HAHAHAHAH that was the most hillarious article ever, but I'm sure Intel thinks that in their minds. I totally think ATI and NV are inferior to that of the raging Intel GPU!!
"It gets funnier though, the not-on-the-roadmaps 805 @ 2.66GHz does not have a counterpart on SYSmark, but 'beats' an X2 3800 in PCMark. If you buy this one for a second, I have a bridge to sell you. The retail market tell a story that directly contradicts this page." LOL @ THAT! But the funnier thing is, I guarantee the Intel fanboys on these forumz will say "it does beat it! and it overclocks more too! LOL!!!!
Ya dude, totally a 955 beats an FX-60, even though 3rd party reviews show the 955 @ 4.26GHz gettng beat by the FX-60 @ 2.8GHz LOL!! So much for overclocking Intel Fanboys! lol you're all funny. Oh No! Dual Independent Bus's! Something AMD already has! Oh No! It's gonna beat AMD so much! Oh No! . BWHAHAHAHAHAA that was a nice read lol.
Intel has the right to post its own opinions you know. And there has been a lot of AMD rubbish too so this is nothing special to look at.
BTW FX 60 isn't that far ahead,it gets matched by a 955 on stock at most things and it can't overclock very well.
http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 488,00.asp AMD is mainly ahead now because it's cooler and consumes less.
Performance wise,differences are small.
Intel has the right to post its own opinions you know. And there has been a lot of AMD rubbish too so this is nothing special to look at.
BTW FX 60 isn't that far ahead,it gets matched by a 955 on stock at most things and it can't overclock very well.
http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 488,00.asp AMD is mainly ahead now because it's cooler and consumes less.
Performance wise,differences are small.
Intel Fanboy, stop. There is no "AMD rubbish" or w/e the hell you're talking about, and I don't care what ExtremeIntelBiasedTech.com says, I'll stick to neutral sites, thanks fanboy. BTW, my post deserves 5 stars, not 1 fanboy.
Extremetech is as neutral as it can get.
There are Xbit/A tech.. reviews most of them showing quite a tight score really, the games being the deciding factor. And nobody can't deny this.
And don't tell me that AMD never got overrated (that's the case here).
Intel does well in marketing(if someone read this article, it might have influenced his/her decision). For them is important to sell the chips so it's sell now and ask questions later. AMD would do the same if they had the $$$. (not to mention that Inq is AMD bias and it isn't the first nor the last time they bash Intel)
BTW I gave you 1 because you forgot to come up with a link to a site showing FX 60 beating a 955. Without proof i consider this AMD bias. And do you actually care about post marks?
Whether somebody is AMD biased or not, is irrelevant, because at the moment, regardless of yours, ak47, and others Intel Fanboy "Overclocking P4's pwn!", "AMD is slow!", etc. posts, the facts remain this:
1) On a clock for clock basic, the Pentium 4 is FAR inferior to that of the Athlon 64.
2) AMD Athlon 64 processors are FAR cheaper than Pentium 4 Processors that offer similar performance
3) The AMD Opteron 64 Server/Workstation chip annihilates the Intel Xeon
4) Under x64 Environment, especially Linux x64, an A64 or 064 @ 2.6GHz can be up to 75% faster than a 3.8GHz P4 or Xeon in Memory Bandwidth, Application Performance, and everything else.
Those are 4 FACTS and I dare you Intel Fanboy's to challenge any of them.
Vindication!
I got flamed a while back on a thread I started, "A CPU made of paper," where I merely suggested that Conroe's actual specs -- when the chip actually becomes available for benchmarketing -- may not live up to the marketing hype.
Intel lies. A lot. Whoppers, really.
AMD (like any corporation) is not above telling a fib now and then.
But few companies consistently get away with telling the outrageous stories that Intel tells with a straight face.
Vindication!
I got flamed a while back on a thread I started, "A CPU made of paper," where I merely suggested that Conroe's actual specs -- when the chip actually becomes available for benchmarketing -- may not live up to the marketing hype.
Intel lies. A lot. Whoppers, really.
AMD (like any corporation) is not above telling a fib now and then.
But few companies consistently get away with telling the outrageous stories that Intel tells with a straight face.
I will say AMD gets frustrated now and thand and throws something out of left field, but they have SPEC and other 3RD PARTY NEUTRAL benchmarks and performance tests to prove what they say, they don't say "WE PWNZ0R INTEL BY 100000%", but instead give us consumers REAL NUMBERS and not made up sh!t.
...Intel does well in marketing(if someone read this article, it might have influenced his/her decision). For them is important to sell the chips so it's sell now and ask questions later. ...
So you would rather buy based on marketing than on actual performance? I try to avoid taking sides, but Intels claims about their upcoming chips are just plain B$. They will be an improvement, but not that much.
I will give credit to the Israeli team, the Pentium M CPU is a FANTASTIC chip, and my hat goes off to those people. But, the new Turion 64's on Socket S1 (638 Pins) are expected to eliminate the Core Duo and Pentium M's, but we'll have to see how this goes.
1) That alone doesn't matters. I mean what would you choose: a very cool P4 6 GHZ(fictional of course) or a 3 GHz AMD 64. Longer pipelines are not necesarily a bad thing you know.
2)FX 60 is more expensive than 955 not to mention that Intel has got the cheapest dual core on the market
3)K
4)don't really care. Linux D already pointed that out for 100 times before.
What about the mobile world?
Is there anything better than the Core duo right now? NO
Will there be a better AMD CPU in the NEAR future? I doubt it(turion consumes more and delivers the same performance).
Intel has a lead here,doesn't it?
And i'm surprised you didn't mention the number 1 flaw of Intel chips. Inefficiency. That's the main reason for me not avoiding this line of Intel chips.
Performance wise there are pros and cons still i'd consider it a tie in most apps except games(that's excluding opterons and xeons,there things are grimm for Intel).
1) That alone doesn't matters. I mean what would you choose: a very cool P4 6 GHZ(fictional of course) or a 3 GHz AMD 64. Longer pipelines are not necesarily a bad thing you know.
2)FX 60 is more expensive than 955 not to mention that Intel has got the cheapest dual core on the market
3)K
4)don't really care. Linux D already pointed that out for 100 times before.
What about the mobile world?
Is there anything better than the Core duo right now? NO
Will there be a better AMD CPU in the NEAR future? I doubt it(turion consumes more and delivers the same performance).
Intel has a lead here,doesn't it?
And i'm surprised you didn't mention the number 1 flaw of Intel chips. Inefficiency. That's the main reason for me not avoiding this line of Intel chips.
Performance wise there are pros and cons still i'd consider it a tie in most apps except games(that's excluding opterons and xeons,there things are grimm for Intel).
Ah man...I give up on you Intel Fanboy, I just hope nobody pays attention to your biased and un-informed posts, *sigh*.
BTW: RICHPLS and COMPGEEK: 955 Intel For $1,169 on newegg.com, FX-60 AMD for $1,025...
. BWHAHAHAHAHAA that was a nice read lol.