I didn't really get that from the article. What i saw was that the A64 kicked the Northwood P4's butt pretty good, and the C2D kicked the A64's butt equally as good. 8)Well I guess this proves my point.Even thouugh c2d is a fine cpu,amd 64 is still a heavy weight contender,not to be easily dismissed as inferior.I have faith that AMD will come out with something very nice soon.(By soon I mean in the next few months).
Dahak
AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
They assembled all those CPU's, spent all that time running the tests.....yet they can't? find an E6300, or don't have the time to test one. I think won't is the more appropriate word. :xDoes this mean that the CPU charts are getting updated?
When compared to the Athlon 64 4000+ single core, the AMD processor offers up to 50% more performance, showing that the AMD64 architecture is far superior to Intel's NetBurst.
How much do you think FSB, different memory and different vid cards played into the results??
Core 2 Duo is king, but how do other processors today compare on a clock-to-clock basis? We benchmarked comparable CPUs from AMD as well as Intel to see.
Here we go again. Yet another person comes out of the wood work to claim bias.
I note you compared crippled AMD64 dual cores (half the cache disabled).
How can we trust you when you publish this kind of review?
The 939 choice of CPU should have been the 4800+ (e4 Toledo) not the 4600+ crippled MANCHESTER E6 core you used instead.
You also should have used a 4000+ sandiego core - SSE3 ??? not the earlier 130nm 4000+ core.
The AM2 choice should have been a declocked FX62 down to FX53 speed ... just lower the multilier.
Once again Toms has put AMD at every disadvantage possible in the benchmark comparisons.
But the free rent from the Intel building your located in must be nice.
You always seem to put just enough spin on the articles ...
I remember when the world was bagging Netburst after the A64 was introduced and you sere still showing bent benchmarks here showin the Extreme in front ... man that made me laugh.
Toms will always be known as a site that Intel bought and uses as part of it's longterm marketing strategy ... its just sad that the overage Joe believes what you tell them.
For the rest of us .... well.
Something is weird in the benchmark with winrar, i took the same amount of file and same total mb. I did the compression to Best etc and i was at 3 min compression and my proc is at 2.4ghz e6300 and in their benchmark its like 1 min. How can this be possible ?