Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD pulled off more victories than Intel $ 4 $

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 22, 2007 10:06:59 AM

made ya look :) 

$185 Gaming CPU's: AMD 5600+ Versus Intel E6300

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/1/

Final Thoughts and Conclusions

It's obvious from our real-world game testing that when anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are enabled at normal resolutions that both the AMD and the Intel test systems performed too close to call a clear winner. In games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl that use deferred shading since it can't support anti-aliasing with dynamic lighting enabled we can notice some performance differences between AMD and Intel. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl it was clear that the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ processor was able to play the game with a higher frame rate
When it comes to pricing the $183.99 AMD 5600+ processor and $168.99 DFI LanParty UT NF590 SLI-M2R/G motherboard brought the price of the pair to $352.98. On the other hand the $185 Intel C2D E6300 and $169.99 After Rebate EVGA 122-CK-NF67-A1 nForce 680i LT SLI motherboard totaled $354.99 Both the processors and motherboard used in this article were just a dollar apart from the competition, which made for a really great article based on price points.

As for which $185 Intel or AMD processor is better for desktop gaming rig it's a close call, but AMD pulled off more victories than Intel on the games that we benchmarked. Thanks to the huge price cut that AMD recently set in motion consumers get a ton for their money and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ processor is a heck of a bargain for those looking to build a gaming rig.
Rumors are going around that Intel is also going to be cutting prices and launching several new processors in the near future, which will then place the Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 Processor in the sub $200 price range. Once this happens we will see if we can pick one up and bring you updated benchmarks to make sure you are getting the best bang for your buck!

With the price war no matter which processor you choose one can really go wrong, as the performance from either of them is amazing for the price they are selling these at. When Intel counters the AMD price drop it will only get that much better! This article didn't cover overclocking, which would be in Intel's favor as the 1.86GHz E6300 is an overclocking monster than can easily reach over 3.0GHz with the right components. The 2.8GHz AMD 5600+ can easily overclock to 3.1GHz, which will give it better performance, but not the same increase as the Intel processor. This is good information for overclockers, but since many people don't overclock it shouldn't impact which one you buy.

More about : amd pulled victories intel

April 22, 2007 10:15:38 AM

Nice article, but you should probably change the thread title to something less inflammatory.. :p 
April 22, 2007 11:09:24 AM

Quote:
made ya look :) 

$185 Gaming CPU's: AMD 5600+ Versus Intel E6300

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/6/

Final Thoughts and Conclusions

It's obvious from our real-world game testing that when anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are enabled at normal resolutions that both the AMD and the Intel test systems performed too close to call a clear winner. In games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl that use deferred shading since it can't support anti-aliasing with dynamic lighting enabled we can notice some performance differences between AMD and Intel. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl it was clear that the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ processor was able to play the game with a higher frame rate
When it comes to pricing the $183.99 AMD 5600+ processor and $168.99 DFI LanParty UT NF590 SLI-M2R/G motherboard brought the price of the pair to $352.98. On the other hand the $185 Intel C2D E6300 and $169.99 After Rebate EVGA 122-CK-NF67-A1 nForce 680i LT SLI motherboard totaled $354.99 Both the processors and motherboard used in this article were just a dollar apart from the competition, which made for a really great article based on price points.

As for which $185 Intel or AMD processor is better for desktop gaming rig it's a close call, but AMD pulled off more victories than Intel on the games that we benchmarked. Thanks to the huge price cut that AMD recently set in motion consumers get a ton for their money and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ processor is a heck of a bargain for those looking to build a gaming rig.
Rumors are going around that Intel is also going to be cutting prices and launching several new processors in the near future, which will then place the Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 Processor in the sub $200 price range. Once this happens we will see if we can pick one up and bring you updated benchmarks to make sure you are getting the best bang for your buck!

With the price war no matter which processor you choose one can really go wrong, as the performance from either of them is amazing for the price they are selling these at. When Intel counters the AMD price drop it will only get that much better! This article didn't cover overclocking, which would be in Intel's favor as the 1.86GHz E6300 is an overclocking monster than can easily reach over 3.0GHz with the right components. The 2.8GHz AMD 5600+ can easily overclock to 3.1GHz, which will give it better performance, but not the same increase as the Intel processor. This is good information for overclockers, but since many people don't overclock it shouldn't impact which one you buy.

oh yeh?
let's take a look here...

Intel Victory:
Better Performance
Better Performance / Watt
Cooler Solutions
Releasing benchmarks on time
Releasing new product on time / ahead.

AMD Victory:
Better prices... at lower ends
Better in doping the investors
Better in delaying the product launch
Better in management
Better in warming the house
Better in paper launching
Better in falsifying benchmarks

Intel vs. AMD = 5 vs. 7.

yeh i can clearly see that AMD pulled off more victories than Intel.
Related resources
April 22, 2007 11:18:42 AM

Dude get a life !!
April 22, 2007 11:19:18 AM

Quote:
made ya look :) 

$185 Gaming CPU's: AMD 5600+ Versus Intel E6300

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/6/

Final Thoughts and Conclusions

It's obvious from our real-world game testing that when anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are enabled at normal resolutions that both the AMD and the Intel test systems performed too close to call a clear winner. In games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl that use deferred shading since it can't support anti-aliasing with dynamic lighting enabled we can notice some performance differences between AMD and Intel. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl it was clear that the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ processor was able to play the game with a higher frame rate
When it comes to pricing the $183.99 AMD 5600+ processor and $168.99 DFI LanParty UT NF590 SLI-M2R/G motherboard brought the price of the pair to $352.98. On the other hand the $185 Intel C2D E6300 and $169.99 After Rebate EVGA 122-CK-NF67-A1 nForce 680i LT SLI motherboard totaled $354.99 Both the processors and motherboard used in this article were just a dollar apart from the competition, which made for a really great article based on price points.

As for which $185 Intel or AMD processor is better for desktop gaming rig it's a close call, but AMD pulled off more victories than Intel on the games that we benchmarked. Thanks to the huge price cut that AMD recently set in motion consumers get a ton for their money and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ processor is a heck of a bargain for those looking to build a gaming rig.
Rumors are going around that Intel is also going to be cutting prices and launching several new processors in the near future, which will then place the Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 Processor in the sub $200 price range. Once this happens we will see if we can pick one up and bring you updated benchmarks to make sure you are getting the best bang for your buck!

With the price war no matter which processor you choose one can really go wrong, as the performance from either of them is amazing for the price they are selling these at. When Intel counters the AMD price drop it will only get that much better! This article didn't cover overclocking, which would be in Intel's favor as the 1.86GHz E6300 is an overclocking monster than can easily reach over 3.0GHz with the right components. The 2.8GHz AMD 5600+ can easily overclock to 3.1GHz, which will give it better performance, but not the same increase as the Intel processor. This is good information for overclockers, but since many people don't overclock it shouldn't impact which one you buy.
On a price/price basis, yeah the AMD fairs very well. When you take into account that it's one of Intel's lowest performing C2D chips vs. AMD's second fastest chip....not so impressive. If you throw in OCing, AMD has no chance. Since their comparing on a price basis, i'd like to see them put in cheaper DDR2-533(both setups). AMD numbers will plummet. :wink:
April 22, 2007 11:30:09 AM

No-one who wants a high performance CPU is going to buy AMD over Intel at the moment except in cases of misguided loyalty. C2D is cheaper and faster than AMD by a long way. An E6600 a £200 chip allegedly outperforms AMD's flagship FX74.

That particular test seems to buck the general trend which shows Intel way out in front.

As someone who has bought AMD for the last 7 years, I'm now on C2D and won't even consider going back to AMD until they can show a substancial speed increase over the Intel offering.

Something else AMD need to address is all the pin changes. Intel manage 775 for the last 3 (?) years. AMD seem to change socket with practically every cpu. New mobo's are expensive and time consuming to fit.

When given the choice between a manufacturer who retains the same socket for every release and one who changes it, I know where my money is going.
April 22, 2007 11:30:40 AM

lolz... you just posted a series of gaming benchmarks between two low price processors... and you called this "more victories than Intel"? not to mention that they benchmarked most of their games on 1600 x 1200 setting.

also on the side note, ppl who are going to buy E6300 / X2 5600+ isn't going to shell out another 500 bucks in buying an 8800 GTX, another 200 bucks in DDR2 1000, and another 200 bucks for a 680 board. if they are really looking for a cheaper yet better system, they should've used cheaper components, as 1Tanker said, DDR2 533.

i'm really trying not to be a fanboy here, but i really wonder why they used Zalman cooler for AMD, while only Intel factory fan for Intel? oh well, not like its going to matter.
April 22, 2007 11:33:11 AM

Quote:
but AMD pulled off more victories than Intel on the games that we benchmarked


hey dude... nice generalizing.
April 22, 2007 11:33:24 AM

Viper the whole point of the E6300 is its overclockability. So its not unusual for a cutting edge gamer to go for such a lowly chip on C2D.
April 22, 2007 11:35:36 AM

Quote:
Viper the whole point of the E6300 is its overclockability. So its not unusual for a cutting edge gamer to go for such a lowly chip on C2D.

i'm using an E6300 myself :p  ...
while i agree that on the lower ends (without overclocking), AMD chips does fare better in terms of performance/ price. but how OP translated that into "AMD has more victories than Intel" is beyond me...
April 22, 2007 11:41:21 AM

I took my E6600 from 2.4ghz to over 3.1ghz last night on air without any voltage increases!! I've heard that my batch can go to nearly 4ghz with voltage step ups on air. Try that on an AMD!! (Especially as overclocked the temp was only 37C).
April 22, 2007 11:44:11 AM

Quote:
I took my E6600 from 2.4ghz to over 3.1ghz last night on air without any voltage increases!! I've heard that my batch can go to nearly 4ghz with voltage step ups on air. Try that on an AMD!! (Especially as overclocked the temp was only 37C).

well i overclocked mine by 1Ghz, while lower the voltage :p 

well you can try that on FX-74.
April 22, 2007 12:24:40 PM

The main problem of the cited article is that in compares Intel vs AMD at very specific point in time, right after AMD prices drastically dropped, but right before Intel prices went down.

Next week, at the same price point it will be 5600+ vs E6600 (AFAIK). AMD is unlikely to gather any victory in such match.

Mirek
April 22, 2007 12:40:27 PM

This is a very "9-inch"ish post. Thread titles don't get much more misleading and inflamitory than this one. The article is a decent read, but it doesn't really justify the title.... for all the reasons posted above (no need to re-state them).
April 22, 2007 12:46:19 PM

Quote:

On a price/price basis, yeah the AMD fairs very well. When you take into account that it's one of Intel's lowest performing C2D chips vs. AMD's second fastest chip....not so impressive. If you throw in OCing, AMD has no chance. Since their comparing on a price basis, i'd like to see them put in cheaper DDR2-533(both setups). AMD numbers will plummet. :wink:


Exactly. We know AMD favours tight timings, so uber expensive memory is going to help them. If you are spending all money on other components you should be testing the FX62 or w/e it is
April 22, 2007 1:24:07 PM

That's nice that they cherry picked a specific price point to compare a CPU whose value is going to drop soon anyways :) 

They could've also dropped down 40% into the ~$115 bracket for 82% of the performance, where Intel would've been better :) 
April 22, 2007 1:27:17 PM

You guys need to Read more before posting.
ps and lighten up try decaff :lol: 

1st.... from first page in link.
Both of these processors are under $200 and are within just a dollar of each other, so when it comes to pricing alone it's an apple to apple comparison. Price is the only reason that these processors are being compared to each other, so please remember that this article is about** the bang for your buck..**
.duh

2nd...from last page in link.... r0ck & cxl........to you more so..
An update will be published once Intel officially lowers desktop processor pricing as the Core 2 Duo 6420 will be the new sub $200 processor that will compete with the 5600+. It wasn't tested as*** it wasn't released when this article was published!*** :roll:
duh.

viperabyss
the title was a joke that is why i said " made you look" on the very first line @ least i didnt go into anrgy mode about Releasing benchmarks on time bla bla bla..... chill out
"benchmarked most of their games on 1600 x 1200 setting" SO WHAT! thats what many people play there games in. esp with the 8800.

everyone else can click on my sig for more info :tongue:
April 22, 2007 2:57:48 PM

This review is already obsolete. The e6420 is already available for $189, and will fall in the next couple days even closer to its list price of $183.

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=BA236...

The intention was to create an "apples to apples" comparison of processors at a particular price point. With todays price cut, that comparison is no longer valid. Somehow I doubt the 5600 is going to be pulling off "more victories" against the 6420 in gaming performance.

I'll give you some credit, your title is not nearly as inflammatory as the Inq's "AMD Athlon demolishes Intel Core in games" pointing to the same review. :p 
April 22, 2007 3:00:58 PM

Well they knew Intel was going to drop prices, so I don't see why they felt the need to rush this one up. Also, price and performance aren't directly related, you can cherry pick certain segments to project a certain image.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-r...
If X-bit could do it, and Legit could do indepth for most of their reviews, why did they have to rush this one again?

Also, 4GB Corsair PC2-10000C5???
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800
I'd like to see performance with real RAM. What are they doing with that junk without overclocking and sub $200 CPUs?
April 22, 2007 3:29:56 PM

The more you post, the more of a noob you sound like. Please, if you don't have a firm argument, stop posting.
April 22, 2007 3:30:25 PM

NO1sFanboy
o ok i didnt even see that thread. tnks
guess the title needed a bit more pep 4 me to open it :) 
April 22, 2007 3:45:00 PM

No problem, I just thought it warranted pointing out since the guy who wrote the review took the time to respond in these forums.

You're title is peppier, though not as peppy as the Inquirer: AMD Athlon demolishes Intel Core in games
April 22, 2007 4:13:23 PM

lol Jack , short and sweet.The article seems good but the test systems bothered me a little(horrible intel board i think , had one and sold it).
April 22, 2007 4:44:11 PM

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Nice title, you have the Inquirers knack for drawing attention to your post and getting people to read.

I see a lot of people with an Intel chip on thier shoulder couln't resist coming in to start flaming.
April 22, 2007 5:00:53 PM

Quote:
I took my E6600 from 2.4ghz to over 3.1ghz last night on air without any voltage increases!! I've heard that my batch can go to nearly 4ghz with voltage step ups on air. Try that on an AMD!! (Especially as overclocked the temp was only 37C).

well i overclocked mine by 1Ghz, while lower the voltage :p 

well you can try that on FX-74.
repliying to every post, and constantly return to show "how you're right" seriusly shows your e-dick sire...
calm down your fanboyism..
April 22, 2007 5:05:36 PM

I guess that you can't compare anything these days if you are going to have to wait until the next pricing structure comes out before you can do "fair" comparisons for some people. Man, the way technology is accelerating ahead, comparisons won't be able to be done because someone will always say, "yeah, but Intel works better with blah blah and AMD works better with blah blah, and you, (sniff), you used blah, blah, blah, and the new pricing matrix will be out in a month,(sniffle) and you didnt take into account overclockability, and the power supply was crap, and (excuse, excuse) so THATS NOT FAIR!!!!" (crying).... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: 
Here's a hint: do some research and buy what you want or can afford and deal with the performance you get. Dont like it? Upgrade to something else. Cant afford something else? Should have thought about that before you bought the first time...
April 22, 2007 5:05:39 PM

I would just like to add a quick comment on all the complaining about fanboys and such:

This article does seem worthwhile to me, as most users do not overclock and many people are not going for the fastest CPU, but rather for one at an attractive price point. While I (an enthusiast who loves to overclock) intend to buy a c2d in the very near future, if my budget were a little lower I would definitely go with an a64x2, as they are really cheap right now. Articles like this seem useful and pertinent to me, and while it is indeed a narrow little area in which AMD is currently excelling (that is, in the realm of budget builds), that does not mean we shouldn't have a few articles that point out the benefits of AMD cpus, just as there are plenty that point out the perks of intel CPUs. What really gets me how people are complaining so much about this, when the poster clearly states that the intel CPUs are better if you plan on overclocking (since the author said it, you people don't need to come here and whine about it), and the author made no move to claim that intel did anything other than dominate on the high end.

I for one (though, again, I should state that I will be buying one of those core 2 duo's soon, because they are awesome) am glad to see an article putting AMD in a favorable light. I feel as though I owe AMD a lot for improving the price landscape of the CPU world. I also recognize that non-enthusiasts really don't give a rats ass about the relatively small performance difference between even the lowest end x2 and the highest end conroe. Yes, even that big gap is nothing to the average user, who just wants a quiet system who will open IE or firefox rapidly. Even an old pentium 4 could do this with ease.
April 22, 2007 5:28:43 PM

Periander, JumpingJack , Shadowed, NO1sFanboy
Thanks, had my mind on other titles but held back :wink:

well what about

Intel eats my $200 AMD shorts
intel gets bleeched,wacked and hung up to dry for less than $189.95
I went to the intel factory and all i got was this $185.00 AMD teashirt
intel gets armageddon'ed (nuked) by AMD in all benchmarks.
Sell your sole to intel, only $186 and pay for it for the rest of your life or till the nexted upgrade to AMD.
flame on :tongue:

DJ_Jumbles
thants right, good pt.
Any way intel will come out nexted month or whenever with its benchmarks in its favour, and so the story goes.
April 22, 2007 5:34:05 PM

Quote:
I guess that you can't compare anything these days if you are going to have to wait until the next pricing structure comes out before you can do "fair" comparisons for some people.


You yourself started a thread pointing to this review when it was already obsolete. Not obsolete in the future, obsolete right now. Such a link is totally useless.
April 22, 2007 5:39:25 PM

come over here my mate will give you a good deal :) 
amd sells well here, i have no glue about any other country.
April 22, 2007 5:58:25 PM

Your creativeness overwhelms us 8O
April 22, 2007 6:00:47 PM

Yeah, I got the updated price/performance list from the xbitlabs article, too... gee.. now the 5600 holds its own with the 6420, too? LOL!!!! :lol: 
Yeah, it's real obsolete info when nothing changes but the model number!
:roll:
Nothing else changed: price, performance, nothing... just E6300=E6420 I guess.
April 22, 2007 6:09:47 PM

It seems that some members here have to literally learn how to "digest" the information shown and use it towards their advantage.

Aside from the great article and wise/humble opinions of most members, we all know and agree that both AMD/Intel CPUs are suited for many purposes, which US the consumers in the end will determine who's better/worst. Nevertheless, whenever I come across some guys here arguing that the wattage, heat dissipation, or innovation from a company doesn't make a difference in choosing a better, innovative product etc, -which also counts towards the overall performance of a cpu- should not be consider a factor when making a buying decision, regardless of which CPU company, really makes me sick.

Towards those of you, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE, freaking grow up and become a better/wise informed consumer.

NP
Anonymous
April 22, 2007 6:15:01 PM

this is bunch of crap. AMD was better then INTEL 2 year ago but not anymore with C2D. so just deal with it.
April 22, 2007 6:16:21 PM

Quote:
come over here my mate will give you a good deal :) 
amd sells well here, i have no glue about any other country.


Definitely, you need to turn off your pc and get a life aside your dreaming job!

NP
April 22, 2007 6:38:49 PM

Quote:
Everyone should calm down....

@SIKILLALOT

The points people are making is that the timing and gist of the article is made at a point where for a few weeks this claim can be made but does not represent the comptetitive landscape of the near future.

The title of the thread is a little deragatory, but no harm -- you may want to retitle it to "AMD offers competitive processors at 200 dollar price point." Before their April 9th price cuts, AMD was not competitive much above 150 bucks.

In general, getting to 3.0 GHz and offering up some competitive units should be commendable.... however, though AMD has swang the price/performance curve to their favor in the lower end --- this did not come without some degree of pain.... about 611 million dollars of pain to be exact.

AMD may very well be competitive from a consumer perspective, and the point of your post is a good one --- however, one must remember that selling high-binned CPUs at mid- to low-end price points is the recipe for losing money.

It is the Star Trek analogy, the Tribbles died from eating too much --- same here, AMD will sell more processors this way but will end up losing money to do so.... the more they sell the worse it gets.

@ CARLHUNGIS
I would disagree that this is a 9-inch type post, the OP posted a link and analysis that was inline with the data, 9-inch would just make crap up and post sites that were pro-AMD anyway.

Jack


Good Post Jack
Demonstrates there is still INTELligence lerking in the background on this forum. :D 
April 22, 2007 7:10:30 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I got the updated price/performance list from the xbitlabs article, too... gee.. now the 5600 holds its own with the 6420, too? LOL!!!! :lol: 
Yeah, it's real obsolete info when nothing changes but the model number!
:roll:
Nothing else changed: price, performance, nothing... just E6300=E6420 I guess.


I'm not disputing the fact that the 5600 and e6420 offer reasonably closely matched performance at stock speeds. Why would I? I've linked to that x-bit labs article myself several times when people have recently come here asking about what processor to buy. That is a fair comparison of two processors that are currently (and were to be at the time) matched at the same price point. You see, unlike you, I am not a fanboi.
April 22, 2007 7:43:04 PM

Quote:
flameage

every time my x2 4200+ sees am intel logo ,it says daddy.


Your girlfriend says that every time she looks up at me too. :twisted:




J/K :wink:
April 22, 2007 7:52:20 PM

Quote:
I took my E6600 from 2.4ghz to over 3.1ghz last night on air without any voltage increases!! I've heard that my batch can go to nearly 4ghz with voltage step ups on air. Try that on an AMD!! (Especially as overclocked the temp was only 37C).

well i overclocked mine by 1Ghz, while lower the voltage :p 

well you can try that on FX-74.
repliying to every post, and constantly return to show "how you're right" seriusly shows your e-dick sire...
calm down your fanboyism..
sorry :p 

it was 5am last night, i was not in the good mood, so kinda lost it.
i apologize to everyone
April 22, 2007 7:52:28 PM

Quote:
flameage

every time my x2 4200+ sees am intel logo ,it says daddy.


Your girlfriend says that every time she looks up at me too. :twisted:




J/K :wink:

yeah she says your cache is bigger but my os is more stable. :lol: 

Prolly, i am young still :p  , get a little excited :twisted: :wink:
April 22, 2007 8:10:43 PM

Quote:
You guys need to Read more before posting.
ps and lighten up try decaff :lol: 

1st.... from first page in link.
Both of these processors are under $200 and are within just a dollar of each other, so when it comes to pricing alone it's an apple to apple comparison. Price is the only reason that these processors are being compared to each other, so please remember that this article is about** the bang for your buck..**
.duh

that's true. i totally agree that AMD is a better buy at the moment... at the lower ends. AMD simply does not have any answer for E6700, let alone X6800. also, after the price drop tomorrow, as someone already pointed out, 5600+ might have to deal with E6600 in terms of pricing. at that level, E6600 is simply better bang for the buck.

Quote:

2nd...from last page in link.... r0ck & cxl........to you more so..
An update will be published once Intel officially lowers desktop processor pricing as the Core 2 Duo 6420 will be the new sub $200 processor that will compete with the 5600+. It wasn't tested as*** it wasn't released when this article was published!*** :roll:
duh.

well i would still say that E6420 won't fare against 5600+. it would take E6600 to put 5600+ to bed. so at the moment, AMD still has the lower end covered. (unless you're talking about overclocking of course).
Quote:

viperabyss
the title was a joke that is why i said " made you look" on the very first line @ least i didnt go into anrgy mode about Releasing benchmarks on time bla bla bla..... chill out
"benchmarked most of their games on 1600 x 1200 setting" SO WHAT! thats what many people play there games in. esp with the 8800.
everyone else can click on my sig for more info :tongue:

well my points were that, first of all, if you're comparing CPU performance, benchmarking games at 1600 x 1200 won't really help, because you'll then be benchmarking the video card. the only way to benchmark CPU performance using games is to reduce the resolution.

also, as i pointed out earlier, the review did not use the best hardware for the test. if you're looking at a sub-200 processor (no OC), chances are you won't be shelling out another 300 bucks for nVidia 680 MB, or 200 bucks for DDR2-1000 (enthusiast grade), or 600 bucks for an 8800GTX. you'll most likely be using a 100 bucks MB, 80 bucks RAM, and 150 bucks 8600 or so. IMO, the test was not conducted in the best interests of the reader.

EDIT: now onto my main point. i believe you should change the title of this thread. having a better sub-200 processor simply does not mean "AMD pulled off more victories than Intel". as i quoted the source earlier, the review gave that statement for their own review. however, it does not mean AMD has the upper hand in general. you might want to read through the review before you post.

oh well, at least you're a lot better than TheInq, who claimed "Athlon demolished Core".

sorry that i was not in a good mood last night. it was 5am, i just got off work, and my gf was being a little bit annoying. :oops: 

i apologize to you for my behavior :oops: 
April 22, 2007 10:17:25 PM

Quote:
Barcelona quad core is coming Amd will be back on top, where were you when AMd was on top last year, I guess on the bottom with Intel. Sick of you C2D Weenies.


Don't count on it.

The Barcelona is allegedly 8-40% faster than the C2D. However, some independant testers have allegedly reported that it is allegedly only 40% in certain specific uncommon apps and in most common tasks / apps it is the lower figure (8%) that is the more accurate.

Also, Intel have their new offering ready to go the Penryn which "offers a substancial speed increase" over the current processors. Its expected to be released shortly after the Barcelona. Figures are stated at 20% with games and 40% with media.

The die is also dropping to 45nm and using improved architecture. AMD aren't going to 45nm until mid 2008. Many expect the Penryn to immediately outperfom the Barcelona on release.

Features:

- clock speeds exceeding 3ghz
- a doubling of the mathematical capability offering huge improvements in 3D performance and physics calculations
- 50 new SSE instructions
- FSB at 1333mhz then later revised to 1600mhz
- Caches as high as 12MB for quads and 6Mb for duals

http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2007/03...

From what I've read around the net, AMD may be unlikely to find an answer to Intel in the CPU sector until late 2008.

Al
April 22, 2007 10:26:47 PM

Nothing against you but i think thats a bunch of shit.

People seem to have this story backwards. Barcelona is the major leap forward, penryn is the shrink/slight improvment.

I thought it was funny when Intel release "a 3.33ghz penryn is 40% faster than 2.93ghz conro" just after AMD said 40% clear.

Seems too convienent. And if you saw the breakdown, only divx had a major improvment, something crazy like 120% because of sse4.

I firmly believe AMD will be on top by a signifigant margin at least till penryn closes the gap, but i don't think they will be able to clock high enough.
April 22, 2007 10:29:42 PM

You'd better read this then:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/488/1/

The new Penryn dual core almost matches the current Quad Core Q6800EE Extreme for performance.

The Penryn Quad substancially exceeds it.



Here you can see its CPU limited with both revisions topping out at 210fps. The current Quad Core Q6800EE manages only 153 fps. 57fps behind the new cores.

April 22, 2007 10:35:03 PM

Quote:
You'd better read this then:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/488/1/

The new Penryn dual core almost matches the current Quad Core Q6800EE Extreme for performance.

The Penryn Quad substancially exceeds it.



Thats a limited handfull of cherry picked benches. Plus they don't take into account the clock difference, which might not seem like much but is like 12%(too lazy to calculate)
April 22, 2007 10:42:44 PM

Whatever.

Enough industry insiders around the net have allegedly said AMD has no answer until mid 2008 to have me convinced, and they know better than you and I. I used to have AMD myself, bought nothing else for 7 years until I got a C2D. Theres nothing to be gained from burying your head in the sand and being a fanboy. I leave it to the experts to tell me whats fastest.

If AMD can regain and hold a lead over Intel then I'll be delighted. Can't see it happening though as Intel have a definite advantage that AMD seemingly can't match. Intel also have 33nm and 22nm dies allegedly working and die shrinks allow for faster speeds so it is significant.

As for cherry picked benches, i'd call benching with:

3D Mark 06 - General Test
3D Mark 06 - CPU Test
DivX 6.6
Mainconcept H.264 Encoder
Cinebench R.9.5
Cinebench R.10
Half Life 2 Lost Coast

A fair spread of tests that cover virtually all common scenarios including artifical 3D benchmarks, actual gaming, video and sound encoding.

Al.
April 22, 2007 10:46:07 PM

Quote:
Whatever.

Enough industry insiders around the net have allegedly said AMD has no answer until mid 2008 to have me convinced, and they know better than you and I. I used to have AMD myself, bought nothing else for 7 years until I got a C2D. Theres nothing to be gained from burying your head in the sand and being a fanboy. I leave it to the experts to tell me whats fastest.

If AMD can regain and hold a lead over Intel then I'll be delighted. Can't see it happening though as Intel have a definite advantage that AMD can't match. Intel aslo have 33nm and 22nm dies allegedly working and die shrinks allow for faster speeds so it is significant.


I'm not being a fanboy, I'm just not ready to beleiev AMD is just going to roll over and die for another year, especially when barc is make or break for them. I will also not hand the performance crown from one yet to be seen processor, to another imaganiary processor furtehr down the road without any reall benches.
April 22, 2007 10:54:36 PM

Quote:
Whatever.

Enough industry insiders around the net have allegedly said AMD has no answer until mid 2008 to have me convinced, and they know better than you and I. I used to have AMD myself, bought nothing else for 7 years until I got a C2D. Theres nothing to be gained from burying your head in the sand and being a fanboy. I leave it to the experts to tell me whats fastest.

If AMD can regain and hold a lead over Intel then I'll be delighted. Can't see it happening though as Intel have a definite advantage that AMD seemingly can't match. Intel also have 33nm and 22nm dies allegedly working and die shrinks allow for faster speeds so it is significant.


Who are those "industry insiders" you're referring to? True, I've heard too that AMD is in really tight spot right now but like corvette says, NOT releasing Barc is do or die for them really. It is not to our/anyone's advantage to have a market dominated solely by an Intel entity because of many potential "market-side negative effects," which you, I, and everyone else would pay for, trust me! Our friend Baron can attest to that, although I haven't seen him around lately.

Seriously though, we have to hope that AMD comes back at least competitively, with a product to Intel's penryn core as such will keep prices low, but above all, will keep the innovation on both ends of the rope.

NP
April 22, 2007 11:02:24 PM

The industry insiders are just many of the tech experts around the net. There have been lots of articles on the C2D lead.

As for it being advantageous for both companies to have competitive products, I agree entirely, its that that forces development and keeps the prices low. Like I said above, I'm not a fanboy of either company, I just go with whoever is fastest at the time I'm looking to buy, although it does take a big advantage to make me change mobo as well as processor.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!