WOOOT! GO INTEL!

Message

#1 Post by **palmboy5** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:28 pm

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/sho ... i=2713&p=1

2005 · #2 Post by **2005** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:55 pm

I have several issues here.

The first being that in EVERY benchmark result they have the AMD processor labeld X2 when its an FX. Either way

Their comparing a chip that is coming out no sooner then six months from now to a chip that has been out for a while. Also no price indication???

For only 325$ + decent cooling (if you wish) you could OC an opteron 165 to BEAT that FX-60 and probably keep up with that conroe. I have no doubt that with the 60$ Zalman CNS9500 you couldn't get the opty 165 to 3.0ghz stable with decent cooling all around. If you have seen anything with the AMD chips in question is that CPU clocks matter more then ever in this type of bench. I want a price on that conroe, because its gotta be through the fucken roof. Not only that.. but for 325$ Ill stick to my >FX-60 CPU.

I7Iz490N · #3 Post by **I7Iz490N** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:01 pm

#4 Post by **palmboy5** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:23 pm

intel should follow its lower-priced trend
CPU clocks matter more than ever and the lower clocked conroe outperforms in all?

I7Iz490N · #5 Post by **I7Iz490N** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:28 pm

#6 Post by **palmboy5** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:58 am

yeah i know, dn

... i was questioning 2005

2005 · #7 Post by **2005** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:33 am

For the dual core AMDS... espically in the single threaded apps.

I wana see a price on the conroe... and remember its not competeing aginst the 1050$ USD FX-60. Its competing aginst the 325$ Opteron 165 which can own the FX-60 with stock cooling.

#8 Post by **palmboy5** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:46 am

the opteron 165 and FX-60 can own to about the same level, both being toledo core, and i believe both with the same cooler too. and you want to compare a stock with an OCed CPU? unfair. and remember, nvidia's 7900s arent more expensive . its because they moved to a smaller transistor size, and therefore are able to create more at once; meet demand more, lower prices. intel's conroe is at 65nm, not 90nm, they can also create more and meet demand more, lower prices. i think its safe to say the most expensive of both companies will not go above $1100.
true the conroe release is a good 6 months off, so OCing the 165 seems logical, but what new stuff is AMD going to offer as stock? socket AM2 with FX-62 seems to be in the same time frame.. wow, notice how the FX-60 in that benchmark is OCed to 2.8GHz, i can guarentee you, that is FX-62 speed. and moving to DDR2, thats going to help?? a higher latency ram on an integrated memory controller designed as such to LOWER latency?? its going to help tons, im sure.

if AMD rushes they may be able to get the FX-64 out at around the same time as conroe, and that, following the trend, will be 3GHz (AMD'S FIRST!!) that finally can be a powerhouse to reckon with. BUT, uh oh!! "We also only looked at the 2.66GHz part, the Extreme Edition version of Conroe will most likely be clocked around 3.0GHz which will extend the performance advantage even further." a 3GHz conroe will be around too! and look whos more efficient per clock?! dead. wait for next generation AMDs. not yet another remake of the Clawhammer core, a real new generation. this will be a long ways off, they just moved to a AM2, and it will be a long while before they can change socket again using a whole new makeover like intel did

EDIT:
added last two sentences

I7Iz490N · #9 Post by **I7Iz490N** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:50 am

2005 · #10 Post by **2005** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:19 pm

The war is good for us... the harder they battle the more we get for less. Let em slug it out.

2005 · #11 Post by **2005** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:38 pm

Several points to consider:

The end result is all I care about.

Im not about to OC a 500+ $ CPU.

You go ahead and do your effiecny/clock ratio... Ill still stay with my price/performance ratio

So unless that conroe costs less then 400$ its not worth it.

2005 · #12 Post by **2005** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if ... chine.html

#13 Post by **palmboy5** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:23 pm

nice read, yeah the people at amd forums also complained about the old BIOS but i didnt expect it to have such a performance hit.. actually i doubt that large of a performance hit was due to the CPU support, X1900XT Crossfired performing significantly less than a 6800GT in any circumstance is... hm. maybe it wasnt crossfired, i just wouldnt expect a 3 month old BIOS to be the cause of over a 20fps decrease

"In theory Cool & Quiet is supposed to throttle up to maximum in games but this is not always the case." since that means the benchmark probably ran it as Enabled.. obviously automatic isnt perfectly smart, so of course throttling up to maximum is not always the case, but from those benchmarks, it was NEVER the case... ionno maybe its the old BIOS not knowing how to clock the FX-60

as he said, intel has no faith in the current CPUs, this means they will be getting rid of the P4/D line as quickly as possible. they will have to have models to be placed in all price levels of the market. and there are no single cores! (?)

just conroe/merom. cheaper models should also use that core, imagine the OC yeilds

#14 Post by **palmboy5** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:38 pm

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/sho ... i=2716&p=1

still owned