Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why AMD is better than Intel?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
March 12, 2006 2:05:53 AM

Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 

More about : amd intel

March 12, 2006 2:41:16 AM

I see you're new.
Related resources
March 12, 2006 5:06:41 AM

Fanboys......
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2006 7:47:00 AM

Quote:
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 


Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.
March 12, 2006 8:47:43 AM

Quote:
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 
Don't mind them. It turns out that you've asked this question at a somewhat bad time... A few days ago, some benchmarks were released about a product that might hit the market in half a year but is apparently causing major hissy fits now.

There are three major problems with your question:

1. There is debate about whether the assumption your question makes (AMD is better than Intel) is true.

2. Either way, that assumption doesn't actually make sense, since AMD and Intel are companies, not processors.

3. Efficiency and what is "better" can be difficult to quanitfy and you haven't provided a starting point.

Anyway, welcome to the forums.
March 17, 2006 8:16:19 AM

I for one love my Netburst P4's. I'll be holding onto them for quite a while until Conroes become cheap and plentiful. I don't care for playing games on the computer, but I do enjoy using Divx. Netburst rules in Divx.
March 18, 2006 1:27:21 AM

I hate fanboys! Get out of here!
Both companies make good products, they leap-frog each other all the time, it's just Intel's turn to do so.

So please, just chose the better product, and keep an open mind
March 18, 2006 1:48:07 AM

@ Heyyou27

To me your reply was perfect...utterly absolutely perfect and a joy to behold...my hat's off to you. Saying less is definitely sometimes a LOT more!

Definitely brought a smile to my face on this dismal day and I thank you. ^^
March 18, 2006 1:51:43 AM

Quote:
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 


Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...
March 18, 2006 3:03:48 AM

Quote:
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 


Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...

Agreed. Conroe isnt out for 6 months and AMD should have better things on AM2 by then...noob fanboy lol. thats funny because that's what i was thinking of apache, betting on something not even benchmarked (by someone other than intel). Buddy, conroe isnt out for half a year. How about we stay in the now? Currently P4 is poop, and AMD is a lot better because theirs give superior price/performance. Conroe might just top A64 but my prediction is not by much. Then the A64 65nms come out and pawn the conroes.
I'm probably going to get called a noob fanboy for this. And I know I contradict myself when I say "lets stay in the now" so meh.
March 18, 2006 3:06:06 AM

the reason is well it just is maybe 20 fps isnt that much of a big deal for you but for now amd has ccrown but soon im hoping conroe gets it
March 19, 2006 5:36:45 AM

Quote:
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 


Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

I was complimenting "AMD" .. Well its a company right?

Let me be more specific! AMD Athlon 3600+ is far better than its counterpart Intel p4 3GHz or 3.4 Ghz .. Practically ... U get more performance at less price!

Thats what everybody wants !

8)
March 19, 2006 6:24:29 AM

And the Pentium D 805 kicks the crap out of the Athlon 64 3000. What's your point?
March 19, 2006 6:45:12 AM

An Intel Pentium D processor-based PC delivers an extra powerful gear when you need it.
Quote:
Accomplish more while running multiple applications, such as editing video while downloading music
. The dual-core feature provides two execution cores in one physical processor allowing the platform to do more in less time while enjoying smooth interaction with your PC. Intel EM64T allow platforms to access larger amounts of memory and will support 64-bit extended operating systems.

I AM IMPRESSED!!!

:p 

I dont edit videos!!

GAMES!! m a bit high time gamer AMD ROCKS

But I think there is AMD counterpart that beats D805 ... I'll check!
March 19, 2006 6:59:30 AM

Quote:
And the Pentium D 805 kicks the crap out of the Athlon 64 3000. What's your point?


Here you see by yourself who's better...

Budget Dual Core showdown (Pentium D 805 vs X2 3800)

I'm a little surprised the X2@2.5 beat the 805@3.8 on so many benchmarks, including everything that wasn't related to PCMark. Definitely better bang/buck on the X2

But as far as prices are concerned ... Intel nice work :D 

But still AMD rocks 8)
March 19, 2006 7:30:43 AM

Quote:
I hate fanboys! Get out of here!
Both companies make good products, they leap-frog each other all the time, it's just Intel's turn to do so.

So please, just chose the better product, and keep an open mind


This is so True ! I dont see the point in Fanboyism... All you do is lock yourself to one manafacturer, then, when the other brings out a better product (AMD first with their K8's; Now intel with their Conroe's), You all cry and moan, and say it isn't so!


Quote:
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 



Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.


Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...


Agreed. Conroe isnt out for 6 months and AMD should have better things on AM2 by then...noob fanboy lol. thats funny because that's what i was thinking of apache, betting on something not even benchmarked (by someone other than intel). Buddy, conroe isnt out for half a year. How about we stay in the now? Currently P4 is poop, and AMD is a lot better because theirs give superior price/performance. Conroe might just top A64 but my prediction is not by much. Then the A64 65nms come out and pawn the conroes.
I'm probably going to get called a noob fanboy for this. And I know I contradict myself when I say "lets stay in the now" so meh.

So very true... AMD are current holders of the performance crown. The fastest processor from AMD that will be available when the Conroe is released, will be a 2.8Ghz FX62, which will not be able to beat the Conroe.

In 1h07, AMD will release the Rev.G cores, on 65nm, with Hypertransport 3, level 3 cache on the die, and possibly (still rumours) a DDR3 or higher spec. memory controller (although this i seem to doubt...? Any thoughts on that ? ? ?)

Either way, this will mean AMD regains performance crown... Until Intel release their next revision.... :?: :?: :?:
March 19, 2006 1:44:32 PM

Quote:

Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

Well this is an clear example of how unlimited human stupidity can be!
Do you know what is the meaning of that "idiot"?
Or you are just using when your need to insult some one?
This is not your parents forum and you have no right to make the new members feel unwellcomed here and make them go away from the forum.
Another stupidity is talking about things that you never saw, like you already have them and you know everything about them(Conroe).

Anyway, I think AMD are better than Intel since K7 arived, not becouse of their performance, but becouse of tehir price. In most cases for the same money we could buy faster AMD system than that from Intel.
March 19, 2006 2:08:28 PM

Conroe gonna put the smack down on FX-60 just like Willamette did to Athlon
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 19, 2006 2:25:13 PM

What an annoying troll...

(Either this or a VERY stupid idiot)
March 19, 2006 2:35:35 PM

If you remember the IDF when the Willamette p4 was introduced, many of the same predictions for AMD's demise were made.

Likewise, Prescott was supposed to hit 4Ghz and end the performace race.

Even if Conroe lives up to its promise (which most future products never do), the biggest impact will be a reduction in A64 prices.

(A64 drove P4 prices down so far, Intel started looking like the value leader.)

In the end, it is good news for all the little fanboys in both camps.
March 19, 2006 3:07:53 PM

IMO, fanboys have got their heads up their own arses, and should look a little further than their own colon... Both AMD & Intel are good. They can both be good manafacturers. It just so happens the best was AMD for server and desktop (ie Opteron, 64, X2, FX), and Intel at portable (ie Pentium M), ultra-portable (ie Xscale)

I really do not understand what the deal is with acting like a 3 year old, over a bloody CPU manafacturer. Get over it. *sigh* Go for performance/price, whichever is most important to you, not the name of the company you've been wanting tattoo'd on your chest...
March 20, 2006 3:31:06 AM

Quote:
And the Pentium D 805 kicks the crap out of the Athlon 64 3000. What's your point?


Here you see by yourself who's better...

Budget Dual Core showdown (Pentium D 805 vs X2 3800)

I'm a little surprised the X2@2.5 beat the 805@3.8 on so many benchmarks, including everything that wasn't related to PCMark. Definitely better bang/buck on the X2

But as far as prices are concerned ... Intel nice work :D 

But still AMD rocks 8)


Wow! Thank you so much for supporting my arguement. I now see that the pentium D 805 not only costs less than 1/2 the price of an entry level x2, it also can be semi competitive with one! That's great! Bang/buck crown goes to the PD 805.

In fact, the price of the 805 is the same as an A64 3000 for 939, that's why I compared the two, because that's what you do.....compare two processors based on their price. Now show me a benchmark series that shows the A64 3000 outperforming the 805, dumba$$. :roll:
March 20, 2006 4:19:23 AM

I think A64 must be compared with the processor of their age like P4 3.4 GHZ ...

Right? because Pentium D 805 is new ....
March 20, 2006 5:36:23 AM

Quote:
And the Pentium D 805 kicks the crap out of the Athlon 64 3000. What's your point?


Here you see by yourself who's better...

Budget Dual Core showdown (Pentium D 805 vs X2 3800)

I'm a little surprised the X2@2.5 beat the 805@3.8 on so many benchmarks, including everything that wasn't related to PCMark. Definitely better bang/buck on the X2

But as far as prices are concerned ... Intel nice work :D 

But still AMD rocks 8)


Wow! Thank you so much for supporting my arguement. I now see that the pentium D 805 not only costs less than 1/2 the price of an entry level x2, it also can be semi competitive with one! That's great! Bang/buck crown goes to the PD 805.

In fact, the price of the 805 is the same as an A64 3000 for 939, that's why I compared the two, because that's what you do.....compare two processors based on their price. Now show me a benchmark series that shows the A64 3000 outperforming the 805, dumba$$. :roll:
I don't know of any benchmarks out there but there is most likely that an OCed 3000+ would beat an OCed P D 805 in many games. Other than that I think the P D would win...

And when it comes to energy efficency and cooling the AMD will absolutely win. In some cases you can't really use an OCed P D 805 since it emits too much heat. (like building a ultra silent HTPC in some very slim cases)
March 20, 2006 6:11:13 AM

Quote:
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 


Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

I was complimenting "AMD" .. Well its a company right?

Let me be more specific! AMD Athlon 3600+ is far better than its counterpart Intel p4 3GHz or 3.4 Ghz .. Practically ... U get more performance at less price!

Thats what everybody wants !

8)
There's no such thing as an "AMD Athlon 3600+" you fcuking retard. Unless you actually have a question to ask, please beat your face in with a 2 by 4. We have established the fact that Netburst was a failure on every level one hundred and fifty two thousand sixty eight times on Tomshardware forums. GET OVER IT. Also, Intel actually is superior per clock if you look at the Intel P'M series which the Conroe will be based upon. So, sorry to break your fanboyism, but even if Conroe is an absolute failure it will still be far more efficient per clock speed and run at lower voltage than your beloved AMD's...
March 20, 2006 7:17:42 AM

While I agree with you that currently AMD makes better processors (desktop n server), I have to disagree with you on that point. More than the age/generation of a processor, one should compare similarly priced processors. The main factor being value.
March 20, 2006 8:31:17 AM

ya ..wellcome first.....mind what you are saying there are only gurus in here...........unless you got same real tech stuff to discuss get back to work..
well that`s it......now lets get back to work
:lol: 
March 20, 2006 8:39:43 AM

Does a 110K salary make you a looser????? Cuz I feel like a big loser......
March 20, 2006 9:42:37 AM

Quote:
Wow! Thank you so much for supporting my arguement. I now see that the pentium D 805 not only costs less than 1/2 the price of an entry level x2, it also can be semi competitive with one! That's great! Bang/buck crown goes to the PD 805.

In fact, the price of the 805 is the same as an A64 3000 for 939, that's why I compared the two, because that's what you do.....compare two processors based on their price. Now show me a benchmark series that shows the A64 3000 outperforming the 805, dumba$$. :roll:

PentiumD 805 is a few dollars more expencive than the Athlon64 3200+ s939.
I say: Athlon64 3200+ is better for now. Why?
Synthetic benchmarks are practicaly useless. Different benchmark utils are scoring different the same hardware. They are optimized for some and unoptimized for other.
Only few apps have benefit and are optimized and compiled for parallel processing. The performance of most of the apps depends on the performance of one core.
The Athlon64 3200+ is overperforming the PentiumD 805 in allmost all single-threaded apps, and allmost all of the available apps today are single-threaded.
March 20, 2006 10:40:53 AM

Time has proven that over and over, and still no one gets it !!!!!!!
BRAVO, BRAVO !!!!!!!!!
March 20, 2006 10:59:59 AM

Err... I dont wanna interupt your party but who ran for the first GHz processor and needed phase change cooling in order not to catch fire?
March 20, 2006 11:21:26 AM

Both companies make great products. (Except Prescott)
This business is a leap frog business just like nvidia and ati.
Just keep in mind that AMD will skip ddr2 and jump right to ddr3.
March 20, 2006 11:23:43 AM

who cares... get a processor build a computer and love your neighbor

I have owed both they both work great... if you want to argue over 10 FPS knock yourself out.
March 20, 2006 11:45:44 AM

[/quote]
There's no such thing as an "AMD Athlon 3600+" you fcuking retard. Unless you actually have a question to ask, please beat your face in with a 2 by 4. We have established the fact that Netburst was a failure on every level one hundred and fifty two thousand sixty eight times on Tomshardware forums. GET OVER IT. Also, Intel actually is superior per clock if you look at the Intel P'M series which the Conroe will be based upon. So, sorry to break your fanboyism, but even if Conroe is an absolute failure it will still be far more efficient per clock speed and run at lower voltage than your beloved AMD's...[/quote]

"AMD Athlon 3600+" There's no such thing I know ... You gotta say something or the other when you dont have anything to say.. he he :lol:  Athlon 64 3600+..

Wow! Tell you something seriously ... I am really new into this forums you know ...

I started a topic U know what? That was very lame one ...

But I knew something that I WOULD LEARN A LOT .. and I think I have learned something or the other .. Thanks TOMSHARDWARE! You are the BEST!
:arrow:
Back to the topic

Pentium D 805 is a dual core CPU.. and Athlon 64 3600+ is a single core!

Y do u compare this two? Compare athlon X2 and Pentium D 820 .. both dual core .. X2 is better its costly.. those who want performance can go for that and wanna go for price D 820 ..

but if u want real cheap one's go for sempron/celeron level..

Actually i live in India .. and here r the price list for different processors


2600 SEMPRON (socket A) 3000
2500 SEMPRON 754pin 2650
2600 SEMPRON 754pin 2950
2800 (64bit) 754pin 4990
3000 (64bit) 754pin 5200
3200 (64bit) 754pin 7800
3000 (64bit) 939pin 6050
3200 (64bit) 939pin 7700
3500 (64bit) 939pin 10500
3800 (64bit) 939pin (A.O) 16400

Celeron 2.13Ghz/478/533/256kb/310 2450
Celeron 2.53Ghz/478/533/256kb/325 3120
Celeron 2.53Ghz(LGA 775) 3425

2.4 Ghz/478/533FSB/1MB 5000
3.0 HT Ghz/478/800FSB/1MB( A.O ) 7950
2.66 Ghz (LGA 775)533/1MB/506 4620
2.8 Ghz (LGA 775) 5000
3.0 Ghz(LGA 775)800/ 2MB/630 7950
3.2 Ghz (LGA 775)800/2MB/640 (A.O) 10800
3.4 Ghz (LGA 775)800/2MB/650 (A.O) 16100
3.6 Ghz (LGA 775)800/2MB/660 (A.O) 21300

INTEL P( D )CPU DUALCORE (3YW)
2.8 Ghz (LGA 775)/800/1X2/820(A.O) 12700
3.0 Ghz (LGA 775)/800/1X2/830 (A.O) 16100

AMD DUAL CORE CPU
3800 X2 DUAL CORE 23000
4200 X2 DUAL CORE 26500


Conreo is not yet out .. so its useless to talk about it..

and btw gOJDO has given relpy to joefriday abt comparing 805 n Athlon64 3200+ :wink:
March 20, 2006 8:26:00 PM

The price for a new, retail boxed pentium D 805 was $130 shipped the day I wrote that post, according to Anandtech's real time price guide. Please point me to the retail boxed A64 3200+ being advertised for less than $130 shipped, so that I may buy one and then sell it one ebay for twenty dollars more. :roll:

EDIT: That's what I thought.
March 21, 2006 11:19:04 AM

Quote:
The price for a new, retail boxed pentium D 805 was $130 shipped the day I wrote that post, according to Anandtech's real time price guide. Please point me to the retail boxed A64 3200+ being advertised for less than $130 shipped, so that I may buy one and then sell it one ebay for twenty dollars more. :roll:

EDIT: That's what I thought.

Here(Macedonia) I can buy Pentium D 805 for $155 and Athlon 3200+ s939 (Venice) for $152.
April 30, 2006 6:09:52 PM

Here we fu<kin go again
April 30, 2006 6:29:29 PM

Quote:
Just keep in mind that AMD will skip ddr2 and jump right to ddr3.
What crappy sites have you been reading from? :lol: 
April 30, 2006 6:41:26 PM

You fanboys can do whatever you want. Keep arguing for all I care. Conroe is a way off, so don't even worry about it. Quit whining, it will get you nowhere.

I'm eyeing parts for my build this summer, and for right now, I'm looking at AMD and nForce4 SLI. Motherboard and Chipset selection favors AMD right now, and your chipset, motherboard, and video card have a greater impact on your gaming experience than the proecssor. This summer is a pretty bad time to upgrade, because I'll build just before AM2 and Vista/Halo 2 come out, and Conroe is too far off for me to sit with an LGA755 motherboard and a NetBurst P4 I don't like in my computer. Intel's current architecture is very inefficient, and I don't want to spend money on an aftermarket cooler to replace the awful one Intel ships.
April 30, 2006 6:46:52 PM

There really is a very simple answer to this question. Right now Intel is suffering from loss of market share to AMD for various reasons. Added to this is Intel has not seen the profits from expansion into other areas expected. This is not very surprising since Intel is the 900lb gorilla in micro-processors and expected similar market dominance in other technology areas such as communications ICs.

On the flip side AMD has remained focussed on the micro-processor business specifically breaking into the industrial/commercial side where Intel was dominant for many years by playing on the fears of IT managers that AMD was a "flash in the pan" that might not survive to support an infrastructure based on AMD products. AMD have crossed the threshold of survival to become a real competitor if not an equal.

So what does this mean?

At this point investors are driving up AMD's stock at the same time pulling back from the former bastion of strength that was Intel.

So right now AMD is better, for investors

I expect this will change dramatically once Intel divests itself of poor performing divisions and focusses on the high profit areas it has traditionally performed best at.

At that point Intel stock will recover and Intel will be better, for investors.

And if you guys would stop arguing MIPS, MHz and Gflops to the n'th percentile and pay attention to, and invest in, this sort of thing you could buy any system you want instead of looking like a bunch of starfleet uniform wearing geeks arguing over who was the better captain.

Dan
"hitting a hornet's nest with a stick"
April 30, 2006 7:18:00 PM

The conroe will take intel out of this slump, its superior on all levels then the X2's and A64 archetecture in general. Heres some non IDF benchmarks proving so.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97...

Also take notice how close the PCMark 2005 synthetic benchmarks are between the AMD systems in this forum and at IDF, synthetic benchmarks cannot be fooled unless you tamper with the systems but they couldnt have tampered with the machines considering the following.
Forum Benchmark of 2.66 ghz X2
Pcmark 2005: 5240
Score Per MHZ= 1.96

Idf Benchmark of FX 60 @ 2.8 ghz
PCmark 2005: 5552
Score Per MHZ= 1.98

Considering that these two processors are extremly similar there is very little room to disprove this. See anything similar between the two ?

Forum Benchmark of 2.668 ghz Conroe
Pcmark 2005: 6761
Score Per MHZ= 2.53


IDF Benchmark of 2.66 ghz Conroe
Pcmark 2005: 6751
Score per MHZ= 2.53

Again see any similarities ? the shear fact of the matter here is that Intel didnt cheat on any of the GDC or IDF benchmarks, and they are indeed going to take back the performance crown with a vengence.
April 30, 2006 8:10:39 PM

Quote:
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :) 


Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...

Agreed. Conroe isnt out for 6 months and AMD should have better things on AM2 by then...noob fanboy lol. thats funny because that's what i was thinking of apache, betting on something not even benchmarked (by someone other than intel). Buddy, conroe isnt out for half a year. How about we stay in the now? Currently P4 is poop, and AMD is a lot better because theirs give superior price/performance. Conroe might just top A64 but my prediction is not by much. Then the A64 65nms come out and pawn the conroes.
I'm probably going to get called a noob fanboy for this. And I know I contradict myself when I say "lets stay in the now" so meh.
Do you smoke crack? Conroe comes out in July. Now, if my scientific calculations are correct, that's approximately 2 months.
Oh, and when AM2 comes out in June...guess what it has new? Hey, it has DDR2 so dumb ass newb fanboys can buy it just because it's the new AMD processor on the block. Conroe will blow it away because it offers nothing new but DDR2.
Oh, and about 65nm AM2 chips, when those relese in 07, Intel unveils 45nm.
And just to top this off, Intel currently offers much more bang for the buck. AMD dual cores are very expensive, and a competitively performing Intel chip is almost always cheaper.
April 30, 2006 8:11:57 PM

Quote:
And the Pentium D 805 kicks the crap out of the Athlon 64 3000. What's your point?


Here you see by yourself who's better...

Budget Dual Core showdown (Pentium D 805 vs X2 3800)

I'm a little surprised the X2@2.5 beat the 805@3.8 on so many benchmarks, including everything that wasn't related to PCMark. Definitely better bang/buck on the X2

But as far as prices are concerned ... Intel nice work :D 

But still AMD rocks 8)
Too bad the X2 is two and half times more expensive than the 805. Nice try though.
April 30, 2006 8:13:44 PM

Quote:
Conroe gonna put the smack down on FX-60 just like Willamette did to Athlon

I agree with statement #1, but I'm sorry but I would take any Athlon over a f#$%^ing Williamette. I have another computer with a Williamette.
It did PI 1M in 1:45........
April 30, 2006 8:17:03 PM

Quote:

Just keep in mind that AMD will skip ddr2 and jump right to ddr3.

Uhhh? Hhahah, funny joke...right?
April 30, 2006 8:21:45 PM

I have said that the conroe is going to put amd in its place since it was announced, and its going to in july. Im just making a guess that most amd fans will convert to intel fans. Because intel will have price,performance, and power. The conroe is simply going to wrestle down amd and show them who is the boss of the microprocessor wring.
April 30, 2006 8:24:34 PM

Just out of curiosity, people are aware that Conroe is the core of a chip, and AM2 is a socket type and a platform, right? Stop comparing a core to a socket!

Speaking of which, does anyone even know what the new cores for AM2 chips will be? I haven't heard much in the way of that.
!