Clarify this for me, please

[akaBruno]

Great feedback. I didn't expect such a quick response.

Another question...

Did intel get the cart in front the horse? Or is the horse just to fast for the software and OS?

[stocius]

Great feedback. I didn't expect such a quick response.

Another question...

Did intel get the cart in front the horse? Or is the horse just to fast for the software and OS?

IMHO, Intel got the cart in front of the horse. Amazing horspower, but crappy drivetrain and tires. That' how I would describe it. All the parts must be at amx or you get bottlenecks (limiting factors). FSB in my opinion is like a speed governor on an auto. Sure the car can go 200+mph but the governor won't let it go past 130 mph.

I've had so many lackluster Intel setups (including my current Intel quad, its good but not spectacular) that my AMDs consistently blew away that I don't get hot and bothered by anything Intel puts out, hype did not equal performance. Intel will 100% give you higher benchmarks and possibly better folding (I have yet to test my AMD on WCG, I do not speak unless I have tested).

I'm not trolling its just that in my opinion AMD has served me better in what I want my computer to do. That may change. That's why its called a Personal Computer, the user experience is personal and will vary depending on what you are into.

[accord99]

Probably either:

a) The A64/Phenom uses a lot more power and therefore cause the fan to speed up more compared to a C2D/C2Q. And as we know from car culture, a louder car is a faster car.

b) In games, the C2D/C2Q goes up to higher fps when in CPU limited situations and therefore the delta between CPU limited and GPU limited situations is greater on the C2D, which results in a possibly "less smooth" experience, even if the C2D/C2Q has higher maximum and minimum frame rates.

IMHO, Intel got the cart in front of the horse. Amazing horspower, but crappy drivetrain and tires. That' how I would describe it. All the parts must be at amx or you get bottlenecks (limiting factors). FSB in my opinion is like a speed governor on an auto. Sure the car can go 200+mph but the governor won't let it go past 130 mph.

A F1 car is less smooth than a mid-size sedan, but it'll still take less time to complete a lap of a track. Just like a C2D and C2Q clearly finish tasks faster or do more work in the same amount of time as compared to their AMD competition.

[keithlm]

it isn't quantifiable. just an experience thing.

That is True.

On the other hand HISTORICALLY Intel has been known for doing just about anything they can to get higher benchmark scores. Since most people will accept that fact based on available past evidence, then it should not be difficult to believe that they might also sacrifice something that is non-quantifiable for better benchmarks. And that they might continue this trend on their current crop of processors.

Probably either:

a) The A64/Phenom uses a lot more power and therefore cause the fan to speed up more compared to a C2D/C2Q. And as we know from car culture, a louder car is a faster car.

b) In games, the C2D/C2Q goes up to higher fps when in CPU limited situations and therefore the delta between CPU limited and GPU limited situations is greater on the C2D, which results in a possibly "less smooth" experience, even if the C2D/C2Q has higher maximum and minimum frame rates.

1. If you have a super silent fan you'd have to base your opinion on what you actually experience. (I can't hear my CPU's fan over the case fans.)

2. What if you have higher max but lower min speeds? (Which happens on many benchmarks.)

[Oldguy932]

I think this might be a better comparison...

Say you have 2 different cars. On has a 7 speed transmission that has close ratios, the other is your standard 4 speed. Now imagine pushing the pedal to the floor like in a drag race. AMD is like the 7 speed tranny, very smooth acceleration because of the close ratios. Intel is like the 4 speed, it still goes fast, but its jerky because of having less gears.

Another example that probably makes about as much sense as the last one. Take two runners, a distance runner and a sprinter. AMD is like the distance runner because it keeps going pretty fast but doesn't have bursts. Sure some stuff is slightly better optimized, kind of like running down a hill, but its only because its optimized. Intel is a sprinter. Feed them lots of sugar and they go fast, but they still need that recovery time. Sugar is like the massive L2 cache on C2's, recovery time is how long it takes to retrieve more stuff from memory. AMD doesn't need that recovery time because of its IMC.
Putting this into better perspective, Intels bench better because its monotonous and repetitive, meaning there's alot less to go to and from the memory. The "jerkyness" in games is because of all the information that changes that's stored in memory. That's why having the higher front bus speed makes such a difference, its that much closer to having the actual throughput to the memory as AMD, but it can't because its not an IMC.

Please don't flame me on this, I'm just posting my interpretation of what other people have said. I did have a Core 2 system before, I had the B2 rev of both the E6600 and the E6700. I burnt out the E6700 at 3.82ghz on air, I burnt out the Asus Striker I was using the E6600 with, didn't have the money to replace it, and my T2500 is now in the hands of my older brother. And my laptop has the Pentium-M.