Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ok Intel Fan Boys, I know you’re wetting your Pants, but...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 8, 2006 5:21:01 PM

"Intel setup two identical systems"… Intel????
Isn’t that like the fox guarding the Hen House?
When we see a working system on the street THEN you can celebrate.
March 8, 2006 5:29:28 PM

You mean THIS ONE?

These are interesting results without a doubt, notice they are comparing a mid range Conroe CPU with 667MHz mem (not the 800MHz that will it will be launched with), pitted against a future top end FX-62. Now AMD does have Socket AM2 awaiting launch with DDR2, but this is not expected to be a major performance leap, and maybe even a slight hit due to latencies.

This was Intel's 2.66GHz clocked Conroe (a non extreme version using underclocked RAM and not the 3GHz version that will be launched) being benched against AMD's future extreme version dual core FX 2.8GHz!

Clearly it appears that Intel's Conroe is going to come out strong and scale up fast, which may indeed make it one of the best overclockable chips to date, always a plus for enthusiasts!

If anything, it appears the tests were in AMD's favor.
March 8, 2006 5:32:58 PM

Quote:
You mean THIS ONE?

These are interesting results without a doubt, notice they are comparing a mid range Conroe CPU with 667MHz mem (not the 800MHz that will it will be launched with), pitted against a future top end FX-62. Now AMD does have Socket AM2 awaiting launch with DDR2, but this is not expected to be a major performance leap, and maybe even a slight hit due to latencies.

This was Intel's 2.66GHz clocked Conroe (a non extreme version using underclocked RAM and not the 3GHz version that will be launched) being benched against AMD's future extreme version dual core FX 2.8GHz!

Clearly it appears that Intel's Conroe is going to come out strong and scale up fast, which may indeed make it one of the best overclockable chips to date, always a plus for enthusiasts!

If anything, it appears the tests were in AMD's favor.



Yeah, what he said.
March 8, 2006 5:43:28 PM

The point is: "INTEL set up the test".
Not Tomshardware, or any other third party tech publication with independent oversight.

Like I said, when the product hits the streets, the gloating can commence, but until then it’s just another press release.
March 8, 2006 5:47:39 PM

Quote:
You mean THIS ONE?

These are interesting results without a doubt, notice they are comparing a mid range Conroe CPU with 667MHz mem (not the 800MHz that will it will be launched with), pitted against a future top end FX-62. Now AMD does have Socket AM2 awaiting launch with DDR2, but this is not expected to be a major performance leap, and maybe even a slight hit due to latencies.

This was Intel's 2.66GHz clocked Conroe (a non extreme version using underclocked RAM and not the 3GHz version that will be launched) being benched against AMD's future extreme version dual core FX 2.8GHz!

Clearly it appears that Intel's Conroe is going to come out strong and scale up fast, which may indeed make it one of the best overclockable chips to date, always a plus for enthusiasts!

If anything, it appears the tests were in AMD's favor.


Everybody used to be so Neutral (except a few) but after Conroe, everybody is now an Intel Troll, my god.

1) I'd like to know what this "modified ATI" driver is

2) Why didn't they dual test with nF4? 2 78GTX's not good enough? Okay.

3) AMD has 2 more architectures set to be released in the next 12 months, where's the orgasms over that???

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 8, 2006 6:04:24 PM

Mike, if they are promising a 40% blood letting of the current dominator, then you will see the feeding frenzy when the time comes!!!
March 8, 2006 6:05:39 PM

Quote:
Mike, if they are promising a 40% blood letting of the current dominator, then you will see the feeding frenzy when the time comes!!!


What happened to "we don't believe company promises"? Or has the Intel Trollism gotten to you so much you can't bare it and caved in? Weren't you neutral or were you always an Intel Fanboy?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 8, 2006 6:08:10 PM

Wait until the final products are released and benchmarked by all reviewers. THe only reason why technology advances is because of performance leaps like that. I am running an AMD, because NOW it is the fastest solution around, and I won't be upgrading every two months or so (my earlier system lasted 6 years).
Intel might be the next to take the lead, then after a year or so, maybe AMD will make another come-back.. that's the game
March 8, 2006 6:11:31 PM

Quote:
Wait until the final products are released and benchmarked by all reviewers. THe only reason why technology advances is because of performance leaps like that. I am running an AMD, because NOW it is the fastest solution around, and I won't be upgrading every two months or so (my earlier system lasted 6 years).
Intel might be the next to take the lead, then after a year or so, maybe AMD will make another come-back.. that's the game


I don't care what you buy, I'm talking to the people who are flaming AMD after seeing Intel-setup benchmarks even though everybody keeps saying "we don't believe companies promises" but it seems everybody takes this as gospel truth.

And regardless of what you think "the game" is, there is always 1 company who is better, and since 1991 when AMD won their case against Intel and got to release their Am386, they have been the better company, regardless of performance.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 8, 2006 6:14:48 PM

I don't think this is much of:

Intel vs AMD on these forums..

It's more like:

"I don't think the phrase, I told you so, doesn't quite cover it."

I think most of this hurts pride, and the cost you put in to your rig that hurts...

:roll:
March 8, 2006 6:18:43 PM

Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz (1067MHz FSB) on an Intel 975X motherboard.

I have a question about the picture showing the AMD post.
Main Processsor: AMD Processor Unknown :?:
Ok - A BIOS Flash may have fixed that but why show that :?:
That picture leads to questions on how the testing was really

Congrats to Intel showing off their new processor. :lol:  Interesting they are compairing against AMD now. I remember when they would simply show improvements between the new and old of Intel (and never mention AMD). How times have changed - AMD has put the pressure on Intel. Now, AMD will never put Intel out of business - but now we all have a choice.

I still think we need to wait and see what actually happens when both Intel and AMD release to the public and we can get hird party benchmarks. :wink:
March 8, 2006 6:19:24 PM

I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.
March 8, 2006 6:19:59 PM

Quote:

2) Why didn't they dual test with nF4? 2 78GTX's not good enough? Okay.


Intel licensed Crossfire for use with thier chipsets. I'm sure they want to have complete control the chipset for thier new processor, so *edit* crossfire was the obvious choice for Intel.

Remember, you can't use nVidia SLI without a license, and Intel doesn't have one. I doubt they'd call nVidia and ask them to update the nForce4 chipset for Conroe with the ATI deal they have.

It 'seemed' fair to me, but again, it is the fox guarding the henhouse, and technology is a game of leapfrog. I'm sure the next AMD chips will best Conroe, unless AMD makes the same mistake Intel did...

I'll wait to make my decision until I see an independant test, but these will prevent me from removing the Intel shrine from my bedroom :)  I was starting to lose hope...
March 8, 2006 6:21:45 PM

Quote:
I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.


1) Uhm..you call a company proclaming their own product as a "reliable source"?

2) It's a performane jump because those were benchmarks with bad AMD tech, a motherboard that doesn't recognize the CPU, a "modified ATI driver", and a bad DFI ATI board, and comparing DDR1 to DDR2.

3) 6 months isn't "just around the corner", alot of things can happen in 6 months Troll.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 8, 2006 6:32:17 PM

Intel was kind enough to use a DDR1 platform for the AMD system and you still complain?
What do you want them to do? Run the benchmarks with the system switched off?
March 8, 2006 6:34:16 PM

Quote:
Intel was kind enough to use a DDR1 platform for the AMD system and you still complain?
What do you want them to do? Run the benchmarks with the system switched off?


That made no sense Troll.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 8, 2006 6:39:25 PM

Intel also had a DivX 6.1 and an iTunes 6.0.1.3 test loaded on the machine for our use. The scores speak for themselves, Conroe showed just under a 30% performance advantage in DivX encoding and 11% in MP3 encoding. Updated: Windows Media Encoder 9 with Advanced Profile, the same test that we use in our CPU reviews, is showing Conroe with a 12% advantage over the 2.8GHz AMD system.

30% or 12% :oops: 
Updated review now shows a 18% Change WOW :roll:
March 8, 2006 6:50:15 PM

1: is from a reliable source,

What source would that be?
Read the story...
It was an Intel press release about an Intel test, that’s all. No independent observation.
March 8, 2006 6:52:03 PM

1: is from a reliable source,

What source would that be?
Read the story...
It was an Intel press release about an Intel test, that’s all. No independent observation.
March 8, 2006 6:54:58 PM

No, actually I want Intel to let SOMEONE ELSE run the test!
You know; that INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION thing.
March 8, 2006 6:56:26 PM

Quote:
No, actually I want Intel to let SOMEONE ELSE run the test!
You know; that INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION thing.


Apparently letting Intel run the tests with a "modified ATI driver" and an "Unknown AMD CPU" according to the BIOS, is good enough.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 8, 2006 7:14:52 PM

Quote:
I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.


If you want to accurate, they only "smoked" the AMD in ONE test by 40%, on a game that, from what I understand, is actually more reliant on the GPUs than the CPUs. The others were more on the level of 12%-30% which could be explained by a better use of DDR2 Memory Speed and Bandwidth over the conventional DDR.
March 8, 2006 7:17:50 PM

Quote:
I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.


If you want to accurate, they only "smoked" the AMD in ONE test by 40%, on a game that, from what I understand, is actually more reliant on the GPUs than the CPUs. The others were more on the level of 12%-30% which could be explained by a better use of DDR2 Memory Speed and Bandwidth over the conventional DDR.

That is a very good observation.
March 8, 2006 7:19:00 PM

I actually would rather see Intel's 955EE side by side with a Conroe. If this was done we wouldn't have the constant arguement of "RIGGED BENCHMARK" and we'd still get to see if there's a rather large improvement.
March 8, 2006 7:22:24 PM

Quote:
That is a very good observation.


If the GPU's are the same, system memory shouldn't matter at all unless it's caching using the AGP aperture (Which @ 512MB on-board RAM it shouldn't be).

Also keep in mind that HyperTransport suffers from the higher memory latencies of DDR2, so don't count your chickens just yet...
March 8, 2006 7:23:27 PM

Quote:
That is a very good observation.


If the GPU's are the same, system memory shouldn't matter at all unless it's caching using the AGP aperture (Which @ 512MB on-board RAM it shouldn't be).

Also keep in mind that HyperTransport suffers from the higher memory latencies of DDR2, so don't count your chickens just yet...

Thanks for another ignorant un-true un-informed post Troll.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 8, 2006 7:29:54 PM

If you have a problem with something I said then correct me.

Quote:
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as in online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants. "Troll" can also mean the message itself or be a verb meaning to post such messages. "Trolling" is also commonly used to describe the activity. For more discussion on definitions, see below.


I believe this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black...
March 8, 2006 7:33:05 PM

Quote:
That is a very good observation.


If the GPU's are the same, system memory shouldn't matter at all unless it's caching using the AGP aperture (Which @ 512MB on-board RAM it shouldn't be).

Also keep in mind that HyperTransport suffers from the higher memory latencies of DDR2, so don't count your chickens just yet...

Which helps to prove my theory that there are too many unknown factors to start nailing AMD's coffin shut.

It may very well be that Intel will have the "fastest desktop processor" on the market. Hurray for them. I will probably still buy bargain priced AMD's from eBay. I just happen to like AMD and nVidia. However, I have also owned (and built) several Intel systems that had ATi graphics, and my last Athlon system had an ATi PCI card in it. I am most interested in bang for buck. In the past people were paying more for the Intel name than the Intel performance. Just my opinion though, I could be wrong.
March 8, 2006 7:36:31 PM

Quote:
In the past people were paying more for the Intel name than the Intel performance.


You can add me to that list. I'm a fan of Intel and ATI, personally. I 've had a lot of problems with nVidia's drivers in the past. I'm sure they're much better now, but I have no reason to change at this point. ATI seems to be quality over speed now, which I like seeing as how max FPS are through the roof.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2006 7:47:20 PM

I dont understand why you seem so pissed MadMod.
People are excited because intel shows great promise. It doesnt mean they're fanboy oy anything, they are jsute that: excited... Intel did'nt put up a good show for the last 2-3 years. Ever since the NorthWood C part that did'nt last quite long before the A64 comes in, they basically sucked. Amd released a better products since then but didnt have any pressure and no pressure means less competition.

Even if those numbers are not good, i'm sure intel will end up at least on par with AMD AM2 platform. They would'nt brag about they're tech and end up being worst!

Also, its the first time they have a AMD rig at IDF, in the past they acted as if AMD did'nt exist, I think that speaks for itself on how confident they are.

I say nobody should take these benchmark as granted and I think only fanboys will actually beleive its wysiwyg. I am really excited myself because I'm going to upgrade my P4C around october wich is a perfect fit because perfectly with AM2/conro being released and reviewed so I should be able to pickup the best/mobo/ram/cpu there is out there. My 3 years old northwood will be happy!

Too end up this somewhat lenghty post:
TGDaily

Quote:
There also was a demo benchmark of Call of Duty II, in which an overclocked 4.1 GHz Pentium Extreme Edition computer tried to keep up with Conroe - and trailed its successor with 90 fps to 110 fps.


Thats interesting!

And on 65nm, running that cool, a good heatsink ought to bring greater numbers on aire!
March 8, 2006 8:11:17 PM

Quote:
Mike, if they are promising a 40% blood letting of the current dominator, then you will see the feeding frenzy when the time comes!!!


What happened to "we don't believe company promises"? Or has the Intel Trollism gotten to you so much you can't bare it and caved in? Weren't you neutral or were you always an Intel Fanboy?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
I don't believe company promises. EVERYONE will prove them wrong if they BS'ed us all!
March 8, 2006 8:12:39 PM

Quote:
I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.

Yeah, even Intel's execs wouldn't be able to pull that crap. 40% is massive, and there's going to be another chip clocked 25% higher than the one they tested on. It's not a DDR2 comparison at all...
March 8, 2006 8:14:13 PM

Quote:
I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.


1) Uhm..you call a company proclaming their own product as a "reliable source"?

2) It's a performane jump because those were benchmarks with bad AMD tech, a motherboard that doesn't recognize the CPU, a "modified ATI driver", and a bad DFI ATI board, and comparing DDR1 to DDR2.

3) 6 months isn't "just around the corner", alot of things can happen in 6 months Troll.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
DDR2 will just add more bandwidth you Tool. It isn't going to massively improve per-clock performance. The CPU was OC'ed and it was stable, the motherboard could NOT have hurt performance to a point of 40%!
March 8, 2006 8:28:36 PM

Quote:
I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.


1) Uhm..you call a company proclaming their own product as a "reliable source"?

2) It's a performane jump because those were benchmarks with bad AMD tech, a motherboard that doesn't recognize the CPU, a "modified ATI driver", and a bad DFI ATI board, and comparing DDR1 to DDR2.

3) 6 months isn't "just around the corner", alot of things can happen in 6 months Troll.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
DDR2 will just add more bandwidth you Tool. It isn't going to massively improve per-clock performance. The CPU was OC'ed and it was stable, the motherboard could NOT have hurt performance to a point of 40%!

Actually a motherboard can affect performance by a pretty good margin. My Soyo is at least 15-20% below similar systems on Asus or Gigabyte platforms.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2006 8:34:36 PM

:o  luckyly, they did'nt use a Soyo motherboard!
March 8, 2006 8:40:50 PM

At least it's a Soyo with nForce and not SiS! :) 
March 8, 2006 8:53:50 PM

Quote:
I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.


1) Uhm..you call a company proclaming their own product as a "reliable source"?

2) It's a performane jump because those were benchmarks with bad AMD tech, a motherboard that doesn't recognize the CPU, a "modified ATI driver", and a bad DFI ATI board, and comparing DDR1 to DDR2.

3) 6 months isn't "just around the corner", alot of things can happen in 6 months Troll.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
DDR2 will just add more bandwidth you Tool. It isn't going to massively improve per-clock performance. The CPU was OC'ed and it was stable, the motherboard could NOT have hurt performance to a point of 40%!

Actually a motherboard can affect performance by a pretty good margin. My Soyo is at least 15-20% below similar systems on Asus or Gigabyte platforms.
It was obviously a high performance DFI board from the looks of it though...
March 8, 2006 8:54:32 PM

Quote:
:o  luckyly, they did'nt use a Soyo motherboard!


Tell me about it. I bought it because it was new in the box and very cheap from eBay. Should have known better. My friend had nothing but trouble with his Socket 478 Soyo. Ended up getting a Asus Mobo and 1.5GB of Geil Dual Channel DDR400. Nice rig too. Guess what it is an Intel and I still helped him build it. :D 

See, I'm not such a bad AMD "fan" after all.
March 8, 2006 8:56:42 PM

Quote:
:o  luckyly, they did'nt use a Soyo motherboard!


Tell me about it. I bought it because it was new in the box and very cheap from eBay. Should have known better. My friend had nothing but trouble with his Socket 478 Soyo. Ended up getting a Asus Mobo and 1.5GB of Geil Dual Channel DDR400. Nice rig too. Guess what it is an Intel and I still helped him build it. :D 

See, I'm not such a bad AMD "fan" after all.

You think that's bad? Get this. My DFI won't post with 2 sticks of RAM, has IDE problems and fails to OC to fair levels. I've RMA'ed it three times. Wanna know the worst part though? My 200$ memory will only work on a high voltage motherboard...
the only high VDIMM board is...you guess, made by DFI.
March 8, 2006 8:59:41 PM

Quote:
I do not ever recall AMD claiming a 40% jump on their competitors currently overclocked products, and that claim being backed up using underclocked memory on just their own.
Sorry, bud, but the reason that it makes such big news is it;
1: is from a reliable source,
2: it is an enormous almost unprecedented performance jump, and
3: it is right around the corner so if it is a scam, it will really fall hard.


1) Uhm..you call a company proclaming their own product as a "reliable source"?

2) It's a performane jump because those were benchmarks with bad AMD tech, a motherboard that doesn't recognize the CPU, a "modified ATI driver", and a bad DFI ATI board, and comparing DDR1 to DDR2.

3) 6 months isn't "just around the corner", alot of things can happen in 6 months Troll.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
DDR2 will just add more bandwidth you Tool. It isn't going to massively improve per-clock performance. The CPU was OC'ed and it was stable, the motherboard could NOT have hurt performance to a point of 40%!

Actually a motherboard can affect performance by a pretty good margin. My Soyo is at least 15-20% below similar systems on Asus or Gigabyte platforms.
It was obviously a high performance DFI board from the looks of it though...

I can see that, but again, you are making definitive comments such as, "Nobody needs more than 2GB of RAM" and "The motherboard could NOT have hurt performance to a point of 40%". You need to be careful about painting such a broad stroke when discussing the pros and cons of certain computer components.

Regards,
March 8, 2006 9:03:10 PM

Quote:
:o  luckyly, they did'nt use a Soyo motherboard!


Tell me about it. I bought it because it was new in the box and very cheap from eBay. Should have known better. My friend had nothing but trouble with his Socket 478 Soyo. Ended up getting a Asus Mobo and 1.5GB of Geil Dual Channel DDR400. Nice rig too. Guess what it is an Intel and I still helped him build it. :D 

See, I'm not such a bad AMD "fan" after all.

You think that's bad? Get this. My DFI won't post with 2 sticks of RAM, has IDE problems and fails to OC to fair levels. I've RMA'ed it three times. Wanna know the worst part though? My 200$ memory will only work on a high voltage motherboard...
the only high VDIMM board is...you guess, made by DFI.

I feel your pain. That is why it is worth the time and effort to research all of your major components and their compatibility before purchasing anything. My friend and I learned that the hard way. :oops: 

Regards,
March 8, 2006 9:09:38 PM

Quote:
:o  luckyly, they did'nt use a Soyo motherboard!


Tell me about it. I bought it because it was new in the box and very cheap from eBay. Should have known better. My friend had nothing but trouble with his Socket 478 Soyo. Ended up getting a Asus Mobo and 1.5GB of Geil Dual Channel DDR400. Nice rig too. Guess what it is an Intel and I still helped him build it. :D 

See, I'm not such a bad AMD "fan" after all.

You think that's bad? Get this. My DFI won't post with 2 sticks of RAM, has IDE problems and fails to OC to fair levels. I've RMA'ed it three times. Wanna know the worst part though? My 200$ memory will only work on a high voltage motherboard...
the only high VDIMM board is...you guess, made by DFI.

I feel your pain. That is why it is worth the time and effort to research all of your major components and their compatibility before purchasing anything. My friend and I learned that the hard way. :oops: 

Regards,
No, DFI is the recommended board and is compatible and it actually did work for awhile. Then it just started to fag me out...and it's been doing that for awhile. I am sick of the crap that I am 24/7ing the machine so 2 DIMMS of ram (no idea how I got it to post with that) until I can get the Cedar Mill setup. I need to try Intel anyway, I had a Opty 165 and I was disappointed ><
March 8, 2006 9:27:07 PM



Please... do not compare or relate THIS to the word "benchmark"...
March 8, 2006 9:34:23 PM

What are you talking about?
March 8, 2006 9:52:39 PM

Quote:
I don't think this is much of:

Intel vs AMD on these forums..

It's more like:

"I don't think the phrase, I told you so, doesn't quite cover it."

I think most of this hurts pride, and the cost you put in to your rig that hurts...

:roll:


k, your a tard.
How is it a waste of money to buy an AMD now when they are the best, its not like conroe is out now and is selling for half the price as the fx-60.

one other thing,its not always a 40% advantage, it was lower than 15% in some places which can be made up by AMD just by adding the ddr2 rram, and the 3ghz, one won't come out till very late in the year, when amd 65nm will come out and crush it. 8)
March 8, 2006 9:56:57 PM

i havent read this whole thread yet, most of it i have though... but Intels improvement claims do remind me of when Apple first posted results at their developers conference a few years back, of the G4, in comparison to the fastest available Intel systems at that time, about how much improvement there was, and the commercials, and everything, and there was improvement, but it was only really through altivec processing, and with applications that were actually written well to take advantage of it... otherwise, there wasnt much improvement to speak of performancewise, at all really... so cant really go by what a company claims at first, even at a conference like this, you definetly have to wait until after reviewers, and the public in general, can readily get their hands on them, to use, and purchase

just my 2 cents
March 8, 2006 9:58:35 PM

Quote:
I don't think this is much of:

Intel vs AMD on these forums..

It's more like:

"I don't think the phrase, I told you so, doesn't quite cover it."

I think most of this hurts pride, and the cost you put in to your rig that hurts...

:roll:


k, your a tard.
How is it a waste of money to buy an AMD now when they are the best, its not like conroe is out now and is selling for half the price as the fx-60.

one other thing,its not always a 40% advantage, it was lower than 15% in some places which can be made up by AMD just by adding the ddr2 rram, and the 3ghz, one won't come out till very late in the year, when amd 65nm will come out and crush it. 8)
Uh, no. DDR2 will not make a big difference, it's only more bandwidth. You're a tard if you buy a 1000$ cpu period. Also, that isn't going to be the highest clocked Conroe at release, and per clock it is a lot more efficient than AMD; with that, it can also have MORE clocks because AMD is behind with 90nm.
March 8, 2006 10:00:32 PM

Quote:
I don't think this is much of:

Intel vs AMD on these forums..

It's more like:

"I don't think the phrase, I told you so, doesn't quite cover it."

I think most of this hurts pride, and the cost you put in to your rig that hurts...

:roll:


k, your a tard.
How is it a waste of money to buy an AMD now when they are the best, its not like conroe is out now and is selling for half the price as the fx-60.

one other thing,its not always a 40% advantage, it was lower than 15% in some places which can be made up by AMD just by adding the ddr2 rram, and the 3ghz, one won't come out till very late in the year, when amd 65nm will come out and crush it. 8)
Uh, no. DDR2 will not make a big difference, it's only more bandwidth. You're a tard if you buy a 1000$ cpu period. Also, that isn't going to be the highest clocked Conroe at release, and per clock it is a lot more efficient than AMD; with that, it can also have MORE clocks because AMD is behind with 90nm.

LOL I wish I could add that entire post to my sig, it'd give those with an IQ a good laugh, lol. The only reason DDR2 hasn't proven effective, is because it's only been tested on an Intel platform, DDERRRRRRR :roll: .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 8, 2006 10:04:16 PM

Quote:
The only reason DDR2 hasn't proven effective, is because it's only been tested on an Intel platform, DDERRRRRRR Rolling Eyes .


Hmm.
March 8, 2006 10:05:20 PM

Thanks for putting my bad joke in your signature.
!