Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

funeral for AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 8, 2006 7:09:18 AM

this is it boys .......conroe, intel core microarchitecture equals funeral for amd

More about : funeral amd

March 8, 2006 7:13:07 AM

Quote:
this is it boys .......conroe, intel core microarchitecture equals funeral for amd
lol. I hope you're wearing your finest asbestos underwear.
March 8, 2006 7:18:36 AM

noo need to show you guys internet exploded today with info and benchmarks about the new intel cpus.........
if anterior cpus from amd and intel were pretty close when gaming and multitasking.....these new cpus shows an incredible large gap between the two of them....anandtech shows conroe`s performance in gaming are 40% better than same amd 64 x2 (i presume is 4800+ i did`n read all the articles)....and this is not a high end processor from intel ....here cames woodcrest......embrace yourselves guys
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2006 7:22:16 AM

Go home fanboy. Nobody needs your opinion.
March 8, 2006 7:24:19 AM

i`m home fluffy ..... :lol:  buy buy amd ...and i`m not an intel funboy my friend i own a a64..and i`ve changed my good opinion about amd since the challenge between athlon xp and nortwood
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2006 7:28:11 AM

As I said. I don't care. We don't care. There's so many clones of this topic; We just don't need another one ffs.
March 8, 2006 7:34:28 AM

looks how is talking about fun boy ..are you affraid amd is history my friend ...and i`m not here to say it it`s just the entire world...i repet i own an a64....
i can`t believe you guys amd had a good processor in his history a64..and now is gone just get use to it boys..
March 8, 2006 7:47:17 AM

Will be awesome when Conroe comes out, all you wanker Intel fanboys will have to ask mummy & daddy to buy you one :lol:  I like AMD & Intel equally (I own both chips and use them both frequently), I'm quite interested inseeing both plateforms rumble in the upcoming months, but you guys are soo pathetic it's not funny. :roll:

Wait for the chip to come out, give it a few weeks for the bugs to be fixed and then wait for the benchmarks you guys cheese your pants over! Don't keep mass-debating over pre-production benchmarks :evil: 
March 8, 2006 7:53:42 AM

First of all Im not a fanboy I have both Intel and AMD.

Just becuase Conroe has more performance boost than older chip and more powerful than AMD current chip it doesn't necessarily means its the end of AMD. It just makes AMD comes out strong and would come out with new chip architecture that is faster than Intels Conroe. I like it when the two manufacturer compete and those bringing out more powerful chip every year.

Real fanboy would support their product but not of condeming the other.
March 8, 2006 8:01:30 AM

I dont think that AMD is gone, let's all jsut wait and see what's gonna happen.

AMD have been planning for dual-core since 1998 and i don't think they'll make all that effort wash away in less than two hours
March 8, 2006 8:05:47 AM

come on i prefer intel yes i do but i don't think AMD is going to stand on their shoes and just watch, i think you sould wait and see what they have up their sleeves , this war is just good for us better cpu's with less money :) 
March 8, 2006 8:06:39 AM

remember boys whenever is competition there is always going to be a happy person ... the user
March 8, 2006 8:29:51 AM

Quote:
this is it boys .......conroe, intel core microarchitecture equals funeral for amd
lol. I hope you're wearing your finest asbestos underwear.
i like your sense of humour...u r incredibly funny
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2006 10:18:48 AM

Quote:
this is it boys .......conroe, intel core microarchitecture equals funeral for amd


no so much funeral but a leapfrog - intel will lead for a year or two cause they played there cards right for once - conroe vs am2, soon as amd gets 65nm intel gets 45nm, if amd makes somethin quicker by then intel will have integrated mem controllers etc.
March 8, 2006 10:24:38 AM

A funeral for AMD? How funny! LOL

I for one am totally sick of the Intel bashing myself. I will say I'm very happy that I discovered my opteron but damn, these forums, every day you open them up and its AMD this, AMD that ... Geez, let it go people!
March 8, 2006 10:26:16 AM

yeah, it looks impressive but:

1) Why AMD processor is identified by AMD Processor model Unknown?

2) Would you blindly believe in benchmarks provided by a processor manufacturer? Obviously they would show only results where they win...

3) Why did intel overclocked FX-60? As far as i know it runs at 2.6 ghz so it would be very close to 2.66 conroe... are they giving amd some advantage or is this just an excuse to some tweaked amd processor or what?

well, i'm being very skeptical... i dont believe in results showed by a manufacturer; worstly, before its products being lauched. But i think competition is good for us consumers. I think all fanboys are retarded, wether amd or intel. They just forget about price/value ratio and seem to believe only in what they want...
I have owned amd chips for the last 4 years coz it has better price/value... but i would definetly swith to intel IF IT HAS A COMPETITIVE PRICE, what is something i haven't seen from intel in these 4 years...

EDIT:
if you read the article right:
"Next up is a Half Life 2 Lost Coast demo, once more an Intel supplied demo but there's only so much you can do to a demo recording to make it favor one CPU maker over another"
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2006 10:44:08 AM

"no so much funeral but a leapfrog "

That's one helluva leap, too...

A current architecture/DDR X2 would have to be clocked at 4GHz to challene a 2.66 COnroe...

I can't wait to see how how the lower clocked Conroes behave, but it would not surprise me to see 2Ghz Conroes spanking 3 GHz X2 rigs....which is incrdible....!
March 8, 2006 10:52:56 AM

And this is where sites such as Toms are there for us, to look after these things. Besides, another site has already done their own test and in the article, they used a FEAR test that was not Intel provided. They clearly stated that.

Quote:
F.E.A.R. gets its own page for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only gaming benchmark that we're using that doesn't use an Intel provided demo. This is the same demo we use in our tests.


They overclocked the AMD to prove a point and to somewhat make the AMD more like what it will be, by the end of the year. AMD is almost at their peak as far as clock speeds go with their current technology.

Not sure about the BIOS thing and why the AMD didn't display properly. That does sound a little fishy to me. But then again, we're not there, Toms Hardware is.
March 8, 2006 10:58:35 AM

AMD will sue Intel for raping...
What we can see from the IDF simply is raping at its worst.
Intel is not even trying hard but still AMDs fastest CPU (FX-60 overclocked to its max (2.8 GHz)) gets served by over 30%, yes 30%

Now AMD is getting raped, the funeral will be when the Conroe EE @ 3.33 GHz is introduced.

Cant wait until those Fanboys (BullSh!tter/9-inch, dvdpiddy, MadModMike) come in whining and crying :lol: 
March 8, 2006 11:17:42 AM

All I got to say is AMD better stay with the compitition & have a chip that can compete with the Conroe. It's been a long time since we have seen a chip maker switch there architecture (finally realizing whats better). It seems that everytime Intel takes lead (which is more often then AMD fanboys think) they just increase the Mhz of the chip and they think they have made somthing completely new.
March 8, 2006 11:54:05 AM

let's not forget both platforms were provided by intel, including the modified video driver... and who knows what else
March 8, 2006 12:12:07 PM

Quote:
AMD will sue Intel for raping...
What we can see from the IDF simply is raping at its worst.
Intel is not even trying hard but still AMDs fastest CPU (FX-60 overclocked to its max (2.8 GHz)) gets served by over 30%, yes 30%

Now AMD is getting raped, the funeral will be when the Conroe EE @ 3.33 GHz is introduced.

Cant wait until those Fanboys (BullSh!tter/9-inch, dvdpiddy, MadModMike) come it whining and crying :lol: 
i'm not whining and i aint crying i know that amd has an ace up their sleeve!
March 8, 2006 12:14:39 PM

Cmon, thats so close to whining, a bit more please! :o 
March 8, 2006 12:23:48 PM

Why are people bitching if theres a more powerful processor out? What the hell does it matter who makes it? AMD had a lead over Intel with the Athlon 64. Now Intel might have a lead over AMD. Guess what that means? Faster FPS in your games and quicker computing everywhere else. If it really is faster, buy Intel. If it isn't, buy AMD still. I go to whoevers quicker. I don't give a crap whether its an AMD or an Intel as long as its fast. My first custom built computer was at first an Athlon 2700+. I had some problems with it from getting a defective motherboard and RAM. In that time Intel released the P4s with the 800MHz FSB and they were a little quicker than the AMDs. So I returned the AMD stuff and got that. Now I'm back to AMD. For my next system, I'll once again get whoevers faster at the time. As all of you should do. Nothings wrong with brand loyalty but to argue over who might be better is freakin retarded. Just wait and see and shut up till then.
March 8, 2006 12:35:13 PM

well ycon what can i say amd had the lead over netburst now intel does if intel beats am2 i'll stop being a fanboy!
March 8, 2006 12:37:37 PM

Why can't Intel say they beat AMD with something on the market today? This is all reminiscent of professional wrestling. "I'm gonna do this to you." I'm gonna do that to you." OK then shut up already and do it. Right now all you're doing is flexing your muscles at the camera.

Intel has plenty of theoretical solutions to AMD's current dominance. I'll believe it when I see it. Show me what you have today. Like I said in another thread, AMD today controls the ball and the clock (football reference). They have been slow to deliver new technology because they are already in the lead. It's more profitable to set the pace from convenience rather than necessity. If Intel drops a bomb on them, you can expect a swift retaliation, just like the last few times. I'm talking past experience here, not wishful thinking.

I actually hope Intel does catch up. I want to see a fierce fight between these two (and maybe a third company) that lasts for a decade. It will accellerate technology and drive prices down. It's in the best interest of the consumer. But a tech war means thin profit margins for both companies. It is not in their best interests to do this. They each want to have an unassailable domination of the market with the other companies eating scraps from the table. Then they can increase profit margins to the moon and watch the money come in. Intel did this for years.

But you can't have two companies enjoying this position. There can be only one, or in the case of a tech war, none.

Right now AMD is dominant, but not unassailable. Intel is in an expensive tech war while AMD is not. But the better Intel's chips do, the closer AMD comes to entering the tech war. Competition is a good thing.
March 8, 2006 12:42:46 PM

And I can't wait to get one before you do. :lol: 
March 8, 2006 12:48:17 PM

I don't want AMD to die,i just want more breathing air since this area is crowded with AMD fanboys. It's getting hard giving opinions here due to their actions.
March 8, 2006 12:50:44 PM

I could live with that.
March 8, 2006 12:59:05 PM

ycon i have a serious question for you right now why did you defend netburst when amd as beating it?
March 8, 2006 1:03:43 PM

I feel more loyalty to Nvidia than I do AMD. (Doom3 was important!) :lol: 
March 8, 2006 1:03:56 PM

Cause it wasnt.
I had like 7-10 LANs (dont remember the exact number) since I bought my P4 530 and none of my mates CPUs (3000+, 3200+, (Sempron 2800+), MT-37) was able to offer competition, which leaves me with the conclusion that HT simply is too powerful for any non-HT CPU to beat.
March 8, 2006 1:16:52 PM

"staged by Intel" says it all.
March 8, 2006 1:18:11 PM

no no and no amd was beating prescott look at the benchies now intel is beating amd but wait till am2 if intel beats it their i'll stop being a fanboy
March 8, 2006 1:23:31 PM

Yes, it was staged by Intel. Who were you expecting to stage it, AMD? :lol: 
March 8, 2006 1:24:41 PM

Benchmark is not real world.
March 8, 2006 1:25:57 PM

maybe their is hope yet lets see if amd goes to ddr2 then they upgrade the cache size to 4mb and then they work with nvidia for a newer nforce maybe nforce5?
March 8, 2006 1:26:04 PM

Well, as I've said man, its gonna be a rough ride for AMD IMO because, even if it's true that Intel beats AMD by 40%, there is no way AMD is going to be able to squeeze the necessary 41% out of its current technology to level the playing field. Its just not possible IMO.

AMD has AM2 coming yes, they will have the ability to use higher speed memory, yes but, that IMO, will not make up enough ground.
March 8, 2006 1:31:40 PM

nForce 500 series already is announced.
March 8, 2006 1:34:02 PM

Quote:
Why are people bitching if theres a more powerful processor out? What the hell does it matter who makes it? AMD had a lead over Intel with the Athlon 64. Now Intel might have a lead over AMD. Guess what that means? Faster FPS in your games and quicker computing everywhere else. If it really is faster, buy Intel. If it isn't, buy AMD still. I go to whoevers quicker. I don't give a crap whether its an AMD or an Intel as long as its fast. My first custom built computer was at first an Athlon 2700+. I had some problems with it from getting a defective motherboard and RAM. In that time Intel released the P4s with the 800MHz FSB and they were a little quicker than the AMDs. So I returned the AMD stuff and got that. Now I'm back to AMD. For my next system, I'll once again get whoevers faster at the time. As all of you should do. Nothings wrong with brand loyalty but to argue over who might be better is freakin retarded. Just wait and see and shut up till then.


lol awh... but then what will I get to read when I'm bored at work? :)  This Forum is like Jerry Springer!

Bob: "Intel Raped my AMD system!"
Steve: "Did not! AMD is gay!"
Bob: "no Intel is gay!"
March 8, 2006 2:14:18 PM

What about the P4 Pre-production benchmarks? They promised it would put AMD under the ground permanently.

Anyone remember the "Hammer" pre-production benchmarks? They claimed they beat Intel's best by something like 70%.

I don't have time to find any of the above right now, but if someone does, that'd be great. It'd do a lot of people good (both sides) to look at the pre-production benchmarks produced by the manufacturer vs. the real-world benchmarks that occur today.


ANY benchmarks put out by a manufacturer are going to be Skewed - period. They will tweak the systems if they can get away with it, they will run as many benchmarks as they can find so they can take the ones from each category that make their product look best, they will talk all day about "Giving the other guy the advantage by overclocking" or "Giving them better hardware" to prove how Honest their benchmarks are.

Both of them are a lot like Used Car Salesmen in this respect.

Wait for the real-world benchmarks - everything else until then is just FUD and maneuvering.

Also to remember: Intel is great at releasing paper processors. I'll believe this "wonder of all wonders" when I see it on the shelf at the local dealer.

IDEV
March 8, 2006 2:19:00 PM

I can't wait to see a conroe at 4.0 ghz. 8O

AMD will be crushed like an insignificant bug. :lol: 
March 8, 2006 2:22:53 PM

LOL

You bring much to the table man. :lol: 

I for one would actually like to see it happen myself and it will drive the competition.

The thing that gets me is, why is everybody fighting so much over these two processor brands anyway? If you can game on both and one or the other satisfy your needs, why bother? Just a thought ...
March 8, 2006 2:44:23 PM

That's why I got AMD this time around. The current AMD offerings are better for gaming than Intel's.
March 8, 2006 2:55:43 PM

Quote:
maybe their is hope yet lets see if amd goes to ddr2 then they upgrade the cache size to 4mb and then they work with nvidia for a newer nforce maybe nforce5?


If AM2 comes out 40% better than a 2.8ghx X2 I will lick the toe jam out of your toes.

I do not want to see AMD dead. I want better products, and better prices. A $529 chip KOed a $1000 one.

FX60 will be worth ~$200-$250 soon. :D 

Gee, 100 posts. Most of them good too. You, my friend my be a posting fool, but still a fool.
March 8, 2006 3:21:21 PM

Quote:
maybe their is hope yet lets see if amd goes to ddr2 then they upgrade the cache size to 4mb and then they work with nvidia for a newer nforce maybe nforce5?


It already has been stated that the new AMD chipset will be able to use ddr2. For being up AMDs ass past your ankles you should know that. And you have already proven to the forum in the past that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. The new Intel chips are going to be good, but without AMD there would be no reason for Intel to come up with anything new. I too am tired of the AMD fanboys jumping in and flaming when people are trying to have a nice chat. On these and other forums soneone will want to build an Intel system and the first 4 replies are by the AMD fanboys saying Intel sucks. Dvdpiddy is one of the best/worst of these. Your opnion matters yes, but we already know what your gong to say about Intel so STFU.
March 8, 2006 3:28:13 PM

Quote:
no no and no amd was beating prescott look at the benchies now intel is beating amd but wait till am2 if intel beats it their i'll stop being a fanboy


Kids our Hooked on phonics word of the day is "benchies" lol
March 8, 2006 3:30:04 PM

FITCamaro makes me happy on the inside, I also went from AMD Athlon XP 2600+ to a 2.8ghz Intel with 800mhz FSB and couldnt have been happier about the switch...years later got P4 660 didnt see enough so I got the A64 3700+ Sandy and love it as well. I will most likely wait till a revision or two of the conroe, souly because I think my 3700+ still has alil juice left in it. The fact of this whole thing is, P4 is older than A64 and thats why I have an A64, when I get conroe it will be because it is newer and better than my A64...(if it trully is better that is, wont know till it releases, but w/e). The only thing that I trully enjoy from one company over the other...IMO of course is that I believe that Intel motherboards I. E. chipsets are better...work better for me...dont want to make anyone mad by the statement I just like the fact that they are Intel chipsets and not 3rd party. Overall, I love the AMD / Intel wars...they amuse me, so please keep fighting so that both companies will continue to try and win your loyalty, while I reap the benefit of potential lower prices and possibly better products!!!

Antec NeoHE 550w PS
DFI Lan Party UT NF4 Ultra
AMD Athlon 3700+ Sandy @ 2.8ghz (10x280) - "Arctic Freezer 64"
2gb (2x1gb) Patriot Performance Memory (2-3-2-5)
ATI Original X1900XT
Creative XF-I
(2x120gb WD SATA II HD's) - Raid 0
March 8, 2006 3:34:13 PM

Hi everyone

i was just going throu the tomshardware CPU charts.

In "fx-60 vs conroe" benchmark for Unreal Tournament: it shows 160.4 fps

But in tomshardware so called "CPU Charts" (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...) it shows that fx-60 is getting 174fps...

thats a different of like 14fps.... not to say fx-57 is: 189.1fps (conroe is still faster)

How come the results are sooo offf....
!