. Paying anymore than that would be a waste IMHO. I'm patiently waiting for an E6700.

That's about 150MHz Faster than my 3500+ will do LOL!
 

coldpower27

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
1,154
osalcido said:
thats actually (current) 3500+ and Opteron 144 prices

and by the time Conroe comes out (is it July?) that will most likely be 3700+ SanDiego and Opteron 148 prices

hell maybe even the 3800+X2 price will be dropped that low
The Athlon 64 3500+ is currently priced at 208US for about ~ 200US at online vendors. Or you can get the Opteron 146 for somewhat less.

That probably closer to the E6300 1.86GHZ/1066FSB/2MB rather then the E4200. The Core 2 processor will win single thread performance even though it's Dual Core. Closest equivalent would be Opteron 146.

A 40% price cut on a 300US product isn't all that likely, but we'll see.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
chrisf6969 said:
AMD had a performance advantage for a little over a year. (Taking in to consideration that A64's hadn't ramped up at first & they were still selling plenty of Athlon XP's)

Oh please, AMD's been killing Intel until at least the start of the Prescott days, and definately since the socket 939 days...

You are mostly right though, before A64, AMD never dominated.... tho now they are stronger than ever, which is a great thing for the market....
 

coldpower27

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
1,154
brucedeluxe169 said:
Oh please, AMD's been killing Intel until at least the start of the Prescott days, and definately since the socket 939 days...

You are mostly right though, before A64, AMD never dominated.... tho now they are stronger than ever, which is a great thing for the market....
It depends on what you mean by "killing" To me that didn't really happen till Toledo vs Smithfield, which favored AMD pretty dramatically.

When AMD rolled out Athlon 64, Pentium 4's were still better for multitasking as they had HyperThreading, as well as the typical wins in media encoding.

With people using words like "lay the smackdown", "killing", etc etc. it's hard to say by what margin of performance the difference is needed to use those words. 15%? 35%? 20%? Price Consideration? Platform consideration? Power Consumption etc etc.
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
chrisf6969 said:
Intel has had the "crown" most of the past 20 years of the "PC era".

AMD had a performance advantage for a little over a year. (Taking in to consideration that A64's hadn't ramped up at first & they were still selling plenty of Athlon XP's)

AMD also had a slight advantage when Thunderbirds were at about 1.4GHz, and Intel had a broken P3, and slow ass Williamettes. But soon as Northwood hit, Intel was back on top. So the likelyhood, of AMD "taking the crown back" IMHO isn't very likely. They will have their moments I'm sure over the next few years, if Intel makes any mistakes, like missing its deadline for 45nm, etc... BUT I seriously doubt, it will have a clear cut win for any extended period of time like it did for a while with X2.

<my analogy>
Its like the case of the hare & tortoise. The hare (rabbit) being Intel b/c its huge resources are like the rabbits huge speed. Intel / the rabbit took a nap and let AMD / the tortoise get ahead. AMD was driven and kept pushing and pushing and it passed up Intel, while it made a mistake. It's taken a while for Intel to wake up and realize it had to catch up. But once its awakened and realized the potential danger of letting AMD /the tortoise catch up, I doubt it will let it happen again. The rabbit will pace itself better in the future and set an alarm clock (schedule) if it needs to take any naps.

Damned good post!
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
coldpower27 said:
It depends on what you mean by "killing" To me that didn't really happen till Toledo vs Smithfield, which favored AMD pretty dramatically.

When AMD rolled out Athlon 64, Pentium 4's were still better for multitasking as they had HyperThreading, as well as the typical wins in media encoding.

With people using words like "lay the smackdown", "killing", etc etc. it's hard to say by what margin of performance the difference is needed to use those words. 15%? 35%? 20%? Price Consideration? Platform consideration? Power Consumption etc etc.

That's what I've said many too many times to remember.

The other part missed in all of this is the crappy platform support. Try running all the software that ships with an nForce 3-4 or VIA motherboards?
 

kikiw

n00b
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
7
If you go way back, 286 days, AMD had a faster version. On 386, AMD had a 40MHz versus 33MHz for Intel. Then Intel was ahead of AMD from 486 through Pentium iii until Athlon came out. Then Intel was ahead with Northwood until Athlon 64. Now it appears Intel will take the lead again with Core 2.

It has always been a back and forth game.
 

thecoldanddarkone

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
345
Donnie27 said:
That's what I've said many too many times to remember.

The other part missed in all of this is the crappy platform support. Try running all the software that ships with an nForce 3-4 or VIA motherboards?

DON'T even talk about software for nforce 3 or via. You'll bring back bad memories, I would rather not have come back :mad:
 
Top