Tables turned? Not really.
Like m25 and RandMcNally have mentioned, it did decrease the gap, but the lower priced E6600 still had the edge over the 6000+. Add on the overclockablity seen for the E6600, and that edge might even disappear, but that's another topic.
The real turn around is the power comsumption @ load. AMD was always winning that battle, and now, it's still pretty far behind. At idle, it's king, but idle for most people (not companies) is maybe a few hours a day (personally, it's more like 2 mins for me).
Either way, 64 bit Vista does make AMD more competitive.
Tables turned? Not really.
Like m25 and RandMcNally have mentioned, it did decrease the gap, but the lower priced E6600 still had the edge over the 6000+. Add on the overclockablity seen for the E6600, and that edge might even disappear, but that's another topic.
The real turn around is the power comsumption @ load. AMD was always winning that battle, and now, it's still pretty far behind. At idle, it's king, but idle for most people (not companies) is maybe a few hours a day (personally, it's more like 2 mins for me).
Either way, 64 bit Vista does make AMD more competitive.
The gap in performance between C2D and K8 in WinXP (32bit and 64bit) is 20% in average(considering real-world apps), clock for clock. In Vista (32bit and 64bit) the gap is decreased to 15% in average, clock for clock. The reason is the immaturity of Vista and it's poor optimizations. With twice RAM, it performs slower than Win XP. Once SP1 arrives, things will be better for sure (better kernel, better compatibility with old software, optimized drivers, optimized software, etc.).
i totally agree with rand on this one, maybe amd's early adoption of 64bit is really going to pay off, I'm no pro but i know k10 is going to be 128 bit...what i'm sayin is how long till 128bit becomes the standard? everything is speeding up so i'm sure they'll have "windows vista SUPREME EDITION" or some gay anus like that...
anyway these benchmarks are awesome i'm glad someone is actually testing this stuff...puts things in perspective in the whol athlon c2d war...
of course being an underdog supporter i think amd has to be twice as smart as intel to compete in this field...and well i don't think their twice as smart anymore...but maybe...sigh...if they could get sooner launches people wouldn't piss and moan about them so much...WHERES MY AM2+ MOBO?! i'd buy one and slap a pos sempron in it and just wait....
seems like amd doesn't rely on clockspeeds as much as intel...
bring on the microarch wars!! intel slapped amd in the face...lets see who wins the 10 paces turn and shoot...kuma hurry up....dear lord...
We know that in XP the gap widened when using 64-bit.
So theres something wrong or "wrong" with Vista.
So you are saying microsoft has never released and unfinished product? Then what the heck do you call Window's ME (Mistake Edition)? It was a rushed product that ended up being the worst OS ever. To me that seems pretty unfinished because if they would have taken the time to do it right it would have been a pretty decent OS.
I think you are misunderstanding the 128bitness of Barcelona. The bit widths are 128 bit for transfer but data is still crunched at 64bit (if using native apps). It will be a long while before we get to a 128bit instruction set.
Oh please.....tell me about how mature is Vista. :roll: No drivers, no software, not compatible with lots of pre-Longhorn applications, runs slower than pre-Longhorn OSes.....Dude, you're kidding. Vista isn't immature.
You don't know what you are talking....You want to tell me that I need 4GB of RAM, just because of Vista's make up?The only problem I see is the higher RAM requirements, but with 3.25GB Vista is much snappier than XP even with the animations for everything.
I don't believe, I know. They done it so many times, and they have done it again with Vista. Not only WinME, but do you remember Win95 16bit? Also, do you remember when WinXP arrived, how many Win98 apps were incompatible, and Win98 was faster. I see a pattern here, so SP1 will make it better.I can't believe you actually think they released an unfinished kernel.
New software will be written optimized for Vista. And there are a lot more differences between Vista and XP than the GUI.SW compat is better than it was with XP and software won't be "optimized" for Vista. The only real difference is how the UI is drawn now that Aero is around.
Oh please.....tell me about how mature is Vista. :roll: No drivers, no software, not compatible with lots of pre-Longhorn applications, runs slower than pre-Longhorn OSes.....Dude, you're kidding. Vista isn't immature.
You don't know what you are talking....You want to tell me that I need 4GB of RAM, just because of Vista's make up?The only problem I see is the higher RAM requirements, but with 3.25GB Vista is much snappier than XP even with the animations for everything.
I don't believe, I know. They done it so many times, and they have done it again with Vista. Not only WinME, but do you remember Win95 16bit? Also, do you remember when WinXP arrived, how many Win98 apps were incompatible, and Win98 was faster. I see a pattern here, so SP1 will make it better.I can't believe you actually think they released an unfinished kernel.
New software will be written optimized for Vista. And there are a lot more differences between Vista and XP than the GUI.SW compat is better than it was with XP and software won't be "optimized" for Vista. The only real difference is how the UI is drawn now that Aero is around.
Dude, you're kidding. Vista isn't immature.
Hey, it's not my fault Vista wants more RAM. The differences in Vista are mostly the way the kernel is accessed (or if it can be) and the fact that drivers now run in USER mode. SP1 for Vista will not speed it up. it may have some compat patches but it's doubtful. The kernel is ALWAYS the first thing to be completed and optimized as if it doesn't work MALLOC doesn't work and you can't talk to Ring 0.
BaronMatrix said:I have it installed and with at least 3GB RAM, it is noticeably snappier than XP with the same amount of RAM.
Barron you should spend more time using your PC and less time posting BS like this. Vista doesn't not have any noticeable pickup in performance going to 3Gb over 2Gb. There are some small gains going from 1.5Gb to 2Gb but it flatten out there. You are going to mislead someone into upgrading there RAM who will be quite disappointed.
I run 4Gb of ram and hate going back to XP for any reason. Even though I hate going back XP is still a faster OS.