If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   More than you ever wanted to know about the new Intel chips. 'Cept that AMD is still better   (varbusiness.com) divider line 26
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

1594 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jul 2006 at 12:52 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2006-07-30 09:46:30 AM
the new core 2 duo extreme is significantly faster than ANY AMD chip on ever single benchmark. ...and it isn't significantly more expensive.

This site actually has "more than you ever wanted to know". submitter's site is tehcrap.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=1
 
2006-07-30 10:26:30 AM
submitter: Cept that AMD is still better


Intel doesn't pencilwhip their processor ratings to arbitrarily higher numbers though. The number on the label is what you get.
 
2006-07-30 10:36:30 AM
AntiNorm: "Intel doesn't pencilwhip their processor ratings to arbitrarily higher numbers though."

Well, it made sense when they were Pentium 4 equivilant numbers, since P4s have artificially high clock speeds. It doesn't really make sense now. And Intel isn't even marketting them by clock speed anymore.
 
2006-07-30 11:04:49 AM
 
2006-07-30 12:59:31 PM
Gahbrone

That is exactly what I came to say, thanks.

AntiNorm
Intel doesn't pencilwhip their processor ratings to arbitrarily higher numbers though. The number on the label is what you get.


Both Intel and AMD use a rating system now. eg, Intel's Core 2 DUO E6300 vs AMD Athlon 64 4800.

The difference is, of course, that AMD's number correspond to something. The Athlon 64 3000 would perform similiarly to a P4 3.0Ghz. Any benchmark will show this. So, really, it just made it easier to explain to people who did not understand.

There was no arbitrariness to it, and it was quite fair to the consumer.

/the original athlon xps were a little flaky about it, but that was a long time ago
//conroe is the best chip evar
///until the 4x4
 
2006-07-30 01:12:57 PM
nevesis: "//conroe is the best chip evar
///until the 4x4
"

4x4 has nothing to do with "best chip ever". It's a way to compensate for the other guy having the best chip ever. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to use two chips to keep up.
 
2006-07-30 01:21:40 PM
Trying to think if there is anything more lame than *cpu* fanbois. Having a difficult time doing so.

/maybe the enterprise vs star destroyer losers
 
2006-07-30 01:35:04 PM
I'm glad that conroe came out when it did, I'm building a dream box next month as a graduation present to myself, guess what'll be in it?
 
2006-07-30 02:04:59 PM
That wouldn't be smart, considering the fact that the quad-core version of the Core Duo chips will be shipped by Inel some time in early 2007.
 
2006-07-30 02:18:28 PM
Now all I need is an E6300 in stock somewhere, and a motherboard that can handle a ~500mhz FSB....
 
2006-07-30 02:23:47 PM
FesterLDS: "That wouldn't be smart, considering the fact that the quad-core version of the Core Duo chips will be shipped by Inel some time in early 2007."

Yeah, but those are going to cost a fortunte since they're going to do it by putting two physical chips on the same package, and they won't offer that much of an advantage over dual-core stuff for most applications. They'll drive down the price of the dual-core stuff, but no more than the normal advancement of technology would.

OTOH, getting a new system now would give you a big jump over what could be done a month ago, so it's a good deal.

Waiting for new stuff is only worth it if a big jump in capability or large cut in price is forseeable in the near future.
 
2006-07-30 02:33:24 PM
intel's next gen CPU pawning AMD's previous gen CPU...

good for them the managed to do that...

\AMD fanboy. hardcore and damn proud of it.
\\In the process of designing my own core.
 
2006-07-30 03:06:26 PM
tsiros: "intel's next gen CPU pawning AMD's previous gen CPU..."

AMD doesn't have anything that will catch them up in the forseeable future. Their next core revision, K8L, won't be enough.

"AMD fanboy. hardcore and damn proud of it."

This is the problem: fanboyism. Go with what works for a good price at the time you buy it.
 
2006-07-30 03:19:04 PM
ArbitraryConstant [TotalFark]
AMD doesn't have anything that will catch them up in the forseeable future. Their next core revision, K8L, won't be enough.


Nice you've been able to surmise that, most people will probably prefer to wait until actual benchmarks for the chip exist to make a determination. :)
 
2006-07-30 03:23:17 PM
FesterLDS

That wouldn't be smart, considering the fact that the quad-core version of the Core Duo chips will be shipped by Inel some time in early 2007.


Actually, they expect them in Q4 of 2006 according to a press release on Friday.

/Bought Intel stock last Monday
 
2006-07-30 03:51:41 PM
freidog: "Nice you've been able to surmise that, most people will probably prefer to wait until actual benchmarks for the chip exist to make a determination. :)"

In this case, from the details AMD has made public (eg, K8L will be 3-way superscalar and not 4-way like Core 2), it's very unlikely that they'll be able to overtake Intel with it. They won't be as far behind, but they won't be able to catch up.
 
2006-07-30 04:21:05 PM
ArbitraryConstant [TotalFark]
In this case, from the details AMD has made public (eg, K8L will be 3-way superscalar and not 4-way like Core 2), it's very unlikely that they'll be able to overtake Intel with it. They won't be as far behind, but they won't be able to catch up.


3 vs 4 issue really isn't that big of a deal. I'll bet very good money Conroe dispatches 0, 1, or 2 instructions far more often than it does 4. ILP is very hard thing to exploit at run time, especialy as SSE replaces x87 entirely.
Not to mention that moving to a 128bit SSE units on K8L means it will have to issue a lot fewer instructions to do the same work as K8.

I'm not expecting a Conroe killer from anyone anytime soon, but I think it's very premature to dissmiss a major overhaul 9-12 months before we get to see in action.
 
2006-07-30 04:40:44 PM
freidog: "3 vs 4 issue really isn't that big of a deal. I'll bet very good money Conroe dispatches 0, 1, or 2 instructions far more often than it does 4."

Very likely, but if AMD matches all the other improvements but still can't do 4 instructions on the rare occasions when it's possible, they'll still be behind. Just not as much as they are now. Hence my opinion that they will narrow the gap, but not overtake Intel.

"ILP is very hard thing to exploit at run time, especialy as SSE replaces x87 entirely."

While I think K8L's chances of catching up on floating point are a lot better than their chances on the integer side, don't underestimate the importance of integer performance. If AMD catches up at floating point but not at integer stuff, they're still behind.

"Not to mention that moving to a 128bit SSE units on K8L means it will have to issue a lot fewer instructions to do the same work as K8."

That's true, but Core 2 makes the same improvement and they're already shipping.

"I think it's very premature to dissmiss a major overhaul 9-12 months before we get to see in action."

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying that, IMO, it's unlikely that it will catch AMD up to Intel.
 
2006-07-30 04:48:17 PM
Can we please remember that this is not slashdot? I quit reading that site specifically to avoid "AMD ... drooling ... chips ... best evar ..." articles.
 
2006-07-30 05:25:16 PM
We should all be VERY glad that the core 2 duo is going to be better than AMD's procs. It's been too long since intel released something decent. The competition between the two to launch the most powerful chip will only lead to faster procs, and lower cost. I have used almost all Intel chips in my pc's(except my new pc, which has an Athlon 64) and I can only hope that this will stimulate the market. It can only help us, all fanboyism aside.
 
2006-07-30 09:22:39 PM
tsiros: intel's next gen CPU pawning AMD's previous gen CPU...

FX-62 was launched only a few months ago.
 
2006-07-30 10:32:15 PM
ccmods:
We should all be VERY glad that the core 2 duo is going to be better than AMD's procs. It's been too long since intel released something decent. The competition between the two to launch the most powerful chip will only lead to faster procs, and lower cost. I have used almost all Intel chips in my pc's(except my new pc, which has an Athlon 64) and I can only hope that this will stimulate the market. It can only help us, all fanboyism aside.

Get your rationality out of this thread! FANBOYS ONLY.
 
2006-07-31 10:55:26 AM
AntiNorm: Intel doesn't pencilwhip their processor ratings to arbitrarily higher numbers though. The number on the label is what you get.

I guess every hardware review sit went along with them and cooked the benchmarks to prove that 3200+ that ran at 2.2 Ghz was infact faster than Intels 3.2 Ghz. It was for marketing, so that people wouldn't buy a P4 for more money, that ran at a higher clock speed, but didn't perform as well as the AMD's did at lower clock speeds.
 
2006-07-31 12:29:32 PM
This is the problem: fanboyism. Go with what works for a good price at the time you buy it.

I was only semi-seriously calling myself a fanboy. yes i choose AMD, as long as they are faster/cheaper + cooler . I have a mobile barton on my machine right now that i have clocked half a gig upwards on stock cooling (the mobile barton didn't came with a cooler. i am using the desktop barton's cooler) and i am perfectly satisfied that a $100 chip performs better than chips much more expensive. Don't give me any crap about stability or expected lifetime: it is rock solid (but somewhat unstable 100MHz higher, due to bad PSU/MOBO) and it will easily last much later than my next upgrade.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying that, IMO, it's unlikely that it will catch AMD up to Intel.

Quite probable. In fact, almost certain, until AMD makes an announcement about any newer cores. But we still have to see, right? I mean, intel suprised us with a very fast chip. Why can't AMD surprise us as well?

FX-62 was launched only a few months ago.

AM2 is not "next-gen". First of all, it was released before conroe. Second, it is not a next generation core: It just supports DDR2 (AM2)
 
2006-07-31 02:19:42 PM
If AMD had anything worthwhile coming out, they wouldn't have needed to buy ATI

/not a fanboy.
//just likes insanely fast and cheap
 
2006-07-31 04:13:05 PM
mrweasel:If AMD had anything worthwhile coming out, they wouldn't have needed to buy ATI
triptronix.net
/maybe they will have something worthwhile to show because they acquired ATI?
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report