Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Six AMD D/C's now at or below Intel price/performance curve

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 29, 2006 2:41:12 PM

Could picking up one of the discontinued 939 dual cores be the bargain of the century or does it mean, pay less now, pay more later to upgrade? This information won't put me off getting an E6600 system as soon as it arrives, but it might others, what do you think?

Six AMD dual-cores now at or below Intel price/performance curve
July 29, 2006 3:21:13 PM

Quote:
Could picking up one of the discontinued 939 dual cores be the bargain of the century or does it mean, pay less now, pay more later to upgrade? This information won't put me off getting an E6600 system as soon as it arrives, but it might others, what do you think?

Six AMD dual-cores now at or below Intel price/performance curve


Most people will only afford to float around low to middle end dual cores and there's still kind of a mixed bag and Conroe's domination is not so killing. Couple this with cheaper 939 boards and their old DDR support; they're still a great upgrade. My own dream for example is upgrading to a X2 3800+ @ the end of the year.
July 29, 2006 4:58:10 PM

Yes Jack, but there is no Conroe in the low end price range.......yet.
July 29, 2006 5:54:16 PM

and amd right now has better single-core cpu's... dual-core isnt everything
July 29, 2006 6:14:02 PM

This will be great for a lot of folks who aren't interested in benchmarks and insisiting on having the latest and greatest. For what mmost people do with a computer, even these chips are way more than they need. This is a great time for people to upgrade their CPU or buy a new machine. Core 2 Duo is better performance-wise, but it's way more than almost everyone needs, so go with the savings.
July 29, 2006 6:43:01 PM

I agree, it's fantastic for consumers. The pricing stratagey may impact the market, with more manufacturers of complete systems backing the cheaper option - and consumers dont normaly want to pay anymore than they have to, unless they are enthusiastis.

Still, I have that link in my signature, showing the E6300 destroying the FX-62 when overclocked on air. Also, the E6600 is completely on par with the outrageously priced AMD top-dog. If anything, the reason why I posted this thread was because I couldn't believe THG would put something like this up - because I was not sure I believed it:

Looking at the UK, the E6300 is priced £30 above the X2 3800+, and the E6600 £20 above the X2 5000+. This does not take into account whole system build pricing and performance, which is the only thing that is relevant. To buy decent RAM to make the AM2 competitive compared to 939 will take out that tiny saving in the CPU and most likely cost more - making the entire system more expensive and still leaving it slower than the respective Intel chip.

To use a non-PC analagy, you would not buy a car because it had a cheaper engine than its competitor, if it ran slower, cost more to run and was in fact a more expensive car overall.

So to answer my own question, which I had hoped someone else would pick up on. 939's are not cheaper than AM2 here in the UK, 939's will not be supported like AM2 will be. AM2 does not have any sort of price/performance lead over Conroe when considering whole system builds - which of course is very important when you consider no one is just going to either buy an AMD or Intel chip, they will either be upgrading their current rig with a new CPU or be building/buying a completely new one.

I just didn't like the article, it's considering fluctuating prices as demand outstrips supply in the short run, and it's not considering whole system price/performance. Somehow I doubt they will put up a Intel takes back price/performance crown in some areas when prices normalise.
July 29, 2006 7:28:44 PM

Quote:

But it is still dominating, and decisively too.


Yes, but you forgot to
Quote:
...Couple this with cheaper 939 boards and their old DDR support; they're still a great upgrade. My own dream for example is upgrading to a X2 3800+ @ the end of the year.

:wink:

I almost sold a kidney for my 1G RAM :lol:  because I couldn't have a rendering swapped on the HD , the only thing I can force myself to get money for is a dual core to get a 100% boost in rendering, the other 20% edge a Core2 can give is just not worth my efforts. Thinking like this and you realize many people are in my position.
July 29, 2006 7:56:14 PM

Quote:

But it is still dominating, and decisively too.


Yes, but you forgot to
Quote:
...Couple this with cheaper 939 boards and their old DDR support; they're still a great upgrade. My own dream for example is upgrading to a X2 3800+ @ the end of the year.

:wink:

I almost sold a kidney for my 1G RAM :lol:  because I couldn't have a rendering swapped on the HD , the only thing I can force myself to get money for is a dual core to get a 100% boost in rendering, the other 20% edge a Core2 can give is just not worth my efforts. Thinking like this and you realize many people are in my position.

But you forgot :wink:

Quote:

they will either be upgrading their current rig with a new CPU or be building/buying a completely new one


No one would suggest getting an entirely new system for Conroe unless you were getting an entirely new system anyway! (Enthusiasts with money, please ignore that).

An X2 3800+ is a very good chip, which is well worth the money. The E6300 is just better, but certainly not worth a new system just for that. The point of THG's price/performance news topic seemed to me, to be for the sole purpose of saying AMD are competing right there with Intel. This is where I disagreed, because the choice of either Intel or AMD is Intel right now for anything but the most basic systems. But when your choice (m25) is AMD or AMD, well, its gota be AMD and no one's going to say you're making a bad move going for that chip.
July 29, 2006 8:17:46 PM

The only move I can make, that's for sure!!!
I hadn't been in the CPU currents for ages, that's why I got my 3000+ for $110 two months ago... ($65 now) However, I still got the taste of my old 2GHz celeron, compared to that the 3000 is a dream.
July 29, 2006 9:21:06 PM

Another thing that is helping AMD clean up their 939 stock is the lack of commercial BS like multi-type RAM motherboard (with both DDR & DR2 slots). I remmember the old days of the DDR/SDR mombos; you had P3s fitted with DDR333 or P4s only running @ SDRs 133MHz, total bottlenecking s**!
July 29, 2006 10:36:49 PM

What you Intel fanboy's dont admit is- for more than 3-4 years you were using P4 playing games and performing daily "normal" computing tasks and did not complain about lack of performance, even though knew any A64 was faster than anything you had.
Today A64 dual core can do any task just as good as any conroe and none of those synthetic benchmarks matter even if show conore 10-20% faster. But you will not admit that any A64 x2 would be the smartest investment and upgrade for you and those who care less about synthetic benchmarks. The gamers will buy an A64 dual core and have enough left to spend it on a good vid card.
You can buy : A64 4200+ 1gig DDR2+Motherboard+ vid cards(GF 7600GT) for less than $500 which amounts to just a mere E6300+motherboard. ($250+$270). Yes you have to buy an expensive motherboard to be able to overclock the FSB to 350-400mhz to compete w/ A64 4200 @3ghz (overclocking range).
Show me a conroe motherboard for less than $150 that can overclock to 400 mhz FSB? there is none. You can buy a $110 Epox sAM2 SLI board and enjoy any gaming software and do you daily "multitask" computing, sit back laugh at those who keep posting " conroe is fast", "conroe does 9 seconds SPI 1M".
Guess what? I show you an Opteron's SPi 32M faster than a conroe E6300 @ 2.9ghz. It's not about Spi 1M that every one cares- Its about price/performance. AMD delivers, Intel promises. It's been more than 6 months people keep saying conroe is going to be released, yet the retails still dont have any and the release date keep getting pushed back.
AMD said prices will drop and it did and more than expected.
Thank you AMD. You are a true sport and we know you care for your customers. We support you all the way through thick and thin.
July 30, 2006 1:16:29 AM

Quote:
What you Intel fanboy's dont admit is- for more than 3-4 years you were using P4 playing games and performing daily "normal" computing tasks and did not complain about lack of performance, even though knew any A64 was faster than anything you had.
Today A64 dual core can do any task just as good as any conroe and none of those synthetic benchmarks matter even if show conore 10-20% faster. But you will not admit that any A64 x2 would be the smartest investment and upgrade for you and those who care less about synthetic benchmarks. The gamers will buy an A64 dual core and have enough left to spend it on a good vid card.
You can buy : A64 4200+ 1gig DDR2+Motherboard+ vid cards(GF 7600GT) for less than $500 which amounts to just a mere E6300+motherboard. ($250+$270). Yes you have to buy an expensive motherboard to be able to overclock the FSB to 350-400mhz to compete w/ A64 4200 @3ghz (overclocking range).
Show me a conroe motherboard for less than $150 that can overclock to 400 mhz FSB? there is none. You can buy a $110 Epox sAM2 SLI board and enjoy any gaming software and do you daily "multitask" computing, sit back laugh at those who keep posting " conroe is fast", "conroe does 9 seconds SPI 1M".
Guess what? I show you an Opteron's SPi 32M faster than a conroe E6300 @ 2.9ghz. It's not about Spi 1M that every one cares- Its about price/performance. AMD delivers, Intel promises. It's been more than 6 months people keep saying conroe is going to be released, yet the retails still dont have any and the release date keep getting pushed back.
AMD said prices will drop and it did and more than expected.
Thank you AMD. You are a true sport and we know you care for your customers. We support you all the way through thick and thin.



Mike,

once again your true personality shines through.

Get the frig over your persecution complex. AMD made some great products. A64 and AM2 are great products. If you'd actually bother to read Jumping Jacks posts, you'd see he touts AMDs acheivements frequently.

Instead, you choose to seeth quietly in your little corner of society,seeing only that which you wish to see, accepting only that which fits your personal model of reality. You sit there stewing until you can no longer contain yourself and come busrting forth with your delusional tripe.

Core 2 beats AM2 and A64. It dosent make AMD products bad. The only thing that makes AMD products bad, is your rhetoric, along with 9 inch's, Bowel Malox's, and Sharicompoops.

Stop embarrising those of us who like AMD. You are not making AMD any friends, or any points. You are not convincing anyone of anything. The vast majority of people posting here are grounded in reality. You are not informing them of anything, because they already have a firm grasp of the facts, and realize what you are pushing is not the truth.

The higher priced RAM required by AM2 offsets the mobo price difference
The Core 2 beats the AM2 X2s in the price/performance spec (for now)
Without overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2
With overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2
The benchmarks were not cooked
The aliens havent brainwashed anyone

You need to seek help. When I state you are delusional, it is not an attack. It is a statement of fact. You are truly having problems with reality, over a friggin chunk of glorified sand. Do you understand this? You attack people as if they were threatening your life. They are not. Its silicon for gods sake. Examine the virulence of your own posts. Normal people do not behave this way over silicon. You have a problem, and you need help. Get it before its too late for you.
July 30, 2006 1:48:10 AM

Quote:
What you Intel fanboy's dont admit is- for more than 3-4 years you were using P4 playing games and performing daily "normal" computing tasks and did not complain about lack of performance, even though knew any A64 was faster than anything you had.
Today A64 dual core can do any task just as good as any conroe and none of those synthetic benchmarks matter even if show conore 10-20% faster. But you will not admit that any A64 x2 would be the smartest investment and upgrade for you and those who care less about synthetic benchmarks. The gamers will buy an A64 dual core and have enough left to spend it on a good vid card.
You can buy : A64 4200+ 1gig DDR2+Motherboard+ vid cards(GF 7600GT) for less than $500 which amounts to just a mere E6300+motherboard. ($250+$270). Yes you have to buy an expensive motherboard to be able to overclock the FSB to 350-400mhz to compete w/ A64 4200 @3ghz (overclocking range).
Show me a conroe motherboard for less than $150 that can overclock to 400 mhz FSB? there is none. You can buy a $110 Epox sAM2 SLI board and enjoy any gaming software and do you daily "multitask" computing, sit back laugh at those who keep posting " conroe is fast", "conroe does 9 seconds SPI 1M".
Guess what? I show you an Opteron's SPi 32M faster than a conroe E6300 @ 2.9ghz. It's not about Spi 1M that every one cares- Its about price/performance. AMD delivers, Intel promises. It's been more than 6 months people keep saying conroe is going to be released, yet the retails still dont have any and the release date keep getting pushed back.
AMD said prices will drop and it did and more than expected.
Thank you AMD. You are a true sport and we know you care for your customers. We support you all the way through thick and thin.


AMD is a company, companies love your money, not you. Also you can't speak for everyone.
July 30, 2006 4:40:02 AM

Quote:
="turpit"
The higher priced RAM required by AM2 offsets the mobo price difference
The Core 2 beats the AM2 X2s in the price/performance spec (for now)
Without overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2
With overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2


At least when you quote your master, try to get it right.
Let's look at your sentences:
"The higher priced RAM required by AM2 offsets the mobo price difference "
Ok , listen #1:
It is E6300 that needs higher priced Ram to be able to do 400mhz FSB not AM2.
w/ AM2 all you need is DDR2 533 which is cheaper w/ tighter timings. here IMC's power come to play. w/ dual core A64 4200 you can do: 11x266=2926mhz 1:1 ratio. That means DDR2 533 (533/2=266.5)
With E6300 which has a 7x multiplier you have to overclock FSB to 400 to get 7x400=2800mhz.
400mhz FSB means DDR2 800 = more expensive than DDR2 533.
conclusion#1 : first sentence you quoted from your master was dumb.

your 2nd sentence: " The Core 2 beats the AM2 X2s in the price/performance spec (for now) "
So you disagree w/ THG and all other review sites? Then why should you believe anything they say?

your 3rd, and 4th sentences : "Without overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2
With overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2"

again, Every review sites say that E6300 stops below A64 5000 as far as performance goes, w/ or without overclocking. And in 64bit OS, AM2 gains about 6% of the loss. Check w/ your masters on this before you continue making another ass of yourself. That drops E6300 to A64 4200 if window xp 64 addition is your OS.
Besides, I wasn’t talking about overclocking when I suggested price/performance. It was about how much you feel the difference in speed between the 2 in real life and ordinary computing tasks. Ask your masters (the one's who actually tested conroe and AM2's and are using both platforms in house) they will tell you " you don’t really feel the difference" This is a quote from one of anandtech's staff who does reviews. I am sure he has reviewed more than 500 systems (that’s 500 more than you have)- That's what he says, and that's what I was trying to relay to those who careless which system to buy.
So, as far as price/performance is concerned, AMD is ahead whether you admit it or not. One look at retailer’s most popular products selling, one will realize it is AMD's. Only one or 2 Intel's PDP's are selling but below AMD's #.
That should give you a good indication of what people prefer to buy.
For me ? I will never buy Intel if it was dime a dozen, for personal reasons. One look at how Intel operates and how it has cheated consumer for 4 years w/ that netburst crap, one will see my point. You yourself is a victim of the netburst, but no guts to admit it. They lied to you then and they will lie to you now, again and again, but who cares, right? You will wait another 6 months if you have to, to taste that “AMD killer”.
July 30, 2006 5:12:06 AM

Quote:
You are a true sport and we know you care for your customers. We support you all the way through thick and thin.


AMD cares that their customers keep buying... We have four AMD PCs in this house and we enjoy their excellent performance. But our old P4 is showing its age and needs to be replaced and Conroe it will be. I fully expect to be buying another AMD in the future, once they get back in the game. I'm thinking maybe a laptop in 2008?
July 30, 2006 5:18:05 AM

Quote:
For me ? I will never buy Intel if it was dime a dozen, for personal reasons .
I think i figured out why Mike hates Intel so much. He truly sounds like a disgruntled employee. He probably worked for Intel, and got fired. :wink:
July 30, 2006 5:25:20 AM

Quote:
For me ? I will never buy Intel if it was dime a dozen, for personal reasons .
I think i figured out why Mike hates Intel so much. He truly sounds like a disgruntled employee. He probably worked for Intel, and got fired. :wink:

Maybe we should just ask: What are those personal reasons?
July 30, 2006 5:32:11 AM

Quote:
For me ? I will never buy Intel if it was dime a dozen, for personal reasons .
I think i figured out why Mike hates Intel so much. He truly sounds like a disgruntled employee. He probably worked for Intel, and got fired. :wink:

Maybe we should just ask: What are those personal reasons?He probably doesn't even tell his psychiatrist in his 7 visits/week, or his anger-management group. :wink:
July 30, 2006 5:40:34 AM

Quote:
For me ? I will never buy Intel if it was dime a dozen, for personal reasons .
I think i figured out why Mike hates Intel so much. He truly sounds like a disgruntled employee. He probably worked for Intel, and got fired. :wink:

Maybe we should just ask: What are those personal reasons?He probably doesn't even tell his psychiatrist in his 7 visits/week, or his anger-management group. :wink:

I thought WE were his anger management group?
July 30, 2006 5:59:09 AM

Quote:

At least when you quote your master, try to get it right.
Let's look at your sentences:
"The higher priced RAM required by AM2 offsets the mobo price difference "
Ok , listen #1:
It is E6300 that needs higher priced Ram to be able to do 400mhz FSB not AM2.
w/ AM2 all you need is DDR2 533 which is cheaper w/ tighter timings. here IMC's power come to play. w/ dual core A64 4200 you can do: 11x266=2926mhz 1:1 ratio. That means DDR2 533 (533/2=266.5)
With E6300 which has a 7x multiplier you have to overclock FSB to 400 to get 7x400=2800mhz.
400mhz FSB means DDR2 800 = more expensive than DDR2 533.
conclusion#1 : first sentence you quoted from your master was dumb.

but then the question becomes, "does OCed 4200 out performs an E6300"?
using FX-62's data, which is just clocked slightly slower than your "OCed" 4200, OCed E6300 completely annihilates FX-62. in addition, i doubt your OCed 4200 is able to keep up with OCed E6300.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280...
[/quote]

Quote:

your 2nd sentence: " The Core 2 beats the AM2 X2s in the price/performance spec (for now) "
So you disagree w/ THG and all other review sites? Then why should you believe anything they say?

Core 2 are better in terms of price/performance.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/28/six_amd_dual-cores_hu...
it says, "AMD D/C not at or below Intel's price/performance", not higher.
if you think logically, you'll find an E6600 outperforms FX-62. hey, that's a $350 processor outperforms a $800 processor.
Quote:

your 3rd, and 4th sentences : "Without overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2
With overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2"

again, Every review sites say that E6300 stops below A64 5000 as far as performance goes, w/ or without overclocking...

are you so sure about that?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280...
plus, E6300 costs $220, while 5000+ costs $350. 5000+ should outperforms E6300.

Quote:

...And in 64bit OS, AM2 gains about 6% of the loss.

um.. but that doesn't mean a mere 6% can close a 20% performance difference.

Quote:

Check w/ your masters on this before you continue making another ass of yourself.

its more like, check w/ your masters on this before you start posting BS. oh wait, i think sharikou posts BS too...

Quote:

That drops E6300 to A64 4200 if window xp 64 addition is your OS.
Besides, I wasn’t talking about overclocking when I suggested price/performance. It was about how much you feel the difference in speed between the 2 in real life and ordinary computing tasks. Ask your masters (the one's who actually tested conroe and AM2's and are using both platforms in house) they will tell you " you don’t really feel the difference" This is a quote from one of anandtech's staff who does reviews.

so this also means, you should feel no difference between an E6300 and a 5000+. from your logic, why is buying 5000+ over E6300 justified?

Quote:

I am sure he has reviewed more than 500 systems (that’s 500 more than you have)- That's what he says, and that's what I was trying to relay to those who careless which system to buy.

so you're willing to suggest AMD system to those who could care less, even though they're priced higher, and performed worse?

Quote:

So, as far as price/performance is concerned, AMD is ahead whether you admit it or not. One look at retailer’s most popular products selling, one will realize it is AMD's. Only one or 2 Intel's PDP's are selling but below AMD's #.

as far as price/performance is concerned, AMD is ahead, before Core 2's release. After Core 2's release, whether you admit it or not, Core 2's price/performance is way ahead of AMD. its a fact.


Quote:

That should give you a good indication of what people prefer to buy.

this statement is not accurate, given the fact that Core 2 was released yesterday. and FYI, Core 2 are priced a lot higher now because of soaring demand. i'm sure in a short while, Core 2 will replaced AMD to be the most popular selling product.
Quote:

For me ? I will never buy Intel if it was dime a dozen, for personal reasons. One look at how Intel operates and how it has cheated consumer for 4 years w/ that netburst crap, one will see my point.

so Intel's Netburst was inferior, and they have superior marketing, so what? this is a business, not a court.

Quote:

You yourself is a victim of the netburst, but no guts to admit it. They lied to you then and they will lie to you now, again and again, but who cares, right? You will wait another 6 months if you have to, to taste that “AMD killer”.

and you yourself, is a victim of "AMD Fanboyism". you said Intel may lie to us, but why do all the reviews and benchmarks tell me otherwise?
but who cares, right? you're just a messed up AMD fanboy, who smear the name of others who loves AMD.

you, need to shut up, and get some logic in your head.
July 30, 2006 6:49:02 AM

To start, I will fix your quoting errors, so your post will make some sense, without having to spend 15 minutes “decoding” it.

Quote:
At least when you quote your master, try to get it right.
Let's look at your sentences:
"The higher priced RAM required by AM2 offsets the mobo price difference "
Ok , listen #1:
It is E6300 that needs higher priced Ram to be able to do 400mhz FSB not AM2.
w/ AM2 all you need is DDR2 533 which is cheaper w/ tighter timings. here IMC's power come to play. w/ dual core A64 4200 you can do: 11x266=2926mhz 1:1 ratio. That means DDR2 533 (533/2=266.5)
With E6300 which has a 7x multiplier you have to overclock FSB to 400 to get 7x400=2800mhz.
400mhz FSB means DDR2 800 = more expensive that DDR2 533.
conclusion#1 : first sentence you quoted from your master was dumb.
your 2nd sentence: " The Core 2 beats the AM2 X2s in the price/performance spec (for now) "


You know Mike, I've asked you this before, do you actually read what you write before you hit the “submit” button? Your master? Who, pray tell, is my master? Are you seeing what you write? This “your master” comment ranks right up there with your "darkside of Conroe” comment. It is indicative of an individual who is seriously disturbed, at a deep emotional level and feels (wrongly) unjust personal persecution. My masters...get real. This is not Lucas’s Star Wars epic. There is no “Darkside”. There are no “masters” You are not Mad Mod Mike Skywalker, saving the helpless citizens of universe from the evils of Darth Intel. These delusions exist only in your mind. There is only a small group of individuals who really, truly, have serious problems.

I’m not going to bother going into the AM2 CAS issues, as every day there are at least 2 posts on THG begging for help with AM2 ram problems, because someone tried to sneak by with cheap ram. In short, you are wrong.

Quote:
So you disagree w/ THG and all other review sites? Then why should you believe anything they say?
your 3rd, and 4th sentences : "Without overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2
With overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2"
again, Every review sites say that E6300 stops below A64 5000 as far as performance goes, w/ or without overclocking. And in 64bit OS, AM2 gains about 6% of the loss. Check w/ your masters on this before you continue making another ass of yourself. That drops E6300 to A64 4200 is window xp 64 addition.


As to disagreeing with THG and Anand, I do not. In fact I trust what they state. The problem here is that you failed to read or comprehend the articles in their entirety.

You are comparing the E6300 to the x2 5000. Intel’s "counterpart" to the X2 5000 is not the e6300, but the E6600, which THG, Anand and every other reputable site has show, does in fact meet or exceed Intel’s claim of a 20% performance increase over the x2 5000. I just compared the latest prices. Just for this rebuttal. The cheapest 5000 I could find was listed at $309 US. The cheapest E6600 I could find was listed at $339. Neither site had the chips in stock. The price difference equates to 9%. I would say a $30 or 9% increase in price is a fair bargain for a 20% increase in performance.

Now, to compare the E6600 to its true AMD counterpart, (in terms of performance) the FX62 (@ $842, again the cheapest current price, though these actually were in stock) the price difference expands significantly to $503 dollars, or a 40% increase for the same performance. I strongly recommend you go back and re-read the reviews in their entirety as these sites do point out that while in one to one product line comparison, AMD has dropped its prices, in one to one performance comparison, Intel is still the better value


Quote:
Besides, I wasn’t talking about overclocking when I suggested price/performance. It was about how much you feel the difference in speed between the 2 in real life and ordinary computing tasks. Ask your masters (the one's who actually tested conroe and AM2's and are using both platforms in house) they will tell you " you don’t really feel the difference" This is a quote from one of anandtech's staff who does reviews. I am sure he has reviewed more than 500 systems (that’s 500 more than you have)- That's what he says, and that's what I was trying to relay to those who careless which system to buy.


You have no idea how many systems I have owned as I have never stated nor alluded to that number. You write that as innuendo in an attempt to discredit me. The problem is you don’t know what I use my computers for, nor apparently, did you read the whole article. As for feeling the difference, I think I can garuntee I would feel it, based on what I use my computer for, which is not primarily gaming. I use my computer for both 2D and 3D rendering, video editing, as well as day to day administrative BS i.e. word processing, spreadsheets etc. Oh, by the way, you quoted the reviewer out of context. If you go back and re-read it, you will find, as I recall, a “unless..” in that sentence. Again, I strongly recommend you go back and read the articles.

Quote:
So, as far as price/performance is concerned, AMD is ahead whether you admit it or not. One look at retailer’s most popular products selling, one will realize it is AMD's. Only one or 2 Intel's PDP's are selling but below AMD's #.
That should give you a good indication of what people prefer to buy.


As for the number of sales, I find it interesting that you would raise that issue, as the Core 2 family has only been out for 3 days (in the US) and most of those sold out in less than an hour. The “most popular” product comparison you are alluding to is current AMD vs. P4/Netcrap. I would hope to god AMD beats Netshit in popularity. But we are not speaking of Netfailure, we are speaking of Core 2. The reason this is so interesting is that this piece of information does absolutely nothing to prove your point. In fact, it adds further proof to the theory that you habitually take information out of context.

Quote:
For me ? I will never buy Intel if it was dime a dozen, for personal reasons. One look at how Intel operates and how it has cheated consumer for 4 years w/ that netburst crap, one will see my point. You yourself is a victim of the netburst, but no guts to admit it. They lied to you then and they will lie to you now, again and again, but who cares, right? You will wait another 6 months if you have to, to taste that “AMD killer”.



A victim of net burst????? God Mike, listen to yourself. Really! If you have read any of my posts, you would have seen me state, more than once, that I have not owned an Intel system for over 5 years. In fact, the last Intel I owned, a slot 1 PII is sitting in a closet right now collecting dust. Right next to my old AMD Athlon 1900, 2600XP and 2800XP.



Mike you really need to sit back and read what you write. You then need to compare your posting style and actions to other peoples posts.

Use me for example
-I do not hide behind a puppet. You are Mad Mod Mike. Everyone knows this, yet you refuse to admit it. Although you did once make a deliberately suggestive statement indicating the truth. Why is it, you and the other 3 hide behind puppets?
-I have never been banned from THG. You have. Ask yourself: why?
-I do not quote only the parts of articles or reviews which prove a point, while failing to acknowledge or even recognize those parts which disprove my point.
-I do not claim to know everything, in fact I have said many times I know much less than the other users of THG forums. You, through your actions, attempt (unsuccessfully) to present the appearance of expertise.

Quote:
One look at how Intel operates and how it has cheated consumer for 4 years w/ that netburst crap, one will see my point

-Guess what? I agree, Netburst was/is crap.
-Guess what? I believe for 3 years Intel’s marketing division promoted a crappy product.
-Guess what? I loved my AMDs. They have given me great service.
-Guess what? Even if you really were Mad Mod Mike Skywalker, saving the helpless citizens of universe from the evils of Darth Intel, it would not change the fact that the Core 2 performs better than X2 and (at this point in time) for a better price per “unit” of performance.
-Again do you read what you write? You are stating, that you are willing to pay premium prices for lower performance for a consumer product. This is not a set of tires that wear abnormally and burst unexpectedly. This is not a "lowest bidder" "O" ring than fails causing explosions. Its a friggin CPU. Get over it.

Whats the point of this? Yes Mike, netburst was crap. Congratulations, you got something right, but Core 2 is not netburst. Core 2 is better than AM2. You your self admitted this in your own blog. Why are you fighting this?


Mike, no shite, you need help. This has nothing to do with CPUs. You have a much deeper problem that is masquerading as an opinion of a companies products. Go to a clinic. Seek help, now, before it is too late for you.
July 30, 2006 7:19:43 AM

Quote:
again, Every review sites say that E6300 stops below A64 5000 as far as performance goes, w/ or without overclocking. And in 64bit OS, AM2 gains about 6% of the loss.


This is not what the data says:



Also, xbit labs miscalculated the "AMD speedup", it was 12% not 16%, that is shown in in the table above --- feel free to check my math. And on average the 64 bit core 2 performance advantage is the same as the 32-bit performance advantage.... you are not thinking of what % means correctly, which is OK if you want to be blindingly wrong --- or you could a) open up excel, b) type in the xbitlabs raw numbers yourself, c) enter the correct cell/formula's to calculate the percentaqes, and d) validate the result yourself.

I doubt that will happen.

Jack


There ya go again Jack, clouding suppostion with facts and proof. :lol: 


Peace
July 30, 2006 1:45:30 PM

Quote:
This is the infuriating thing about the tunnel vision approach to debate. When a review site publishes numbers, I often will do a spot check to ensure that they are giving me the right 'conclusion' in their calculatons, for the most part they are correct but xbit obviously miscalculated (an honest mistake I am sure). It is one thing to look at data and the reviewers conclusion, it is another to ensure you are appropriately but politely skeptical.

Some people choke down the informaiton without asking themselves "am what I am reading correct". There is a certain need to accept the data as real, there is also a certain need to question it to ensure the integrity. I was not unhappy with people being skeptical of the IDF or ES data, it is warranted, but after so much then you must accept it as fact.

This is the reason whent he IDF benchmarks came out, I took them as real for the most part but also reserved judgement on making firm conclusions until more data was available. Then the leaked ES data starting coming, and after the consistency was demonstrated, it was pretty much known what the final bench/reviews would be, but again it is only conclusive after you have multiple runs at it.

Even the 64-bit performance, I am only willing to say at this point -- 'the data suggests' or 'it appears we may conclude'... I am not willing at this point to say "definitively without question that Core 2 Duo 64-bit peformance advantage is the same, no question".

I am waiting on the Anand tech 64 bit data, and hopefully Tom's and maybe legit reviews will do some extensive testing themselves.


"Appropriately but politely skeptical" - I like that! Classic.

For those that just missed it, the above is an excellent tutorial on how to bring published results into one's internal database. Note how Jack on one hand trusts publications - conditionally, while at the same time thinking critically. Sad to say it, but this approach is lost on many science and tech people over the last decade or two. Witness the growth in consultant firms that go around the world teaching the scientific method to tech and engineering graduates. The very foundation of scientific research has weakened and crumbled to the point that the money men are making the bottom line decisions based on shoddy conclusions. Just remember, to do science right, we don't go out and look for results that support our hypothesis, we instead go look for ways to DISPROVE our hypothesis. When none can be found, we continue be skeptical and then try to develop the next hypothesis based on the accumulated results.
July 30, 2006 5:07:39 PM

Quote:

"Appropriately but politely skeptical" - I like that! Classic.

For those that just missed it, the above is an excellent tutorial on how to bring published results into one's internal database. Note how Jack on one hand trusts publications - conditionally, while at the same time thinking critically. Sad to say it, but this approach is lost on many science and tech people over the last decade or two. Witness the growth in consultant firms that go around the world teaching the scientific method to tech and engineering graduates. The very foundation of scientific research has weakened and crumbled to the point that the money men are making the bottom line decisions based on shoddy conclusions. Just remember, to do science right, we don't go out and look for results that support our hypothesis, we instead go look for ways to DISPROVE our hypothesis. When none can be found, we continue be skeptical and then try to develop the next hypothesis based on the accumulated results.



Very well said

To recap what Clue69less said, and put it in short sentences for the fanboys who wont read the whole thing

Fanboy
Quote:
Just remember, to do science right, we don't go out and look for results that support our hypothesis
WRONG METHOD

scientist/engineer/technician
Quote:
......look for ways to DISPROVE our hypothesis. When none can be found, we continue be skeptical and then try to develop the next hypothesis based on the accumulated results.
CORRECT METHOD
July 31, 2006 9:42:35 AM

Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.
July 31, 2006 7:42:23 PM

Quote:
Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.



Absolutely. I would very much like to see the tech sites stop using the synthetic bench marks altogether. I would much rather see them use pure app benchmarks, even if they have to use obsure programs to do this.
August 1, 2006 12:14:11 AM

Quote:
Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.



Absolutely. I would very much like to see the tech sites stop using the synthetic bench marks altogether. I would much rather see them use pure app benchmarks, even if they have to use obsure programs to do this.

As long as the benchmarks are well-defined, readily available and quantitative, it doesn't matter so much to me. Synthetics have their place in the mix.
August 1, 2006 10:38:16 AM

Quote:
Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.



Absolutely. I would very much like to see the tech sites stop using the synthetic bench marks altogether. I would much rather see them use pure app benchmarks, even if they have to use obsure programs to do this.

As long as the benchmarks are well-defined, readily available and quantitative, it doesn't matter so much to me. Synthetics have their place in the mix.

Doesen't it smell you of BS when a cpu beats a contemporary one with a 100-200% edge?! Doesen't smell of BS when a 3G P4 gets a 4000 rating while a 3000+ only takes 2800. I work everyday with both of them and can say that they're just head to head.
C'mon, are we STUPID not to see that it's just a hard coded line of programming to determine that, not analyzing, it's just something like

3.0P4 -> 3987;
A643000+ -> 2875;
etc.
August 1, 2006 2:16:22 PM

Quote:
C'mon, are we STUPID not to see that it's just a hard coded line of programming to determine that, not analyzing, it's just something like

3.0P4 -> 3987;
A643000+ -> 2875;
etc.


You think 3DM06 assigns results solely based on the CPU identity?
August 1, 2006 8:10:35 PM

Quote:
Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.



Absolutely. I would very much like to see the tech sites stop using the synthetic bench marks altogether. I would much rather see them use pure app benchmarks, even if they have to use obsure programs to do this.

As long as the benchmarks are well-defined, readily available and quantitative, it doesn't matter so much to me. Synthetics have their place in the mix.

Doesen't it smell you of BS when a cpu beats a contemporary one with a 100-200% edge?! Doesen't smell of BS when a 3G P4 gets a 4000 rating while a 3000+ only takes 2800. I work everyday with both of them and can say that they're just head to head.
C'mon, are we STUPID not to see that it's just a hard coded line of programming to determine that, not analyzing, it's just something like

3.0P4 -> 3987;
A643000+ -> 2875;
etc.Look at the PR rating in SANDRA. They base that on a comparison against a Pentium 100. :?
August 1, 2006 9:22:09 PM

I'm just going to sit back and laugh as MMM hopelessly tries to defend AMD against the Conroe. K8 kicked Prescott ass for three years, but now Intel has come back with a better product. If I were to buy a CPU now, I'd get a Conroe because it's faster than K8. When I bought my A64 in April, K8 was faster than Prescott. Some people kiss the ass of their favorite company; others get the most for their money.
August 1, 2006 11:34:50 PM

Quote:
Doesen't it smell you of BS when a cpu beats a contemporary one with a 100-200% edge?! Doesen't smell of BS when a 3G P4 gets a 4000 rating while a 3000+ only takes 2800. I work everyday with both of them and can say that they're just head to head.
C'mon, are we STUPID not to see that it's just a hard coded line of programming to determine that, not analyzing, it's just something like


No, do you think the same way if there was two systems that are otherwise identical except one used dual channel memory and other used single channel memory and showed 80% advantage in memory bandwidth?? Do you call that bullshit and conclude dual channel only gives 5% bandwidth increase over single channel?? No, because we are looking at one factor.

by m25
Quote:
Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful


Err, early benchmark showed some synthetics showing clear advantage of A64 over Core 2 Duo(like memory bandwidth benchmark etc), and people outrightly dismissed C2D because of that. However, it showed in actual benchmarks C2D kicks the crap out of A64 and more.

Actually, the reason Pentium 4's got such advantage in some benchmarks over A64(like SSE2) and doesn't in real world apps is because synthetics measure only one component.

Say a particular real world program ONLY consisted of SSE2, memory dependency, and legacy x87 FPU code.

Say it consisted of:
30% SSE2
50% memory
20% x87 FPU

Say A64's are:
2x FPU performance
1.8x memory performance
0.5x SSE2 performance

Of course in synthetic apps its gonna show P4 killing A64 in SSE2 and A64 killing P4 in memory/FPU performance.

The particular app would show 45% advantage in performance for A64 over Pentium 4.

If another benchmark was:
60% SSE2
15% memory
25% FPU

Pentium 4 would be 11% faster than A64 in this case due to lots of SSE2.

Of course this is vastly simplified comparison, but you see, if you are able to gather ALL synthetic performance and the code in the program, you should be able to predict real world performance.
!