AMD and Intel

[mjdranzer]

Can someone tell me why Intel is always comparing their future processors with AMD's current or past processors? Why can't they compare their future processors with AMD'f future prosessors?! To tell you the truth I never heared of an AMD processor benchmarks before it was avaiable for the public. Well personally I don't think AMD wants to impress the public with their future products because their present products are gr8t!!!!!!!

Go AMD

 

[MaGiC_MaN]

I recently spoke to a representative from AMD and he had this to say:

"AMD's success today is based on more than pure performance leadership. AMD has enjoyed several quarters of market share gains with our differentiated solutions, broadening customer relationships and expanding global market presence. We offer our customers the ability to differentiate their products and thus help ensure competition, while others increasingly lock customers into closed platforms, eroding their ability to innovate and compete. We believe that it is because of our relationships and the value we bring to our customers that AMD will continue on a successful trajectory of leadership in the industry.

Because of AMD's success, our competitor is hyping products that aren't even shipping for several months and trying to distract the media and financial communities from the realities of the competitive landscape. They are talking futures while AMD continues to deliver leading performance on products shipping in volume today."

Judge for yourself.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Intel: Hello! We were wondering if you would mind sending some of your top secret processors over to our research lab for benchmarking?

AMD: Umm... No.

Intel has made a good effort to compare it's MIDRANGE future products to OVERCLOCKED top of the line FX-60 chips from AMD. I say that's fair enough.

 

[shinigamiX]

I can. Because you touch yourself at night. And don't think I don't know; I can hear the sounds you make(They're disgusting). And I'm fairly sure I live in a different country to you. That's how loud you get. Teeheehee. I'm so witty.

BTW, since forums have crappy search engines I'm going to assume that this has been said more times than I can count.

 

[MaGiC_MaN]

Intel: Hello! We were wondering if you would mind sending some of your top secret processors over to our research lab for benchmarking?

AMD: Umm... No.

Intel has made a good effort to compare it's MIDRANGE future products to OVERCLOCKED top of the line FX-60 chips from AMD. I say that's fair enough.

Sorry, but showing me SuperPI is not the "fair" benchmarks I want to see, not to mention the factors of physical arrangements, which your small Intel mind cannot grasp.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Sorry, but showing me SuperPI is not the "fair" benchmarks I want to see, not to mention the factors of physical arrangements, which your small Intel mind cannot grasp.

Wow, I'm glad I didn't personally attack you like you did to me... Look at all the benchmarks, including the Doom 3 benchmarks. I know Conroe's have a lot of cache, but not enough to fit Doom 3 into it. Face it, Intel has a good product coming out that will have AMD working hard to one-up them.

By the way, thanks for calling me an Intel fanboy, take a look at my signature.

 

[shinigamiX]

Yea. You're MMM. Either that or you're gay.
*Noogies Magic_Man*
SAY IT! SAY YOU LOVE THE C0CK!!!!
Me too. I mean, I practically live at my neighborhood KFC.

For Mr. Barnes, I'm merely responding to his post with one of equal intelligence to tell him just what I think of it.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Please allow me to own you:

F.E.A.R: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03/08/intel_conroe_benchmark_fear/
At this site the guys at Bit-Tech loaded their own personal FEAR benchmark from a USB thumbdrive, so that they could compare the results from their own tweaked FX-60 system outside of the control of Intel. Compared to their FX-60, with very tight memory timing that they spent days tweaking, the Conroe system get's 36% more FPS in this CPU bottlenecked gaming benchmark.

Half Life 2: Lost Cost: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98091
Here FCG has set a world record by a HUGE margin, there are no systems other than Conroe based systems that have been able to post anywhere even remotely close to 165 average fps in HL2:LC no matter what crazy overclocked graphics system they have.

Media Encoding: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4
Here a 2.6GHz Conroe is shown besting an overclocked FX-60 (@ 2.8GHz) by anywhere from 12 to 30% in various media encoding tasks.

Quake 4: http://www.hothardware.com//viewarticle.aspx?page=6&articleid=794
Here Conroe bests the FX-60 by 23-28% in Quake 4 performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=3
Here Anandtech updates the issues that they had with their first run of Quake 4, running their own in-house time demo. Conroe shows a 24-33% advantage over the overclocked FX-60.

3DMark05: http://members.cox.net/kjboughton/20200.JPG
Here FCG uses a "simulated" Conroe XE (2.13GHz ES overclocked to 3.33GHz) to obtain a 20200 score in 3DMark05.

3DMark01: http://members.cox.net/kjboughton/FCG_01details.jpg
I know it is an old benchmark, but it is still in use... don't stress.
Here, FCG uses Conroe to set a new world record in the incredibly CPU intensive "Game 3 Lobby - High Detail" section of 3dMark01.

PCMark05 CPU test: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97609
In this test FCG compares a 2.6GHz Conroe to a 3.6GHz FX-57 and a 2.6GHz X-2 4400+. The Conroe beats both systems by over 23%.

3DMark05 CPU test: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97593
In this SINGLE THREADED CPU test, the Conroe beats the severely overclocked FX-57 by 23%.
This link: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=238&chart=61&model2=212 provides you tons of reference scores for practically every other processor out there. Conroe completely destroys them all.
Here is some new data: http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/XP64/4.gif

FX-57 @ 3.60GHz: 8146
Conroe @ 2.66GHz: 10038
Merom @ 3.2GHz: 11212

Aquamark3 Benchmark: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97395
In this demonstration, the air cooled 2.7GHz Conroe system sets a new world record, besting the previous record holder, a C02 single-phase cooled 3.7GHz FX-60 with liquid cooled , overclocked SLI 7900GTXs.

Can you tell me what was wrong with those benchmarks?

 

[MaGiC_MaN]

Comparing any application of w/ 4MB vs. 1MB and DDR2 w/ 3-2-2-8 vs. DDR1 or AM2's w/ 4-5-5-12 is ridiculous, and you should know that as well. Intel does NOT have a K8-Killer, as you see Woodcrest is being proven to be at LEAST 7% Slower than the Opteron 64 w/ DDR1, and that isn't even talking about Socket 1207 (I can show links if you so desire).

If we go by your math or any others, Conroe is faster than Woodcrest....which makes no sense since all NGMA's are the SAME!

 

[MaGiC_MaN]

Please allow me to LWN you:

DDR2 w/ 4MB Cache. (Not to mention things I won't say due to your small Intel mind not understanding).

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Please allow me to LWN you:

DDR2 w/ 4MB Cache. (Not to mention things I won't say due to your small Intel mind not understanding).

I give up. Apparently you don't like to use things called "facts" when formulating arguments.

P.S. - Get it through your mind, I'm an AMD man, not Intel, but I'm not among the armies of mindless fanboys.

 

[shinigamiX]

Shut up, fool! You can't speak until I release you from my noogie of utter awesome death by total knuckleness. OK. From now on, I am to be addressed as 'Your Knuckleness'.

 

[SilkCutPurple]

Intel at the moment will not let anyone mess around with their preconfigured Conroe boxes. How do I know this? I work for a UK PC magazine. An Intel press officer and an engineer came in to our offices and showed us a machine based on the new core. They said it was going to be the fastest Conroe at launch. We were not allowed to run any of our own benchmarks. We were not allowed to open the machine to inspect it. We were told the machine had 2GB of ram, 250GB WD hard drive and a Radeon X1900. They ran benchmarks of their own choosing and configuration. We were not allowed to tinker with this machine at all.

Now the machine was quick, very quick but not what we in the offices called earthshattering. It was still the quickest machine but only by a margin of 4%. That is compared to a AMD FX-60 with same specification also bought in by Intel running same benchmarks.

As I said we were not allowed to tamper with either machine. We said to the Intel rep that this data does not correspond to the data we have seen on various technical websites that show a quite substantial performance increase. He replied and I quote "we are aware of inaccuracies in various circles".

Now that being said it does put Intel back in the lead especially pertaining to clock frequencies and power but we are also aware of what AMD have on the horizon. Check out the June 1st AMD briefing and also keep an eye out for a new release in the Nov/Dec timeframe. Very exciting time are ahead.

 

[jaguarskx]

Can someone tell me why Intel is always comparing their future processors with AMD's current or past processors? Why can't they compare their future processors with AMD'f future prosessors?!

Intel's "future" CPU, Conroe, is being released next month. AMD's next generation CPU, K8L, haven't even seen the light of day yet. Therefore, it is impossible to compare the two. Therefore Intel can only compare Conroe to what AMD has in the market right now.

Is that fair? Yes, because that is all AMD has right now.

 

[dvdpiddy]

Now the machine was quick, very quick but not what we in the offices called earthshattering. It was still the quickest machine but only by a margin of 4%. That is compared to a AMD FX-60 with same specification also bought in by Intel running same benchmarks.

Wait did you say 4%? That is way lower than advertised so intel is basically lying to us agian. (Oh boy i got taken in agian just like with prescott and with p4) I'm such an idiot.<hitting self on head>

 

[doggykyle]

Comparing any application of w/ 4MB vs. 1MB and DDR2 w/ 3-2-2-8 vs. DDR1 or AM2's w/ 4-5-5-12 is ridiculous, and you should know that as well. Intel does NOT have a K8-Killer, as you see Woodcrest is being proven to be at LEAST 7% Slower than the Opteron 64 w/ DDR1, and that isn't even talking about Socket 1207 (I can show links if you so desire).

If we go by your math or any others, Conroe is faster than Woodcrest....which makes no sense since all NGMA's are the SAME!

Post those links MMM...or MMM's hetero-life mate...