Real Gaming Challenge: Intel vs. AMD

[Frisch]

TEST (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854726,00.asp)

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5441/test4jj.gif

[eBoy0]

So what else is new? I wouldn't think test are required... tests shoulda been run w/ more up to date CPUs.

[don_vercetti]

interesting that Intel wins in fear...i guess that game is just so gfx limited CPU doesn't really matter.

[Frisch]

interesting that Intel wins in fear...i guess that game is just so gfx limited CPU doesn't really matter.

It's a demo, so surely not optimized fully.

[[XC] leviathan18]

and they were fair with intel cuz amd can run sli and kick intel in the nuts

[Cooper]

Too bad no PentiumM in the tests.

[Ugly n Grey]

While I like watching the Dothans kick butt at different tasks....I still think they are not practical daily drivers, Intel needs to get Conroe out post haste...

[Cooper]

While I like watching the Dothans kick butt at different tasks....I still think they are not practical daily drivers, Intel needs to get Conroe out post haste...
That`s for sure. IMO Intel should take new architecture to market this year already. They just underestimated AMD power :). But now they have PD, which they claim was made in a rush.

[Flak Monkey]

Do the F.E.A.R. results prove that the game is, in fact, multithreaded as some of the rumors have stated.

[sin0822]

that is such a bad comparision, please at least use a intel 650 or 660, im ean the 3500+ is rated to go against a 3.5ghz intel chip and they have it going against a 3.2, what a bucnh of biased crap.

[Revv23]

ddr2-533 sucks as well

[ZX7891]

that is such a bad comparision, please at least use a intel 650 or 660, im ean the 3500+ is rated to go against a 3.5ghz intel chip and they have it going against a 3.2, what a bucnh of biased crap.



lol lets look at the price/performance ratio here kids...

[don_vercetti]

also

the 3500 IS meant to go against the 3.2ghz. Think about it

3.8ghz = 4000+
3.6ghz = 3800+
3.4ghz = 3700+
3.2ghz = 3500+
3.0ghz = 3200+
2.8ghz = 3000+.

That's the standard S939 cpus, and they all match very well.

Similarly, (in the UK) 3500+ costs £158, P4 3.2ghz costs £162. So i dunno how it's biased in that respect, seems very fair to me.

[sin0822]

you guys are doing price based comparision, no your wrong performance wise.

[Ugly n Grey]

then what's right?

[sin0822]

3.0- 3000+
3.2- 3200+
3.4- 3500+
3.6- 3700+
3.8- 3800+
4.0- 4000+

[n00b 0f l337]

Sorta and no. Your forgetting things like the 3.73ee which pwns quite a bit.

[sin0822]

im also forgetting the fx series

[don_vercetti]

didn't it take a 5.6ghz p4 to beat an fx-55, in some test that was published?

pricing is the most obvious comparison point, since for MOST it is what purchasing decisions are based on.

[Ugly n Grey]

I was kind of thinking that the marketing departments of both corps tend to line their procs up by price these days...But hey, it's not like I researched that, it's just an impression...

[don_vercetti]

similar impression to mine, tbh.

[Ugly n Grey]

I'm going to sit at my desk and chant Conroe and then M2 in sequence until i get some better hardware from one of these guys...

[pleasure]

Please test products with similar price OR performance. Looking at ratings is a complete nonsense.

[Cossey]

pricewise though its

3.73=fx57
3.8ghz and fx55 dont really have a similar price opponent
4000+=3.6ghz (the 4000+ is nearly 10% cheaper)
3700+=3.4ghz
3500+=3.2ghz
3200+=3ghz
based on the 6 series

the amd board is also a third cheaper.
with a 660 and the same boards the amd setup would be halfway towards getting the second 7800 gtx for sli.

most ppl have budgets for their computers so it cant really be a competiitor with and 80+% price difference.

[Frisch]

The first time i lost faith in the MHz comparison, was when i swiched from a 1.6 GHz Pentium to a 900 Mhz Amd. I work with calculation programs going thru millions of combinations to find combinations of numbers that covers the system . It took the Amd 80% of the time, compared to the Pentium.