Pentium 6xx review

Absolutely no surprises there, except for maybe the large price difference.
 
still, to have their pentium 630, running at 3.0ghz, with 2mb l2 cache whipped by the northwood 3ghz, and the athlon 64 2800...?
 
I think the people at x86-secret are being overly negative about the new CPU.
What did they expect?
The 630 consumes slightly less power than a 530 and gives slightly more performance, what else did you expect from an update?

Other than that, the 64 bit stuff is quite interesting. I was amazed at how fast the CPU was in the NVIDIA BlobbyDancer demo.
The povray benchmarks were also interesting. In one test, the Athlon64s perform way better than the P4s, in another test, it's the complete opposite. Another weird thing was that sometimes the 64 bit scores of the Athlon were way lower than the 32 bit ones.
I suppose 64 bit software still needs to mature quite a bit.

I am quite sure that my next PC will have a 64 bit P4 in it anyway, I like what I saw so far.
 
well actually one would expect far more from this upgrade, as really amd have been on top of them for a while now, and therefore was this not meant to be their rise back to the top?
 
Scali said:
I think the people at x86-secret are being overly negative about the new CPU.
What did they expect?
Click to expand...

A better CPU than the older one. Also a better CPU than the main competitor's 1 year old+ mid-low grade CPU.

Scali said:
Other than that, the 64 bit stuff is quite interesting. I was amazed at how fast the CPU was in the NVIDIA BlobbyDancer demo.
Click to expand...

Thats a single demo. Many of the other benches and 3D tests show the 630 in a poor light (of course the $1000 EE is doing quite well here - compared to a $300 AMD 3200+...). Don't be so amazed. Intel should really be doing better.

And BTW, I have 3 other comps w/ Intel CPUs.. The one in my sig just happens to be the best one.
 
Elias said:
A better CPU than the older one. Also a better CPU than the main competitor's 1 year old+ mid-low grade CPU.
Click to expand...

As far as I could see, the 630 WAS better than the 530.
It is not realistic to expect leaps from the same architecture, that's all I'm saying.
But I know, Intel-bashing is almost as popular as MS-bashing, these days. I'm not interested in either. I just want facts.

Thats a single demo. Many of the other benches and 3D tests show the 630 in a poor light (of course the $1000 EE is doing quite well here - compared to a $300 AMD 3200+...). Don't be so amazed. Intel should really be doing better.
Click to expand...

That single demo showed that in some cases the 630 can easily outperform the 3800+, which I assume is much more expensive, since the 630 is only a 3.0 GHz device, and should be more in the range of 3000+ to 3200+.

Other than that, I find two things interesting. First of all, the BlobbyDancer was a promotional demo for the Athlon64, written by NVIDIA, for AMD's introduction. So we can assume that if NVIDIA did any specific optimizations at all, they'd be for the Athlon64, not the Intel. Especially since the Intels weren't even available back then.

Other than that it was the only 64 bit application that was specifically developed for Windows, and the only application developed by a commercial company.
The rest was opensource, and based on multi-platform code.
So if this is any indication of the performance of commercial 64 bit Windows code, Intel seems to be on the right track, and AMD has some work to do.

At the very least there is just as much to say for Intel beating the AMDs with quite a large margin in some benchmarks, as there is for the opposite.
But perhaps if you're a gamer, you have a different outlook on things, I don't know.
 
All I can say is wow. It looks live even the Intel marketing department is going to have trouble selling these 6XX chips. Especially at the 25% premium over the 5XX series they're planning on charging. And the new EE looks pretty lame too even if you could afford something that ridiculously expensive.

I think I'm going to swap out my 520 for a 520J or 530J (better temps / OCs) and just hold tight for the rest of '05. When NForce5 motherboards hit the market I'll probably swap my AA8 for one so I don't have to worry as much about stability at high fsb speeds, but as far as processors go it doesn't look like there's much in the way of salvation for us Intel fans this year...
 
x86 are not entirely honest. :mad:

RAM settings on the Intel Platform are absolutely absurd.They say that they use 4-4-4 , but in reality if you look at the Cache BW test they use 5-5-5-12 at DDR2 533Mhz on Corsair DDR2 667 which is rated 4-4-4-12 at 667Mhz!!!!!
Even I use 4-4-4-12 at 533Mhz ( and 3-3-3-9 up to 466Mhz) with generic Kingmax DDR 2 533.Why do they cripple the Intel platform when they could have used 3-3-3-8 or at best 3-2-2-8 with that RAM????

Secondly , the use 2-2-2 on the AMD platform which are simply the best DDR can offer.Why don't they do the same treatment to Intel too when the RAM is able to do much better ??
 
They should use the new PDP PC2-4200 DDR2-533 3-2-2-4

That would be a bit more fair for the Intel platform, hey if tey are gonna give nice RAM timings for the AMD platform do the same for the Intel platform.
 
I think we the only way to find out if there any better is wait till hard gets or another web page that you know iw fair to cpu review comes out not some third party that web sights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top