Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

It is not fair to compare Core2Duo with K8

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Next Generation
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Will AMDs next gen K8L dominate Core2Duo?

Total: 69 votes

  • Yes
  • 43 %
  • No
  • 58 %
July 5, 2006 6:20:52 AM

Hi, I am trying to look at technical differences between Intel Conroe and AMDs next generation K8L. I totally agree with you that Conroe will kick existing K8 ass. But I feel K8 dominated the market for last 3 years with out great design change. Now that Core2Duo is coming with totally new design, we should not compare it with K8, insted we should evaluate with K8L. We all know AMDs K8L is due next year first half. Also Core2Due will have limitations, in terms of availability. If Intel do great magic also, they cannot product more than 30% in next two quarters. Any idea how Intel will overcome their MFG issues and liquidating the existing crap stocks>>>???

More about : fair compare core2duo

July 5, 2006 6:36:01 AM

Not voting on this due to the fact you left one point out. equal. I hope Amd can make at least onpar with the conroe chip. With the k8L. But untel we cross that road we dont know yet.
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
July 5, 2006 6:46:49 AM

Quote:
Now that Core2Duo is coming with totally new design, we should not compare it with K8, insted we should evaluate with K8L. We all know AMDs K8L is due next year first half. Also Core2Due will have limitations, in terms of availability.



Utterly Wrong.

Why compare a CPU that physically exists to one that does not?

Comparisions are made to the competition's current models that are available to the consumers? If you don't like that concept, then blame AMD for not releasing the K8L this year.

Do you know for a fact that Core 2 Duo will availablity limitations for a prolong period of time? Initial shortage of available Conroes maybe true. But can you honestly say that the shortage will last until next year?

If you want to compare apples to apples then why not compare K8L to Conroe's successor that is supposed to be coming out in 2008? Both exists on paper for the moment.

I suggest you post a more intelligent topic next time.
Related resources
July 5, 2006 7:03:33 AM

Wrong? I don`t think so... Should I remind you the few months ago when everybody speculate and benchmark the "new" Conroe against AMD FX60 even it was not released yet?
Also it is a open competition between the two companies - it is logical (no offense) that AMD will came with a new (more or less supperior) CPU. That is progress! Same with so called "war" between Nvidia and ATI: every one take sides, but at the end all that matters is PROGRESS (and we getting better hardware)!
July 5, 2006 7:12:46 AM

Quote:
Hi, I am trying to look at technical differences between Intel Conroe and AMDs next generation K8L. I totally agree with you that Conroe will kick existing K8 ass. But I feel K8 dominated the market for last 3 years with out great design change. Now that Core2Duo is coming with totally new design, we should not compare it with K8, insted we should evaluate with K8L. We all know AMDs K8L is due next year first half. Also Core2Due will have limitations, in terms of availability. If Intel do great magic also, they cannot product more than 30% in next two quarters. Any idea how Intel will overcome their MFG issues and liquidating the existing crap stocks>>>???


hmm. I find this arguement funny. AMD's fanboys didn't let a little detail such as new technology get in the way of comparing the new K8 core to Intel's 3 year old Netburst core in 2003, so why should we make an exception now? :roll:
July 5, 2006 7:15:16 AM

Quote:
Hi, I am trying to look at technical differences between Intel Conroe and AMDs next generation K8L. I totally agree with you that Conroe will kick existing K8 ass. But I feel K8 dominated the market for last 3 years with out great design change. Now that Core2Duo is coming with totally new design, we should not compare it with K8, insted we should evaluate with K8L. We all know AMDs K8L is due next year first half. Also Core2Due will have limitations, in terms of availability. If Intel do great magic also, they cannot product more than 30% in next two quarters. Any idea how Intel will overcome their MFG issues and liquidating the existing crap stocks>>>???


hmm. I find this arguement funny. AMD's fanboys didn't let a little detail such as new technology get in the way of comparing the new K8 core to Intel's 3 year old Netburst core in 2003, so why should we make an exception now? :roll:Because Intel is EVIL. :wink:
July 5, 2006 7:17:00 AM

What you are saying is absolutely ridiculous. By your logic, why do we compare K8 with an old architecture based off of Intel's Willamette?? And, why would we compare K8L, an architecture from which we have absolutely no quantitative performance figures from, to Conroe, from which we have numerous performance figures from many many independent sources?

Core2Duo's gonna come out in the coming weeks, and based off of the benches, will stomp on AMD's offerings. Get over it. We'll compare Core2Duo to K8L next year when it's due to come out AND we get some performance figures from it.
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
July 5, 2006 7:30:55 AM

Quote:
Wrong? I don`t think so... Should I remind you the few months ago when everybody speculate and benchmark the "new" Conroe against AMD FX60 even it was not released yet?


That's because Intel decided to give a "preview" of Conroe's potential back in March. At that point Conroe physically existed.

If you are able to convince AMD to provide an engineering sample of K8L now so that a "fair" comparision can be made, then more power to you.

The FX-60 was merely going to be an increase in MHz, not a fundamental shift in CPU architecture design. Overclocking a slower CPU of the same family to what an upcoming CPU is supposed to be clocked at is much more of an apples to apples comparision than to a physical to paper design comparision.
July 5, 2006 7:44:51 AM

Quote:
Why is it not a fair compare? All in all, it is fair. K8 is AMD's eight, Core 2 is Intel's 8th generation. So, in essence, they are finally the same architectural generational revision.
While I have no problem comparing the Conroe to K8 cores when it's finally released, I must say, hat's the worst argument ever; would it be fair to compare Nvidia's first videocard to ATI's first videocard?
July 5, 2006 8:18:08 AM

Quote:
We all know AMDs K8L is due next year first half. Also Core2Due will have limitations, in terms of availability. If Intel do great magic also, they cannot product more than 30% in next two quarters. Any idea how Intel will overcome their MFG issues and liquidating the existing crap stocks>>>???


1. We do not know when K8L will be available. This is still unknown and we haven't seen working first silicon. Once first silicon is available it will take ATLEAST 6 months before it is released. So unless we hear anything in the next 3 months about AMD getting first silicon, then dont expect a release early next year.

2. What are these limitations that intel faces that AMD does not? Do you think if Intel can not make more than 30% of the next generation CPU, that AMD can do this? Also Intel has much more capacity than AMD does and a much more mature 65nm process. If Intel can get 30% next gen processors in 2 quarters, this means MUCH more accessibility compared to AMD getting 30% next gen processors because AMD is extremely volume limited when compared to Intel.

Do you really think these are MFG issues that ONLY Intel faces instead of a standard process that any company faces in ramping up any kind of new silicon (graphics, CPU, chipset, memory, etc)?
July 5, 2006 8:42:57 AM

Quote:
K8 was the first product in AMD's 37 year history that took and held the peformance crown undeniably.

Undeniably? Ycon wouldn't agree. Without that word, neither would I.
From what I remember, the original Athlon took the crown, because of it's extra fpu, and it's fast cache.
When Intel went P4, AMD was the clear leader. They stayed on top almost the whole time till P4b arrived. Then, the crown was never truly held by either, till the P4c came out.
Quote:
this is actually a first where the AMD sets the highest standard for the most part.

Or not. It may be the first time that Intel acknowledged AMD's superiority though.
For my part, I have no problem comparing Conroe to K8L. They will bothe be great chips, when they become available They are the future.
When conroe becomes available, I will be happy to compare it to amd's K8.
When the K8L becomes available, I look forward to comparing it to the latest conroe.
Until you can buy a chip, it's only speculation, there can be no real head to head comparison.
You can only truly compare chips when they come on the market.
July 5, 2006 9:29:45 AM

Quote:
Hi, I am trying to look at technical differences between Intel Conroe and AMDs next generation K8L. I totally agree with you that Conroe will kick existing K8 ass. But I feel K8 dominated the market for last 3 years with out great design change. Now that Core2Duo is coming with totally new design, we should not compare it with K8, insted we should evaluate with K8L. We all know AMDs K8L is due next year first half. Also Core2Due will have limitations, in terms of availability. If Intel do great magic also, they cannot product more than 30% in next two quarters. Any idea how Intel will overcome their MFG issues and liquidating the existing crap stocks>>>???


several things:

It is fair to compare them, it doesnt matter what generation it is, compare the best both companies have right now.

Core 2 most likly will not have availability problems, intel spent several months producing them, and has a very high capacity to begin with.

As for netburst still around, they will do what any company does: drop prices. Because they can produce them for around $40 per processor they can be very, very cheap.

Lastly you need 2 other voting options: they will be about the same and to early to tell.
July 5, 2006 10:15:15 AM

I think I'll wait until next April / May timeframe to decide on which cpu/ chipset to upgrade to.

By that time there should have been ample time for AMD to release their next gen chip, Intel's conroe should've come mainstream in quantity, and DX 10 capable GPU's should've been released.

And (hopefully) Vista SP1 will also have been released.

I can live with what I have until that time-frame.

Patience, my heart... It will only get better. Cooler? Faster? On air? I'll wait'n see.
July 5, 2006 10:56:49 AM

Quote:
Now that Core2Duo is coming with totally new design, we should not compare it with K8, insted we should evaluate with K8L. We all know AMDs K8L is due next year first half. Also Core2Due will have limitations, in terms of availability.



Utterly Wrong.

Why compare a CPU that physically exists to one that does not?

Comparisions are made to the competition's current models that are available to the consumers? If you don't like that concept, then blame AMD for not releasing the K8L this year.

Do you know for a fact that Core 2 Duo will availablity limitations for a prolong period of time? Initial shortage of available Conroes maybe true. But can you honestly say that the shortage will last until next year?

If you want to compare apples to apples then why not compare K8L to Conroe's successor that is supposed to be coming out in 2008? Both exists on paper for the moment.

I suggest you post a more intelligent topic next time.

I'd rather say that is wrong to compare CPUs with a different transistor scale. It is obligatory for a 65nm CPU to be better than a 90nm and even that said it took intel the eternity of 1+ year to take the lead.
July 5, 2006 12:13:04 PM

I've seen this Post before in the near past, and it's going where the last one went....................FREAKING NOWHERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 5, 2006 12:19:46 PM

What you are saying is just as wrong as comparing conroe to k8. If you look here you will notice that kentsfield will be coming out about the same time as k8l. So in reality, Intel right now is a full generation ahead of current AMD processors and form what it looks like (at least in the short term) Intel is just going to be widing this gap between the two companies.
July 5, 2006 12:28:46 PM

You have to compare Core and K8 as they are the current offerings by both Intel and AMD. When K8L is released we will do the same exercise all over again to see how they compare.

I suppose the only angle not really being covered is that we are comparing a very immature architecture against a very mature architecture. I may be tempted to build a Core system after the CPU is out about 12-18 months, hopefully all the bugs/glitches have been ironed out with them (will also sit on the fence on K8L until it has matured a bit).

Core looks like it will take the performance crown in the 1-4 core market segaments for the forseeable future. Opteron still owns 8+ core market segaments.

What I do like is that Intel and AMD have competly different approaches to how they improve their architectures at the moment. Intel is strongly focused on pure CPU performance, while AMD is looking outside the CPU with HT improvements and co-processor type cards that fit in the CPU slots.

Has AMD made the right choice again "thinking outside the box" for improvements, or should they have focused more on getting K8L out faster? It's a bit risky, but this kind of thinking has paid off for them in the past with things like 64bit, HT, and Integrated Memory Controller.

While I'm not particurlarly interested in the faster CPU, I am interested in the better platform. I still think AMD has the lead in having a more complete platform, but Intel certainly has the performance edge.
July 5, 2006 1:03:18 PM

Quote:
You have to compare Core and K8 as they are the current offerings by both Intel and AMD. When K8L is released we will do the same exercise all over again to see how they compare.

I suppose the only angle not really being covered is that we are comparing a very immature architecture against a very mature architecture. I may be tempted to build a Core system after the CPU is out about 12-18 months, hopefully all the bugs/glitches have been ironed out with them (will also sit on the fence on K8L until it has matured a bit).

Core looks like it will take the performance crown in the 1-4 core market segaments for the forseeable future. Opteron still owns 8+ core market segaments.

What I do like is that Intel and AMD have competly different approaches to how they improve their architectures at the moment. Intel is strongly focused on pure CPU performance, while AMD is looking outside the CPU with HT improvements and co-processor type cards that fit in the CPU slots.

Has AMD made the right choice again "thinking outside the box" for improvements, or should they have focused more on getting K8L out faster? It's a bit risky, but this kind of thinking has paid off for them in the past with things like 64bit, HT, and Integrated Memory Controller.

While I'm not particurlarly interested in the faster CPU, I am interested in the better platform. I still think AMD has the lead in having a more complete platform, but Intel certainly has the performance edge.


Agree on the 'compare what we have at the moment' but the approach on the CPU core now is almost identical for both: Conroe is an improved "copy" of K8 architecture, even slower but more efficient (14 stages vs 12 of K8 while netburst topped @ 31 giving fast but highly inefficient processors), finally, they even adopted (their own way) the hated numbering system of AMD.
July 5, 2006 1:11:13 PM

All is fair in love and hardware. What ever does the job wins out in the end.
July 5, 2006 1:49:17 PM

Well, maybe K8L would be comparable to Conroe IF IT EXISTED.

You all deemed it fair to put a 3 year old architecture against a 5 year old, but you know, AMD is just better and we're AMD fanboys so we can do whatever we want as long as AMD wins. Morons.

Compare what's available to what's available. Core 2 Duo will launch in 9 days, so I consider it currently on the market. Intel wins. K8L sounds good, but it hasn't been taped or even shown in public, which makes me suspect that it's nothing special, not to mention the loads of L3 cache and serious lack of L2. L3? You might as well go to memory. L2 is what will make a processor fast, and thanks to the IMC on AMD's chips, you won't be touching anything above 512K.

K8L is like what Prescott is to Northwood. It's just a revision of an old architecture. Even if it really is better than Core 2 Duo, they still can't touch Intel's roadmap. Quadcores before the end of 2006, desktop in Q1 2007, and another brand new architecture in 2008. AMD better get off their asses and come up with something new. You can compare K8L with Core 2 Duo, but there will already be another CPU on the market by then, so you're comparing it with something that's obsolete by the time K8L actually comes around.

K8L = Waste of time, money, IMO.
Quote:
You have to compare Core and K8 as they are the current offerings by both Intel and AMD. When K8L is released we will do the same exercise all over again to see how they compare.

I suppose the only angle not really being covered is that we are comparing a very immature architecture against a very mature architecture. I may be tempted to build a Core system after the CPU is out about 12-18 months, hopefully all the bugs/glitches have been ironed out with them (will also sit on the fence on K8L until it has matured a bit).

Core looks like it will take the performance crown in the 1-4 core market segaments for the forseeable future. Opteron still owns 8+ core market segaments.

What I do like is that Intel and AMD have competly different approaches to how they improve their architectures at the moment. Intel is strongly focused on pure CPU performance, while AMD is looking outside the CPU with HT improvements and co-processor type cards that fit in the CPU slots.

Has AMD made the right choice again "thinking outside the box" for improvements, or should they have focused more on getting K8L out faster? It's a bit risky, but this kind of thinking has paid off for them in the past with things like 64bit, HT, and Integrated Memory Controller.

While I'm not particurlarly interested in the faster CPU, I am interested in the better platform. I still think AMD has the lead in having a more complete platform, but Intel certainly has the performance edge.


Agree on the 'compare what we have at the moment' but the approach on the CPU core now is almost identical for both: Conroe is an improved "copy" of K8 architecture, even slower but more efficient (14 stages vs 12 of K8 while netburst topped @ 31 giving fast but highly inefficient processors), finally, they even adopted (their own way) the hated numbering system of AMD.

Problem being Core 2 Duo is nowhere close to what K8 is. It's closer to a Pentium 3, and if you think about it, that means that K8 is a 'copy' of the Pentium 3 architecture. OMG AMD COMPYING INTEL AGAIN. Well you can sit here and think that somebody is copying somebody else. Nobody is copying anybody.
July 5, 2006 1:52:00 PM

I go to the store, and I compare what I can actually buy.

(Hopefully) some time this month, or more likely next month, I'll be able to go to my local computer store, and make an actual choice to exchange my actual real money for either a Conroe or an Athlon x2.

That is the only "comparison" that counts.

What Intel, or Via, or AMD is releasing in 2007 really doesn't matter. In 6 months there will always be something better, but if you wait 6 months, then 6 months after that they will also be something better again, and your old rig will just keep getting older.

You compare what's in the store to what's in the store when you there to buy something.

'nuff said!
July 5, 2006 2:02:20 PM

Wow, wtf is with comparison between the 2 cpus right now?

come on, if your not gonna compare to something older, how do you know its better? no duh? we are stupid, so we dont compare it to anything, so lets just get a p1 system right now because we dont like to compare and we feel that comparing is unfair.

suck it up lil girl, if u think this aint fair, look at life itself, it aint fair. if ur gonna moan and groan about this, then go ahead and jump off a building wat not, no one will feel sorry for you.

whichever product comes out first, its gonna be compared to the opposing company... ie, tats why ati made the x1900 series and nvidia made the 7900 series.... its because they were all comparing against each other.

without comparison, ull live a very low life, which i highly suspect that you have right now.

also, what djkrypplephite said was right... stop being stupid and slap urself awake. intel already has a planned road map for bout 10 years, what did amd come up with? if they wanna be better than intel, they better think of sumthing fast
July 5, 2006 2:14:17 PM

I AMD wants to be better than Intel... they better generate a future roadmap 5 years ago, then stick to it or improve upon it...
July 5, 2006 2:19:52 PM

Quote:
K8L sounds good, but it hasn't been taped or even shown in public, which makes me suspect that it's nothing special, not to mention the loads of L3 cache and serious lack of L2. L3? You might as well go to memory. L2 is what will make a processor fast, and thanks to the IMC on AMD's chips, you won't be touching anything above 512K.


L2 is what makes a processor fast????? How did you come to that conclusion.

SPARC, POWER, and Itanium server processors will all have to be retired too if that is the case. Don't bother buying a $100,000 UNIX server, a $3,000 PC will be faster. L3 cache is complementory to L2 cache and allows a lot more throughput especially across multiple cores along with having a huge amount of other benefits.

AMD's idea of using L3 cache is nothing new, server CPU's have been using this trick for years, it's an industry standard practice in all high performance CPU design to improve performance.

Core 2 is also a revision of an older archictecture (Dothan), okay they have bolted on a lot of new modern features, but Core 2 still has it's roots going all the way back to the Pentium 3.

I think Intel has done a fantastic job getting Core out the door as quickly as they did. They have regained the performance lead again over AMD, but to say K8L is rubbish before one has even been produced is a bit presumptious. That kind of arrogence is what got Intel into trouble in the first place.
July 5, 2006 2:39:29 PM

I'm not saying it's rubbish, I'm saying it's a waste because of the architecture features and time to market. The marketing department at AMD is looking at K8L with dusgust right now because it's an out-dated architecture competing with a current market, which is going to be obsolete in mere months.

Um, L3 cache has nothing to do with the differences between SPARC and Itanium and Power processors, they're all RISC architectures, and totally different from PCs, not to mention scalable to pretty much no end. If you seriously pulled that out my what I said you're retarded. Yes, L3 will improve performance, but L3 latencies are horrible.

As far as the "cache is the only thing making the conroe core fast" argument is concerned, Intel fanboys can say the same thing about your precious IMC. It's a trade-off, so nobody better bring that crap up again.
July 5, 2006 2:49:42 PM

The question a bad one.... I think k8l will be 'better/faster', but it will not 'dominate'....

So if I say NO, it looks like I am supporting conroe as better....
So I said YES, just so it looks like I am supporting k8l as the better cpu....

What is your definition of cpu domination?
July 5, 2006 2:57:46 PM

because in 2003 there was no other INTEL chip on the planed to be released.
July 5, 2006 3:14:11 PM

Well the supplly issue is one that worries a lot of industry insdiers. Some think yields won't be great and now ther'es a rumor that mobos (P965) will be short on launch.

As afr as the K8 comparison, NO they shouldn't be comapred directly because the Core 2 is a new core a generation ahead if you count Core as a gen.


K8L will come damn close to Core 2 if not edging it out in heavy FP and sevrer. I think 40% on AM2 especially if they add the extra transistrs for this "switch-On-Event" and Cluster Multithreading.
July 5, 2006 3:15:02 PM

It's really quite simple everybody, as it stands at the moment, AMD is the king of the performance castle, I'm sure Intel's new offering will likely perform better in many ways, because otherwise why would they even release it? and in turn AMD will come back with something that again bests Intel's offering. It's the same tug-of-war we've all become used to in the hardware world, and I'm quite sure it will go on for some time yet...

So basically: Right now, AMD wins, very soon we anticipate Intel will win, then we'll just have to wait and see after that. So don't compare them just yet, real world tests are what matter.
July 5, 2006 3:24:50 PM

Quote:
Hi, I am trying to look at technical differences between Intel Conroe and AMDs next generation K8L. I totally agree with you that Conroe will kick existing K8 ass. But I feel K8 dominated the market for last 3 years with out great design change. Now that Core2Duo is coming with totally new design, we should not compare it with K8, insted we should evaluate with K8L. We all know AMDs K8L is due next year first half. Also Core2Due will have limitations, in terms of availability. If Intel do great magic also, they cannot product more than 30% in next two quarters. Any idea how Intel will overcome their MFG issues and liquidating the existing crap stocks>>>???


hmm. I find this arguement funny. AMD's fanboys didn't let a little detail such as new technology get in the way of comparing the new K8 core to Intel's 3 year old Netburst core in 2003, so why should we make an exception now? :roll:


I guess the difference is that from Willamette to Prescott was Intel's choice. it was updated enough to seem like a new chip. What you're actually saying i sthat AMD should nto hav released K8 until Intel had something or Intel should nt' have released Core 2 until Amd had something better.

I'm only against direct comparison, because the distance between Core 2 and PD is even greater.
July 5, 2006 3:33:17 PM

Its not fair !!! lol ummm I must have missed the part where they teach fairness in Buisness Ethics.... Ahh well im sure when K8L comes out everyone who prefers AMD will say one of two things, either it will be realy good and they will say "see the K8 is awesome" or it will only be slightly better and not as good as Core they will say "its not fair to compare them" bahhh fairness doesnt matter :)  If you want the fastest CPU right now get a AM2 FX62 or buy a Conroe off Ebay although I would wait a couple of weeks and buy a legit one :)  (point is to get the fastest at a store you need to get a AMD but thats about to change real quick)
In the world of PC's you have to adapt to changes fast fast fast or be like the dino's
July 5, 2006 3:57:08 PM

Quote:


It appears people are just upset because Intel has step up to the plate and hit a home run.


Which is a hugely odd reaction in my opinion.

Quote:
K8 was the first product in AMD's 37 year history that took and held the peformance crown undeniably. Intel apparently want's it back :)  and it appears they will get it.


And Intel might be holding it a while. How will we compare a Conroe rig that has one CPU and a PCI-e card with an AMD 4x4 with two CPUs, a socketed GPU and socketed coprocessor or physix chip?
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
July 5, 2006 4:13:04 PM

Quote:

I'd rather say that is wrong to compare CPUs with a different transistor scale. It is obligatory for a 65nm CPU to be better than a 90nm and even that said it took intel the eternity of 1+ year to take the lead.


Really?

Then how do you explain the fact that a 90nm Athlon 64 X2 is capable of running cooler than a 65nm Pentium D?

Intel is clearly using "superior" transistor scale technology, but they provide "inferior" temperatures.

While the use of newer technology is important, how that technology is implemented is even more important. AMD may be behind the curve in terms of transistor scale, but they have done an excellent job with their 90nm execution.
July 5, 2006 4:13:44 PM

Hey,

I don't think Intel will suffer availability issues for very long. They have far more fab plants than AMD, even if they're not all 65nm producers.

I think they did a great job with the new processor, but I am waiting until some independent third-party tests are run on more than Intel engineering configured machines. It's not that I believe that Intel is out-and-out lying, it's just I have no preference to either company and want to see as impartial a comparo as I can find.

AMD has dominated the benchmarks war over the past few years, but the nForce platform has issues. Intel has been pretty disappointing the past few CPU iterations but the platform is better and lacks a lot of the issues I've seen with AMD on the desktop side. Server-wise AMD has been better the past few for performance, and especially performance-per-watt.

I'm waiting for 64-bit and multitasking benchmarks to be run when Conroe makes its appearance to better gauge how each will perform with things like Vista. I would hope that the large L2 cache doesn't hamper the processor if it's not fully utilized for a single task.

Either way, competition is good for the consumer. Prices should fall, and we should all be able to buy something that fits our needs.

Neither company is good or evil. Business is the art of making money. Once we understand that, we can be as impartial as possible.

Cheers,

10e
July 5, 2006 4:26:41 PM

Quote:

I'd rather say that is wrong to compare CPUs with a different transistor scale. It is obligatory for a 65nm CPU to be better than a 90nm and even that said it took intel the eternity of 1+ year to take the lead.


Then how do you explain the fact that a 90nm Athlon 64 X2 is capable of running cooler than a 65nm Pentium D?

Lemmie see... Facts getting in the way of an otherwise seemingly credible hypothesis?

Quote:
While the use of newer technology is important, how that technology is implemented is even more important.


Exactly right and numerous powerful people have missed that boat in the past.

Quote:
[AMD may be behind the curve in terms of transistor scale, but they have done an excellent job with their 90nm execution.


For sure. I'm looking forward to not only 65nm AMD CPUs but also to Conroe and Conroe's successor.
July 5, 2006 5:20:33 PM

Quote:
I've seen this Post before in the near past, and it's going where the last one went....................FREAKING NOWHERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And still you partake? Okay. Now you (should) know what to do if you see another post like this. STAY THE F**K OUT!!!! Whine bag. :roll:
July 5, 2006 5:23:54 PM

*COUGH* Thread not about Pentium D *COUGH* Conroe is 65 nm.
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
July 5, 2006 5:32:17 PM

Quote:
*COUGH* Thread not about Pentium D *COUGH* Conroe is 65 nm.


*COUGH*
*COUGH*
*COUGH*

m25 stated the following:

Quote:

I'd rather say that is wrong to compare CPUs with a different transistor scale. It is obligatory for a 65nm CPU to be better than a 90nm and even that said it took intel the eternity of 1+ year to take the lead.


Pentium D is 65nm, right?

Quote:


While the use of newer technology is important, how that technology is implemented is even more important.

July 5, 2006 6:45:21 PM

Quote:
Compare what's available to what's available. Core 2 Duo will launch in 9 days, so I consider it currently on the market. Intel wins.
So say I'm Joe customer who doesn't know much about PCs, I want to get a new PC with the fastest performance and I need it today. I don't know about Intel's new stuff and how great it is, but what I do know is AMD currently has a better product on the market. Even when Core 2 is actually released, it'll probably be difficult to get at first due to an extremely high demand for what is looking to be the next big CPU.
July 5, 2006 6:48:27 PM

It may be difficult to get for the average joe... but if you have the desire to have it, you will find it...
Same thing was true with other releases, like ATI X800XT PE... But I got one at launch... then I got an Opty 175 and X1800XT at launch too. If you seek plus have funds, you will get one... if you really want one...
Heck, you can get one today or even last month, if you desire it enough...
July 5, 2006 6:50:44 PM

Quote:
It may be difficult to get for the average joe... but if you have the desire to have it, you will find it...
Same thing was true with other releases, like ATI X800XT PE... But I got one at launch... then I got an Opty 175 and X1800XT at launch too. If you seek plus have funds, you will get one... if you really want one...
Heck, you can get one today or even last month, if you desire it enough...


Absatively. Posalutely. All you need is money and a connection.
July 5, 2006 6:55:04 PM

Quote:

I'd rather say that is wrong to compare CPUs with a different transistor scale. It is obligatory for a 65nm CPU to be better than a 90nm and even that said it took intel the eternity of 1+ year to take the lead.


Really?

Then how do you explain the fact that a 90nm Athlon 64 X2 is capable of running cooler than a 65nm Pentium D?

Intel is clearly using "superior" transistor scale technology, but they provide "inferior" temperatures.

While the use of newer technology is important, how that technology is implemented is even more important. AMD may be behind the curve in terms of transistor scale, but they have done an excellent job with their 90nm execution.


halleluia, someone understands. You can get a 2.4 Opteron @ 30W.


Imagine what can be done with 65nm.
July 5, 2006 7:36:31 PM

Quote:
Compare what's available to what's available. Core 2 Duo will launch in 9 days, so I consider it currently on the market. Intel wins.
So say I'm Joe customer who doesn't know much about PCs, I want to get a new PC with the fastest performance and I need it today. I don't know about Intel's new stuff and how great it is, but what I do know is AMD currently has a better product on the market. Even when Core 2 is actually released, it'll probably be difficult to get at first due to an extremely high demand for what is looking to be the next big CPU.Most uneducated Joe Consumers won't know that AMD is better either.
July 5, 2006 7:38:54 PM

Baron, I suspect outside of here at THF's you are quite an leader of uneducated Joe's... :p 
!