Conroe vs. AMD FX-62

thecoldanddarkone said:
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:
Click to expand...

Yeah this is always brushed over or pushed asside. nVidia touts all of these Value added added features but the software is wacky. I'm hearing much better news about the ATI chipsets though.
 
Seems people tend to forget when AMD took the crown with it's 5x86, then later with the K6, then again later with the k62, the again later with the Slot A Athlon, then again later with the thunderbird, then again later with the clawhammer.....

Come on folks.... Anyone who claims that Intel has been in the lead is smoking some good crack...


Also anyone who claims that Intel has a platform advantage is totally high, and has never even touched a nforce3-250 or better.
 
duby229 said:
Seems people tend to forget when AMD took the crown with it's 5x86, then later with the K6, then again later with the k62, the again later with the Slot A Athlon, then again later with the thunderbird, then again later with the clawhammer.....

Come on folks.... Anyone who claims that Intel has been in the lead is smoking some good crack...


Also anyone who claims that Intel has a platform advantage is totally high, and has never even touched a nforce3-250 or better.
Click to expand...

A quick look at the top of the page and we see that we're in [H]ard|Ware > Intel Pro...

Oh wait.. :)
 
duby229 said:
Seems people tend to forget when AMD took the crown with it's 5x86, then later with the K6, then again later with the k62, the again later with the Slot A Athlon, then again later with the thunderbird, then again later with the clawhammer.....

Come on folks.... Anyone who claims that Intel has been in the lead is smoking some good crack...

Also anyone who claims that Intel has a platform advantage is totally high, and has never even touched a nforce3-250 or better.
Click to expand...

That's bull. The PR-150 was barely faster than a Pentium 1 at 100MHz and had it's ass handed to it buy the 166MMx and was slightly slower Pentium 133MHz.

No way, I had a 2 P2's, 3 P3's and 4 K6 -2/3, K6 was slammed more times than not. When I say more times than not. that means about 70% of the apps I ran and was 20 times more stable LOL!

Same goes for the Buggy first Athlon CLassics BOARDS based on AMD and VIA Chipsets. That was NO contest compared to the BX boards of those days. Just wishful thinking on Anti Intel folks' part.

AMD had to out MHz the Cumine P3 that still kept Intel very much the preferred system.

Complain about Willy all you guys like. People still bought and still had Intel at about 87% of the market. AMD first buggy now DDR1&2 platforms sucked as well. (Slow DDR2 and Buggy DDR1).

Not just Northwood C but B kicked ass as well. Northwood wasn't killed by AMD but from Intel moving to Prescott. Then when AMD finally with the help of IBM fixed its Process for A64 18 months after it launched sheesh!

Nothing AMD had gave them a performance edge like X2 did and saying otherwise is kind of silly at best. AMD also has their best Platforms since they were interchangable with Pentiums on Intel boards of the past. Trying to say AMD other processors gave similar advantages and superiority like X2 did is BS, not saying that what you're doing but hey!

Now install all of the nVidia software and tell us how great it is?
 
As quoted by Donnie27...

AMD had to out MHz the Cumine P3 that still kept Intel very much the preferred system.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Do you remember your history very well? Anyone with half a brain on these boards knows that a 1ghz Athlon was faster than a 1ghz P3.

AMD first buggy now DDR2 platforms sucked as well.
Click to expand...

Please explain this silly comment? AMD's implementation of DDR2 is no worse than Intels.

Northwood wasn't killed by AMD but from Intel moving to Prescott.
Click to expand...

If the northwood was such a great design, then why did Intel abandon it for Prescott? Because it couldn't scale anymore within a decent thermal envelope. Prescott just made this situation worse and it's taken Intel two years to play catch up.
 
duby229 said:
Seems people tend to forget when AMD took the crown with it's 5x86, then later with the K6, then again later with the k62, the again later with the Slot A Athlon, then again later with the thunderbird, then again later with the clawhammer.....

Come on folks.... Anyone who claims that Intel has been in the lead is smoking some good crack...


Also anyone who claims that Intel has a platform advantage is totally high, and has never even touched a nforce3-250 or better.
Click to expand...

Obviously, this explains why AMD has posted such huge profits since day one, since they've CERTAINLY ALWAYS HAD THE BETTER PRODUCT.

By the way, aren't you the Official AMD Rep that posted in the Strictly Intel section that said "Conroe won't show until November, mark my words?"

From now on, please refer to AMD as AMD/IBM. More accurate that way.

Just jokes!
 
sp1nfer said:
A quick look at the top of the page and we see that we're in [H]ard|Ware > Intel Pro...

Oh wait.. :)
Click to expand...

But then we'd never know about AMD unless their goons came in here! Shoot, I wouldn't be able to run all of my kick ass, off the shelf, 64 bit apps* if it wasn't for AMD people coming into the SI section touting how AMD was revolutionizing computing with 64 bit goodness. It's been roughly 4 years now, and look at the 64 bit goodies available to us!

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-957757.html

Well, eventually it was available.





*64bit applications found at users discretion...good luck with that.
 
duby229 said:
Seems people tend to forget when AMD took the crown with it's 5x86, then later with the K6, then again later with the k62, the again later with the Slot A Athlon, then again later with the thunderbird, then again later with the clawhammer.....
Click to expand...

Probably because AMD never had the lead before the Athlon.

-The K5 was late and was facing P5 166 with 90Mhz K5s. AMD was smaller than Cyrix at that time.
-The K6 had an integer advantage against the P5MMX but the 233MHz version was rare at release. It was also generally slower than the P5MMX in 16-bit code, and slower than the PPro at 32-bit code. The PII release a month later pretty much concluded that chapter.
-The K6-2 was faster in a few 3DNow optimizes apps, which was Quake and not much more.
 
freeloader1969 said:
As quoted by Donnie27...

Excuse me? Do you remember your history very well? Anyone with half a brain on these boards knows that a 1ghz Athlon was faster than a 1ghz P3.
Click to expand...

Why would you ask a silly question like that?

I had both and have both sides my brain as well LOL! The 1GHz Athlon Classic sucked because the Cache was still running at 333MHz while the Cumine's ran at 1GHz. When the TBird came out, AMD once again Caught back up.

Please explain this silly comment? AMD's implementation of DDR2 is no worse than Intels.
Click to expand...

Opps! Meant slow bugs not glitches and Intel's first DDR2 is nothing to write home about, was slower than DDR1 as well. Also AMD's DDR1 1600 sucked as well, RAMBUS crushed them. No, what was really silly was AMD Fans saying AM2 would out do Conroe when AMD moves to DDR2-800, yeah right!

If the northwood was such a great design, then why did Intel abandon it for Prescott? Because it couldn't scale anymore within a decent thermal envelope. Prescott just made this situation worse and it's taken Intel two years to play catch up
Click to expand...

Because Intel tried to scale Netburst to 10GHz and Prescott was the next step. No it didn't take two years. If anything, Intel Screwed up by not supporting Pentium M for the desktop. X2 been out how long?
 
orvil01 said:
this here seems to give a good unbiased overview of intel vs amd over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD
Click to expand...

"AMD decided to switch gears and concentrate solely on Intel-compatible microprocessors..."

Weird, with AMD being the industry leader (right, duby?), you'd think they'd concentrate "soley on AMD-compatible microprocessors...".
 
duby229 said:
Also anyone who claims that Intel has a platform advantage is totally high, and has never even touched a nforce3-250 or better.
Click to expand...

That has been available for how long? Wooo hooo, nforce has a AWESOME track record....for, you know, all two or three years of its' existence.

nforce=good is purely subjective, of course. But when the alternative is VIA, well....
 
Ok I see.....

We can all play "twist his words"

JetUsafMech said:
That has been available for how long? Wooo hooo, nforce has a AWESOME track record....for, you know, all two or three years of its' existence.

nforce=good is purely subjective, of course. But when the alternative is VIA, well....
Click to expand...

I can't vouch for nforce3150, but lets go back to the nforce2. That was a solid chipset. Not the best, but it competed well. Lets us talk about the SIS650, again a little feature lacking, but easily one of the most stable chipsets ever produced.
 
duby229 said:
That was a solid chipset. Not the best, but it competed well.
Click to expand...

"Solid chipset" and "Not the best"

Oh, I see what you're saying:

Solid chipset = not the best.

Go nvidia chipsets!
 
SLee said:
Probably because AMD never had the lead before the Athlon.

-The K5 was late and was facing P5 166 with 90Mhz K5s. AMD was smaller than Cyrix at that time.
-The K6 had an integer advantage against the P5MMX but the 233MHz version was rare at release. It was also generally slower than the P5MMX in 16-bit code, and slower than the PPro at 32-bit code. The PII release a month later pretty much concluded that chapter.
-The K6-2 was faster in a few 3DNow optimizes apps, which was Quake and not much more.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. I admit the K5 wasnt much to look at. If that was all they had to offer then AMD wouldnt be where they are today.... Leading the industry.

The K6 on the other hand offered about equal performance at a better price, while taking home some of the more important FP apps.

K62 took the lead in both integer, and floating point performance for a few months until the release of the P3, which then fell apart.

K63, was an attempt to compete which wasnt able to scale as well as AMD had hoped for, otherwize it was solid.

Athlon classic came out at the same time that Intel was hocking Slot1, which AMD then proceeded to own. Once Intel rereleased the socket370 P3, they took the lead once more.

Athlon thunderbird was then released on socket A, which ran the good race and wiped Intel. Once Intel released P4, that lead widened by quite a margin. Of course then came the Northwood P4, and it was gone in a dash.

Then came Athlon XP, It remained competitive, but was never able to take the lead.

And lastly the K8...... Need I go on?

It kinda bounces back and forth dont it? Inever said AMD was better then Intel... I just said that AMD has eben leading the industry.

Dont forget that SSE wouldnt exist if it wasnt for 3dnow.
 
JetUsafMech said:
"Solid chipset" and "Not the best"

Oh, I see what you're saying:

Solid chipset = not the best.

Go nvidia chipsets!
Click to expand...

Go Intel Chipsets!!

[whisper]Oh shit not another recall[/whisper]
 
duby229 said:
Not true at all. I admit the K5 wasnt much to look at. If that was all they had to offer then AMD wouldnt be where they are today.... Leading the industry.

The K6 on the other hand offered about equal performance at a better price, while taking home some of the more important FP apps.

K62 took the lead in both integer, and floating point performance for a few months until the release of the P3, which then fell apart.

K63, was an attempt to compete which wasnt able to scale as well as AMD had hoped for, otherwize it was solid.

Athlon classic came out at the same time that Intel was hocking Slot1, which AMD then proceeded to own. Once Intel rereleased the socket370 P3, they took the lead once more.

Athlon thunderbird was then released on socket A, which ran the good race and wiped Intel. Once Intel released P4, that lead widened by quite a margin. Of course then came the Northwood P4, and it was gone in a dash.

Then came Athlon XP, It remained competitive, but was never able to take the lead.

And lastly the K8...... Need I go on?
Click to expand...

Post the part about AMD not being able to post a profit for XXXXXX quarters, while you're being analytical and all.
 
JetUsafMech said:
"AMD decided to switch gears and concentrate solely on Intel-compatible microprocessors..."

Weird, with AMD being the industry leader (right, duby?), you'd think they'd concentrate "soley on AMD-compatible microprocessors...".
Click to expand...


Go ahead and twist..... wiggle, wiggle....

The fact is that you can take what AMD did how many years ago, and it dont mean shit today.
 
JetUsafMech said:
Go AMD chipsets! Oh, wait....
Click to expand...

If you want a solid server chipset they are there.... A little feature lacking, but solid as a rock. Need I supply links?
 
JetUsafMech said:
Post the part about AMD not being able to post a profit for XXXXXX quarters, while you're being analytical and all.
Click to expand...


Well that is how things work sometimes... I never said they were the better company. I just said they can compete, and that Intel has not been in the lead. I think they are both great companies and I own both. But you cant say that AMD has only just recently stared to compete when that is not true at all.
 
duby229 said:
If you want a solid server chipset they are there.... A little feature lacking, but solid as a rock. Need I supply links?
Click to expand...


Oh, we're talking about SERVER chipsets. My fault. Sure, and post some nvidia server chipset links while you're at it.
 
Simply put, yes, I agree that AMD has been competitive for the past 2 or three years, I'll give them/you/IBM/Charter/nvidia and God knows who else that.
 
Post the part about AMD not being able to post a profit for XXXXXX quarters, while you're being analytical and all.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that has anything to do with AMD suing Intel for anti-trust? Could be...
 
kikiw said:
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.
Click to expand...

you = coolist dude on this page, i was just about to go google up some names but youve done all the work for me :D

hes got it right, the cycles are a little longer then ATI and Nvidias Leapfrog-age. but its still there. Intel, will allways be powerhouse. smart people, they just decided netburst was a good idea for wayyy to long. we know Conroe will throughly whup the ass of the current 90nm line of AMD 64 processers, my main question is, will the added ZRAM, L3 cache, and 65nm process of the lineup for X-mas 2006 (aka K9) take the performance crown back?

unless of course in the pages i havnt read someone already adressed this issue, then i look like a moron....

grr chipset wars, and it looks like several people know much more about them then i do, so i guess i cant argue in this one :( ............. :D

comon some people here are acting like 5-year olds...
 
MrWizard6600 said:
you = coolist dude on this page, i was just about to go google up some names but youve done all the work for me :D

hes got it right, the cycles are a little longer then ATI and Nvidias Leapfrog-age. but its still there. Intel, will allways be powerhouse. smart people, they just decided netburst was a good idea for wayyy to long. we know Conroe will throughly whup the ass of the current 90nm line of AMD 64 processers, my main question is, will the added ZRAM, L3 cache, and 65nm process of the lineup for X-mas 2006 (aka K9) take the performance crown back?

unless of course in the pages i havnt read someone already adressed this issue, then i look like a moron....

grr chipset wars, and it looks like several people know much more about them then i do, so i guess i cant argue in this one :( ............. :D

comon some people here are acting like 5-year olds...
Click to expand...
Not on the initial 65nm AMD processors coming in December, those are just optical shrinks and nothing else, no Z-RAM, no L3 Cache, no K8L technology. They are simple optical shrinks like the Newcastle to Winchester Socket 939 transistion. They will allow AMD some wiggling room in adjusting prices and managing supply.

K9, to my knowledge doesn't exist at this current point, I don't even know for sure if were using the Kx nomenclature any more. The next thing coming up is K8L, which is slated for a 2007 or 2008 introduction.
 
JetUsafMech said:
Simply put, yes, I agree that AMD has been competitive for the past 2 or three years, I'll give them/you/IBM/Charter/nvidia and God knows who else that.
Click to expand...

They lost money for about 17 quarters. Yup, I can't wait until November to get my Conroe ;)
 
November?

Donnie I thought you were getting one on july10th


yes they have lost money every quarter....BUT Germany is financing them.

Now New York wants one


sparks
 
Things are going so well in the AMD camp that Opteron S1207 was moved back a month to August and it is probable to slip even more...
 
sparks said:
November?

Donnie I thought you were getting one on july10th


yes they have lost money every quarter....BUT Germany is financing them.

Now New York wants one


sparks
Click to expand...

Nope, I can't get one until November, that's when Duby said they'd be out. I saw that about the New York FAB BTW.
 
that other website, with the carpenters hammer. (Tom's Hardware)

has a review of the 2.66Ghz Conroe vs. FX-62 (reg & oc'd)

And the Conroe is beating it in most benches. Imagine the stomping from my Conroe when I overclock it to 3Ghz+++
 
As a nitpick , that is one heck of a "planned strategy" as some "respected" posters put it :

"Interestingly enough, despite AMD's recent announcement of its new 4x4 platform none of the motherboard manufacturers we spoke to had heard of it, much less had a design ready to go. We definitely got the impression that 4x4 was a last minute effort to compete with Conroe on the high end."


http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2770&p=2 :rolleyes:
 
savantu said:
As a nitpick , that is one heck of a "planned strategy" as some "respected" posters put it :

"Interestingly enough, despite AMD's recent announcement of its new 4x4 platform none of the motherboard manufacturers we spoke to had heard of it, much less had a design ready to go. We definitely got the impression that 4x4 was a last minute effort to compete with Conroe on the high end."


http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2770&p=2 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

LOL, funny, sounds like they're just telling everyone about what they had planned to launch WAY down the road maybe for the highend, etc... I think I'm going to put an order in to buy some more Intel stock today, while its at its 2+ year low.
 
chrisf6969 said:
that other website, with the carpenters hammer. (Tom's Hardware)

has a review of the 2.66Ghz Conroe vs. FX-62 (reg & oc'd)

And the Conroe is beating it in most benches. Imagine the stomping from my Conroe when I overclock it to 3Ghz+++
Click to expand...

and everyone knows how unbias Tomshardware is right? i especially like how they said the 7800GT could outperform an X1800XT by something like 12%.....
 
MrWizard6600 said:
and everyone knows how unbias Tomshardware is right? i especially like how they said the 7800GT could outperform an X1800XT by something like 12%.....
Click to expand...

But compared to Fugger, Coolater, Victor Wang, FCG and others, they're under estimating how much faster Conroe really is. Note, many of these guys had Record setting AMD systems, no reason for them to assist Intel in hoodwinking us. All of them of saying this like "WOW", "you've seen nothing yet", "man we can't wait to show you what these bad boys can do" and etc..
 
right... well this artical says a little differantly. its incomplete, and in the most cpu loaded area (per centage wise) resolution, it pulls ahead, but then 1200X1000 says differantly but i spose thats just cuz of the Nforce 5 chipset.

no doubt conroe will be sweet, but an extra 2,3,4,5 fps isnt that massive an increase, not for me. and i still think that amd's architecture has a little more to offer. but then i like the 2X2mb cache intels got.
 
The Conroe 2.93 XE looks like its going to beat the FX-62 by about 40% in general. (+-) And thats with Intel holding it back.

I think they're saving a few aces in the hole. (more clock speed & more FSB speed) They'll release the 3.2 XE in the following quarter (q4-06) after the release(q3-06), then probably the 3.33 XE (1333 FSB) the next quarter (Q1-07)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top