Why would you hope that? Competition = better technology at a better price for consumers. I hope Intel and AMD can both continue to compete so everything stays nice and stable :)
Why would you hope that? Competition = better technology at a better price for consumers. I hope Intel and AMD can both continue to compete so everything stays nice and stable :)
Yep, if it weren't for AMD, we would all be hummin' along with single core (but HT enabled ;) ) Prescotts.. :slap: Don't get me wrong, I like my Intel machines more, and sell them 20:1 compared to AMD, but nothing moves performance ahead like good competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage_guitar
Nice job m8. :toast:
But what about Real 3D Benches (GAMES) ?
Uhhh guys, PCmark05 is hardly a valid realworld test...
Its tends to favor Intel chips heavily. An example:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...x2-3800_5.html
Here the PCMark05 scores for a PentiumD 830 vs a A64 X2 3800+ at stock, the 830 totally destroys the X2 3800+ in this test. Of course if you read later in the review you'll notice how on every realworld test the X2 beats out the 830 the majority of the time, sometimes leading it by huge margins and on the few tests it does lose to the 830 it loses by tiny margins...
Now I don't doubt that Conroe is gonna be a better chip than the current X2's already out, but these PCMark05 results aren't gonna be the ones to prove it....
TY for putting in the effort though OP, looking forward to any future real world test results you might have.
If anything I'd say PCMark05 favours Netburst, these scores while not definative are the latest in a land slide of results.
FCG, any chance of a P4 and a Yonah compare too?
Er, so you are impressed by Conroe, but don't want AMD do sell something better? I would love it if AMD released a "Conroe-killer" they had been secretly working on (unlikely in the extreme).Quote:
Originally Posted by georgekh
Why are you not in favor of higher performance? :confused: Do you work for Intel, or something?
Pwnage
Well, and lets hope conroe forces AMD to make 65nm dual cores for us 939'ers. I saw where 90nm Opterons would be made for Socket 939 until 08' but did not mention 65nm parts. that was on the 65nm release scheudle article @ X-Bit.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...426181538.html
Conroe looks very impressive and as we all know AM2 was not a upgrade for K8, but rather a lateral support changeover. Maybe the L3 cache will give em the boost to keep up with Conroe (short of the 3.3ghz 1.33ghz bus XE chip.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgekh
What the hell is wrong with u? If AMD goes down intel will have no one to compete with? then there R&D will not have a reason to relese chips with a huge speed upgrade LIKE THE CONROE...I myself am an AMD man i just prefer them for what i do...i do also use an Intel P4 everyday as my workstation at school but if it would have been my money it would have been AMD...Compitition is good...
Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgekh
georgekh, with 8 posts so far you just got an education on what not to post.
A one horse race is not very much fun.:(
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdenton1138
Let's give that X2 4mb L2 cache and re-run the tests, that would be very interesting if It were possible :D
I don't know that the K8 would benefit from that much cache, but who knows. Anyway Conroe's lookin mighty fine in my eyes, I bet they would do well even with smaller phase units like the Cryo-Z.
Great Comparaison and review
Amen.......Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie
:clap:
Man I like your sig. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by IamAnoobieCheez
Thanks! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by coldpower27
WOW. AMD you better have something or you're in for a few years of gettin your ass whooped. ;)
EDIT: See attachment.
Photoshop ftw.
Nick
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
Intel has been whooped on for 9+ yrs ;)
enjoy the lead this fall and maybe the largest CPU manufacture can hold it and not get :banana::banana::banana::banana:y and screw up again.
Grow up now, no need for xtreme exaggeration.Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
An "old" P3 copper w/ BX chipset used to beat the CRAP out of AMD Athlon Classic processors when they came out. New gen AMD get whupped by previous gen P3. That was what.. year 1999 or 2000? I remember those times when I used to beat AMD Athlon fan boys/grandpas with my P3, even the review sites had shown that the P3's had higher benchmark. I think after year 2000 is when AMD started taking over.. So that's less than 6 yrs.:p:
It just really seems the AMD guys are getting scared. Although they do keep screaming "competition!"
hahahahahah :woot:
IIRC this is at least the 2nd time you posted something like this, which is totally false and you know it...Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAnoobieCheez
Heres a review from late Sept. 1999:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1041&p=1
500Mhz Slot A Athlon classic vs 500Mhz PIII vs 500Mhz Celeron tests are almost a clean sweep in favor of the Athlon classic, it only loses 1 or 2 tests, and in almost every other test it leads by significant margins.
"At 560/585MHz, the business/office performance of the Pentium III is closer to that of the Athlon with a slight 2% - 5% advantage in favor of the Athlon. Additionally, the gaming performance of the overclocked Pentium III still lags behind the default clocked Athlon 500 as well and the raw FPU performance (i.e. 3D Rendering) of the overclocked Pentium III still takes a back seat to the unoverclocked Athlon. The overall system performance of an overclocked Pentium III (560/585MHz) is about a few percent slower than that of the default clocked Athlon 500, so even if you overclock the Pentium III 500 the Athlon still holds a pretty hefty performance advantage."
The 500Mhz Slot A Athlon was also the first one available ever too, there were no Athlons ever released that were slower than that...
The only time since the intro. of the Athlon that AMD has not held the performance lead over Intel was during the Thoroughbred/Barton vs. Northwood P4 days, and comes to what? About a year or so?
I'm with you there and thanks for the Update there FCG.Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
Here is my setup with tweaked RAM, running on my 24/7 clocks(view sig. for details):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7.../PcMarks05.jpg
You can visit the link below:
http://service.futuremark.com/orb/pr...ojectId=349851
eh, Do I need to buy it to run the CPU only test?:confused:
Yes nice benchies thx :clap: It looks like the Conroe ist a hell of a CPU :slobber:
But I think that the whole Futurmark crap is not very expressive. I would really like to see some real application benchmarks ;)
Plz do some of those:
WinRAR
Cinema4D
WMV Enc.
MP3 Enc.
and Games with low display resolution (640x480 or 800x600)
Battlefield 2
FarCry
Quake
Doom³
FEAR
HL²
UT04
I know that this is much more work, but it would show us the real performance of the upcomming INTEL CPUs ;)
I hate going offtopic in thread, espcially a thread like this one. But 9 years is a little strong of a statement, im pretty sure the northwoods > athlon xp range, amd took it back with a64Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot