AMD>Intel not for long.

As much as i love AMD, i have to say that Intel is catching up. It is no surprise considering AMD has been in the lead for so long...but AMD is doing an excellent job keeping up with Intel's 65nm CPU's while still using 90nm.

It took Intel 2-3 years to catch up, thats sad. I still doubt Intel will even beat AMD in performance, and performance/value. We'll find out in time.

Cant really say anything untill we see how there AM2 works out. But i think AMD is going to gain more of a lead in gaming from it though. They need to work on there Athlon 64's for mainstream users. As i do love AMD cant deny the fact that pentium 4's are just better at encoding.

you wanna know my unbiased opinion? well here it goes i think that intel will have the lead over am2 when conroe comes out but i think amd will catch up shortly there after and it should be an even war for a few years until one side makes an innovation that the other cannot match

Say what? The X2s are on par with the 800/900 series for video encoding, but intel just hasn't been able to keep up at audio since the first A64s.

Well single core vs single core (P4 vs athlon)

There are some problems here.
Well, we currently don't know how DDR2 will affect performance. Higher bandwich at the cost of latency. I knew AMD prefers low latencies on it will be problematic.
Secondly we don't know much about Intel's champion. The 20% over AMD might be true though it also may be a way to advertise their product.
As it's now,we are sure that Conroe will be at least equal to AMD clock per clock wise, in fact i think it will be better because as comparison it was used a Core Duo CPU that is meant for laptop and has restriction.

As it stands now,i think Intel will have the edge 'till the second half of 2007 . At first they'll release these Conroe beasts then the Conroe XE at 3.3GHZ(and probably one clocked at 2.9-3). After that they'll release the first chip to enhance 45 mn technology. By the time Intel does that AMD has just implemented 65 mn techno in their chips so Intel will at least have a performance per watt lead.
Now,if Intel goofs around after succes,they'll end up being beaten by AMD at the end of 2007.

If Intel doesn't waste time and remains active AMD will have a tough job probably even too much for them to handle.

No were near 2-2-2-3 some people are getting with their memory.

Oh, by the way, Jonah has a 12 stage pipeline, conroe has 14.
If we set up 14 stages in a row, you may be able to run through all of them faster than you can run through the first 12, but I doubt it.

Well, after reading the The 65 nm Pentium D 900's Coming Out Party article, I think Intel will take some time to utilize the full benefits of the 65 nm process. Sure they are already working on 45 nm also. I am still waiting for Intel to come out with something truly better than AMD.

I do hope AMD continues to bring out good alternatives to Intel's offerings so consumers win.

How low? Just curious. I know theres also CAS 1.5 but Ive only seen normal timings with that CAS (1.5-2-2-5).

Yep there are some sites where you can see these killers.
One stick was made to run at 1.5-2-2-5 , 200 mhz. Not bad really since my crappy memory has CL 2.5!

cas 1.5 is only on ddr ram if it was on ddr 2 oh man imagine the performance holy crap 8O btw ycon i think i have met you before do you live in new york area?

as someone else said, Intel has not hardly even started to realize the potential of 65nm. They are still using an outdated architecture, namely, Netburst. The new architecture of Conroe... comebined with 65nm, I think we will see a drastic performance increase. AMD will have a very hard time keeping up.

I don't count AMD out. However, while right now I might buy an AMD for it's stock speed/price advantage over Intel, I'd buy an Intel right now because of the overclocking factor, because Intels overclock better than AMDs... and an overclocked Intel is faster than an overclocked AMD. In the future.. I'd buy an Intel, because Intel would be faster at stock than an AMD, and the Intel would have a better overclock potential. Never do I say that AMD is bad, I would be very happy and satisfied if AMD were all I had, but I like Intel better.

yeah ak btw i think that samsung is working on cas 1.5 ddr2 ram right now to sell to us amd fanboys

That's the beauty of capitalism.

BTW nothing against AMD, but i've always preffered intel in terms of quality. As people have said intel chips overclock more than AMD, that shows you that intel makes a good product.

There's also another rule in capitalism, if you haven't noticed.
This is why American brands are known around the world. It's called Marketing.

You can tell someone all you want to get an AMD because its faster and cheaper.
But, that's the equivalent of telling some one who drinks pepsi/coke to try safeway select cola.
You see, intel has an image in most people's heads. Just like pepsi or coca cola.
They did this through clever advertising, and making a dependable product.
So whenever i see intel i see a good product and it makes me feel better. understand?
This is something those tech nerds at amd have yet to realize.

It's a matter of personal choice.
Some people prefer a brand, because they grew up with it.
That's the reason you have fan boys.

BTW i think it was a really stupid idea on intel's part to abandon the pentium name.

After all,
"It's all about the Pentiums." 8)

Peace.

Yes, for a couple of tech nerds that actually read online reviews like us.
Go to a store, and you won't find one person who knows what they're talking about.

That's the general segment of the population. Like it or not, that's reality.

My dad is a network administrator, and he is a die hard Xeon fan.
He wouldn't ever buy an AMD for his company. Because intel is reliable.

Frankly, i've never heard of AMD before i went to a tech school.
Even all our computers in our labs are... guess what? INTEL P4s.

Most people get a Dell, dell doesn't sell amd. capish?
Its all rigged. but thats the way the world works.
The hero doesn't always win, as much as Hollywood would like you to believe.

I totally dissagree with that statement. You pit any athlon X2 overclocked to 3Ghz and it will BEAT any PD at 4Ghz. Have you not seen the Opteron 165's that people have overclocked to 3GHz?? (thats a 1.2GHz overclock) What do you mean Pentium D's overclock better?

What do you mean Intel will be clocked faster? ONLY IF AMD stops upping processor speed. When 65nm comes around we'll see speeds of 3-3.7GHz for AMD, along with DDR800. Intel MAY have a slight lead in performance for a SHORT time, until AMD releases their 65nm. [/b]

Just my $0.02

To get a PD to 4.5ghz youneed a lot of luck, and a water cooler. To get a DC opteron to 3ghz, you need a lot of luck, and water cooling.
At those speeds, the chips are generally fairly even, unless you include gaming benchmarks. Then the opteron would just destroy the P4.
Since games are the only thing I do that is cpu intensive (well I do F@H a little), I'm not all that interested in the newest hottest chip.

Short memory/ all that was heard for months about 3 years ago was "the hammer" which was pushed back for months.

what!!!!!!!! intel is reliable dude all procs are reliable there is no difference in realability for all procs amd intel via ibm and any others.he's just saying that just cause he is an intel fanboy and doesnt want to admit that hes wrong

the disadvantage of amd is wall street
no the processors, how many of us fall in the mhz as a criteria for buying decission?
second, even when amd release the opteron which was the first dual core processor intel retain the major market share
rigth now I prefer amd
not to be so oc (less mhz)
I think if amd give room and let intel catch them everybody of us will suffer so I suggest keep choosing amd and let intel fry in their own grease

and pray god amd became a private company