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

[Nazo]

Seems to me like some of these comparisons lack in accuracy though. AMD is inded capitalizing on people's need for a simpler system (eg, "3700+ is higher than 3500+, so I'll just grab that" type of thinking.) However, let's not forget that we should compare more by what they actually ARE. For example, why compare a higher numbered chip based on the San Diego core when you are all but guaranteed an overclock of, say 2.5GHz (I think that's the lowest.) So, if we want to accurately compare, we need to compare real results and their costs. Now, don't get me wrong. Intel may match this too, or, perhaps even come out ahead more noticably for all I could say, I'm just saying we need a more accurate comparison.

Oh, and FPS in a few games is not an accurate test. At all. Too many variables in that. Different chipsets, video setups, etc (I've even once seen a comparison where they used different video cards when comparing two setups using a game test, completely invalidating the entire comparison.) I know people don't like synthetic benchmarks, but, the cool thing about them is they eliminate all the variables that you can eliminate. The main problem is just that if you don't use the right ones you see only one part of what the CPUs can do, so one can look better than it is if say it has a really fast integer but a crappy floating point if the test ignores floating point. I kind of wonder if CrystalMark is a good tool for this since it breaks things down into a lot of various tests (plus, hey, it's free.) d-:

Anyway, I'm an AMD only guy mainly because I haven't kept up well enough with Intel and forget which P4 is which now, plus AMD has just had such great bang for the buck type products (such as my current non FX series, or, better yet, the Athlon XP mobile I used to have which I had oced past the performance level of a processor that cost twice as much.) I've been generally pretty happy so haven't had to go back to Intel just yet. Still, last I heard, Intel and AMD have flipped on the temperature area, which seems funny since AMD got such a bad reputation for it's temperatures. Last I heard, modern P4s (excluding the super-low end chips that are essentially a high end chip underclocked) run where Athlon XPs used to or even higher. IMO this is an important factor when choosing a processor. Well, I don't know about ALL the P4s, but, the ones in the priceranges of the people I usually end up recommending hardware for are the hot kinds usually at least. I have to say, my current CPU, overclocked and with raised voltage (ok, only a bit raised) runs cooler than my grandmother's old original technology P4 2.4GHz or the ancient P3s I have in the second system in my signature, and neither of those systems have overclocking. 38C is the highest I've caught it doing with a little help from MPEG2 encoding and me having left the AC off too long, and it idles at ambient, compared to my grandmother's non-oced P4-2.4 sitting around 31C idle minimum (I'm not sure of the direct effects of ambient, but, the CPU is at least 5C above ambient.) That's the old technology that was known for being cool. Are there any new ones that run cooler? The people I recommend hardware for are the kind who don't understand about cooling and are willing to run a PC in a room with no AC during the summer, so it has to take some punishment (I can't do anything for memory since most of them are insisting on pre-built systems and the manufacturers are too lazy to tell you what memory, motherboard, or any other useful information.)

 

[Justshoe]

IF your just judging on pure clock speed etc. whats the point. Isnt it how your overall system performs? seems to be to much margin for error in this. Differnt steppings oc differnt, differnt boards oc differnt etc. I think this is just a fued that will always go on reguardless of what the truth to the matter is LOL

 

[Vengance_01]

Hum lets see my 300$ Opteron [email protected] 250FSB owning any Intel in that price range, runs much cooler, oh wait and much cheaper. Amd is still ahead of Intel, but there next gen 65nm carone or something really got m intrested.

 

[HenryBravo]

Hum lets see my 300$ Opteron [email protected] 250FSB owning any Intel in that price range, runs much cooler, oh wait and much cheaper.

QFT.

HB

 

[josh_1413]

Hum lets see my 300$ Opteron [email protected] 250FSB owning any Intel in that price range, runs much cooler, oh wait and much cheaper. Amd is still ahead of Intel, but there next gen 65nm carone or something really got m intrested.

I guarantee you that a PD 920 at 4Ghz couldn't beat that Opteron [email protected] in most all benchmarks.

 

[Santos L. Halper]

I'll add another log to the fire.

As reported on the front page of the [H].

Intel price cuts upcoming.

Now if that happens and AMD doesn't cut prices as well . . .

 

[Donnie27]

Umm.... Intels next desktop line is based around a mobile processor. Do you really think that AMD's desktop can compare to an Intel Mobile processor in the wattage dept? If you do can you pass me some of what you're smoking. It's been a rough day and I could use some release.

Although I quit smoking such things, LOL, I want some too! Even on the Intel side of the forum you can't talk about Dothan or Yonah. You only talk about the dreaded Netburst. Eventhough it roundedly kicked the S#it out of AthlonXP, even Northwoods and their excellent Canterwoods are off limits as well. i865 and 2.4C and etc.. make great Budget systems. See the latest [H] Sc-754 review?

The only thing you can talk about are Hottscotts and Willys. Or you're free to talk about any of them when you compare them to the much more expensive X2's or higherend FX's. You can't talk about Yonah or Dothan running some apps faster than AMD processors their same speed or even 200MHz faster than Yonah. No memory controller hurts them?

Look at this thread? Sounds like the AMD side of the forum, doesn't it? You get one guy telling another guy that he didn't pick fairly then he himself picks 950 vs FX60 click on links and tell me if you think that estimated 8 mins better performance is worth it? FX60 = $1015 and 950 = $709, 4800+ = $626. Pricewatch as of 9:10am Feb 14. $306 for 8 fewer mins, I don't think so, sheesh!

Yet, most of the time, sites leave some questions like these unanswered.. Maybe Kyle/[H] could step up and do a 2.8GHz 920 vs the 3800+ battle of the overclocked Cheapo Dual core review? IMHO, this would shut up a lot of AMD !!!!!!s, then again, maybe not.

 

[Donnie27]

I guarantee you that a PD 920 at 4Ghz couldn't beat that Opteron [email protected] in most all benchmarks.

Of course not. On that same line of thought, Opteron doesn't beat the $70s cheaper 920 in all benchmarks, what's your point?

Features:
* Intel Virutalization Technology
* Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology
* Execute Disable Bit
* EM64T support
* Dual Core
* 2MB Cache per core
* Requires MB with Dual Core processing support
such as Intel 955X, 945G, 945P

Also since AMD is keeping quiet about it, you might want to wait a few months, maybe April. Then you can get their version of VT on the Opteron168 I think they'er going to call it.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

I'll add another log to the fire.

As reported on the front page of the [H].

Intel price cuts upcoming.

Now if that happens and AMD doesn't cut prices as well . . .

Wow, that is quite a log....

200 bucks for a crazy fast dual core system, which is just as fast as the top in games? (which is what 99% of the ppl in this forum care abt... sure there are other "professional users", but i'm not talking about them). That 920/930 is an amazing deal IMHO. 65nm Intel process is kicking ass, if AMD doesn't get their shit together quick, this price war is going to nail them worse than the Athlon XP/Northwood price war days

 

[pxc]

Then you can get their version of VT on the Opteron168 I think they'er going to call it.

It's called Pacifica on the Opteron/A64.
---

OT: What I don't understand is why AMD cheerleaders flood the Intel forum. Especially with a poor understanding of current and future Intel chips, they don't add anything to the conversations. The AMD cheerleading forum is just 2 clicks away.

 

[chrisf6969]

I'm liking my upgrade.

 

[Donnie27]

It's called Pacifica on the Opteron/A64.
---

OT: What I don't understand is why AMD cheerleaders flood the Intel forum. Especially with a poor understanding of current and future Intel chips, they don't add anything to the conversations. The AMD cheerleading forum is just 2 clicks away.

Peer Pressure? Many just join in, "Go along to get along". It's like a club or something

 

[Xeero]

yeah even though, i like both amd and intel i just don't understand why AMD !!!!!!s have an urge to crash the Intel forums

 

[Nazo]

yeah even though, i like both amd and intel i just don't understand why AMD !!!!!!s have an urge to crash the Intel forums

Same reason Intel people do the same in the AMD forum. Both forums should just bear with it since it's inevitable due to their nature.

 

[Ockie]

I have both dual core intels and amd's, I like them both. Whichever is going to do the job better for the money I get

 

[Donnie27]

I'm liking my upgrade.

I like your upgrade too

 

[InorganicMatter]

I'll add another log to the fire.

As reported on the front page of the [H].

Intel price cuts upcoming.

Now if that happens and AMD doesn't cut prices as well . . .

Holey moley! I'll be able to get dual-core for less than $200 by Christmas?!? I don't care how fast AMD X2s are, unless they slash some prices they will never ever beat the 900 series in price/performance. $200 for a gauranteed 4GHz...

 

[Duke3d87]

Holey moley! I'll be able to get dual-core for less than $200 by Christmas?!? I don't care how fast AMD X2s are, unless they slash some prices they will never ever beat the 900 series in price/performance. $200 for a gauranteed 4GHz...

exactly. I was thinking that. I posted the link on XFN and the two people who posted in response were amazed that the prices were so low. Overclockers.com has been bashing AMD alot when it comes to pricing. They do not like how AMD is the old Intel; they release a new product and it costs a lot of money. They like the "new" Intel who releases chips to all markets and they are well priced. It was also said that this year Intel is going to sacrifice revenue for marketshare. The 65nm process helps them do that and they expect to sell a good 60 million dual core processors. When I build my friends PC, it's going to be Intel.

 

[chrisf6969]

exactly. I was thinking that. I posted the link on XFN and the two people who posted in response were amazed that the prices were so low. Overclockers.com has been bashing AMD alot when it comes to pricing. They do not like how AMD is the old Intel; they release a new product and it costs a lot of money. They like the "new" Intel who releases chips to all markets and they are well priced. It was also said that this year Intel is going to sacrifice revenue for marketshare. The 65nm process helps them do that and they expect to sell a good 60 million dual core processors. When I build my friends PC, it's going to be Intel.

AMD isn't the old Intel.

AMD used to be the YUGO of CPU's, they made cheap CPUs period and mostly relegated to the budget sector.

Now they (think) they've become the Porsche of CPU's only selling high-end expensive stuff.

Meanwhile, Intel is GM, selling everything from the budget (Saturn, etc) to the highend Cadillac or Corvettes.

To selll that much more they need an extensive line up to cover all price points.

Where AMD has limited production that is being overwhelmed by demand right now, so they can afford to raise their prices. While it sucks for the consumer it makes perfect business sense. When the supply is limited and you have an overwhelming demand, raise prices to make a higher profit margin and still selling out most (if not all) of your inventory.

 

[Donnie27]

You left out the part about the VW's Bugs (Sempron)'s LOL!

 

[HighwayAssassins]

You forget that for the last two years AMD guys have said "the 3000+ overclocks faster than the P4EE!!!11!" Now suddenly we can't compare the regular line to the enthusiast line because of the price difference? I think not.

And yes, a price war would be real nice

My $150 3000+ Venice can get up to 2.75 on air and hardly any volts. thats just about an FX-57 (minus the cache), still thats fucking impressive. I would love to see any $150 intel CPU compete with my 3000+.

 

[Donnie27]

exactly. I was thinking that. I posted the link on XFN and the two people who posted in response were amazed that the prices were so low. Overclockers.com has been bashing AMD alot when it comes to pricing. They do not like how AMD is the old Intel; they release a new product and it costs a lot of money. They like the "new" Intel who releases chips to all markets and they are well priced. It was also said that this year Intel is going to sacrifice revenue for marketshare. The 65nm process helps them do that and they expect to sell a good 60 million dual core processors. When I build my friends PC, it's going to be Intel.

The estimates show about 200+ million PC shipped last year (Servers and Notebooks included with MACs, VIA and etc.). I think it was from Merc. They said AMD shipped 37 million and Intel shipped 155 million. Add another 10 million for MACs and VIA and etc.. Intel has said that they plan to be at a 70% to 30% ratio of Dual to Single core ratio. The numbers aren't absolute and one site puts them much lower (140 mill to 30 million) . Either way, that means Intel plans to ship over 100 million Dual Core Processors. This will only slow down as some FABs finished their runs of 65nm and moves to 45nm. Intel took a similar hit when moving from 90nm to 65nm. This gives AMD a bounce up each time.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

You left out the part about the VW's Bugs (Sempron)'s LOL!

semprons are more like Toyota Corollas or Ford Focuses... they are cheap, and they get the job done... very well

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

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

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

I guess at stock the FX-60 takes the crown

 

[Nazo]

semprons are more like Toyota Corollas or Ford Focuses... they are cheap, and they get the job done... very well

Hrm... I drive a Prizm. Got a CPU for that? d-:

 

[HenryBravo]

OT: What I don't understand is why AMD cheerleaders flood the Intel forum. Especially with a poor understanding of current and future Intel chips, they don't add anything to the conversations. The AMD cheerleading forum is just 2 clicks away.

Well you have to admit the title of this particular thread makes it hard not to start reading what the Intel cheerleaders are saying in this forum.

HB

 

[empoy]

let's do a cheerleading of our own at the AMD forum

 

[D!Z]

Let's be fair, eh? One review only?

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=8

i cant wait for quake wars and that fx-60 is spanking the fx 57 ouch

 

[Donnie27]

semprons are more like Toyota Corollas or Ford Focuses... they are cheap, and they get the job done... very well

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

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

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

I guess at stock the FX-60 takes the crown

You can get overclock results from Xtremesystems.org.

There's no way in hell I think, yes just me, that X2 is middle of the road=P Fairly priced, according to supply and demand yes Again, Kyle could easily settle the a Dual Core overclock between the 920 or 930 vs. 3800+ or Opteron 165 issue. I'm about 100% sure it would draw flames for the Green Arrow followers.

Sadly, even as most folks getting great overclocks with 9xx processors of all kinds it seems lost on many. Many Webmasters continue to cater to the 80% of the folks who generate Hits and those same folks who make up about 70% of the forum members.

The other thing or record AMD shares with super cars are their high maintence costs LOL! Same said VW Bug as in point of origin, Germany. Just because AMD is pretty good now (maint. wise), damned sure don't mean that has always been the case.

Helllllooooo come back to Earth? To even try and say AMD and Toyota in the same breath invites Flames. Toyota never built anything crappy as VIA and even the first POS nVidia motherboards that were adapted from the XBox, you're kidding right? Besides that, they've been around a lot longer than an X2, please try again? Toyota doesn't have Rev-E fixes either sheesh! Toyota doesn't use its user base as Beta testers like VIA and Nvidia. I've owned 10 AMD systems and 7 Intels systems.

Toyota might be a better fit for Intel than your GM comparo. Most folks buy Toyota, Honda and other "riceburners" for the same reason they buy Intel. As Ron Popel would say, "Just set it and forget it!". These folks just want trouble free operation that equates to Intel = 1, AMD = 0. These folks just like a an estimated 800 million Intel users don't care about 0 to 60 times like AMD folks do. No matter what you, I or anyone would say, Intel has had that locked down for years!

9xx sucks too much Power? Oh brother. More power than AMD doesn't mean too much. If you really want to save power then go with Dothan or Yonah so AMD gets trumpped there as well. Then these owners can say X2 and A64 sucks too much power too right?

 

[savantu]

Don't worry Donnie , Conroe XE at 3.33GHz would make a lot of greenie folks say : " hey Dude , where did this come from ? "

Categ 5 tornado heading straight for AMDville , yet they are unaware of the clouds gathering over their head.

They say that they are objective and impartial . Frankly I've never seen such stubborn and blind people as they...

 

[InorganicMatter]

There's no way in hell I think, yes just me, that X2 is middle of the road=P Fairly priced, according to supply and demand yes Again, Kyle could easily settle the a Dual Core overclock between the 920 or 930 vs. 3800+ or Opteron 165 issue. I'm about 100% sure it would draw flames for the Green Arrow followers.

Actually, I do wonder if [H] will ever review a 900 series CPU. Haven't seen one yet, and they usually are always on top of these things.

Helllllooooo come back to Earth? To even try and say AMD and Toyota in the same breath invites Flames. Toyota never built anything crappy as VIA and even the first POS nVidia motherboards that were adapted from the XBox, you're kidding right? Besides that, they've been around a lot longer than an X2, please try again? Toyota doesn't have Rev-E fixes either sheesh! Toyota doesn't use its user base as Beta testers like VIA and Nvidia.

Although I do share some of your views here, we are dealing with the now-and-now, not the past POS products these companies have made. Everyone makes blunders; need I remind you of Prescott, the early SLI boards, GeForce FX, ATI X1800, etc?

There's no way in hell I think, yes just me, that X2 is middle of the road=P Fairly priced, according to supply and demand yes

Totally agreed, AMD's got good stuff, it's just too darn expensive!

9xx sucks too much Power? Oh brother. More power than AMD doesn't mean too much. If you really want to save power then go with Dothan or Yonah so AMD gets trumpped there as well. Then these owners can say X2 and A64 sucks too much power too right?

Again, agreed. It's not that Intel sucks too much power, it's just that they suck more power in comparison to an equivalent AMD. Even then, it's power draw is still very low.

 

[chrisf6969]

Categ 5 tornado heading straight for AMDville , yet they are unaware of the clouds gathering over their head.

Hurricanes are Cat 1 - Cat 5
Tornados are F1-F5 (really F0-F6) but F0 is just gale force winds, and F6 is kinda imaginery

Unfortunately I know this too well, as a Cat 4 hurricane just hit us 6 months ago, then like 2 weeks ago we had several F1 & F2 twisters hit New Orleans also. Which IS EXTREMELY ODD!!! We NEVER had tornados!

But back to the subject. Maybe Toyota would have been a better comparison for Intel as Toyota has grown larger than GM now, I think. And is obviously more maintenance free.

And on the 920 vs X2 3800+ match.... I too would REALLY like to see that. I think it would be a great review and a close race and thats what most people here are looking at as options. The cheapest processor that you can OC the hell out of.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

ok ok, fine, so i dropped the ball on the X2 being the Toyota Camry analogy.... what is a better one, Corvette? Great, almost supercar like performance for a slight bump up from sedan prices?

What are the 900 series then? They aren't japanese sedans b/c of power and heat (as much as i love them, dont get me wrong...)

haha, and to the geo prizm guy.... prizms are rebadged totoya corollas

ooo, heres a new one... the Pentium 6xx series and Athlon single core are like toyota camy, cheap, better than subcompact economy, not quite power performers, but very good still, tried and true

wow, enough of the car analogies, lol i'm wierd

 

[brucedeluxe169]

o, and I agree, the "enthusiast" sites need more overclocking reviews. 920 vs 3800 X2 would be a battle for the ages. Hardocp, Techreport, Xbitlabs, i'm looking at you!

 

[Donnie27]

ok ok, fine, so i dropped the ball on the X2 being the Toyota Camry analogy.... what is a better one, Corvette? Great, almost supercar like performance for a slight bump up from sedan prices?

What are the 900 series then? They aren't japanese sedans b/c of power and heat (as much as i love them, dont get me wrong...)

haha, and to the geo prizm guy.... prizms are rebadged totoya corollas

ooo, heres a new one... the Pentium 6xx series and Athlon single core are like toyota camy, cheap, better than subcompact economy, not quite power performers, but very good still, tried and true

wow, enough of the car analogies, lol i'm wierd

I love Vetts, yeah, way too much car stuff. Yet we can't pick and choose different lines to make what we say sound better. We can't pretend Dothan and Yonah aren't made by Intel when folks say AMD makes cooler running Processors. That's misleading and wrong. If we add non mobile, mainstream or etc.., that's fine. That's the main point I was trying to make. The TDP for a 3.33GHz Conroe is said to be 95W and one Green Guy Laughed. Doesn't he know FX60's is 110W? Lower speed Conroe will be far less than that IMHO.

 

[Nazo]

haha, and to the geo prizm guy.... prizms are rebadged totoya corollas

That was supposed to be the joke. BTW, Geo is no more. The last models before they stopped doing the Prizm were badged Chevrolet to cause more confusion. I'm actually driving one of these so called Chevrolet Prizms, and it's definitely the Sempron of cars. Automatic, no overdrive, etc. Crippled as much as when you take out so much L2 cache, yet, still surprisingly capable when you don't need sheer raw power.

Anyway, one thing I'd like to ask. WHAT maintenance cost? I can't figure out what in the PC world could be called maintenance that is specific somehow to one brand of CPU. I've used both AMDs and Intels and never had maintenance costs unless you count my choosing to upgrade the cooling, which is not officially supported and which you can do to either chip just as easily. I've never had one chip more likely to break than the other other than when you factor temperature into the mix, in which case, late Athlon XPs when cooling fails, and many Prescotts for the same sort of reasons.

Also, I'd like to remind many of you what someone stated earlier. Intel has far far more production capacity. This gives them a pretty big advantage over AMD in many fields, including the field of offering more products as well as being able to spread their overhead (economies of scale and such) to make the same quality cheaper. While bashing AMD, you might want to stop and wonder how the heck they got them so cheap in the past. Anyway, like was also stated, it's just supply and demand. AMD chips are so expensive because demand is higher than supply, so the price goes up until it matches demand. Simple economics model. If Intel gets ahead, that's fine by me because AMD will slow down a little, lower their prices, and, more importantly, they may have to come up with a new great product.

BTW, the power draw thing is because Athlon64 was built on mobile technology in essense. Intel has just recently stepped up their research into mobile technologies and, hence, some of their newer products are beginning to catch up. The fact remains that for the grand majority of us today (emphasis on today) using desktop systems the Intels are a little more power hungry. I don't know first-hand about laptops or other mobile devices unless you count my old PocketPC 2002 handheld, which doesn't even use an x86 processor (ARM based chip.) No one knows what tomorrow will bring, so let's not jump to conclusions blindly either. Also, it might help if you don't compare the highest end chips

Oh, and could someone tell me why Via and nVidia's mistakes from years ago are being held against AMD? Are they OWNED by AMD or something? And even if they are, are they under direct control, or are they supposed to be controlling themselves seperately? Actually, if you want to look at mistakes, I personally have to say that it was a mistake for Intel to pretend at the graphics field at all. Anyone have an "Intel Extreme" GPU? I see nothing but complaints and troubles about bugs, performance issues, etc in forums pertaining to these, but, little to nothing about ATi or nVidia. It's nothing personal against Intel, just I think they should stick to what they are truly good at instead of jumping into a tough field with two very very big competitors who have all but completely dominated the market since the late 90s (sorry Matrox, stick to businesses.)

 

[JohnnyH24]

Oh, and could someone tell me why Via and nVidia's mistakes from years ago are being held against AMD? Are they OWNED by AMD or something? And even if they are, are they under direct control, or are they supposed to be controlling themselves seperately?

When you rely on other companies to provide the interface that your cpu uses to communicate with other io devices on the motherboard, their mistakes will be associated with your cpu. AMD used to make good chipsets. They just prefer not to have to bother with them anymore.

Look at the dominance of the NV4 chipset in the AMD world. Is it because it is better than the rest, or it it because it was simply there and had momentum? The VIA 890 may be more stable than the NV4, but it appeared 6-12 months too late to make an impact. The ULi M1695 is much more flexible than the nVidia offering, but it arrived even later than the VIA 890.

Actually, if you want to look at mistakes, I personally have to say that it was a mistake for Intel to pretend at the graphics field at all. Anyone have an "Intel Extreme" GPU? I see nothing but complaints and troubles about bugs, performance issues, etc in forums pertaining to these, but, little to nothing about ATi or nVidia. It's nothing personal against Intel, just I think they should stick to what they are truly good at instead of jumping into a tough field with two very very big competitors who have all but completely dominated the market since the late 90s (sorry Matrox, stick to businesses.)

The "Intel Extreme Graphics" is not meant to compete with ATI and nVidia in the graphics arena. It is to provide inexpensive graphics capability to companies that buy Intel-based computers, whose users have no need for 3D performance. It helps lower the costs associated with buying large numbers of computers. It isn't meant for the enthusiast, but for the main-stream business user.

 

[Nazo]

When you rely on other companies to provide the interface that your cpu uses to communicate with other io devices on the motherboard, their mistakes will be associated with your cpu. AMD used to make good chipsets. They just prefer not to have to bother with them anymore.

I see your point, but, I don't really think we can entirely blame them for someone else's work. Realistically speaking, they've chosen to dedicate more of their smaller production and research resources towards their primary product. If they had continued to develop their own chipsets rather than simply standardizing, we AMD users may have less options for chipsets, plus they'd have spent less reasearch and less actual production costs on improving their chips and they might not be what they are today. Never forget that AMD started out as one of those companies producing crappy chips staying always far behind Intel with chips that were cheap as heck, but, also buggy and not nearly powerful enough to compete. I don't want to see either Intel or AMD end up like this again, I like them sitting almost side-by-side. So we have to remember they just don't have Intel's huge advantages and have to make their own.

The "Intel Extreme Graphics" is not meant to compete with ATI and nVidia in the graphics arena. It is to provide inexpensive graphics capability to companies that buy Intel-based computers, whose users have no need for 3D performance. It helps lower the costs associated with buying large numbers of computers. It isn't meant for the enthusiast, but for the main-stream business user.

You're right again I'm sure. Somehow they've managed to market them as if they are indeed perfectly acceptable for gamers and all though. Well, you know how it is, they use generic vague statements that imply it's good for everything and everything includes gamers. Also, I think they are well aware that some non-upgradable systems (like a good number of laptops) really shouldn't have Intel Extreme just to save a few bucks rather than say one of ATi or nVidia's low end, which aren't good either, but, about as good as you get for cheap junk. (I'd just die if I had to live with a 6100 or 9250 or something for gaming, but, at least they work without bugs and have pixel shaders -- though maybe intel has FINALLY gotten pixel shaders by now?)

 

[JohnnyH24]

... we AMD users may have less options for chipsets

I think it's all due to nVidia not wanting to certify other chipsets for SLI. Toms just posted a review of the latest ULi chipset that will probably never see the light of day in a socket 939 motherboard. But...

I think Intel alone has way too many chipset options... 5 major chipset families are still available with 4 different south bridges, plus minor variations when it comes to included graphics and performance... all from just one company.

I built my first Intel box a year ago, after using nothing but AMD (and a Dell Precision 410) since 1999. My experience wasn't as smooth as my previous socket A machine... the only components I still use from the intial build are my 530J and Hyper-48.

 

[pxc]

Anyone have an "Intel Extreme" GPU? I see nothing but complaints and troubles about bugs, performance issues, etc in forums pertaining to these, but, little to nothing about ATi or nVidia.

Intel Extreme/GMA GPUs have the largest maket share. Intel had 32% of the overall graphic market in Q4 2005 (vs 24% for ATI and 23% for nvidia), according to Jon Peddie Research.

If you look at only ATI IGP/Xpress integrated graphics chipsets and nvidia C51 chipsets market share, it's insignificant compared to Intel which is 100% integrated graphics. You will hear of more Intel integrated graphics problems just due to the sheer different in that segment's shares, but there's also another reason I explain below.

Since I use a GMA 900 (915GM) chipset on a daily basis (work, internet) and play the occasional game, I can comment. There's nothing wrong with the non-graphics part of the chipset, it's as stable as anything i've ever used. No crashes or weird behavior. I don't have any problems with games I play: Q3:A, UT2004, NFS:U and others all look fine. I obviously don't have many games with known problems, but out of the ones I do have I wouldn't even consider running it on a GMA 900 chip since it would run too slowly. IOW, I think it's a great chipset for what I use it for. People who buy computers based on GMA 9x0 to play new games with the integrated graphics will be disappointed.

Some games just don't work due to the weird software vertex shaders that the GMA9x0 uses (some games check specifically for hardware VS) and incompatibilies with tile based rendering (which also plagued the Kyro cards). With current drivers, most games work fine.

Intel's integrated graphics are getting better, but still have nowhere near the support of ATI's or nvidia's integrated graphics. http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intel915g/sb/CS-011967.htm Some of the problems are fixed with patches or driver updates, even if there's a red or yellow mark next to the game.

 

[broberts]

And on the 920 vs X2 3800+ match.... I too would REALLY like to see that. I think it would be a great review and a close race and thats what most people here are looking at as options. The cheapest processor that you can OC the hell out of.

Seems to me that one also needs to compare cpu at the same price point. I get awfully tired of reading stuff that compares two platforms with a significant price differential. i920 vs X2 3800 compares systems with a cpu price differential of somewhere around 25%. Its sort of like comparing an X2 3800 to an X2 4200 or an Opteron 170. Doesn't make much sense to me unless one also includes something in the same price range.