Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

YONAH CROSSFIRE VS ATHLON X2 CROSSFIRE

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 22, 2006 12:31:16 AM

As you guys can see in the link, yonah gets it deep in the @ss by X2 in 3D mark and gaming tests. :wink:
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/yonah-crossfire-3.htm
April 22, 2006 12:48:19 AM

The reason why the Crossfire results on Yonah were lower than the X2 was because although the i975 chipset itself supports Crossfire, it was never designed to support Yonah. Somewhere in the modification to support Yonah, the Crossfire support was effected.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

Here is a more complete review of Yonah that includes things other than just games.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

They specifically address the Crossfire issues.

Quote:
The motherboard does officially support ATI’s “Crossfire” multi-GPU technology, Just as many other Intel 975X are certified for this multi-GPU scenario as well. However, in practice, we were not able to set up a Radeon X1900 XT Crossfire configuration on this motherboard, as Windows would lock up any time the second card was added to the mix. We were able to get two individual graphics cards working on this motherboard, but there appears to be some sort of driver glitch preventing Crossfire operation at this time.

Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+.
April 22, 2006 12:52:18 AM

Quote:
The reason why the Crossfire results on Yonah were lower than the X2 was because although the i975 chipset itself supports Crossfire, it was never designed to support Yonah. Somewhere in the modification to support Yonah, the Crossfire support was effected.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

Here is a more complete review of Yonah that includes things other than just games.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

They specifically address the Crossfire issues.

The motherboard does officially support ATI’s “Crossfire” multi-GPU technology, Just as many other Intel 975X are certified for this multi-GPU scenario as well. However, in practice, we were not able to set up a Radeon X1900 XT Crossfire configuration on this motherboard, as Windows would lock up any time the second card was added to the mix. We were able to get two individual graphics cards working on this motherboard, but there appears to be some sort of driver glitch preventing Crossfire operation at this time.

Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+. Owned.
Related resources
April 22, 2006 1:27:15 AM

Quote:


Hey, rettihSlluB my fecal comrade -- I noted in prior discussions that you and 9-Inch seem to be the intellectual equivalents of Schroedinger and de Broglie (two of the fathers of mondern physics).

I was wondering if you could help me get past a quandary....

I do not completely understand the concept salicides and their roles in reducing the Schottky barrier, could you explain for me and the rest of the forum readers?

I am sure we all could use a lesson from you in this regard....it could be very educational..... with utmost urgency I request the grace of your attention to give this matter an appropriate review so that we may all be blessed by your extremely accute intellectual powers.

Yours truly,
Jack.


Dude you are a riot! Can't stop laughing!
April 22, 2006 1:31:29 AM

Quote:
Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+.


I suggest you read the benchmarks again. Anyhow, I'll do it for you:

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->1
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->2
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Let's call this one a tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->3

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->4

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->6
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->7
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->8
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->9
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Conclusion:
X2-4400--->9
core duo--->5
Tie--------->1

Now, who's the one that got owned?? 8)
April 22, 2006 1:32:48 AM

Probable response to all Jack's questions (now and future):

...."but... but... Professor... the inquirer does not have such info :roll: :roll: .... Can we switch to another subject please, please ...." :roll: :roll:

:) 

Chime
April 22, 2006 1:35:06 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+.


I suggest you read the benchmarks again. Anyhow, I'll do it for you:

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->1
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->2
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Let's call this one a tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->3

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->4

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->6
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->7
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->8
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->9
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Conclusion:
X2-4400--->9
core duo--->5
Tie--------->1

Now, who's the one that got owned??


Someone's @ss got owned. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
April 22, 2006 2:11:34 AM

I generally don't count the synthetics since they really don't mean much.

Secondly, you can't just say won or lost. If you go through the benchmarks you'll find that most of the cases that the 2.16GHz Yonah losses, it's by a small margin.

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.4%

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.7%

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 40.8%

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
core duo (2.16GHz) by 7.0%

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 3.8%

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
core duo (2.16GHz) by 8.1%

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5 by 5.8%

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
core duo (2.16GHz) by 27.0%

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
core duo (2.16GHz) by 19.5%

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
core duo (2.16GHz) by 27.2%

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 23.3%

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 20.9%

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.9%

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.6%

Performance differences less than 2% are usually considered a tie since they are within the margin of error and aren't relevent in the real world anyways. Including the synthetics the results are:

X2-4400--->5
core duo---> 5
Tie---------> 5

However, if you discount the synthetics, 2 of the ties disappear along with 1 of the X2 4400+'s wins. It should also be noted that the Half-Life 2 win by the X2 was only by 3.8%.

Based on the above:

X2-4400--->3
core duo---> 5
Tie---------> 4

Which with the greater than 5% improvement in real-world benchmarks constituting a win, makes crowning a winner (or at least a comparison) more definitive.
April 22, 2006 2:23:56 AM

The T2600 OC'ed to 2.9GHz really got my attention ! 8O

Good to see that the two architectures are "almost" equivalent clock for clock...
April 22, 2006 7:46:33 PM

Quote:
I generally don't count the synthetics since they really don't mean much.

Secondly, you can't just say won or lost. If you go through the benchmarks you'll find that most of the cases that the 2.16GHz Yonah losses, it's by a small margin.

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.4%

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.7%

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 40.8%

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
core duo (2.16GHz) by 7.0%

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 3.8%

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
core duo (2.16GHz) by 8.1%

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5 by 5.8%

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
core duo (2.16GHz) by 27.0%

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
core duo (2.16GHz) by 19.5%

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
core duo (2.16GHz) by 27.2%

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 23.3%

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 20.9%

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.9%

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.6%

Performance differences less than 2% are usually considered a tie since they are within the margin of error and aren't relevent in the real world anyways. Including the synthetics the results are:

X2-4400--->5
core duo---> 5
Tie---------> 5

However, if you discount the synthetics, 2 of the ties disappear along with 1 of the X2 4400+'s wins. It should also be noted that the Half-Life 2 win by the X2 was only by 3.8%.

Based on the above:

X2-4400--->3
core duo---> 5
Tie---------> 4

Which with the greater than 5% improvement in real-world benchmarks constituting a win, makes crowning a winner (or at least a comparison) more definitive.


So, are you finally admitting that core duo is no match to the X2-4400 with this post??

It seems kinda laughable to see that you guys praise conroe's superpi results (which is also a synthetic becnhmark) and still give no credit to the X2-4400. Even in the Apache benchmark (which is real world performance) the X2-4400 blow away the core duo.

Once more, thanks for proving me right. :wink:
April 22, 2006 7:56:25 PM

Lols Seems liek the Conroe and Yonah are the same thing as an AMD Athlon64 @ 2.4ghz just seems like Intel bought a load of X2s and put a different socket on the bottom and another sticker on top and called it the future King of the Computing, lols they seem to be too similar to tell weather if Intel just Copy and pasted a AMDx2 or what maybe a few Fsb here and there and a little copper or silver conductors here and there and you got a Conroe/ or Yonah.
April 22, 2006 8:09:53 PM

Quote:
As you guys can see in the link, yonah gets it deep in the @ss by X2 in 3D mark and gaming tests. :wink:
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/yonah-crossfire-3.htm
Bull$hitter(ya i'm still calling you bull$hitter) don't you think that it's oddly strange that some sites report yonah is beating x2 or x2 is beating yonah? I think that they're both even and sites that are loyal to intel or amd are spinning the truth to make people come to their side it's all about money!
April 22, 2006 9:12:08 PM

OK, Intel and AMD are equal. I, however, kick both their asses. ;) 
April 22, 2006 9:26:33 PM

haha....yonah architecture is almost same as conroe, which means we will see almost the same result here as well. conroe better than AMD by 20%?it is nothing much but a marketing strategy by intel. whihc is loosing its market share nowdays. and will continue to loose even conroe is out. cheers for AMD.
April 22, 2006 9:29:51 PM

Quote:
OK, Intel and AMD are equal. I, however, kick both their asses. ;) 
Exactly! Except for the kicking asses part can you take on intel security by yourself?
April 22, 2006 9:41:22 PM

Quote:
haha....yonah architecture is almost same as conroe, which means we will see almost the same result here as well. conroe better than AMD by 20%?it is nothing much but a marketing strategy by intel. whihc is loosing its market share nowdays. and will continue to loose even conroe is out. cheers for AMD.


Would you take the time and spell out the differences and similarities between Conroe and Yohna please. Many thanks, Jack It's yonah not yohna.
April 22, 2006 9:42:10 PM

Quote:
haha....yonah architecture is almost same as conroe, which means we will see almost the same result here as well. conroe better than AMD by 20%?it is nothing much but a marketing strategy by intel. whihc is loosing its market share nowdays. and will continue to loose even conroe is out. cheers for AMD.

Yeah conroe is the same as yonah...

Except Conroe is a 4 issue core while Yonah is 3 issue.

Except Conroe features micro and macro ops fusion while Yonah only has micro ops fusion.

Except Conroe has a full 128bit wide, one cycle for compleition SSE engine, while Yonah (and every other chip in existance fron Intel or AMD) lacks.

Except Conroe has ultra fine grained power control for all functional units across the entire surface of the die.

Except Conroe has a fully shared 4MB cache and low latency L1->L1 crossbar.

Yeah they are clearly the same and there is no reason Conroe will perform even better than the unbelievebly good Yonah, which performs the same or better than the X2 from AMD while using way way less power and overclocking much more reliably... cheers for AMD indeed.
April 22, 2006 9:53:58 PM

Why not compare apples to apples?
However, if you multiply Yonah´s scores by 3, you will get the comparison of performance/watt which actually matters more than other values you might find.
April 22, 2006 10:12:36 PM

And Yonah is 32-bit only, and Conroe will have 64-bit extensions...
April 22, 2006 10:17:03 PM

Aaaaaaaannnnnnddddddd.....


Yonah is a NOTEBOOK CPU, which is designed for lower power and resulting in of course lower performance than an equivalent desktop processor...

Sooooooooo, in light of Yonah that competes aggressively with AMD's heaviest hitting DESKTOP CPU, that paints Intel in a good shade, while tossing AMD's architecture on the curbside recycling bin...
April 22, 2006 11:26:42 PM

Quote:
Memory disambiuation

Oh fock. Start learning spelling, dumparse.
You had me cornered whit that "disambiuation" so bad I had go to my dictionary.
If you want to use fancy pansy words, at least spell them right.
April 22, 2006 11:58:27 PM

Fancy-pansy.
April 23, 2006 12:17:33 AM

You take it as you like, but it was meant to be an insult.
Did I spell it wrong?
April 23, 2006 2:19:19 AM

@ rettihSlluB and 9-inch:

both chips are very much the same in performance. the X2 is faster overall, but not by much at all. no chip took it in the "@ss".

I must bring up though:

core duo being a mobile chip that; with a somewhat modest 667mhz fsb, no on-die memory controller and with a _considerably_ lower power consumption than the X2 both at idle and full load, is still able to perform almost identically with the athlon chip. this is what's impressive about the core duo imo.
April 23, 2006 2:23:53 AM

oh and..

April 23, 2006 3:04:40 AM

Quote:
Aaaaaaaannnnnnddddddd.....


Yonah is a NOTEBOOK CPU, which is designed for lower power and resulting in of course lower performance than an equivalent desktop processor...

Sooooooooo, in light of Yonah that competes aggressively with AMD's heaviest hitting DESKTOP CPU, that paints Intel in a good shade, while tossing AMD's architecture on the curbside recycling bin...


PWNED!


Finally someone brought up the fact that you're comparing a low wattage laptop cpu that runs on a battery :lol:  vs. a desktop.
April 23, 2006 3:09:47 AM

Quote:
OK, Intel and AMD are equal. I, however, kick both their asses. ;) 
Exactly! Except for the kicking asses part can you take on intel security by yourself?

You don't wanna test our security. Bad idea.
April 23, 2006 4:07:02 AM

I'll have to work on one. :lol: 
April 23, 2006 4:29:14 AM

Quote:
OK, Intel and AMD are equal. I, however, kick both their asses. ;) 
Exactly! Except for the kicking asses part can you take on intel security by yourself? I treid once but they kicked my ass with their batons :lol: 
April 23, 2006 2:40:33 PM

You can't even copy-and-paste right. Sheesh.
Fancy pansy.
April 23, 2006 2:45:35 PM

Quote:
OK, Intel and AMD are equal. I, however, kick both their asses. ;) 
Exactly! Except for the kicking asses part can you take on intel security by yourself? I treid once nut they kicked my ass with their batons :lol: 

Oh fock. Start learning spelling, dumparse.
You had me cornered whit that "treid" so bad I had go to my dictionary.
If you want to use fancy pansy words, at least spell them right.

Ooops, mispelled 'with' above, damn, should not have copeid and pasted from Era.... damn, there I go again, sorry meant 'copied' not copeid.

Shcuks, oops shucks.....

:lol:  :lol:  Kiddn' around, no offense :)  Happy go check it now!
April 23, 2006 2:59:26 PM

Go check what?
April 23, 2006 3:26:38 PM

I'm talking to jack.
April 23, 2006 3:37:34 PM

Ooops!
April 23, 2006 7:32:52 PM

Quote:
I'm talking to jack.


:wink: It was a joke, I really did not care... I can guess what you meant by inferring due to the context without the need for a dictionary.

Jack. Ok dude no hard feelings?
April 23, 2006 8:33:44 PM

Your statement is soo horrendously uninformed it made me nauscious. The conroe is not the same as the yonah at all, they share a 14 stage pipeline thats it. The conroe has a 4 execution pipeline with a 128 bit sse unit, 4 mb shared l2 cache, it also has macro-ops fusion.
April 23, 2006 9:41:05 PM

:D  I haven't even Replyed to this Post in Hours and Hours. Lol. Oh well My Name Gets Mensioned I'd reply. ****Snipershot Mike995 dies
April 23, 2006 9:47:55 PM

Your statement doesn't get any less incorrect with time.
April 23, 2006 9:54:10 PM

Quote:
Your statement doesn't get any less incorrect with time.


Shutup before I get Heath Ledger To go All BrokeBack On your A$$
April 23, 2006 10:09:32 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+.


I suggest you read the benchmarks again. Anyhow, I'll do it for you:

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->1
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->2
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Let's call this one a tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->3

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->4

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->6
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->7
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->8
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->9
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Conclusion:
X2-4400--->9
core duo--->5
Tie--------->1

Now, who's the one that got owned?? Cool


whats funny you forgot to look at the 2 links he provide showing the 4400+ getting owned by the intel yonah 2.16ghz in gaming and he also adressed the issue with the problems of the crossfire mobos and the socket it was one with Yonah. So you didnt own him if you two were talking about 2 different links. If you looked at them, they significantly show how much better yonah is compare to the dual core AMD. look and read next time for making such an ignorant and stupid post as that.
April 24, 2006 3:33:03 AM

Quote:
Aaaaaaaannnnnnddddddd.....


Yonah is a NOTEBOOK CPU, which is designed for lower power and resulting in of course lower performance than an equivalent desktop processor...


According to Intel, it is a desktop processor!
April 24, 2006 4:56:39 AM

Quote:
Aaaaaaaannnnnnddddddd.....


Yonah is a NOTEBOOK CPU, which is designed for lower power and resulting in of course lower performance than an equivalent desktop processor...


According to Intel, it is a desktop processor!
This is true, the Core Duo can be used in desktops, such as the iMac, though it is indeed also used in laptops since it has a 35W TDP. Also, according to Intel.
April 24, 2006 10:48:29 PM

Quote:

Now, who's the one that got owned?? Cool


whats funny you forgot to look at the 2 links he provide showing the 4400+ getting owned by the intel yonah 2.16ghz in gaming and he also adressed the issue with the problems of the crossfire mobos and the socket it was one with Yonah. So you didnt own him if you two were talking about 2 different links. If you looked at them, they significantly show how much better yonah is compare to the dual core AMD. look and read next time for making such an ignorant and stupid post as that.

This phenomena is called selective data analysis, it is a method by which you carefully pick out the data that supports your argument and throw out all the other information because it runs contrary to what you want the conclusion to be. We can expect no less from the HORDE.

Jack.

Word.
April 25, 2006 12:59:02 AM

Quote:
whats funny you forgot to look at the 2 links he provide showing the 4400+ getting owned by the intel yonah 2.16ghz in gaming and he also adressed the issue with the problems of the crossfire mobos and the socket it was one with Yonah. So you didnt own him if you two were talking about 2 different links. If you looked at them, they significantly show how much better yonah is compare to the dual core AMD. look and read next time for making such an ignorant and stupid post as that


Sorry that you're such a jack@ss, but I've made the count myslef and rettihSluB is right. I suggest you to look again at the charts since the core duo and the X2-4400 are equally clocked. :wink:
April 25, 2006 8:01:29 AM

If Im correct (wich i am) in the past everyone stated how great the pentium M Dothan was against the AMD, all this is is the same thing but dual core. The only difference is you AMD fanboys just say somthing else otherwise. Im sorry 9inch but many people on other forums like ncix and anandtech will dissagree with youre moronic posts. You said that you looked at the other guys statement and said you had to agree, but he said nothing more then repeate what that one website said without full proof that the other websites wrong. Gamepc is well known to have full 100% faithfull benchmarks on many sites, and this one Hongkong site i have no idea wat its sais cause im not chineese, but who knows if they are just a bunch of fanboys too. 9inch, i know you are well known on these threads for being a fanboy that doesnt even know what hes talking about. Here ill give you a riddle. Back 10 years ago, what kind of ram was Intel stuck on? Ill give you a hint, AMD made an agreement and purchase from this company not too long ago.

If you dont answere quick, you fail.


All we know, is that ive read many of youre threads, and people insult youre stupidity, i love it when they do that, just knowing you are just another forum dweller who loves to lubricate himself against an AMD chip. Do you also love to rub youre nipples against amd processors?

heres a good link to youre stupidity:
here
!