Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pentium EE Squeezes 3.73 GHz Out of NetBurst

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 22, 2006 2:08:37 PM

Intel has been talking up its next-generation desktop processor Conroe since IDF. But while we wait for the CPU's much-anticipated launch, Intel today introduces its latest Pentium Extreme Edition processor featuring NetBurst and a 3.73 GHz clock speed. We see if and how the Extreme Edition 965 can take the performance crown away from the Athlon 64 FX-60.
March 22, 2006 2:15:47 PM

Web page can not be opened.
March 22, 2006 2:54:39 PM

Looks good, but still too expensive....It's catching up, put now enough....I would NEVER get a FX series of EE series....Waste of money....$1000 for a new computer can get respectable results too
Related resources
March 22, 2006 3:06:41 PM

A decent performance but heh still beaten by FX. Still, it's quite a competitive product and it beats most of the AMD CPUs so all it needs are some price cuts.
With Conroe out in the future or Opterons available now not many are willing to pay this kind of money.
Still,good proc.. 10+ for the review.
March 22, 2006 5:48:05 PM

Quote:
beats most of the AMD CPUs


Yea...and those AMD CPU's it beats, beat almost ALL other INTEL CPU's...hmm..how 'bout them apples? Make applesauce -.-.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 22, 2006 7:39:42 PM

Its hard to believe how biased that article is.
March 22, 2006 8:54:19 PM

That screen shot is very possible, I have also done 6.2Ghz + in windows as well and that is not one of my screenies. That board must have 8 phase power to be at such a low vcore. I need more like 1.65v with four phase power.

I will have to check those boards out if they can do that kind of bus speed. That thing should have sick memory bandwidth at 442Mhz if the memory controller can handle 1:1 at that speed.
March 22, 2006 9:11:51 PM

Instead of just making arbitrary statements, why do you actually try pointing out the supposed "bias" in the article for a change?

I dare you.
March 22, 2006 9:17:06 PM

im not going to say its bias, but the fact that they oc'd the fx60 to 3.0ghz and the 3.73 to 4.2 i think it was just kinda angered me. the fx60 they must have changed voltages and used a more powerful cooling solution than the one provided by amd, and for the intel one they wouldnt even raise voltages. the thing is 99% of hte people who buy EE or FX oc these things to the max, and toms IMO didnt come close to the max of the p4 EE. its not really bias because tehre meant to be compared at stock speeds, but if toms is going to go all out when overclocking the amd, i think they should do the same when ocing the p4... they may be making another topic about this later, but itd be nice if it was in this one... i hear the new 65nm cores can hit 6.0 ghz with 1.7v... once again, im not trying to prove toms is biased or not, since overclocking doesnt matter when comparing stock speeds (which is what cpu's are compared at :wink: ) but id like to see how fast they got it until it wouldnt post... sigh, a man can dream :roll:
March 22, 2006 9:21:02 PM

Quote:
im not going to say its bias, but the fact that they oc'd the fx60 to 3.0ghz and the 3.73 to 4.2 i think it was just kinda angered me. the fx60 they must have changed voltages and used a more powerful cooling solution than the one provided by amd, and for the intel one they wouldnt even raise voltages. the thing is 99% of hte people who buy EE or FX oc these things to the max, and toms IMO didnt come close to the max of the p4 EE. its not really bias because tehre meant to be compared at stock speeds, but if toms is going to go all out when overclocking the amd, i think they should do the same when ocing the p4... they may be making another topic about this later, but itd be nice if it was in this one... i hear the new 65nm cores can hit 6.0 ghz with 1.7v... once again, im not trying to prove toms is biased or not, since overclocking doesnt matter when comparing stock speeds (which is what cpu's are compared at :wink: ) but id like to see how fast they got it until it wouldnt post... sigh, a man can dream :roll:


OC AMD to the max? You're saying 3Ghz is a MAX OC for an AMD? Paleeeeease, you must be higher on caffeine than I am..

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 22, 2006 9:47:09 PM

I wish I could hit 2.8GHz stable with my Opteron 175 on water. :( 
March 22, 2006 9:48:29 PM

Quote:
I wish I could hit 2.8GHz stable with my Opteron 175 on water. :( 


End-User idiocy does not apply.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 22, 2006 10:16:28 PM

I'm not going to speak about performance since it isn't particularly impressive, but since you always make fun of my TDP talk I couldn't help but point out that there are noticable improvements afterall.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/22/pentium_extreme_...
Certainly, the 965EE is the lowest or almost the lowest power consuming processor in Intel's desktop line-up which is amazing considering it is the top-end model. The 965EE actually isn't that far from AMD's power levels anymore.

Anandtech also had a direct comparison against the FX60.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=272...

Seeing the proximity of the 965EE, it's quite likely that when the rest of the C-1 9xx processors come out they'll actually be competitive power-wise with AMD's processors. Combined with price cuts they do look quite attractive. Of course, AM2 won't be far behind. Well, enough of the TDP talk.
March 22, 2006 10:19:03 PM

Quote:
I'm not going to speak about performance since it isn't particularly impressive, but since you always make fun of my TDP talk I couldn't help but point out that there are noticable improvements afterall.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/22/pentium_extreme_...
Certainly, the 965EE is the lowest or almost the lowest power consuming processor in Intel's desktop line-up which is amazing considering it is the top-end model. The 965EE actually isn't that far from AMD's power levels anymore.

Anandtech also had a direct comparison against the FX60.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=272...

Seeing the proximity of the 965EE, it's quite likely that when the rest of the C-1 9xx processors come out they'll actually be competitive power-wise with AMD's processors. Combined with price cuts they do look quite attractive. Of course, AM2 won't be far behind. Well, enough of the TDP talk.


I make fun of TDP because it's pointless in a desktop CPU. Yes, TDP in a mobile platform is extremely important, but in a desktop CPU, you don't buy these high-performance chips because you care about heat or thermal requirements. The same goes for Servers, where Performance takes a backseat to Power, but also vice versa.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 22, 2006 10:27:50 PM

Thats an odd attitude.
March 22, 2006 10:30:28 PM

Quote:
Thats an odd attitude.


You're talking to the guy who runs 2 PSU's and thinking of running a 3rd, power != my concern.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 22, 2006 10:32:05 PM

Makes sense. :lol: 
March 22, 2006 10:56:08 PM

Quote:
I wish I could hit 2.8GHz stable with my Opteron 175 on water. :( 


End-User idiocy does not apply.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

LMAO! Sad but true... :cry: 
March 23, 2006 2:06:09 AM

i believe the max for an amd on 90nm is what 3.2 with liquid nitrogen... it could be 3.4 if u get a really really good chip. but 3.0 is pretty much pushing amd to the limtis, the 65nm pentium didnt even get an upped voltage, it seems like an unfair comparison IMO
March 23, 2006 2:16:37 AM

Quote:
i believe the max for an amd on 90nm is what 3.2 with liquid nitrogen... it could be 3.4 if u get a really really good chip. but 3.0 is pretty much pushing amd to the limtis, the 65nm pentium didnt even get an upped voltage, it seems like an unfair comparison IMO


As I already said, an FX-55 ClawHammer 130nm was @ 4Ghz w/ phase change.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 23, 2006 2:37:35 AM

an fx55 is totally different than an fx60... ok maybe i was mistaken saying amd's max is under 3.5 ghz, but what i meant was the fx60's max is under 3.5ghz, the highest ive heard is 3.4 and it wasnt stable, they only managed to get cpu-z and ss it... whereas the 3.73 they barely overclocked, without even raising the voltages, the amd they had to raise voltages to get 400mhz out of the fx60... im not trying to argue because this is retarded, im stating my opinion theres no need for u to try and prove me wrong. id like to see how far they can oc the 3.73 EE and how it performs to an fx60.
March 23, 2006 2:50:21 AM

unstable. That was a heater. Didn't it catch on fire on Techtv when the fan fell off?
March 23, 2006 7:31:15 AM

AMD just continues to make a better all around product. They dont cut corners in the fundemental design. They use a higher quality process that allows them lower clock speeds, lower power consumption, cooler temprertures, and the intergrated memory controller is a superior solution. AMD continues to provide solid processors with more advanced technology while Intel continues relying on its long standing tradition of switching transistors as fast as possiable with little regard to efficency, all the while brilliantly marketing its complicated product lineup to a generally clueless consumer. Even those who are diehard Intel fans can thank AMD for keeping Intel in line. If there were no competition all of us up north would all be heating our homes with our computers.
March 23, 2006 7:50:05 AM

Quote:
They use a higher quality process that allows them lower clock speeds,


Hmm.
March 23, 2006 8:22:52 AM

Quote:
AMD just continues to make a better all around product. They dont cut corners in the fundemental design. They use a higher quality process that allows them lower clock speeds, lower power consumption, cooler temprertures, and the intergrated memory controller is a superior solution. AMD continues to provide solid processors with more advanced technology while Intel continues relying on its long standing tradition of switching transistors as fast as possiable with little regard to efficency, all the while brilliantly marketing its complicated product lineup to a generally clueless consumer. Even those who are diehard Intel fans can thank AMD for keeping Intel in line. If there were no competition all of us up north would all be heating our homes with our computers.

I think all you said is wrong!
1. Intel always used higher quality process before AMD.
The x86 architecture was made by Intel, implemented on their 8086 chips on the 3000nm in 1978, 4 years latter AMD had the copy of that on the same manifacturing process.
80186 made by Intel in 1980 on 1500nm, AMD did in 1982 on 3000nm.
The same year were introduced 80286 form both Intel and AMD on the same manifacturing process.
80386DX introduced Intel in 1985 on 1500nm. 6 years latter(1991) AMD produced their first 386 on 800nm, when there was a 1000nm 80386 Intel variant available.
For the next generations, AMDs producing technology is keeping up with Intel and is only few months late. And that is how it is today, AMD are late with the 65nm process, like they were late with 90nm, 130nm and etc.
2. AMD had a lot of troubles dealing with heat. Lets back on the K5, K6, K6-II, K6-III and the first releases of K7. K5 and K6(K6-II and K6-III also) were producing more heat and were giving less performance compared to the Pentium, Pentium-MMX, PentiumPro, P2 and P3. The K7 also was producing more heat, but was giving more performance on the same clock than its concurent P3. The 90nm K8 definitly are more perfromance/power effective than the 90nm P4 for the desktop and server solutions. Anyway Intel had the lead on the mobile area and they have more effective performance/power chips today thanks to the 65nm.
3. AMD never had more advanced technology than Intel(this one was funny). They were always trying to keep up with Intel, until Athlons came, but most of their implemented technologies, instructon sets and trends are made by others(most of them are from Intel, starting with its architecture x86). They are not continuing to produce power effective chips any more. The FX-62 will consume 125W, very close to 130W of the 90nm PentiumEE series. Chechk out the Yonah and the future Intel Core architecture chips power consumation.
4. I would say, AMD fans should thank Intel for keeping AMD in line(Intel was always better for everything than AMD before AMD introduced the K7). We should all be thankfull to both AMD and Intel for producing "new" competetive chips and lowering the prices of the "old" we are using.
March 23, 2006 9:28:49 AM

Quote:
Its hard to believe how biased that article is.

Then why do you bother coming here? If you think THG is biased leave and read some other damm site.

And how about you back up your claims with some facts rather then just make sweeping comments with know substance?
March 23, 2006 10:59:16 AM

Quote:
I wish I could hit 2.8GHz stable with my Opteron 175 on water. :( 


My venice gets real tempermental at anything over 2805mhz. I have tried 2860 in the past and I got to winodows and it froze when F@H booted up, but that was at leat a month ago I last tried, it might be time to try again.
March 23, 2006 11:07:17 AM

Lol, They Popped another Turd from the Netburst hole. Lol How come Toms Overclocked a Pentium to a 5Ghz but never attempted to see how far they could push a FX-57 or a Opteron Model 154. Yeah that would be cool. Liquid Nitrogen Cool! lol
March 23, 2006 11:41:46 AM

Quote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/22/pentium_extreme_edition_965/page18.html

Back to the new Pentium EE, I found it odd, that with it's new optimizations, it got beeten by a P. D950 on the mutitasking benchmarks.
What do you all think...


Presents an interesting point. It was beat by a 940 and 950, kinda sad that for $1000 you can get beat by a $500 chip (idk exact prices but the point is). Personaly I have always felt the flagship chips to be a rip off both Intel and AMD alike. They seem to be bred for a faceoff against their rival. Oh well, just my 2 cents about the EE/FX series in general
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2006 11:44:52 AM

Quote:
Its hard to believe how biased that article is.


Quote:
The Pentium Extreme Edition 965 does its job by keeping Intel in the news and by bridging the time until the first Conroe-based Core Duo E6000 (or E8000 Extreme Edition) processors become available. But at the end of the day, it is just another NetBurst processor that is inferior compared to the dual-core Athlons.


Don't understand how you say that statement is bias...given the benchies and the context of the article, seems pretty conclusive to me...can we say fan-boy?

Quote:
They use a higher quality process that allows them lower clock speeds, lower power consumption, cooler temprertures, and the intergrated memory controller is a superior solution...while Intel continues relying on its long standing tradition of switching transistors as fast as possiable with little regard to efficency, all the while brilliantly marketing its complicated product lineup to a generally clueless consumer. Even those who are diehard Intel fans can thank AMD for keeping Intel in line.


I have to agree with this statement. AMD has proven themselves to be the better competitor as seen by the benchies, core architecture, and recent history. Intel suffers from the "throw more money at it and it will be better" syndrome relying on corporate sponsorship (i.e.; Dell, Gateway) to sell processors.
March 23, 2006 2:48:17 PM

I don't know what they used for cooling on the AMD processor. I do know by reading the article (page 22)

"The clock speed limit can be reached without requiring higher core voltage. Or in other words: Raising the core voltage did not result in better overclocking results."
March 23, 2006 3:01:23 PM

As requested an article on OC FX60 go here
March 23, 2006 3:10:48 PM

3.6 GHZ on phase isn't all that impressive and AMDzone did the OCing. At least they could've shown results of the stability test to gain some credibility.
March 23, 2006 4:33:17 PM

For your info. Monopoly law is what allowed AMD to use Intel technology. Yes, AMD took the x86 and made it better. Now, Intel is coming out with better design. You ready for the changes?
March 23, 2006 5:35:10 PM

Quote:
For your info. Monopoly law is what allowed AMD to use Intel technology. Yes, AMD took the x86 and made it better. Now, Intel is coming out with better design. You ready for the changes?



And why do you think the majority of our electronics come from Asia?They took American inventions such as the TV and made it better.
March 23, 2006 10:15:12 PM

Now with the launch of the 965EE and the announcement of DDR2 1066 memory at CeBit I was wondering if THG could get their hands on some samples and test them.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display/cebi...

OCZ announced 1GB modules running at 1000MHz with 4-5-4 timings which could probably get up to 1066MHz by loosening the timings. Their actual 1066MHz model seems to be worse requiring 5-6-6 timings and only available in 512MB sizes. Their 1100MHz modules are particularly impressive and are supposed to be available in 1GB sizes at 5-6-6 timings.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display/cebi...

What I'm most interested in are the 1GB modules from Corsair which should run at 1066MHz with decent 5-5-5-15 timings. The extra bandwidth and synchronous operation may increase the performance of the 965EE, but it'd be most beneficial to pave the way for DDR2 1066 operation with Conroe and possibly AM2.
March 23, 2006 10:23:24 PM

That's all good in theory LT, but you're forgetting 1 integral part...the FSB Bandwidth. @ 1066Mhz FSB, it's 8.1GB/s Bandwidth, and DDR2-1066 is 8GB/s Single Channel (16GB/s Dual Channel). So, unless you overclock the mad hell out of that FSB, you're wasting $ on that RAM. Yea, you won't get all that, but damn near it if it's decent RAM, because the efficiency should be at least 80% and that's about 12.8GB/s. So I don't sound like a raging idiot, I did read a little article (I can find it if someone wishes to see) where AnandIntel, er, Tech, did a test of 1066MHz FSB vs. 800MHz FSB using DDR2-667 RAM. DDR2-667 is T-Band: 12.8GB/s, and about 10GB/s or so real. I remember seeing they said that 1066MHz FSB added about 2% more performance to the CPU they used (I believe it was a 9xx P-D, not 100% positive).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 23, 2006 10:31:37 PM

I'm aware the FSB will still be a bottleneck, but I was also hoping that having the RAM run at 1066MHz with the FSB would also provide a bit of a boost by reducing latencies by running in sync. Besides, I'm sure the rest of the system could appreciate the extra bandwidth as well, especially with dual PCIe x16 SLI, Crossfire, and the excessive Quad SLI. Looking at DDR2 ram potential wouldn't just be for Intel anyways since it'd be a point of interest for AM2 as well with it's possible support for DDR2 1066.
March 23, 2006 10:43:12 PM

Quote:
I'm aware the FSB will still be a bottleneck, but I was also hoping that having the RAM run at 1066MHz with the FSB would also provide a bit of a boost by reducing latencies by running in sync. Besides, I'm sure the rest of the system could appreciate the extra bandwidth as well, especially with dual PCIe x16 SLI, Crossfire, and the excessive Quad SLI. Looking at DDR2 ram potential wouldn't just be for Intel anyways since it'd be a point of interest for AM2 as well with it's possible support for DDR2 1066.


This is going to sound Fanboyish, but it's true: The only future platform for Desktop that is going to be able to take full advantage of DDR2 is AM2. Why? Because even @ 1333MHz, the FSB can't handle above DDR2-667, and DDR2-800/1066 is a waste. Whereas on an AM2, it handles as fast as the RAM can give it.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 23, 2006 10:49:50 PM

But handling it and using are two different things.
Does it appear AM2 is going to utilize more bandwidth then DDR2-667 offers?
March 23, 2006 10:54:33 PM

Quote:
But handling it and using are two different things.
Does it appear AM2 is going to utilize more bandwidth then DDR2-667 offers?


That really makes no sense, could you rephrase that in a manner that doesn't sound like you just read an article from AnandIntel, er, Tech :?.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 23, 2006 11:08:03 PM

As you say the theoretical potential of DDR2 1066 should be much more easily reached with AM2. However, that doesn't mean that a 1066MHz FSB doesn't benefit as well. A 1066MHz FSB should theoretically provide up to 8.53GB/s of bandwidth but with dual channel DDR2 533 it only achieves about 7GB/s when reading and less than 2GB/s when writing.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/27/in_search_of_tru...

When THG ran a 1066MHz FSB with DDR2 888 memory the read bandwidth increased by 110.7% or slightly under 8GB/s which is getting pretty close to peak performance. The marked improvement is in write speed which increased 140.2% to 2554MB/s. Latency was also improved by 116.8%. It may still be less than the theoretical and therefore inefficient, but those are still decent relative improvements which go to improve performance. Going from DDR2 888 to DDR2 1066 will probably lead to additional increases, maybe not in read since that's near theoretical already, but certainly to write and latency.

OMC's are supposed to be more efficient so AM2 will probably do even better, but we'll have to wait for the final revision with all the tweaks done.
March 23, 2006 11:29:45 PM

Quote:
As you say the theoretical potential of DDR2 1066 should be much more easily reached with AM2. However, that doesn't mean that a 1066MHz FSB doesn't benefit as well. A 1066MHz FSB should theoretically provide up to 8.53GB/s of bandwidth but with dual channel DDR2 533 it only achieves about 7GB/s when reading and less than 2GB/s when writing.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/27/in_search_of_tru...

When THG ran a 1066MHz FSB with DDR2 888 memory the read bandwidth increased by 110.7% or slightly under 8GB/s which is getting pretty close to peak performance. The marked improvement is in write speed which increased 140.2% to 2554MB/s. Latency was also improved by 116.8%. It may still be less than the theoretical and therefore inefficient, but those are still decent relative improvements which go to improve performance. Going from DDR2 888 to DDR2 1066 will probably lead to additional increases, maybe not in read since that's near theoretical already, but certainly to write and latency.

OMC's are supposed to be more efficient so AM2 will probably do even better, but we'll have to wait for the final revision with all the tweaks done.


Tru64, but we can look @ the real-world: What application are you going to run that will really need something like 12GB/s or more bandwidth? Obviously some people will, but an average user, and even a gamer, isn't going to benefit tremendously from 8GB/s to 14GB/s. I think what would be more beneficial, is letting standard boards have 8x DIMM's. This would mean they'd need Quad-Channel DDR2 or Multiple Memory Controllers (unless you want to buy 2GB Modules, eek), and therefore the new AMD sockets. I say have more RAM because if you can get 8GB/s from a standard system, for say, a heavy gamer, you would be able to install a game or 2 on a RAM Disk.

RAM Disks, as you probably know, let you use part of your Memory for a Hard Drive (I started a thread in "Memory" called "SuperFast RAM Disks", check it out if interested) and under x64, it gives you 2300MB/s Bandwidth. Just running 3DMARK05, I gained 10% performance over a standard hard drive, and the load times were ridiculous. I think that websites should run 3D Benchmarks on games installed to RAM Disks, obviously this won't be possible with all games unless you use insane amounts of RAM, but I think that lets you get enough information fed into RAM fast enough to test the Video Cards truly, rather than how fast your Hard Drive is used in the test.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 23, 2006 11:46:56 PM

Yeah, I just read GamePC's review of the Gigabyte I-RAM two days ago. A random access time of 0.1ms is crazy. Too bad it's too small to decently put the OS on it, but it's more than sufficient for a few games. I wished they'd switch to SATA II since the older interface they use is an obvious bottleneck. The 300MB/s isn't quite the 8GB/s direct from system memory or 2300MB/s real bandwidth that you're talking about of course.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=iram&pag...
March 24, 2006 12:00:25 AM

Quote:
Yeah, I just read GamePC's review of the Gigabyte I-RAM two days ago. A random access time of 0.1ms is crazy. Too bad it's too small to decently put the OS on it, but it's more than sufficient for a few games. I wished they'd switch to SATA II since the older interface they use is an obvious bottleneck. The 300MB/s isn't quite the 8GB/s direct from system memory or 2300MB/s real bandwidth that you're talking about of course.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=iram&pag...


Yea, I was thinking of buying an iRAM, but the performance/cost isn't enough and it brings up a 2nd problem: Southbridge => Northbridge bandwidth. If you RAID, say, a couple of those and get 1GB/s Bandwidth, and there's only 1.2GB/s Bandwidth from Southbridge => Northbridge, you won't be able to use PCI or other devices to their full extent if used at the same time, same goes with having NIC's and other PCI ( I know the device sits in a PCI and uses SATA, but every southbridge component is still constricted to 1.2GB/s 200MHz from Southbridge => Northbridge).

Using the Setup I did, with the program "SuperSpeed RAM Disk", I can utilize full 2.3GB/s or above (Best I have seen is 4.5GB/s under x64 Linux using Dual AMD Opteron 64's) but there is a downside, using that program, you can't RAID them under Windows, which sucks, and you can't install an OS to them, plus the fact they lose all information when you reboot. The best setup about using that program, and I would surmise you can do this w/ iRAM as well, is creating Network Disk Clusters. For example, you could have 10 servers connected w/ each 1GB RAMDisk, using 1GbE or 10GbE (the latter being actually NEEDED now, lol) and have a Linearly scaled 10GB Disk used for server functions, which is friggin' awesome.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 24, 2006 2:04:37 AM

Quote:

I have to agree with this statement. AMD has proven themselves to be the better competitor as seen by the benchies, core architecture, and recent history. Intel suffers from the "throw more money at it and it will be better" syndrome relying on corporate sponsorship (i.e.; Dell, Gateway) to sell processors.


Is it their fault if a company that stands behind their products chose intel?

Do any of you deal with consumers w/ AMD PC's on a regular basis. I do, and 80% of the machines in my shop with hardware problems are AMD boxes. And to think, people give me weird looks when they ask for a AMD machine and I tell them we cant build it because we stand behind our products.

Is it intels fault that everytime they make a new technology, amd copies it?.. seriously now.. mmx? 3dnow? original. slot 1? slot a? yeah. great. LGA w/ ddr2... and now whats AMG doing? yep. same thing. AMD Is always a step behind, and they rely on BIASED places like this to make them look good.

And the review?

YES BIASED.

The last three paragraphs of the review exlpain it all too well...

***
....comes even closer to catching up to AMD devices

.... but it does not outperform the Athlon 64 FX-60, even at 3.73 GHz.

.... it is just another NetBurst processor that is inferior compared to the dual-core Athlons.
***


How many times can you say the same thing over and show how biased you are towards AMD? Every last paragraph has a hint at how they have the "amd rules" stuck in their head.



What you all need to do is agree every company has their Niche.

AMD is for people that dont want to fit the crowd, call them the "EMO PC"

Intel is for people who want reliability, who depend on their PC's to make money.

No matter which company you go with, $ for $ they are about equal performance. A $300 Intel CPU is right on par with a $300 AMD Cpu.

its really a matter if youre EMO or not depends on which you buy.

Cry cry cry.
March 24, 2006 2:16:02 AM

Another fanboy who found these forums and decided to post...*sigh*, I wish I wasn't sick... :cry: 

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
!