Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The last CPU post until next fall - intel wins the THG $300

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2007 4:08:17 PM

First let me state this post is meant to be provocative - I hope it stimulates some spirited debate! :twisted:

Please no more posts asking "should get amd or intel" - the answers is aways (I) :idea: and never (A) :x . This should be the final post until AMD releases its new chips in the fall 07. Intel wins at every level.

Well if you read any of my posts slamming amd you see that I am often criticized but rarely wrong. AMD is a second rate chip that only had its 18 months of glory. Anyone who thought 64 bit compute-ring was near in 2005 is stuck with a slow dog chip that still has not enough driver support for a complete system.

As THG states: net-burst wins the $300 throw down! THG wrote: "Ironically 8O , Intel won this shootout with a product that is based on its often criticized Net-Burst architecture. Such is life."

If you guys at THG would read my posts you would not say this is Ironic but to be expected - as I have claimed about the continual AMTI bias in the articles. :roll:


Lets add:

Intel wins the dual core throw down! E6300 vs fx-60 a no brainer! 8)

Intel wins the quad core throw down! 8) Some do claim that 4x4 wins - sure!

Wow intel just wins - As I stated last month net burst is not dead if material innovation could fix the leakage issue - guess what! Not only did net burst win the $300 el cheapo but as I predicted the leakage issue is also being solved: http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/8989/53/

"To overcome the problem of current leakage across super thin layer of silicon, Intel is using new materials to build the insulating walls and switching gates of its 45nm transistors. Intel says the new technology will dramatically reduce leakage and allow double the amount of transistors to be placed on the same sized chips."


Conclusion: While net burst did have a fast death and did not make 10 ghz Intel responded by 1) core 2 architecture beating amd 2) combining the 800 series dual core disaster with core 2 to make the first quad core 3) the first to make 45nm chips, putting amd on the chopping block the stock as fallen by 60%+, 4) Intel now sas extended the net burst architecture with new material breakthroughs and lower cost production.

I predict Intel will have better true quad core about the same time as AMTI! Long live net burst!

OK true AMTI lovers time slam me again!
February 19, 2007 4:22:27 PM

Ok.

You seem like a tool.
February 19, 2007 4:31:28 PM

Quote:
If you guys at THG would read my posts you would not say this is Ironic but to be expected - as I have claimed about the continual AMTI bias in the articles. :roll:

I'll believe this if you can convince these people of the AMD bias.
Related resources
February 19, 2007 4:36:31 PM

Hmmmmmmmmm... with due respect to this site and ALL of it's contributors, let me say that of all the STUPID PRO-INTEL articles I have seen on this site, this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/19/the-300-pc/index...
stands above all; NOT a gaming benchmark, NOT a computational benchmark, NOT a rendering, NO multitasking, NOTHING but all what the Celeron was able to beat the Sempron at; media streaming (finely subdivided into a dozen of different software and ever-idiot synthetic benchmarks to fill a whooping 3 pages); SHAME ON WHO WROTE IT.

When it has been proven and overproven that (especially on stock) the sempron is a cheaper and better performer than the CeleronD, BLAH.
February 19, 2007 4:44:17 PM

Quote:
Ok.

You seem like a tool.

Its unanimous! :p 

That article is getting reamed by just about everyone in the discussion.
February 19, 2007 4:46:57 PM

Hi,

Your post sucks. Thanks,

-mpjesse
February 19, 2007 5:08:34 PM

Well its a good way to flush out all the amti noobs?

lets add another stick in the amti back:


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Intel-bring-bac...


the addition of hyperthreading to core 2 + 800 series technology along with improved materials? wow whats that swooshing sound... could it be the sound of AMD stock falling?

you amd diehards buttons are fun to push! My complete ban will come be for amd has a good chip!

I use as almost as many amd chips as intel its just fun to mess with you amti guys!
February 19, 2007 5:13:24 PM

Quote:
Well its a good way to flush out all the amti noobs?

I wish we could flush you out, you Intel Noob.
February 19, 2007 5:13:51 PM

Quote:
Well its a good way to flush out all the amti noobs?


No, because anyone who knows anything knows that it's a bunch of crap, regardless of AMD bias.
February 19, 2007 5:14:59 PM

Quote:
Well its a good way to flush out all the amti noobs?


No, but it's a good way to be considered an impudent fool.
February 19, 2007 5:18:52 PM

wow that's personal - i bet you paid full price for fx-60 that cant get over 3.2ghz my e6300 beats it every time!
February 19, 2007 5:22:42 PM

Quote:
wow that's personal - i bet you paid full price for fx-60 that cant get over 3.2ghz my e6300 beats it every time!



...


Are you seriously here, doing this?

I like how they didn't want to spend $10 more on the Athlon64 3200+ over the Sempron, even though it would have granted quite a bit better performance in the terms of scale they used.
February 19, 2007 5:23:50 PM

Quote:
Hmmmmmmmmm... with due respect to this site and ALL of it's contributors, let me say that of all the STUPID PRO-INTEL articles I have seen on this site, this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/19/the-300-pc/index...
stands above all; NOT a gaming benchmark, NOT a computational benchmark, NOT a rendering, NO multitasking, NOTHING but all what the Celeron was able to beat the Sempron at; media streaming (finely subdivided into a dozen of different software and ever-idiot synthetic benchmarks to fill a whooping 3 pages); SHAME ON WHO WROTE IT.

When it has been proven and overproven that (especially on stock) the sempron is a cheaper and better performer than the CeleronD, BLAH.


If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.
February 19, 2007 5:25:36 PM

Quote:
AMD is a second rate chip that only had its 18 months of glory.


Intel was getting their ass handed to them by AMD for the past 3 years until the launch of C2D.

Quote:
Anyone who thought 64 bit compute-ring was near in 2005 is stuck with a slow dog chip that still has not enough driver support for a complete system.


Yes, Athlon 64's are slower than C2D. But calling them "slow dog chips" is pure stupidity. And not enough driver support? Are you on meth?


Quote:
Intel wins the dual core throw down! E6300 vs fx-60 a no brainer! 8)


You are comparing a brand new architechture to a 3 year old one. The new one sure as hell better win.

Quote:
As THG states: net-burst wins the $300 throw down! THG wrote: "Ironically , Intel won this shootout with a product that is based on its often criticized Net-Burst architecture. Such is life."


It was a 1.8ghz, 256kb cache, 90nm processor vs. a 3.2ghz, 65nm, 512kb cache processor. Id say the sempron did pretty damn well considering the spec difference. Spend a little more money to buy say, an A64 3700+ and the celeron doesnt stand a chance.


I dont see your reasoning for posting this topic, other than to make a complete ass of yourself.
February 19, 2007 5:32:51 PM

Quote:
Hmmmmmmmmm... with due respect to this site and ALL of it's contributors, let me say that of all the STUPID PRO-INTEL articles I have seen on this site, this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/19/the-300-pc/index...
stands above all; NOT a gaming benchmark, NOT a computational benchmark, NOT a rendering, NO multitasking, NOTHING but all what the Celeron was able to beat the Sempron at; media streaming (finely subdivided into a dozen of different software and ever-idiot synthetic benchmarks to fill a whooping 3 pages); SHAME ON WHO WROTE IT.

When it has been proven and overproven that (especially on stock) the sempron is a cheaper and better performer than the CeleronD, BLAH.

I had not seen this article. The fact that they cherry-picked synthetic benchmarks to put the Celeron in a positive light is disturbing. Articles like this are the reason THG is considered the laughing stock of the enthusiast world.

Quote:
An Athlon 64 3200+ at 2.0 GHz and 512 kB L2 cache would have been an even better choice, but the $80 clearly would have exceeded our price limits. [...] The Celeron D processors with 512 kB L2 cache are not only slightly faster, they are also more energy-efficient, as they are based on the 65-nm Pentium 4 Cedar Mill core. The old one can be purchased for as little as $40, but it's worth spending $50 on a Celeron D352, which runs at 3.2 GHz. We paid $56 for ours.

A double standard - this article is BS, pure and simple. DragonSprayer, how are these articles AMD biased?
February 19, 2007 5:41:41 PM

It just goes to show that there really should be an IQ test to post here...
February 19, 2007 5:43:20 PM

Quote:
You are comparing a brand new architechture to a 3 year old one. The new one sure as hell better win.


Although I think this entire thread is a waste of internet space and shouldn't even exist, I've seen this argument so many times I just have to comment on it. It's stupid.

So what if the architecture is 3 years old? The chip isn't. Frankly, I wouldn't care if the architecture was scratched on a cave wall in the Stone Age. All that matters is what you can buy right now and for how much.

It's only fair to compare current chips to current chips. The fact is, AMD is currently producing K8 chips. Age of the architecture is a meaningless defense.
February 19, 2007 6:08:44 PM

I didn't like the article, but come on, what benchmarks was the sempron going to win? Gaming? I don't think so. The reason is IGP and the conclusion would be "both suck." True, both do suck.
February 19, 2007 6:09:00 PM

Question: If upgrading is a serious part of this article (being that going s939 is NOT the way to go,being outadet/dead end) how much ocing with a c2d is possible using this ram and mobo? Say compared to s939 and same pricing?
February 19, 2007 6:16:07 PM

Quote:
Question: If upgrading is a serious part of this article (being that going s939 is NOT the way to go,being outadet/dead end) how much ocing with a c2d is possible using this ram and mobo? Say compared to s939 and same pricing?


I bought a $29 openbox ASRock 775Dual-VSTA and a E4300 overclocked to 2.565 GHz. I think thats compares to a X2 over 3 GHz. I'm not certain. I do have a 165 that runs over 3 GHz I could compare it to, but it also has a much more expensive mobo. I like 939.
February 19, 2007 6:17:33 PM

Quote:
If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.

The pitty is that even with the actual setup, the Sempron system is overall more responsive, more game capable, better multitasker than the CeleronD. I have assembled and tested mysel various Sempron and CeleronD systems but reviews speak themselves; just take a look to the firs article I was able to google, the other (THE REAL) side of the coin :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
P.S: For the CeleronD, most often check the last 2 lines of each table :lol: 
February 19, 2007 6:20:15 PM

Quote:
I didn't like the article, but come on, what benchmarks was the sempron going to win? Gaming? I don't think so. The reason is IGP and the conclusion would be "both suck." True, both do suck.

Read my previous post, and most important, take a look at some reviews once in a while before talking like that, please; we've been all fooled by that article.
February 19, 2007 6:25:11 PM

Here's the reason that you and the article's author are both wankers :!:



What's that? A dual core AMD system for the same price as a single core celeron system, oh my! oh my! :evil: 
February 19, 2007 6:26:04 PM

Quote:
If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.

The pitty is that even with the actual setup, the Sempron system is overall more responsive, more game capable, better multitasker than the CeleronD. I have assembled and tested mysel various Sempron and CeleronD systems but reviews speak themselves; just take a look to the firs article I was able to google, the other (THE REAL) side of the coin :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
P.S: For the CeleronD, most often check the last 2 lines of each table :lol: 
That's a 256 mb Prescott, not the 512mb Cedar Mill. Cache is very important to netburst.

The whole thing is moot, April 22 we will see Conroe based Celerons and Intel should have a good lead in the sucky CPU market.
February 19, 2007 6:34:33 PM

It really is irresponsible of you to come in here to start a thread like this... I mean what are you even proving? nothing except that your an intel fanboy that can't accept the fact that technology fluctuates and that just because intel is winning right now you have to take advantage of it to make yourself feel better.. AMD was handing intels ass for 3 years get your facts straight you tool
February 19, 2007 6:38:14 PM

Quote:

That's a 256 mb Prescott, not the 512mb Cedar Mill. Cache is very important to netburst.


Obviously :p 
February 19, 2007 6:46:28 PM

amd's lead started at the end of the p4 line which was the 3.6 or 560j the 3.8 was a useless over priced chip - prior to late 2004 the amd 64 was a poor multitasker. The 560j ran best at 4.08ghz and up to 4.25ghz with little over volting and sandra memory bandwidth scores with ddr400 2-2-2-5 was just under 6000, usually above 5500mb.

The fact is nobody ran real good multitasking tests - even today you see very little multiple tests being run simultaneously to simulate real world computer use - for me that is gaming and music going with all background programs running (antivirus, antispyware etc). Magazine tests have always been bias in amd's favor since they do not do real multi-tasking testing and amd chips are good at single tasks - in fact they are better then Intel. But as soon as you turn on a few more programs those old 64's dog right down.

So I consider the release date of AMD's dual core as the day they took the true lead at the lead lasted until the release date of core 2. Many people AMD's performance on single tasking gaming not real world multitasking.

By the way - good job you intel junkies keep up the posts! Spirted debate is the point of the article. I buy and use AMD chips all the time. O ya Semprons are dogs!
February 19, 2007 6:50:07 PM

Quote:
O ya Semprons are dogs!
and so are celerons.. whats your point? they are low range
February 19, 2007 6:50:49 PM

"AMD releases dual-core Athlon chips
5/31/2005 11:00:59 AM, by Eric Bangeman

AMD is letting the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 loose in the wild today, with the launch of four dual-core models. Priced from US$531 to US$1,001 in quantities of 1,000, the chips will offered for desktops made by HP and Alienware in the US, Acer in Europe, and Lenovo in"


I could be wrong it appears me amd's lead was form mid 2005 until july-aug 2006 or less then the 18 months i posted originally.
February 19, 2007 6:59:29 PM

You're wanting a spirited debate but you come straight in here and start saying shit like
Quote:
AMD is a second rate chip that only had its 18 months of glory. Anyone who thought 64 bit compute-ring was near in 2005 is stuck with a slow dog chip that still has not enough driver support for a complete system.
.... you know that's just dumb to say... are you mentally retarded? seriously think about that...
February 19, 2007 6:59:35 PM

No, the single-core chips were pretty dominant in a lot of benchmarks before that. Late socket 754 through the move to 939 was solid AMD victories.
February 19, 2007 7:05:17 PM

Its pointless to argue with someone that cant even figure out how to use the Quote button effectively.

Its like getting into an asskicking match with a one legged man.
February 19, 2007 7:07:41 PM

Just because someone doesn't know how to quote effectively means you can't debate with them? weird...... haha
I really think this thread needs to be locked.. really no point to it..
February 19, 2007 7:15:56 PM

Quote:
That's a 256 mb Prescott, not the 512mb Cedar Mill. Cache is very important to netburst.
The whole thing is moot, April 22 we will see Conroe based Celerons and Intel should have a good lead in the sucky CPU market.

I know people argue about these small details, but the extra 256K L2 will not make for the 30% of lag the celeronD has. If it's different, please, tell the authors to include the benchmarks they have shamefully withdrawn.
February 19, 2007 7:18:46 PM

You don't bother arguing with people like DragonSprayer. All you can do is laugh at them and say to yourself, "I'm glad I'm not that dumb.". :D 
February 19, 2007 7:27:06 PM

...Not to mention that this setup was carefully chosen to suit the Celeron (even though it can not with the full benchmarks); $10 less, the real ultra budget $40-50 zone, CeleronD's have nothing at all to match the Sempron 2800+- 3000+ and $5 more (than the celeron) and they hit into something like an A64 3000+ and God save the Celly, but, shhhhhhhh, don't tell anybody :lol: 
February 19, 2007 7:29:29 PM

That's the big question right there. These are the first REAL benchmarks we've since for a Cedar Mill Celeron D (ie non sysnthetic). Shamefully we only get encoding benchmarks (which is a well known Netburst strongpoint) and Winrar (surprising how well the Celeron did in winrar though). I know the focus is not about the CPUs, but about $300 computer systems, but I would really like to see a budget CPU showdown with a Cedar Mill celeron D vs an equivalent priced AMD whatever. Hell, it could be socket 939 for all I care.

The best I can hope for at this point would be that Tom's reviews the new Celeron 400 series when they debut, and they throw in a Cedar Mill Celeron D as a comparison chip to show how much better the new 400 series is.
February 19, 2007 7:38:21 PM

Quote:
Just because someone doesn't know how to quote effectively means you can't debate with them? weird...... haha
I really think this thread needs to be locked.. really no point to it..


I have already reported it and asked it to be locked. I hope it is soon.

NO, NO, why lock it when its this funny watching someone make themselves look like an idiot?

Dragonslayer, you are such a tard. Seriously, go die in a hole. :wink:
February 19, 2007 7:50:16 PM

Quote:
That's the big question right there. These are the first REAL benchmarks we've since for a Cedar Mill Celeron D (ie non sysnthetic). Shamefully we only get encoding benchmarks (which is a well known Netburst strongpoint) and Winrar (surprising how well the Celeron did in winrar though). I know the focus is not about the CPUs, but about $300 computer systems, but I would really like to see a budget CPU showdown with a Cedar Mill celeron D vs an equivalent priced AMD whatever. Hell, it could be socket 939 for all I care.

I know, but the focus naturally goes there, because at the end, in each table you only read CeleronD and Sempron, no other specs. I guess we all know why they're not bringing up other benchmarks; that's an unfair, misleading, overall disinformating article :evil: 
February 19, 2007 8:00:48 PM

Quote:
Just because someone doesn't know how to quote effectively means you can't debate with them? weird...... haha
I really think this thread needs to be locked.. really no point to it..


I have already reported it and asked it to be locked. I hope it is soon.

NO, NO, why lock it when its this funny watching someone make themselves look like an idiot?

Dragonslayer, you are such a tard. Seriously, go die in a hole. :wink:

Cheap entertainment. :lol:  :lol: 
February 19, 2007 8:03:48 PM

I thought this was a stupid line from the article.

"If you really go for the lowest-end, you can get processors for $40, a motherboard for $40 and a very simple hard drive for $50. This would save you another $70 for the AMD system and as much as $86 for the Intel system."

What does it prove? Oh wow, you could save an extra $16 bucks with intel, but wait, its min price is STILL higher than the AMD one...
February 19, 2007 8:30:07 PM

HAHAHA... and wanna hear more; these are some neatly put together sentences in the 'conclusions' section to fool occasional readers, just read the crap between the lines:
Quote:

These CPUs are single-core devices, as opposed to dual and quad cores, they carry little cache memory and they operate at relatively low clock speeds (Sempron) or on an old micro architecture (Celeron).

This sounds like the old 'More GHz Intel song';holy crap, does not the E4300 run at the same 'relatively low clock speeds' of this Sempron :?: :!: , heyoohoo, anybody to answer on the other side :?: :!:

Quote:
However, both systems had to adhere to our $ 300 budget, which we had to extend slightly for reasons of making the systems somewhat future-proof.

8O :?: You can find a good AM2 Sempron 2600+ for around $40, just as futureproof as the 3400+, but obviously, not a LGA775 CeleronD to stand near enough it :lol: 

Quote:
The remaining question is: Which is the better low-cost solution, the AMD or the Intel system? Most of the benchmarks are dominated by Intel's Celeron D processor 352, which was even cheaper than the Sempron 3400+.

Sure, if you chose this particular price and all you put on show is the benchmarks the Celeron is able to win :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
February 19, 2007 8:45:31 PM

:twisted:its mm mikes evil twin brother
February 19, 2007 8:54:49 PM

Why get worked up over a post like this? The stated purpose was more or less to begin "spirited debate," i.e. to prompt another silly intel vs. amd argument. Wouldn't it be refreshing if everyone just ignored a thread such as this if it is indeed so pointless..? Which I, too, have failed to do... :) 

That point aside, everyone is entitled to their opinion. No-one's asking for advice here; to each his own. Let folks bask in the sunshine of their own cozy realities.
February 19, 2007 9:07:56 PM

*sigh*

I was thinking along these lines as well:

Quote:
If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win.

I know, I know - the AMD CPU would cost more than the Intel one if they picked the Athlon64, but the overall system cost is still less - that's the goal of this exercise, right? To create a cheap system. It doesn't matter if you spend a couple bucks more on the CPU and a few less on the mobo.
February 19, 2007 9:16:50 PM

No, the goal was to totally mislead people into thinking that a CeleronD is a better choice than a Sempron, by showing the only benchmarks the Celeron could actually win.
I had been facing people who said a celeronD was better than a sempron because it could do SuperPI in less time but hearing something like from an authority like THG :?: :!: :roll:
February 19, 2007 9:31:00 PM

The point of this thread has nothing to due with a celron d - you should buy a e6300 or 4300 if not get a used chip weather be amd or intel.

buy an 805 or I bet the ancient 3.0ghz p4 running at 3.6ghz might even beat a sempron or 3500+ am2 when doing true multitasking tests - or running multiple bench marking programs

I hoped all you amd fans would post real data showing the superior of your beloved amd chips - unfortunately not one post contains any data showing amd as a better real world chip or multitasker

the point here was for someone who wondered what was better amd or intel to get some facts - but all i see is whining about the thread or claims the amd was better for 3 years - its amazing not 29 months or 35 months but exactly 3 years - with no data!

I repeat amd dual core was a great chip from may of 05 until july of 06 - before that an over clocked p4 was better! show me the test data that says other wise.

Lets take a 3500+ am2 at ~$80 and compare it to 805 @ 4ghz winner intel

you amd guys make the claims based on gaming only tested set up to favor amd. So if you read this thread and wondering who is better its always intel as of 6/06 - and amd will not even have anything to offer for 6 months.

I see you amti lovers next fall! Show me the data and so we can discuss the facts.
February 19, 2007 9:39:02 PM

Silly question but since the article states that they're looking for a ~18 month system why not include s939? Heck my main rig still is Socket A
February 19, 2007 9:40:40 PM

1-I am not an AMD guy; I'd have done the same in the inverse situation.
2-At the beginnings of this thread I showed some Sempron vs CeleronD benchmarks but someone pointed out they were of a 351 instead of the 352; what can I do if you can't find recent CeleronD reviews?! Are you saying that the $300 PC was by any means a complete review?!
Take a look, this is a Sempron 3600+ review, but they didn't find any decent CeleronD to match it
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2004
February 19, 2007 9:46:32 PM

Quote:
Silly question but since the article states that they're looking for a ~18 month system why not include s939? Heck my main rig still is Socket A

The socket 754 sempron 2600+ is the cheapest modern CPU available for the moment and can be coupled with the cheapest motherboard of the moment, and the cheapest RAM of the moment (the out phased DDR400); your answer it that it would end up in a $200 system that can not be matched by any means from a CeleronD system.
!