Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

fastest-amd-opteron-vs-intel-core-2-extreme

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 7, 2006 11:24:32 AM

It's freaking crazy. You know what a 2P xeon would do.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 7, 2006 11:26:51 AM

man read the whole article:
3DMark 2006: Core 2 Duo: CPU: 2551 AMD Opteron CPU: 3697
PCMark: Core 2 Duo:7247 AMD Opteron: 8144

why do you hate AMD so much - true the Core 2 can beat athlon but the AMD opteron remains the best flagship processor all computer exterts are saying that same word.
September 7, 2006 11:33:09 AM

Quote:
man read the whole article:
3DMark 2006: Core 2 Duo: CPU: 2551 AMD Opteron CPU: 3697
PCMark: Core 2 Duo:7247 AMD Opteron: 8144

why do you hate AMD so much - true the Core 2 can beat athlon but the AMD opteron remains the best flagship processor all computer exterts are saying that same word.
I think you're missing the point. The dual Opty machine should not lose any of the benchmarks to a single C2D machine. This just attests to the C2D's efficient architecture, and looks very promising for 2P machines.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 11:45:21 AM

Quote:
man read the whole article:
3DMark 2006: Core 2 Duo: CPU: 2551 AMD Opteron CPU: 3697
PCMark: Core 2 Duo:7247 AMD Opteron: 8144

why do you hate AMD so much - true the Core 2 can beat athlon but the AMD opteron remains the best flagship processor all computer exterts are saying that same word.


I don't think you get it... that's TWO... yes TWO Dual Core Opterons... against a single Core 2 Extreme.

And no Computer experts are saying the Opteron is the best flagship processor. If so... what experts? Could you link us?
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 11:46:21 AM

I think most people don't hate AMD, it's just that they absolutely love the new C2D :D . Most people just want the best bang for the buck. There is a very big margin between "hey, look at how AMD sucks" and "wow, look at how powerful this C2D is". Unless I have good reason to interpret something as "hateful" I assume people here have good will behind their comments.

I have been a satisfied owner of AMD CPUs for the past 5-6 years and the few systems I built for myself or others have always been AMDs. But hell, my next machine will probably be a C2D unless I get good, non peculative, reason to wait for K8L.

Talking about K8L (sounds like a toy company name to me ... but hey, Wii sounds crap to but it's not going to stop me from getting one :p ), if it beats C2D, most people will just switch back to AMD without a second thought and, hopefully, be amazed at how much it's better than C2D. Things like that happens when technology evolves.
September 7, 2006 11:50:52 AM

Also, if you carefully read the article again, the author in no way is putting down the 2P Opti system against the C2D; they're giving it 8.9 out of 10 stars. Keep in mind that this is a comparison of a 2P system against 1P system. If you are not a fanboy, you'll be glad to know what a 2P C2D Woodies would do side by side against a 2P Opties.
September 7, 2006 11:54:24 AM

Quote:
Also, if you carefully read the article again, the author in no way is putting down the 2P Opti system against the C2D; they're giving it 8.9 out of 10 stars. Keep in mind that this is a comparison of a 2P system against 1P system. If you are not a fanboy, you'll be glad to know what a 2P C2D Woodies would do side by side against a 2P Opties.


They should have used 51xx.
September 7, 2006 12:00:24 PM

Quote:
It's freaking crazy. You know what a 2P xeon would do.


Their next test will be a 2P Woodie system against the 2P Opties. I would really see the true performance of dual Woodies next to the amd counterpart. It can't be by mere coincidence that Apple is putting them in their new high-performing boxes. Also, I haven't seen any comparison of such system yet, i.e. Amd or C2D against Woodies-based systems.
September 7, 2006 12:16:39 PM

Then why are they building the world next fastest supercomputer (IBM Roadrunner) with Opterons (and cells) insted of woodcrests?
September 7, 2006 12:24:33 PM

Quote:
Then why are they building the world next fastest supercomputer (IBM Roadrunner) with Opterons (and cells) insted of woodcrests?
Same reason that guys like Baron Matrix and 9-inch would spent $2000 on an AMD system, that would get beat by a $1200 Intel C2D system. :wink: :lol:  Baron is afraid of "learning" an Intel BIOS...he admitted that...no sh*t!!
September 7, 2006 12:26:50 PM

Quote:
Then why are they building the world next fastest supercomputer (IBM Roadrunner) with Opterons (and cells) insted of woodcrests?


Maybe because Intel stole their Apple business from them? :p 
September 7, 2006 1:13:49 PM

Quote:
Then why are they building the world next fastest supercomputer (IBM Roadrunner) with Opterons (and cells) insted of woodcrests?


Maybe because Intel stole their Apple business from them? :p 

lol...sad, but maybe true! :?: :wink:
September 7, 2006 1:18:30 PM

Quote:
...he admitted that...no sh*t!!

I don't belive! Do you have a prove?
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 1:25:58 PM

Quote:
Then why are they building the world next fastest supercomputer (IBM Roadrunner) with Opterons (and cells) insted of woodcrests?


Because Opterons scale better. Due to the fact that they use a Hypertransport links between each processor as opposed to Intel Woodcrests Xeons shared FSB is the main reason why Opterons will out perform Woodcrest Xeons in 8-Way or more configs. Quad Core still has Intel ahead of AMD (Quad core or Quad CPU actually). It's when you hit configurations of 8 or more that Opterons really shine.

Sadly.. not too many people need 8-way or higher configurations.
September 7, 2006 1:28:43 PM

Quote:
Then why are they building the world next fastest supercomputer (IBM Roadrunner) with Opterons (and cells) insted of woodcrests?


As far as I know, IBM/Sony & Motorolla were developing risc-based processors for Apple not so long ago. Also, IBM had a partnership with AMD helping them with their processor-development platform; I think they still have that partnership together or so.

Thus, when Apple made the switch to Intel-based procs. one can expect IBM/Sony & Moto to be really pissed off as Apple has always been (for as long as I can remember) considered the cradle of modern PC -to an extent.

That might be one of many reasons why, which it really doesn't surprises me at all, that IBM is going with AMD/Cells-based procs. for the DOE supercomputer project.
September 7, 2006 1:45:54 PM

Ugh, with Apple switching over to Intel, I have more reason to hate them. They should just die off. Before, they actually were trying to be different, using IBM processors instead of the mainstream Intel, but now that they switched, their just PC's running a different OS. If I was going to buy an OS, I'd get windows, because I see no point in spending hundreds of dollars every other year buying the new Apple OS's.

Anyone have a good reason to get apple computers now? Anybody?
September 7, 2006 1:56:09 PM

Quote:
AMD opteron remains the best flagship processor all computer exterts are saying that same word.


No they aren't.

All computer experts are currently saying that C2D is not only a faster architecture in general, but are far more efficient eg greater performance per watt.

Anyone who denies this is a moron; the benchmarks speak for themselves. Sure, AMD may be able to get closer in terms of price/performance ratio with intelligent pricing at the lower end, but at the high-end they definitely lose out. However, given that even the low end C2D processors overclock extremely well even under air cooling, I cannot see any reason whatsoever why anyone would buy into an AMD system at this stage.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an AMD user, I currently have a San Diego 3700+ overclocked to FX-55. However, I'm quite certain my next system will be C2D - not just because of the great performance in dual-core apps / general tasks but also because of great gaming performance. This is something that the dual-core AMD's simply don't do a good job of. My San Diego at stock will beat anything upto a 4400+ in most games. I'd consider this pretty poor from a company's top-flight CPU's. Imo AMD's dual-core CPU's took a step back from gaming performance the moment they were released.

My other reason for choosing a C2D will be the thermal properties of the new chip. One of my greatest considerations for any new machine is silence, and I believe that a Core 2 Duo processor (given its low thermal output and enhanced power saving / throttling technologies) is the number one choice for any quiet system right now. Lower temperatures require less cooling its as simple as that. That means less fans, at lower speeds, and thus less noise.

So, to summarise. We have a new processor line from Intel that not only takes the performance crown from AMD's dual-core CPU's (which can only compete through significant pricing drops) but is also a good all-rounder. It performs great in OS-related tasks eg archive handling while remaining great in games, plus it performs great in single or dual-core accelerated professional tasks such as video/audio editing and 3D content creation.

And it does all this with lower power consumption, lower thermal output / operating temperaturs, and while offering a stronger upgrade path.


Who would you choose?
September 7, 2006 2:04:53 PM

Quote:
Then why are they building the world next fastest supercomputer (IBM Roadrunner) with Opterons (and cells) insted of woodcrests?


Because of existing infrastructure. IBM has built a couple of them already, they know how to do that. Woodcrest is too new and more importantly, was not available in planing phase of Roadrunner.

Wait a year to investigate once again what is used to build supercomputers.
September 7, 2006 2:10:45 PM

Quote:

Because Opterons scale better. Due to the fact that they use a Hypertransport links between each processor as opposed to Intel Woodcrests Xeons shared FSB is the main reason why Opterons will out perform Woodcrest Xeons in 8-Way or more configs.


Mostly irrelevant for supercomputers, they are built as clusters (means, those thousands of cores are NOT interconnected, they are more likely as thousands PCs connected with ethernet).

Quote:

It's when you hit configurations of 8 or more that Opterons really shine.
Sadly.. not too many people need 8-way or higher configurations.


Actually, that is just speculation.

Also, in reality, I am afraid that even Opterons will not scale that good with 8-way either. Such high paralelisation hits various limits pretty soon, hyperconnect or not.
September 7, 2006 2:25:24 PM

Quote:
...he admitted that...no sh*t!!

I don't belive! Do you have a prove?Took forever to find it.


Post #66
Quote:
I PREFER AMD. I'm only a fanboy of hot coffee. Switching to Intel means learning a whole new BIOS and all new product types(mobos). I don't have time.


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/500-AM2-5000-ch...

post#88
Quote:
You seem upset --- no body is asking you NOT to prefer AMD, in fact, no body is asking you to even mildly like Intel. What people are asking you is to stop making nonsense insertions of things that cannot be true.

However, switching camps is not as hard as you seem to make it sound--especially for someone claiming to be so versed in the knowledge of personal computing. I find it odd that you can make all the asertions and comparions you do, draw the conclusions you draw then claim you don't know anything about the bios, motherboards. Nevertheless, I will help you ---

1. You need a CPU, just like if you were building an AMD system. There are 5 to choose from E6300, E6400, E6600, E6700 and X6800. I recommend the E6600.

2. You need a MB, just like if you were building an AMD system. many to choose from but DFI Lanparty is a popular AMD choice, quality MBs, and guess what they make MBs that work with Intel too. Simply choose one that states Core 2 Duo compatible. I will assume you know what a USB port is so you can read the specs and deterime how many it has.

3. You need memory. Choose memory just like you would when rigging up for an AMD computer for an AM2 setup. The memory used in an AM2 AMD machine will, guess what, work in an Intel system.

4. Choose a cooling fan. Because Core 2 Duo runs much cooler than an AMD CPU in general, you can probably get buy with the stock fan.

5. Assemble the MB, plug in the CPU to the large square socket. Don't worry it is dummy proof so even you cannot screw it up. Then plug in the memory -- again, it is dummy proof so you cannot screw it up. Screw motherboard down in case, hook up HD, Optical Drive, power cables.

5. Boot up and install OS.

If you know what you are doing the entire process (minus OS install time) take about 45 minutes, in your case I would budget 2 hours.


Post #104
Quote:
So you're saying that if I do have a problem the BIOS settings are exactly the same so I can troubleshoot it easily without ever having LOOKED AT a P4/Core 2 BIOS?

Let me guess you road the short bus.


Post #172
Quote:
Fear is relative. I work with my PC. I can'r afford to not know how to troubeshoot the BIOS before Iget it. AMD BIOS has not changed too much in 3 years.

Downtime costs money.


etc.etc. :D 
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 2:31:50 PM

Quote:

Because Opterons scale better. Due to the fact that they use a Hypertransport links between each processor as opposed to Intel Woodcrests Xeons shared FSB is the main reason why Opterons will out perform Woodcrest Xeons in 8-Way or more configs.


Mostly irrelevant for supercomputers, they are built as clusters (means, those thousands of cores are NOT interconnected, they are more likely as thousands PCs connected with ethernet).

Quote:

It's when you hit configurations of 8 or more that Opterons really shine.
Sadly.. not too many people need 8-way or higher configurations.


Actually, that is just speculation.

Also, in reality, I am afraid that even Opterons will not scale that good with 8-way either. Such high paralelisation hits various limits pretty soon, hyperconnect or not.

Clusters or not, Woodcrest would choke on any cluster higher in size then 4-way. Whereas the Opteron can do 8-way without any real problems. This has already been proven and it is the Opterons only advantage. To deny AMD's Opteron has any advantages is to be a fanboi of Intel's. It would be best to tell it like it is.. wether you personally do not like what you hear is for you to keep to yourself. People spend money based on recommendations on these boards. I would hate to have someone spend there hard earned money on a suggestion based on someone elses' personal preference rather then cold hard facts and real world tests.

You see it's quite logical.

Many Clusters of 8-way design without bandwidth limitations > Many Clusters of 4-way design without bandwidth limitations.

This is mearly due to the bandwidth limitations already imposed on the connectors that connect each cluster together (each segment if you will).

This is why Opteron makes for a better LARGE server design and I for one am glad that Intel doesn't not totally dominate the industry... not because I preffer AMD, but because this helps to keep the prices down.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 2:39:44 PM

Quote:
Comparing a 90nm opteron with ddr400 to a new core 2 duo extreme is like comparing a 1980 mustang LX to a 2007 Cobra Gt. It just doesnt make any sense.

Whats next an article about how a 7950GX2 smokes 2 6800GT's?? :roll:
Get real nerd boy.


Ummm incorrect.
Athlon(XP/MP) = K7 (7 stands for 7th Generation).
Opteron = K8 (8 stand for 8th Generation).

Pentium 4 (Netburst) is a 80786 (7th Generation)... whereas Core 2 is an 80886 (8th Generation).

Therefore comparing the Opteron to the Core 2 is a correct comparaison. Comparing the Opteron to the Netburst Xeons would be the same as your analogy suggests.
Also worth noting that DDR2 has little effect on the performance of the desktop K8 design therefore it's quite likely it would also not benefit Opteron but probably hinder it's performance.
September 7, 2006 2:42:19 PM

Quote:
...he admitted that...no sh*t!!

I don't belive! Do you have a prove?

I don't remember the exact thread, but it was a couple of months ago. I will back 1Tanker up on this one. Baron was grasping at straws so hard that he actually said he would not buy intel due to his lack of familiarity with the BIOS setup on intel boards. Too funny!
September 7, 2006 3:03:30 PM

Quote:
Ugh, with Apple switching over to Intel, I have more reason to hate them. They should just die off. Before, they actually were trying to be different, using IBM processors instead of the mainstream Intel, but now that they switched, their just PC's running a different OS. If I was going to buy an OS, I'd get windows, because I see no point in spending hundreds of dollars every other year buying the new Apple OS's.

Anyone have a good reason to get apple computers now? Anybody?


Are you out of your mind? --It seems. Do some mindful reading about Apple history. I understand your point, but Apple has always set the example at innovating the PC platform. Whether Apple uses IBM/AMD or Intel/Cell procs, Apple's innovative and competitive mindset -primarily- is what has allowed M$ or Bill Gates find a niche in the PC platform with its not-so-efficient OSs. Just think about this, look at linux and other Apple-friendly platforms and then compare them with MS counterparts. Just lately -after 2K & XP, is when one could admit that MS has come close to the performance and eye candy of Apple's OSs. In addition, if you are an Apple owner you get to have the best of both worlds. Hopefully not so far in the future, Intel-based PC owners (like me and yourself and perhaps amd users as well) will be able to benefit from some real competition from the Apple OS; who knows.

I see no point replying back to your pointless comments about Apple using Intel. What if Apple were using a better AMD platform than Intel's? I hope you don't come up with another pointless comment.
September 7, 2006 3:13:46 PM

Quote:

Clusters or not, Woodcrest would choke on any cluster higher in size then 4-way. Whereas the Opteron can do 8-way without any real problems.


It is possible, but right at the moment, it is just speculation. We will have to wait a couple of month to see (2 socket clovertown).

Also, "without any real problems" is a little bit stretched. 8-way has problems regardless of interconnect.

Quote:

You see it's quite logical.

Many Clusters of 8-way design without bandwidth limitations > Many Clusters of 4-way design without bandwidth limitations.


It depends on type of application. I am affraid that for typical cluster applications (think render farm), this is not true. E.g. 8-way would share hardrives and ethernet connection to other nodes, thus is bandwidth limited by these shared resources. On lower level, keeping all that cache coherency on 8-way is costly (also given the smaller cache size of opteron..)

Quote:

This is mearly due to the bandwidth limitations already imposed on the connectors that connect each cluster together (each segment if you will).


Exactly. Just this in fact favors less cores per node.

To be fair, it is possible that 8 cores per node in certain situations can achieve a little bit better performance per watt (because you have to power just one southbridge, one hardrive and multicore CPUs are less power hungry per core). But most likely not better performance per core.
September 7, 2006 4:54:17 PM

Quote:
Ugh, with Apple switching over to Intel, I have more reason to hate them. They should just die off. Before, they actually were trying to be different, using IBM processors instead of the mainstream Intel, but now that they switched, their just PC's running a different OS. If I was going to buy an OS, I'd get windows, because I see no point in spending hundreds of dollars every other year buying the new Apple OS's.

Anyone have a good reason to get apple computers now? Anybody?


I'm a programmer, so this may sound a bit biased... but it has never been about the hardware. The vast majority of users don't really care one lick about the hardware in their computers so long as they run fast, run long, and don't cost you your first born child to own (although, some parents would gladly donate their teenage children for a computer). Software is what makes the computing experience good or bad. Not just the operating system, but the drivers and applications also play a big part.

Case in point, I LOVED my Commodore 64, even though it was surpassed later by faster computers. It was solid. I could kick it off the table while it was on and still be able to keep playing. That's a testament to the hardware. But I loved the instant-on nature of it and that it was very, very stable. I didn't care at the time which microprocessor it had nor did I care about any of the other chips in it. I just wanted it to work and work well. In those days, the software guys used every imaginable trick to eek out more performance out of that computer system and they did a damn fine job. Look up a little history on a program called "Fast Hack'em". Now THAT was programming genius.

Most people today are the same way. They just want a computer that works fast and works well. Apple is known for reliability and if the hardware they choose maintains that standard the Apple folks won't blink an eye at the technology behind the software they love. Apple has changed their architecture many times and they do it better than anyone. It is the software experience that Apple users enjoy, not the hardware. Apple making the move to Intel gave their users a LOT more power to play with. That's a good thing for Mac users.

As for the PC experience... If the Linux crowd could actually work together to make something that works as well with all the varried hardware out there as Windows does, then they'd have a much easier time convincing people to switch. But it's not just about drivers, it's also about user interface and applications. Windows is easy to use at a high level and most users like to stay at that high level. Windows fails at reliability though. But it has one redeeming factor that no other operating system can claim: it works with more software out there than anything else. Period. No contest. Game over.

It is all about the software. What's the point in having a 16 core super computer on your desk if it looks like a Commodore 64 when you turn on your monitor? What's the point in putting Linux or Unix on your box when you want to play all of the latest graphical games?

Now that Apple has gone from the PowerPC architecture to the Intel architecture, any other move in the future will be a piece of cake. If a better architecture comes out that will give their users more bang for the buck (looking to the future) then I'm sure they will switch again. And I'm also sure that most Mac users won't care anymore then than they do now. The interesting point here is that Microsoft will NEVER be an Apple in this respect, and THAT is a bad thing for us all.

Sorry about writing a book, but it had to be said. :p 
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 5:28:27 PM



Who cares, this is a pointless thread...shame to see things like this, reminds of the type of threads 9inch creates...

Quote:
Of course, testing these dual Opteron machines against a single-processor Intel Core 2 Extreme workstation is a classic apples-to-oranges comparison.

So, all you lame-a$$es you can rave all you want about how great C2D is or you can point the fingers at how lame dual core opterons are, but it doens't change the fact that by the article writer's own admission, it is a poor comparison.

Meh, whatever...
September 7, 2006 5:52:27 PM

Core 2 Duo and woodcrest are Merom base. If they want to compare, they need 2P opterons vs. 2p woodcrest system.
September 7, 2006 5:55:43 PM



Who cares, this is a pointless thread...shame to see things like this, reminds of the type of threads 9inch creates...

Quote:
Of course, testing these dual Opteron machines against a single-processor Intel Core 2 Extreme workstation is a classic apples-to-oranges comparison.

So, all you lame-a$$es you can rave all you want about how great C2D is or you can point the fingers at how lame dual core opterons are, but it doens't change the fact that by the article writer's own admission, it is a poor comparison.

Meh, whatever...

The Dell C2D system around $2000 as tested (Dell link)
The HP Opty system $6000 (per review)
ridiculous price/performance IMO.

I would give my middle finger to the AMD system and go with the C2D no matter what is in the box.


http://www.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/precn...
September 7, 2006 7:35:41 PM

Quote:
...he admitted that...no sh*t!!

I don't belive! Do you have a prove?

I don't remember the exact thread, but it was a couple of months ago. I will back 1Tanker up on this one. Baron was grasping at straws so hard that he actually said he would not buy intel due to his lack of familiarity with the BIOS setup on intel boards. Too funny!
8O 8O 8O
OMG! Whats going on with the universe!?!?!?!??!?!????
September 7, 2006 7:43:40 PM

Yet another Intel troll post. Dont worry, the author Charlie White is on Intels shortlist for the chop.

Did you read the title and then skip straight to the footnote? Twat!

Where's the test configuration? No doubt After Effects is only using 2 threads!

Maybe he'll do a nice little review with C2D also running 64-bit.

What a load of Intel flag waving bollox.

It doesn't matter how much you try to boost your morale with lame ass reviews, Intel is in deep sh*t.

Intel fanjinas are so single threaded!
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 7:49:19 PM

Quote:
Yet another Intel troll post. Dont worry, the author Charlie White is on Intels shortlist for the chop.

Did you read the title and then skip straight to the footnote? Twat!

Where's the test configuration? No doubt After Effects is only using 2 threads!

Maybe he'll do a nice little review with C2D also running 64-bit.

What a load of Intel flag waving bollox.

It doesn't matter how much you try to boost your morale with lame ass reviews, Intel is in deep sh*t.

Intel fanjinas are so single threaded!


I don't see how it's a troll post?

Troll posts are what you and your friends (whom seem to have invaded THG lately no doubt from Sharikou's blog using proxy servers) post. You know the Inquirer FUD that isn't backed by DATA or tests or anything.

Intel trolls or AMD trolls exist.. but this post ain't one of 'em.

Mods need to look at all the new joiners.. too many peeps joined on the same date with the same low psot count all preaching the same God Bless AMD gospel. It's clear you guys have organised some sort of an attack on factual information. It's like the attack of the shills.. pretty sick if you ask me.
September 7, 2006 7:57:27 PM

STFU AMDroid. Even if you deny being an AMDroid, you're still a dumbass.

Quote:
Yet another Intel troll post. Dont worry, the author Charlie White is on Intels shortlist for the chop.
O RLY? Sources?

Quote:
Did you read the title and then skip straight to the footnote? Twat!
No, I read the whole thing. Verdict: The reviewer wasted his time, the comparison is just stupid.

Quote:
Where's the test configuration? No doubt After Effects is only using 2 threads!
O RLY? How do you know?

Quote:
Maybe he'll do a nice little review with C2D also running 64-bit.
See http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam... , which uses data collected from multiple reviews (which you can cross reference if you want to). The C2D has no performance penalty going to 64-bit. The performance increase is LARGER than that of AMD K8 x32 to x64, by virtue of higher base performance, even if %increase from 32-bit to 64-bit is less.

Quote:
What a load of Intel flag waving bollox.
WTF? Your fanboism is pissing me off.

Quote:
It doesn't matter how much you try to boost your morale with lame ass reviews, Intel is in deep sh*t.
I won't disagree with the lame-ass review part, since it was a pointless review, but WTF would Intel be in deep shit if their one of their dual core CPUs beat TWO of their competitor's dual core CPUs? Your logic is worse than that of God-damned Islamic fundamentalist radicals.

Quote:
Intel fanjinas are so single threaded!
FAIL.

Your post has no substance backing up its words. I hereby label your post shit.
September 7, 2006 8:03:15 PM

Asswipe,

I've been using Toms since you were in nappies. You who is such an ancient poster yourself.

The AMD system is running 64 bit windows, what is the point of the comparison?

I tell you what why dont I write a nonsense review just to plug a few pro intel keywords.

How about these instead.

AMD will destroy Intel, AMD trumps Intel, AMD steals Intels Dell Crown.

Fanjinas
September 7, 2006 8:12:02 PM

>I've been using Toms since you were in nappies.
Hmm, 12 posts vs 433. The data doesn't support your statement.


Ban this troll.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 8:14:04 PM

Quote:
Asswipe,

I've been using Toms since you were in nappies. You who is such an ancient poster yourself.

The AMD system is running 64 bit windows, what is the point of the comparison?

I tell you what why dont I write a nonsense review just to plug a few pro intel keywords.

How about these instead.

AMD will destroy Intel, AMD trumps Intel, AMD steals Intels Dell Crown.

Fanjinas


Nappies eh?

I've been reading Tomshardware since 1996. The only forums where I've actively been a member of are Beyond3D, Bojrn3D, HardOCP and x-3Dfx.

I seriously doubt you're as old as I am... seeing as people my age don't use such childish terminology.

You're a fanboi who uses baseless illogical arguments to try and disuade many from purchasing Intel products. Your entire arguments are aimed at creating confusion and doubt... because all a potential buyer needs is confusion and doubt in order to stall his/her purchase. This opens the door for AMD to keep these prospective buyers in there own camp until a comparable AMD product is released.. K8L. This practice is growing ever soo popular... we call them shills (nVIDIA being the most guilty party).

It's strategy... it's a political/marketing strategy. Freaking brilliant these shills are (well they aren't but those employing them are).

Here... I challenge you to a duel... post me articles that factually show AMD's K8 as still being in the lead over Intel's Core 2 Duo and I will argue with you.. Until then.. remain quiet you silly imbecile.
September 7, 2006 8:15:50 PM

You're another one!

Do you feel special because you make a lot of posts?

Tell me again what was the point of the review? Am I not allowed in this open forum to express my disatisfaction at yet another worthless piece of journalism?

The King is Dead long live the King!
September 7, 2006 8:15:54 PM

9nm,
it is not the nickname makeing an idiot of you, but it is you idiot making another nickname
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 8:19:38 PM

Quote:
You're another one!

Do you feel special because you make a lot of posts?

Tell me again what was the point of the review? Am I not allowed in this open forum to express my disatisfaction at yet another worthless piece of journalism?

The King is Dead long live the King!


Oh it is 9inch.. mods don't ban him... let me take care of this imbecile once and for all... I must leave work to go home.. but I am itching to break you 9inch.

Don't ban him just yet.. he's due for a reality check :) 
September 7, 2006 8:32:43 PM

Quote:

Do you feel special because you make a lot of posts?

I'll answer with: Do you feel special because your post quality is crap?

Quote:
Tell me again what was the point of the review? Am I not allowed in this open forum to express my disatisfaction at yet another worthless piece of journalism?

ROFL COPTOR!1one, notice that I dissed the review too?

Your reading comprehension skills suggest if I write, "AMD roxx0rs Intel's b0x0rzZ!!1" you would call me an Intel fanboi.
September 7, 2006 8:35:24 PM

I could care less about Intels current performance lead over AMD. We know that Intels fastest 2.93Ghz CPU is faster than AMD's fastest 2.8Ghz in applications that fit into it's huge cache and applications that have always favoured Intel.

Tell me what the performance diffrence is between these two high end systems running Far Cry at 1600 x 1200?

We all know that C2D is a great CPU? The architecture is so good and so advanced that it needs 4MB cache to compete with AMD. Woo Hoo!!!!

Please tell me why you love Intel soo much? You've had to wait six years for Intel to bring out a CPU that actually provided some advancement in performance and only then because AMD totally destroyed the P4 architecture.

I bet the 10,000 Intel employees that are losing their jobs are also really proud of Intel too! Smiling while they cash their unemployment cheques!

Intel is a monster that has abused its position for far too long, anyone that supports Intel but has no shares is a complete w*nker. Intel only benefits wealthy share holders, they stiffle innovation and only retain their dominant position in the market because they abused the system.

I've used Toms for a long time too but I'd never admit to being as old as you.

Please also bear in mind that I am talking to ill educated individuals, so it is imperitive that I used words of one syllable as often as I can. Does that explain the situation in a satisfactory manner or would one care for further clarification?
September 7, 2006 8:42:25 PM

Post your rebuttal faster, I'm tired of waiting for it.
September 7, 2006 8:46:28 PM

Quote:

Clusters or not, Woodcrest would choke on any cluster higher in size then 4-way. Whereas the Opteron can do 8-way without any real problems. This has already been proven and it is the Opterons only advantage. To deny AMD's Opteron has any advantages is to be a fanboi of Intel's. It would be best to tell it like it is.. wether you personally do not like what you hear is for you to keep to yourself. People spend money based on recommendations on these boards. I would hate to have someone spend there hard earned money on a suggestion based on someone elses' personal preference rather then cold hard facts and real world tests.


But that's not proven. Single systems greater than 8 sockets are not possible with Opteron, but they are with Xeon. As well, recent Tulsa benchmarks in important server benchmarks like SAP-SD and SPEC JBB2005 and existing Paxville MP benchmarks in TPC-C show that Xeons outperform and outscale in many important server areas .
September 7, 2006 8:46:58 PM

Quote:

Tell me what the performance diffrence is between these two high end systems running Far Cry at 1600 x 1200?


What is the difference running FarCry at 1600x1200 between expensive FX-62 and cheap Netburst Celeron @3.0Ghz?
September 7, 2006 8:51:47 PM

OUCH !
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2006 9:17:30 PM

Quote:
I could care less about Intels current performance lead over AMD. We know that Intels fastest 2.93Ghz CPU is faster than AMD's fastest 2.8Ghz in applications that fit into it's huge cache and applications that have always favoured Intel.

Tell me what the performance diffrence is between these two high end systems running Far Cry at 1600 x 1200?

We all know that C2D is a great CPU? The architecture is so good and so advanced that it needs 4MB cache to compete with AMD. Woo Hoo!!!!

Please tell me why you love Intel soo much? You've had to wait six years for Intel to bring out a CPU that actually provided some advancement in performance and only then because AMD totally destroyed the P4 architecture.

I bet the 10,000 Intel employees that are losing their jobs are also really proud of Intel too! Smiling while they cash their unemployment cheques!

Intel is a monster that has abused its position for far too long, anyone that supports Intel but has no shares is a complete w*nker. Intel only benefits wealthy share holders, they stiffle innovation and only retain their dominant position in the market because they abused the system.

I've used Toms for a long time too but I'd never admit to being as old as you.

Please also bear in mind that I am talking to ill educated individuals, so it is imperitive that I used words of one syllable as often as I can. Does that explain the situation in a satisfactory manner or would one care for further clarification?


I don't love Intel, I don't love AMD either. Both of them serve my needs and I lean towards one or the other based on there products. Yes.. there is such a thing as people who are not fanboi's.

You want to talk about layoffs kid..
AMD Lays off workers and shuts down 2 FABS
AMD Lays off more workers
Another article on when AMD laid off 15% of there workforce

First link is when AMD laid off 15% of it's workforce.. Intel has laid of 10% this time. So seriously... the question is WHY LOVE EITHER?

It's the products man.. that's what we're in it for... this is capitalism and although I truly do sympathize with those being laid off... it's business and I am certain they will find new employment.

What's this applications that fit into there 4MB cache Bullshit. Have you seen tests comparing 2MB Cache vs. 4MB? Have you seen how little AMD benefits from more Cache. Probably not.. your head is too far up your rear end for that. More Cache on an Athlon64 doesn't help.. thus your theory about programs fitting it it's cache is a lie. As AMD's K8 would also benefit the same... no? :roll:

Intel only waited 3 years.. as the Pentium 4-C (Northwood) was MUCH better then the AthlonXP Barton.. but of course... you'll never acknowledge that.

You haven't clarified anything as your entire post was not factual and quite mis-guided. Please.. post some links with some tests. Your opinion means VERY little to me.

Some facts... Pentium 4-C vs. AthlonXP Barton:








Allendale vs. Conroe clocked at 1.86Ghz (2MB vs. 4MB):
September 7, 2006 9:29:16 PM

Quote:
We all know that C2D is a great CPU? The architecture is so good and so advanced that it needs 4MB cache to compete with AMD. Woo Hoo!!!!

:lol:  Never heard of Allendale with it's 2MB of total cache eh? Let me help you out. Here, compare the E6400 to the Windsor X2 4400 on Tom's cpu charts in order to take out the cache part of the equation. Draw your own conclusion on what cpu is better.

(Here's a hint: the E6400 wins).
September 7, 2006 9:36:51 PM

Quote:

We all know that C2D is a great CPU? The architecture is so good and so advanced that it needs 4MB cache to compete with AMD. Woo Hoo!!!!


Even if that would be true, why should it matter?
!