AMD vs Intel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

For all you hardcore AMD fans, you better start crying. Your AMD processors
are eating Intel's dust.

The spring Intel going on now clearly demonstrates that Intel's new Conroe
chip beats the pants off of AMD's FX dual core chip.

These are just preliminary benchmarks. Just wait till this chip release in
Sept. AMD stands no chance.

According to many websites, the new yet to be release M2 series from AMD
will not make a difference in benchmarks.

Intel is back on top.
 
Ryan

Will I be able to type answers faster into the newsgroups if I have one the
new Intel processors?..
 
Probably not. But the best thing is, it's 40% better performance and consumes
40% less power. You've got to like that.
 
Will I be able to type answers faster into the newsgroups if I have one
the new Intel processors?..
Click to expand...

Depends on the socket type located behind your left ear.

-John O
 
but is it 40% faster at a 40% cost increase? AMD really just started to
beat Intel BUT AMD has always had more bang for the buck
 
These processors will be priced simliarly to current Presler line up. After a
few months of the release time, the prices will drop as Intel readies to
release Kentsfield (Quad core processors in 2007).
 
WOW. Thanks Fanboi! Intel has NEVER exaggerated their specs before. I'll
start selling my AMD stuff on EBay now.
 
Ryan said:
For all you hardcore AMD fans, you better start crying. Your AMD
processors
are eating Intel's dust.

The spring Intel going on now clearly demonstrates that Intel's new Conroe
chip beats the pants off of AMD's FX dual core chip.

These are just preliminary benchmarks. Just wait till this chip release in
Sept. AMD stands no chance.

According to many websites, the new yet to be release M2 series from AMD
will not make a difference in benchmarks.

Intel is back on top.
Click to expand...

It's a sad little world you live in.

The numbers were generated by Intel using synthetic tests, on a processor
that is at least 6 months form production on a motherboard that was built
specifically for the test.

The new chips till does not have true dual core.
The new chip still does not have on-die memory controller.
The new chip does not even have hyperthreading, and does not support
Hypertransport.
The new chip does not have Direct Connect Architecture, and is tied to a
measly 1033 FSB on a Northbridge chipset.
Intel has always inflated its own testing benchmarks, and they do not hold
out in real world testing by third party .
The new chips will disappoint, as always. I can say this with some
confidence because Intel will take the cheap and easy way to the new
chip...it will not perform as well as the engineering sample reported on at
IDF.

Intel has a lot more work to do before it can compete head to heat with AMD.

You'll most likely come back with some response to the contrary, but you
should save this thread. You'll soon eat your words.

Bobby
 
To clarify, that is 40% over *current* Intel cores, which means it will
*STILL* be behind the *CURRENT* crop of AMD.

One other thing to add to my previous post...The test was using an Intel
proc and DDR2 800, and an AMD with DDR400. When AM2 ships with DDR2 1000, it
will be interesting to see what Intel does, since only one core and one
cache can access RAM per clock cycle...

Bobby
 
Well, Bobby, you can head over to Anandtech.com and see the benchmarks for
yourself. Look over anyone who has benchmarked this. The FX60 got it's rear
end kicked.

AMD moving up to DDR2/800 won't make a difference either.

Didn't you read the articles all over the net? AMD FX60 gets trounced.

It appears we have a lot of AMD fans in denial.

I guess the real confirmation will come with the final chip releases and is
benchmarked then.

I will be sure to save this thread and I will be telling you 6 months from
now: NoNoBadDog, go to your dog house. Don't come back until you are ready to
ditch that piece of crap AMD chip.
 
Guess you and I are reading different things...there are no benchmarks on
Anandtech or any other site. The chip is not even in production. The only
benchmarks are the ones that Intel created, and they are as over-inflated as
any of their other benchmarks. The chip won't be out for at least 6 months.
The board that it was tested on will never exist.
You are the one in denial.

There are no third party, independent benchmarks. Just Intel hype (yawn).
We'll see what happens when the chips does ship, and it gets tested fairly
against AMD by third party.

Guess you think that Anandtech reporting what Intel claimed at IDF as
ANandtech testing the chip.

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up (I know you cannot read very fast);
the chip was a prototype. The board it was test on was a prototype. The
tests were synthetic tests designed to give inflated numbers.

Get a life.

Intel has to make some noise just to get attention these days.

Bobby
 
No one but Intel has benched the chip.

the chip is a prototype.

It is at least six months from production, but more likely a year from
seeing daylight.

The motherboard was a prototype mocked up to give inflated numbers.

The tests were synthetic tests designed to give inflated numbers.

You are the one in denial.

Once again, no one other than Intel has benched this chip...it does not
exist yet.

I knew the rabid little piss-ants like you would crawl out of the muck and
start masturbating over the lame attention seeking headlines, just like
Intel hoped.; blind little idiots like you that believe everything that
Intel says, without waiting for confirmation like the rest of us. Kinda sad,
really. Even sadder, you are using oxygen that could be supporting
intelligent life....
God knows you guys needed to hear anything good about Intel...
now how about drinking a little STFU until there are third party independent
benchmarks.

Oh yeah, and go back to your fantasy version of anandtech.com, you
know...the one you claim has benchmarks from the future?


Bobby
 
Ryan

Benchmarks are tailored to show the best side.. for every gain, there is a
loss.. most users wouldn't know one from another in general use.. only when
something mission critical that takes advantage of the + part and is not
particularly reliant on - part will any major increase in performance be
detected..

In the meantime, AMD still produce affordable power.. and this from a former
devotee of Intel..
 
Don’t be surprised if Anandtech benchmarks the chip soon.

I’m sure you will have another lame excuse when Anandtech confirms with
their own benchmarks that Conroe smokes the FX60. You will be shaking your
head saying the benchmark has got to be inflated and that Anandtech is
pro-Intel or something.

Then you will head over and search for some 3rd party hardware site looking
for benchmarks that proved to be in AMD’s favor because you are still having
a hard time believing what you read, but you find that all the sites confirm
the same thing.

While still shaking your head, you look at your no good, pathetic AMD 64
dual core chip and still tell yourself and your kronies that AMD is still
king.

Too bad all that money you spend for your next AMD chip will be just a flat
out waste of money.

Do yourself a favor and bow down to Intel.
 
Ryan said:
For all you hardcore AMD fans, you better start crying. Your AMD
processors are eating Intel's dust.

The spring Intel going on now clearly demonstrates that Intel's new
Conroe chip beats the pants off of AMD's FX dual core chip.

These are just preliminary benchmarks. Just wait till this chip
release in Sept. AMD stands no chance.

According to many websites, the new yet to be release M2 series from
AMD will not make a difference in benchmarks.

Intel is back on top.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous thread. It's a target that no one will ever hit. As each
new CPU comes out it will be better than what came before. So what! How long
have you been using computers?

Kerry
 
OK, Kerry, I would not say this is a ridiculous thread. The relevance behind
this thread is to make everyone aware that Intel has regained the performance
crown that has been AMD's for quite some time.

Sure, each new chip will succeed others, but the difference in Conroe is
that it put Intel back on top. It put AMD back in 2nd place where it belongs.
 
Ryan said:
OK, Kerry, I would not say this is a ridiculous thread. The relevance
behind this thread is to make everyone aware that Intel has regained
the performance crown that has been AMD's for quite some time.

Sure, each new chip will succeed others, but the difference in Conroe
is that it put Intel back on top. It put AMD back in 2nd place where
it belongs.
Click to expand...

Do you work for Intel or a have large part of your investment money there?
Again I ask: How long have you been using computers? If it's more than year
then you should have figured out by now that both companies constantly over
inflate their claims about performance. In the real world there's not a lot
of difference for 99% of computer users. There are many things that will
cause one system to outperform another. The CPU is only one part. In any
case the next AMD CPU will outperform this latest Intel offering. After that
the next Intel CPU will outperform that particular AMD CPU. It will keep on
that way until one or the other of the companies gives up on the race.

Kerry
 
Then buy a Conroe so you can have the fastest computer on the block!

Oh... I almost forgot... They aren't on the market yet...

Maybe when the Conroe hits the market there will be an FX62 to outperform it...
 
Sure, each new chip will succeed others, but the difference in Conroe is
that it put Intel back on top. It put AMD back in 2nd place where it
belongs.
Click to expand...

It's called leapfrog.

Been going on since, hmmmmmm, 1986 or thereabouts. Unless you need to fill a
column in a magazine or website, this is boring stuff. Where I work, we're
publishing books with lots of Adobe software running on P4 1.4GHz machines.
I can only type so fast....

-John O
 
Back
Top