Another bold statement that is a lie.
Beat this A64 WinRar benchmark clock for clock
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7287/10102006134556ev0.jpg
Beat this 3DMark06 clock for clock and single GF7600GT
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7949/10102006120611yu5.jpg
I also proved to you that in Cinebench (a cpu performance indicator) scores are equal (if not better considering my ram speed slower than C2D's setup)
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4730/09302006033722fk5.jpg
I am f tired of these bullsh*ers and hate to keep coming back correcting false statements and statements taken out of context. This is not about me or "I can do better wtf", its about F**** waking up, and quit bragging about C2D and Bashing AMD.
Get Over it. Whatever FUD you endeavor against AMD is worthless. AMD's sells are up and the demand for AMD chips are @ a fast paste. You can not stop it.
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
I upgraded from a Barton 2500+ to my current CPU last spring and I feel no need to upgrade again now that Intel's offerings perform slightly better. If it weren't for some of us supporting AMD (since we think their CPUs are good enough still), your Intel CPUs would be more expensive and probably not as good. Competition is healthy for us all.
The C2D beats AMD in MunkyMark - and I made the benchmark myself, without any optimizations for a particular cpu, and further more, without any SSE/2 code. So even in pure FPU math, running compiled C code, the C2D is significantly faster clock for clock. There's no denying that fact.
However, given how long intel has been riding the mhz myth during the P4 era, it only serves them right to have another myth bite them in the @$$.
However, given how long intel has been riding the mhz myth during the P4 era, it only serves them right to have another myth bite them in the @$$.
You are insane, fair and simple. Use Google. I refuse to respond to you. You didn't even respond to my post. Just took one detail and used that to brand me an AMD basher. Maybe I should have said 'almost' every benchmark because I can't quote 100 different benchmark results from memory.
I repeat: When 99% of the masses disagree with your opinion, it's probably you who needs a CAT scan.
If this thread is only to complain that some people are buying a high end X2 then do a 180 and look around there are still people buying the P4 965EE.
As far as I'm conserned I would much rather be one of those people buying the X2 5000+ instead of being like Bob on neweggs "product revievs" page for the 965EE. This is a quote from Bob "Wow this thing is fast. I got it up over 4 gigahertz. No processor can compete with that speed, not even the new Intel Core 2s." This comment was written 9/11/2006 (so C2D had been reviewed and was available) and its price as of today is still $999.
If anyone wants to complain about how another person decides to spend their money and what a bad deal they got then go all the way and take a look at Bob.
As far as I'm conserned I would much rather be one of those people buying the X2 5000+ instead of being like Bob on neweggs "product revievs" page for the 965EE. This is a quote from Bob "Wow this thing is fast. I got it up over 4 gigahertz. No processor can compete with that speed, not even the new Intel Core 2s." This comment was written 9/11/2006 (so C2D had been reviewed and was available) and its price as of today is still $999.
If anyone wants to complain about how another person decides to spend their money and what a bad deal they got then go all the way and take a look at Bob.
People who can't be bothered to investigate major purchases (like a computer) deserve to pay $500 for a 5000+. I mean, ffs, even a 4800+ is $266 at ZZF.
But yeah, as dexvx has demonstrated, the phenomenon is alive. I'm not sure it's worth tossing flames back and forth over, but that's what makes this forum so fun, I suppose.
But yeah, as dexvx has demonstrated, the phenomenon is alive. I'm not sure it's worth tossing flames back and forth over, but that's what makes this forum so fun, I suppose.
..... and when gas hit $3.00 a gallon everybody in the world did the smart thing and traded thier SUV's for economy cars.
You have to realize that people that buy the top of the line chips are usually not doing it to overclock. They are your average joe user that just wants the best for their money. Yes the X2 5000+ is not as fast as an equally priced E6600, but its reasonably close in many benchmarks. 10% or even 30% differences is not much when you're getting such good performance regardless.
The other possibility people stick with AMD is that AMD motherboards are MUCH easier to choose from than Intel in terms of C2D. There's a nice selection of low to mid end motherboards (550/570 Ultra/Xpress 1100), while Intel only has about...2? really nice 965P motherboards (DS3, P5B). When you jump to 975x based boards you're looking at $200+ easy.
BTW I'm not denying that C2D performs very well. But really look at the market and how many C2D desktops do you see on sale vs Pentium D or even A64? The market determines how items are priced, not computer junkies that make up <1% of the company's profits.
The other possibility people stick with AMD is that AMD motherboards are MUCH easier to choose from than Intel in terms of C2D. There's a nice selection of low to mid end motherboards (550/570 Ultra/Xpress 1100), while Intel only has about...2? really nice 965P motherboards (DS3, P5B). When you jump to 975x based boards you're looking at $200+ easy.
BTW I'm not denying that C2D performs very well. But really look at the market and how many C2D desktops do you see on sale vs Pentium D or even A64? The market determines how items are priced, not computer junkies that make up <1% of the company's profits.
zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Oh no, he's quite correct. You are an idiot. Consider the following:
- The IMC (integrated memory controller) and HyperTransport, as nice as they are, don't win the race for current AMD chips in 1P and 2P servers.. and are totally irrelevant in the desktop and mobile market, as their advantages over the FSB model don't show in systems with 1 CPU.
- Your determination of "quality engineered chip" is ridiculous. *Lots* of money and engineering is used to create any processor. Netburst is no exception. You can complain about its performance relative to AMD's chips, the heat created by Prescott, etc... but none of those things make Netburst chips examples of "poor-quality engineering".
- Your "quality engineered chip" sentence implies that the Core 2 Duo isn't a "quality engineered chip". What does the "Yes, the c2d is faster" part of the sentence have to do with the "but really even if someone overpays on an Athlon they are getting a quality engineered chip." part? When you're trying to criticize the P4, maybe you should mention it in the sentence. Or maybe you weren't trying to criticize the P4? Maybe you're trying to criticize C2D. In that case, what about C2D makes it not a "quality engineered chip"?
The bottom line is that your post is idiotic, which means you either are really an idiot or are just playing games. I think it's the former, because most people who play games do a better job at it.
Idiot or not, name calling is pretty pathetic and juvenile. Try attacking the product and opinions.
Oh wait, you are wrong.. which is why you attack me instead of my post.
Forgot.
This is laughable, the IMC hasnt given the Athlons a tremendous boost in performance? Really?
You do realize that Intel is integrating the memory controller to C2D in a year or two.. right?
And nice try pretending HT isnt superior engineering to a massive clocked FSB.
You also realize that Intel themselves had an integrated memory controller, but tried to bully the market into RAMBUS and failed miserably, right?
I guess you'd better get on the phone to Intel and tell them to NOT move to a IMC, because they dont know what they are doing?
You're a smart kid.
No, I'd much rather have AMDs product from the Thunderbird Athlon till A64, versus anything Intel put out during that era.
Its better engineering.. sorry. Some would say its poor quality engineering if its inferior to AMDs.. which it has been for years. Sad.
No one implied anything that you wish you heard.
zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
"Idiot" is name-calling.. and "pathetic and juvenile"? What do you suppose telling someone, as you did earlier, to "eat sh*t" is? By any standard I've ever heard of, what you said would be deemed far more "pathetic and juvenile" than anything I've said.
I don't know what the performance situation would look like if AMD's chips didn't have an IMC.. but that's not the point. The point is that the IMC and HyperTransport haven't been able to push AMD's chips ahead of Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest. So since Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest, with its FSB, beats AMD's chips.. what does that say about your proclamations of the FSB being "inferior"? It says they're crap. The FSB is only an inferior application in the 4P and 4P+ systems. Otherwise, it's definitely an example of "quality engineering".
It was a better design than the Netburst architecture.. not "poor quality engineering". There's a difference. "Poor quality engineering" would imply that it doesn't work how it was engineered to work. Netburst was designed with certain objectives in mind. Given the materials and technologies available, it lived up to its design objectives pretty well. Because of that, its engineering is just fine. Comparing architectures only indicates which one performs a given task better. It does not address "engineering" quality. Additionally, Netburst excelled at certain tasks, primarily because the task was built around the architecture's capabilities. Tasks that are designed around something of "poor quality engineering" don't work.
Hey, I'm not the one who wrote the nonsense sentence: "Yes, the c2d is faster, but really even if someone overpays on an Athlon they are getting a quality engineered chip" .. and attempted to criticize the P4 by referring to the C2D.
Your not too paying enough attention to Core 2 Duo motherboards then, the 945P based motherboards compatible for Core 2 Duo are what the low end Core 2 Duo motherboards consist of.
So it goes like this:
945P/G based motherboards for the low end with the ICH7 Controller.
P965 & G965 with the ICH8 Controller for the low mid range.
P965 with the ICH8-R for the upper mid range.
975X with the ICH7-R for the high end motherboards.
On the AMD side, you have the same thing but there are 2 dominant companies, ATI & NV.
As well supplies of the X2 5000+ are still not too good, so there is failry high degree of gouging a search on pricewatch reveals that the OEM X2 5000+ is 406US with the X2 5200+ at 460US, both well above the listed price chart prices at AMD of 301US and 403US respectively.
If your going to imply that getting a slower processor for more money is allright, then that nullifies getting AMD alltogether. As we can purchase the worser performing but close performance Pentium D 805/820/915/945 for the low end compared to what AMD has in that particular segment.
Good performance is relative, so from that argument the Pentium D 915/945 are still giving good enough performance
More performance is more performance, you get as much for your money as you can. Once you start playing a game of picking a point where it's good enough, anybody can choose a point where 1 vendor is stronger, so it's worthless as an unbiased compairson tool.
If there is more choice on the AMD front as your trying to portray, then how is it easier to choose a motherboard. It's labeled quite clearly on the motherboard which CPU type is supported.
And Core 2 Duo are priced quite reasonably for the performance they offer, the high end models are more costly, since AMD processors can't match their performance levels. And with the Core 2 Duo models availble they offer more performance then the equivalently priced AMD offering in that segment.
Originally posted by: Crusader
This is laughable, the IMC hasnt given the Athlons a tremendous boost in performance? Really?
You do realize that Intel is integrating the memory controller to C2D in a year or two.. right?
And nice try pretending HT isnt superior engineering to a massive clocked FSB.
You also realize that Intel themselves had an integrated memory controller, but tried to bully the market into RAMBUS and failed miserably, right?
I guess you'd better get on the phone to Intel and tell them to NOT move to a IMC, because they dont know what they are doing?
...
You're a smart kid.
No, I'd much rather have AMDs product from the Thunderbird Athlon till A64, versus anything Intel put out during that era.
Its better engineering.. sorry. Some would say its poor quality engineering if its inferior to AMDs.. which it has been for years. Sad.
oh sorry, i didn't even know how to respond correctly to your post because your opinions were so outrageously stupid... guess that makes you an idiot. well, here's a shot at your second dumb post:
intel's integrated memory controller will be modular, unlike amd's, so it can be ripped out to save power and money for most market segments. and if you think 266*4 fsb is a difficult engineering task, then you really have no clue how anything in the I/O works. go hit the books or give up already.
also you have a short memory, because timna never saw the light of day, and willamette never had an on-die memory controller. So the RAMBUS thing had nothing to do with the integrated memory controller.
as for "better engineering", go ahead and define your metrics, I could use some weekend laughs.
Even that's debatable on how it was architectured.
Itanium still uses an archaic 667Mhz FSB (533 for Moniceto, ironically). Yet they scale up to 512P per node, something the Opteron can only dream of right now. But yea seriously... Crusader has just demonstrated the problem hands on.
For some reason:
1) Paying 50% more
2) Less performance/watt
3) Less performance/$$
Is ok, because with AMD because you're getting a "quality chip". However, reverse the situation, and you're getting crap. Its an interesting phenomenon that defies logic.
Hey, if Williamette or Prescot is your idea of "quality engineering", then more power to you. Unfortunately for yourself and the other Intel apologist, you're dead wrong.. but thats ok, you are entitled look as dumb as you want to look.
You'd better get on the horn and warn Intel to not follow in AMDs footsteps and integrate an IMC.
What does that say about your proclamations of the IMC being "inferior"? It says they're crap.
LOL! So now engineering difficulty= better engineering!
Ever heard of work smarter, not harder?
Typical engineering elitist that worrys more about engineering feats of difficulty than anything else. I recommend less books for you, and some common sense. Its to bad you cant get that from a book.. I think you're screwed.
haha, you still didn't explain your quality metric. dilettantes like you wouldn't know quality engineering even if it got jizzed all over your face lol.
i never claimed an IMC was inferior, so in your own words, eat sh*t.
also, learn to read. i said keeping the FSB is *EASY*. doing the IMC is harder. most idiots know that. you're really at the bottom of the barrel kid.
zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Oh, I could not.. on my worst day.. come close to looking as dumb as you already look. Show me where, exactly, I said the IMC is inferior. You can't.. because I didn't say it was inferior. I said that it was not enough to make AMD's chips faster than Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest. I also said that in most cases (as 4P+ servers/workstations are few and other servers, desktops, and laptops are many) the IMC and HyperTransport are irrelevant because their advantages over a FSB are not realized in systems with 1 CPU. That's not saying the IMC and HyperTransport are inferior.. it just says their capabilities and benefits over a FSB model are not needed most of the time.
Ok lets take your arguement apart.
Willamette was up against: Thunderbird/early Athlon XP Palomino
Performance/Watt, on par with Thunderbird
Performance/Price, lower than Thunderbird (10-30%)
Performance/Watt, lower than Palomino (10-30%)
Performance/Price, lower than Palomino (10-30%)
Prescott was up against: Athlon64 S754 and S939
Performance/Watt, lower than A64 (50% ish)
Performance/Price, lower than A64 (20-40% on higher end models)
---
Now lets compare Conroe (4MB) to high-end X2's:
Performance/Watt, higher than X2's (50% ish)
Performance/Price, higher than A64's (50% ish)
What is your definition of "fine quality" engineering. When Conroe is beating higher-end X2's by wider margins than A64/AthlonXP over Prescott or Willamette ever dreamed of?
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Why do you care so much about what others buy? Other people buying A64 X2s does not make your Conroe CPU more/less desirable. If one's CPU does what one expects at a price one finds reasonable, all is well for that user. Most other stuff amounts to just e-penis comparison and may be important to members with little self-esteem but not to the vast majority of computer buyers who use and see their machine as a tool to do a job (job can be playing games or productivity work, crunching distributed-computing work units, etc...) Stop comparing yourself to others and judge your CPU performance+ price with regards to your own needs.:beer:
Other people buying A64 X2s does not make your Conroe CPU more/less desirable. If one's CPU does what one expects at a price one finds reasonable, all is well for that user. Most other stuff amounts to just e-penis comparison and may be important to members with little self-esteem but not to the vast majority of computer buyers who use and see their machine as a tool to do a job (job can be playing games or productivity work, crunching distributed-computing work units, etc...) Stop comparing yourself to others and judge your CPU performance+ price with regards to your own needs.:beer:TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter