I missed the May part :doh: Donnie27 posted it recently and i assumed it was newQuote:
Originally Posted by red
I knew about the launch date, its still possible although unlikely that the NDA will get lifted earlier
Printable View
I missed the May part :doh: Donnie27 posted it recently and i assumed it was newQuote:
Originally Posted by red
I knew about the launch date, its still possible although unlikely that the NDA will get lifted earlier
And you're saying AMD doesn't cherrypick the data to suit itself?! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Let's see, hmmm, Turion vs Core Duo... yeah... current gen vs previous gen.... under 'competitive comparison'. Maybe Intel should compare C2Ds to Athlon XPs? That would be hilarious.
And your 2nd point about integrated graphics is exactly right, why is 'competitive comparison' regarding PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE fudged to become INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE?! To the average joe, this is clearly misleading. Furthermore, they crippled Intel with a crappy chipset.
Your post typifies the double standard in the industry. Anything AMD says is taken as gospel (though people are starting to become wary), they can even dupe analysts 2 weeks in advance of shocking quarterly earnings without anyone doubting them.
umm note the date on that page. It was current tech vs Current TechQuote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
First of all, Intel didn't cherry pick the processors that Fugger, all of the Far East Guys, Freecableguy, and many of the geeks at this forum tested. Second, AMD's slanted tests are legendary for being BS, goes back to at least PR-150 vs Pentium 100 while Pentium 166MMx was shipping. Each time, they spin and their F@ns defend them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
The problem with X2-Turion vs Dothan C1 is that Intel switched to Merom C2 11 months ago LOL! It is kind of hard to still find C1 notebooks except on the Clearance bin in many cases (not all).
AMD and Intel took turns being Debunked by any webmaster not on their respective Payrolls (Ad dollars). X2 was one of the few times AMD didn't have to lie or spin. Since Conroe launched, they've resorted to a lot of BS FUD and Spin!
@nn, if X2 and Opteron's Bandwidth advantage meant something, those results would as well. Since they still get their ass handed to them:down: even with an advantage bandwidth test are irrelevant. Now anyone, please ask me why?
It was 'current' one YEAR ago. That is an eternity in the semiconductor industry, just ask AMD. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Should we wait for one YEAR before AMD updates it's 'competitive comparison' regarding C2D vs K10? Oh, I'm sure they'll spend 12 months twiddling their thumbs before updating their 'then current' competitive comparisions between C2D and K8.
*ALL* comporations (not just Intel and AMD) will spin numbers to their advantage. It's just a reality of life. Get used to it.
Obviously the point of marketing is to 'cherry-pick' data. One chooses data to match what they're competing against. For example, comparing an Extreme Edition chip against a value model Sempron is stupid. It's not what it's competing against. AMD mobile chips are currently positioned as value chips. They do very well in this market, since margins are razor thin for the average ~$500 notebook. In this space, AMD has an advantage over Intel. AMD offers Turion 64 X2 with ATI integrated against Intel's Core 1 Duo with Intel integrated. The choice is obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
I don't quite think you know what you're talking about. Core 1 Duo chips are currently still in production as Intel's value processors. They're "current-gen" but low-end, and that's what AMD's competing against.
To the average joe, it is not misleading at all. This is a platform benchmark. When the average joe purchases a notebook (avg joe always purchases a cheapass notebook, hence integrated), the notebook will come with Intel Integrated graphics if it has an Intel processor and it will come with an ATI/NVIDIA integrated graphics if it has an AMD processor. It is impossible to get an AMD processor with Intel integrated, and close to impossible to get an Intel processor with AMD/NVIDIA integrated. Therefore, for the best gaming experience for value notebooks, AMD is clearly the better choice due to the higher performance integrated graphics.
Core Duo January 06Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
Turion 64 X2 May 06
3 months is old tech?
Ok no problem...
Athlon 64 X2 August 05
Core 2 Duo July 06
stop comparing them Athlon 64 X2 is too old, wait Barcelona. no we can't? Why? All Intel guys already compare Barcelona to Penryn although Barcelona is due to launch before.
And your 2nd point about integrated graphics is exactly right, why is 'competitive comparison' regarding PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE fudged to become INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE?! To the average joe, this is clearly misleading. Furthermore, they crippled Intel with a crappy chipset.
You are the one who come with this off topic benchmarks in this thread and now you are the one who teaching lessons:shakes: Come on, assume your spam...Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
funny K8 is over 3 years old :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
LOL so is C2D is not in mobile products now? Funny how you left that comparison out, considering C2D's launch date coincides CLOSER to the launch date of Turion X2 than Core Duo.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
I think I have made my point regarding AMD's 'benchmarking and comparision' practices. I for one won't trust anything they have to say until I see the product reviewed by numerous 3rd party websites. You may feel differently regarding AMD's credibility. To each their own.
I wait for third party websites reviews like. I don't spend my time searching for old benchmarks in AMD website, i just sit and wait :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
:rofl: :ROTF: :clap: :welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
You're the type of dumb funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K8Quote:
Originally Posted by GMX
Releasedhmmm, yep that is over 3 yearsQuote:
September 23, 2003
LOL... that wasn't even the point nn. Not sure why you came up with a random K8 is 3 years old comment. It had nothing to do with what I was posting. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
All along I have been trying to say that AMD is quite 'choosy' in what it compares itself to. Since Turion loses to C2D, it compares itself to CoreDuo instead. Since X2 loses to C2D in CPU performance, it compares platform integrated performance instead, whilst using an outdated platform for C2D as well. Hence my opinion that AMD cherrypicks data, just like any corporation would do. Geddit now? ;)
my Point is that 1 year isn't an eternity, simply because 1 year didn't seem to change the world and stop Prescott from making an ass of itself...Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
AMD and Intel both have the right to be "choosy" about what benchmarks they post because they are making their point why they are a better product not that the other has a better product.
Hence Intel never compared its 286 or 386 against Motorola's 68040, simply because in some regards it was inferior.
So to attack AMD or Intel for doing something the whole industry does, kinda misses the entire point.
Show us Intel benchmarks seeing P4 was spanked by A64. Show us Intel benchmarks seeing P4D was spanked by A64 X2. When they win, they sshow wins ans when they win, they show wins ;)
well, we all wish we knew what kind of performance the stupid thing has per clock so we can see how this goes against Intel's super-scaling c2d arch and beyond. I hope it does well. Who knows?
As an overclocker, this may be good if true. 3ghz at 150w may not be completely impossible. I wonder what that magical ceiling will be on K10. 3ghz again?
Ryan
He is wrong as usual. And K10 is 68/95/120(125) TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Considering some Barton Athlon XP-M's (130nm) were overclocked to 3.1GHz AMD have barely moved clock speed wise. For 3GHz Barcelona you'd be looking at high end water at least i'd say, the dual core K10's should hit 3Ghz on air, maybe even stock cooler.Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
They know what you meant and understood it very clearly. That's what stings some of them as cheer for AMD as if they were the Latest Superbowl winners. Barcelona's core improvements should help an already good processor. Just because the old ones got spanked, still didn't mean they sucked.
Before my next Barkie posts, preface;
Shadowmage is wrong. Not just a differing opinion, just wrong.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13911,00.html
AMD + 65bit vs Core1 no 64bits. What if Intel's first Conroe Demo was vs. an FX 55?
http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/17/a...ight-core-duo/
Computex 2005 AMD formally launched its Athlon 64 X2 dual-core desktop processor today (May 31, 2005).
Turion X2 was paper launches a year later May 2006 and actually went on sale AFTER Merom.
So AMD implies that Turion shipped before Merom, Intel's Notebooks aren't 64bit compat, C2D notebook are newer and rare, and yada yada, all BS. But we should believe what they say about Barcelona, yea, right!
AMD doesn’t market Turion as a Budget Processor vs. Celeron or C1-Dothan. Unless you guys don’t read AMD’s marketing. No way in hell Intel lies that much. Conroe's debut was a prime example.
Lastly, we shouldn't accept or make excuses for shi-tte like this from Intel or AMD BTW. That’s not doing ANYONE any kind of favor and just muddies up the info pool. I only hope the problem AMD is having is thermals and not performance bugs. Thermal problems can be fixed, Prescott and the first TBreads pretty much proved that.
Did you mean;Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
J/KQuote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathReborn
Those are Opteron TDPs. AMD rates Opterons higher for whatever reason. And its not related to chip quality. A 95W Opteron part is a 89W desktop part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
As you wish. AMD is a liar let them burn :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27