Case Proven: People that think X2 > Core2 clock for clock

[dexvx]

Linked to Off-Topic

So many people have doubted me saying that anyone of claiming of knowledge thinks that X2 > Core2 clock for clock. Oh I beg to differ. There are lot of people who have it engrained (since the AthlonXP days when Athlon > Pentium4 clock for clock) and still have it engrained in their minds.

Cliff Notes:

Guy thinks
2x DC 1.8Ghz Opterons > 2x DC 3.0 Ghz Core2 Woodcrests

Guy thinks
2x SC 2.2Ghz 848 Opterons > 2x DC 3.0 Ghz Core2 Woodcrests

X2 Ghz is "more efficient" than Core2 Ghz.

Now this is not an isolated case. I've been in Fry's buying an E6300 combo for a friend I've heard many similar remarks waiting in their godawful CPU lines.

But yea. For all you people wondering why people buy brand new AM2-5000+/5200+/FX-62's and the upcoming FX-7x series, this is why. Although people conclude that Intel marketting has done fantastically with the Pentium4 Ghz marketting, I would have to say that AMD has done an extraordinary job in their marketting preception that AMD Ghz > Intel Ghz on a clock for clock basis. This is one of many and there are still many people that think AMD Ghz's are "superior". These people, frightfully, think they're the 1337 computing whiz types (usually people who end up in IT, ironically).

This I think is why AMD will not go broke and need not worry about going broke anytime soon. Their marketting has entrenched them into many people who *think* they know a lot about computers but don't actually know squat.

 

[Corporate Thug]

i think and hope OP is in the minority

 

[Avalon]

Eh, it was just one person on these boards.

99.9% of everyone else in the thread knew better.
That was a funny thread, though

 

[Rangoric]

Actually I think its Intel's Marketing that needs work.

Core Duo or Core 2 Duo. Thats the confusion point. Intel should make the names stand apart a bit better.

 

[BrownTown]

Just like Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4 stand out a whole lot? Or AMDs number system. The fact is that you should understand bigger numbers = better. IF something has a 2 after it that means second generation, thats not just computer parts, thats everything.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
i think and hope OP is in the minority

He is.

 

[theteamaqua]

i can OC E6400 60%from 2.13Ghz to 3.4GHz

can AMD X2 do that? i didnt think so

 

[gramboh]

What about that OcHungry nut who claimed that OC'ing on an AMD platform yielded more gains than on an Intel C2D platform? Hilarious stuff, basically saying the MHz did not scale the same on both systems (WTF?).

 

[dexvx]

This is a regular poster on Anandtech board. You know Anandtech, the place where "Empire Strikes Back" and "Woodcrest: Birth of a new King" was written.

Imagine all the other blokes out there.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Just like Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4 stand out a whole lot? Or AMDs number system. The fact is that you should understand bigger numbers = better. IF something has a 2 after it that means second generation, thats not just computer parts, thats everything.

*giggle*

I'm glad YOU get it. To bad we aren't talking about people who, you know, actually know about computers.

Now back to what I said.

Core 2 Duo vs Core Duo is a confusing naming method. Why? Because the generation number is in the MIDDLE of the name. Thats just a bad spot. Core Duo 2 would have been clearer. Not the best but clearer. Because duo gives a mental image of a number already, and you want the last number reference to be higher. Then add on the Model Numbers, good god.

Now, mind you, I am not saying AMD is much better, if at all. But its rather easy to see why there can be confusion.

Thinking there is no possible way to have any confusion tells me that you haven't met the infinite stupidity of the human race

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The fact is that you should understand bigger numbers = better.

Hmm, according to your methodology, the 3.73 Ghz Presler P4 is twice as fast as an E6300. This is what's confusing people. For 3 years, Intel spent 10's of billions of dollars lying to the American public on national TV, and other worldwide media, that "Mhz is all that matters". <<(not a direct quote of Intel) Now, it's come back to bite them in the ass, hasn't it? I've always thought that turnabout is fair play.

 

[lopri]

I wonder if the OP posted under a hacked/messed account?

 

[sandorski]

Why start a thread about it?

This always happens whether it's AMD or Intel and the tables have recently turned. Not everyone pays the same amount attention to things.

 

[Nil Einne]

Actually this shouldn't surprise anyone. I've always been a bit of an AMD fan but I have no doubt Core 2 is better clock for clock cf current A64s. However anyone who has been watching things for the past few years has known how frustrating it was trying to convince Intel fanboys that AMD isn't unstable, incompatible or any of the junk they usually say and that AMD was usually the better buy then an equivalent Intel system (at least for the desktop).

Even now there are a lot of Intel fanboys convinced that Core 2 is always the best option simply because Core 2 is better clock for clock even though price/performance is what actually matters so you really need to compare equivalently speced systems before you make a judgement (actually this has always been a problem, I remember in the old A-XP days someone was claiming even though AMD was cheaper Intel was better because it was slightly faster even though if you spent the same amount of cash on an AMD system, you probably would have gotten a better system).

My point is there are always fan boys. Intel tends to have more of them because of their larger size, they've got a better brand image among the general public and they spend more on marketing. AMD has made a small dent in Intel's image but I think there is little doubt Intel still dominated in this regard. But in the end fan boys don't keep a company afloat. The good thing is I don't think either AMD or Intel are hoping fan boys will keep them afloat...

 

[RichUK]

I want to voice my arguments and views. But right now I can?t be bothered to type.

 

[BOLt]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
i think and hope OP is in the minority

yep.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: gramboh
What about that OcHungry nut who claimed that OC'ing on an AMD platform yielded more gains than on an Intel C2D platform? Hilarious stuff, basically saying the MHz did not scale the same on both systems (WTF?).

Just because two systems are overclocked by the same percentage doesn't mean that they achieve the same performance increase, if that's what you're saying. Performance scaling from increasing frequency is almost always non-linear because of inefficiencies mainly located in the memory sub-system.

Note that I'm not saying that OcHungry is right or wrong. I'm just saying that what he's describing is something that can and does happen when comparing different CPUs.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The fact is that you should understand bigger numbers = better.

Hmm, according to your methodology, the 3.73 Ghz Presler P4 is twice as fast as an E6300. This is what's confusing people. For 3 years, Intel spent 10's of billions of dollars lying to the American public on national TV, and other worldwide media, that "Mhz is all that matters". <<(not a direct quote of Intel) Now, it's come back to bite them in the ass, hasn't it? I've always thought that turnabout is fair play.

No, thats more due to the fact of trend as well as marketting. General Consumers saw that as processors gain speed, the clock speed also gains. This was held true for over TWO DECADES. Thus, Intel didn't really have to do much to hint that ideology that Mhz = performance without actually saying it. No Intel commercial actually said Mhz = performance.

However, AMD has held the IPC crown since 1999 (shocking but its 7 years now). Although AMD has never publically that stated that AMD Mhz > Intel Mhz, it was strongly hinted with the PR system and most semi-informed people just knew. Now take current affairs. Core2 was a shock. Most people never even remotely imagined (except the NDA's and some uarch people) that Core2 would take the IPC AND Mhz crown. Intel IPC, for the first time maybe EVER, is decisively ahead of AMD IPC. However, 7 years of superior AMD IPC is hard to overcome. Thus, there are people, even regular posters on Anandtech that still believe AMD IPC > Core2 IPC. Now take non-regular AT posters who "think" they know computers. It becomes an ever greater issue of mis-understanding.

Look at newegg.com; AM2-5000+ is supposed MSRP at under $300. However, newegg and many stores are selling out AM2-5000+ at around the $500 mark. The demand is THAT high because there are THAT many people in the dark and still believe past trends. That is why the AMD market will be strong. It literally took years for people to finally realize the importance of IPC in clock speed. And it will literally take years for people to realize that AMD isn't always the IPC leader.

So basically, this is a thread to address all the "AMD is gonna die" people that AMD will be alive and healthy despite charging more for less, as Intel has done for more or less 2 years.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The fact is that you should understand bigger numbers = better.

Hmm, according to your methodology, the 3.73 Ghz Presler P4 is twice as fast as an E6300. This is what's confusing people. For 3 years, Intel spent 10's of billions of dollars lying to the American public on national TV, and other worldwide media, that "Mhz is all that matters". <<(not a direct quote of Intel) Now, it's come back to bite them in the ass, hasn't it? I've always thought that turnabout is fair play.

I agree. If they think AMD currently has the best chip, then it's because they distrust Intel. It's certainly not because of AMDs marketing. I've heard that AMD has a marketing department, but I almost never see any evidence of it.

 

[imported_Crusader]

AMD makes a great chip.
Its Intel that finally caught up.

Before it was insane to consider buying Intel.
Now the situation is merely you could buy either one, and really not go wrong.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Crusader
AMD makes a great chip.
Its Intel that finally caught up.

Before it was insane to consider buying Intel.
Now the situation is merely you could buy either one, and really not go wrong.

Uh no...

Why would ANYONE buy a AM2-5000+ for $500 when you can buy a FASTER E6600 + Good 965 O/C motherboard for the SAME PRICE?

At the low end, anything below the X2-4200 is reasonably priced, its the high end where AMD is making an absolute killing.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Crusader
AMD makes a great chip.
Its Intel that finally caught up.

Before it was insane to consider buying Intel.
Now the situation is merely you could buy either one, and really not go wrong.

I'd only go AMD if my budget for a CPU was less than $150.

 

[uOpt]

I didn't read this thread yet but here are my AMD64 versus Core2Duo results:

My standard benchmark suite:
http://www.cons.org/cracauer/crabench/core2only.user.html

As you can see, Core2Duo is about 20% faster per clockspeed for most tasks, goes up 30% for reasonably common tasks like media encoding.

The only thing where it is doing less than 20% is php, but I wouldn't really count that as I use the standard php benchmark which is stupid.

I have one application domain where Conroe does 50% better per clockspeed and one task where it does 90% better. I have not yet analysed what exactly is going on there. Together with the high overclock the thing ends up nearly at three times the speed of a dual Opteron 250.

I give Core2Duo full thumbs up. I like the Intel chipsets better than the AMD64 chipsets, too.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Crusader
AMD makes a great chip.
Its Intel that finally caught up.

Before it was insane to consider buying Intel.
Now the situation is merely you could buy either one, and really not go wrong.

Uh no...

Why would ANYONE buy a AM2-5000+ for $500 when you can buy a FASTER E6600 + Good 965 O/C motherboard for the SAME PRICE?

At the low end, anything below the X2-4200 is reasonably priced, its the high end where AMD is making an absolute killing.

My point was, if you did buy the AMD (or Intel) either way you wont get a crap chip.

For the past years, with the exception of Northwood, Intel has been selling crap chips.
Theres nothing pathetic about using a X2 5000+ unless you are a rabid intel fanboy elitist. Still a great, fast chip..

 

[atom]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Crusader
AMD makes a great chip.
Its Intel that finally caught up.

Before it was insane to consider buying Intel.
Now the situation is merely you could buy either one, and really not go wrong.

Uh no...

Why would ANYONE buy a AM2-5000+ for $500 when you can buy a FASTER E6600 + Good 965 O/C motherboard for the SAME PRICE?

At the low end, anything below the X2-4200 is reasonably priced, its the high end where AMD is making an absolute killing.

So, since when is AMD getting a cut from retailer markups? And how is this different from Intel? Intel makes a killing on the EE chips, AMD makes a killing on their FX chips, no surprises here.