Core 2 Extreme has essentially the same "real world" performance as FX62

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: akshayt
Most of us will be playing these games at 12X10 or 16X12 if not higher on a single radeon 1900xt, right?

so for the majority this is the most accurate article.

Do we not do anything else with our computers? encoding, decoding, extracting files, compacting files, shriking crap, enlarging crap, croping this, croping that, programing this, programming that, rendering, processing...

look at the bigger picture here.

 

[akugami]

I was pleasantly surprised by Conroe's performance as I was expecting a boost but not by this amount. AMD needs to get back on the ball as they have been very lackadaisical. The K8L better be a screamer and come in early 2007.

If I was building a brand new system right now, I'd go Intel. I was originally thinking of upgrading to an X2 3800+ on my socket 939 system after the price drop. But now I'm thinking of gutting the internals of my current system and giving it to the GF and then going Conroe...decisions decisions decisions.

 

[finbarqs]

as an industry professional, AMD even admitted that they have lost the race. Their answer to the conroe was "do you think we're just sitting on our rears? next year, they will have the 4x4 (quad core) cpu's available, and that should be about the time when C2E or C2D would finally be out of their shortage "era".

 

[hamidjunior]

yeah, every machine I built was AMD so far. But it would be too painful for me to pay $1K for something I can get for 3 bills. I am now on my X2 3800+ running at 4200+ speed and it works out for all my needs just fine. Maybe by the time I have to upgrade in a year or two AMD will deliver. But for now Intel did a great job, looking at all the numbers I just had to admit to myslef that AMD is getting smoked right now really bad . But hey, I'm glad they got fire under their butt, it will help us folk to get a better product from them pronto.

 

[R3MF]

it is all about price/performance.

AMD will lower there price to the point where a £250 AMD chip does the same as a £250 Intel chip.

since I never spend more than £250 it makes no difference to me anyway, i'll either get a X2 4600+ or a C2D 6400, either will cost me £250.

the factor most likely to tempt me Intels way is the fact that I can get a mATX motherboard with the PCI-E16 expansion in the first slot position, unlike current AMD boards whose config runs; 1x/16x/PCI/PCI, thus making it very difficult to use a Silverstone LC11-M case.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Hardocp's review was accurate for those who arent thinking of upgrading their video cards in the next few years, and thats why its flawed... its OBVIOUS that conroe isnt any faster with a 7900 GTX... but by the end of the year we will see new gpus which will be 2x faster, or 4x faster in crossfire/sli, and then the gpu bottleneck will vanish, and conroe will spread its wings and those who thought AMD kept up will be screwed, so they should have shown both sides

 

[imported_ITguy]

Originally posted by: rmed64
retarded thread ftl!
20%-55% gaming performance advantage is nothing I guess (when eliminating GPU bottleneck at 640x480, putting "strain" on AI/logic of CPU)
ya, ok

Just like you, I LOOOVE to play all my games at 640X480 resolutions. Takes me way back to the nastalgia of the 80's. LOL.

On a second note:
If you already own DDR RAM, it is worth considering skipping DDR2 altogether and just get the cheapest system that gives you the best bang for the buck right now. I think it's better to wait a year for much better video card technology to hit the masses at prices under $500 and possibly also get DDR3 and Quad core at the same time. Now that will be the real upgrade! Right now, for literally all videocards, basically all the mid to high end cpu's will be close with each other due to the memory and videocard bottleneck.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: ITguy

Originally posted by: rmed64
retarded thread ftl!
20%-55% gaming performance advantage is nothing I guess (when eliminating GPU bottleneck at 640x480, putting "strain" on AI/logic of CPU)
ya, ok

Just like you, I LOOOVE to play all my games at 640X480 resolutions. Takes me way back to the nastalgia of the 80's. LOL.

Go look at anandtech's review and stop spreading FUD... 1600x1200 anyone?

 

[Pugnate]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Hardocp's review was accurate for those who arent thinking of upgrading their video cards in the next few years, and thats why its flawed... its OBVIOUS that conroe isnt any faster with a 7900 GTX... but by the end of the year we will see new gpus which will be 2x faster, or 4x faster in crossfire/sli, and then the gpu bottleneck will vanish, and conroe will spread its wings and those who thought AMD kept up will be screwed, so they should have shown both sides

Good point!

Just like you, I LOOOVE to play all my games at 640X480 resolutions. Takes me way back to the nastalgia of the 80's. LOL.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15

That looks pretty much like 1600x1200 to me.

I could be hallucinating.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: nippyjun
Why is it that many people have been willing to pay more for less performance up until now (ie, people buying intel chips in the last year or 2)?

Answer: Intel has better marketing and better partnerships.

So, What should AMD do now to compete? as they have lost the ability to compete when it comes to performance.

Options: 1. Lower prices.
2. Release FX 64 and FX 66 in limited quantities to keeps somewhat competitive.
3. Make better partnerships
4. Improve their marketing
5. All the above

Answer: 5.... all the above


PS. I'm a big AMD fan so i'm not trying to bash them in any way. I want good competition so we see better products/ prices.

AMD has not lost the ability to compete in performance.

I see this as AMD's focus shifting from architecture to manufacturing infrastructure - anyone who has followed AMD long enough knows that they have severely handicapped themselves by their manufacturing capacity. Hopefully now that AMD has new fab plants up, that won't be a limiting factor.

Now, they have to make up some ground, but I wouldn't say they're down for the count.

 

[Polish3d]

I'm not the least bit disappointed for AMD.


When the X2's came out last year and I bought one, the 4400+ cost me nearly 600 bucks, and it was THIRD down from the top at the time, which was priced at over 1000 dollars. (4800+)

I am damn sick of (what I consider) AMD enthusiast price gouging. From all indications, the second from top Conroe chip (6700=4800+) is debuting at half that price, and appears to be significantly more overclockable as well.

 

[golem]

AMD has not lost the ability to compete in performance.

I see this as AMD's focus shifting from architecture to manufacturing infrastructure - anyone who has followed AMD long enough knows that they have severely handicapped themselves by their manufacturing capacity. Hopefully now that AMD has new fab plants up, that won't be a limiting factor.

Now, they have to make up some ground, but I wouldn't say they're down for the count.

Your 2nd point doens't support your first point. AMD focusing on manufacturing doesn't support the argument that they haven't lost their ability to compete. In fact, it more or less contradicts it.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: golem

AMD has not lost the ability to compete in performance.

I see this as AMD's focus shifting from architecture to manufacturing infrastructure - anyone who has followed AMD long enough knows that they have severely handicapped themselves by their manufacturing capacity. Hopefully now that AMD has new fab plants up, that won't be a limiting factor.

Now, they have to make up some ground, but I wouldn't say they're down for the count.

Your 2nd point doens't support your first point. AMD focusing on manufacturing doesn't support the argument that they haven't lost their ability to compete. In fact, it more or less contradicts it.

Right, well then it's probably less.

They haven't lost the ABILITY to compete - there's quad core, 4 x 4, HTX, etc. They're not competitive in terms of performance right now, but they haven't lost any ability. Their ability is something intrinsic - Intel doesn't have much control over AMD's abilities - AMD engineers didn't lose IQ points when Intel lifted its NDA.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: golem

AMD has not lost the ability to compete in performance.

I see this as AMD's focus shifting from architecture to manufacturing infrastructure - anyone who has followed AMD long enough knows that they have severely handicapped themselves by their manufacturing capacity. Hopefully now that AMD has new fab plants up, that won't be a limiting factor.

Now, they have to make up some ground, but I wouldn't say they're down for the count.

Your 2nd point doens't support your first point. AMD focusing on manufacturing doesn't support the argument that they haven't lost their ability to compete. In fact, it more or less contradicts it.

Right, well then it's probably less.

They haven't lost the ABILITY to compete - there's quad core, 4 x 4, HTX, etc. They're not competitive in terms of performance right now, but they haven't lost any ability. Their ability is something intrinsic - Intel doesn't have much control over AMD's abilities - AMD engineers didn't lose IQ points when Intel lifted its NDA.

Thanks for clarifying. Makes more sense now.

 

[schtuga]

The review is real world alright.Like where they state

We had the internal/external shadows set to 5 on intel ,but amd couldn't run it so we turned it down to 3 for the amd.
Or how they used the 965 chipset instead of 975.
And then bottleneck the gpu.Well it kept AMD looking competitive if nothing else.

Now that they are all coming to market we can see real world benches done by real world people,and finally see if all the hype is deserved or not.

 

[d3lt4]

depending on what you call real world performance I guess the statement is true. If real world is checking email and surfing the web, you probably won't notice a difference. But if it is benchmarking, playing games with high res. and folding you will notice a HUGE difference. I'm the second one.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

What's the point of this thread?

Is this an AMD fanboy's attempt to keep Athlons breathing while Conroes are really just thrashing them around? Thus you bring up "REAL WORLD" performance?

What do you mean REAL WORLD performance? What you mean is PRACTICAL performance because not everyone has dual 7900GTXes. Thus such equality in "real world performance" is really limited in games then. Everything else that you do like DVD shrinking, Photoshop, Winrar, Divx encoding will result in the Conroe KILLING the AMD. Even if you only have a 7800GT like me, Conroe will STILL win in gaming but not by as much as if I had 7900GTXes in SLI. Yes, but either way it WINS.

Is performance essentially the same? No. Intel is clearly ahead even in gaming even if it's just a mere 5%. You AMD fanboys seem to dismiss a 5% advantage because you can now claim it wasn't a blowout victory. However, when your Athlon 64s beat P4s by 5%, you claimed Intel was uber suxage. A64 vs P4 victory wasn't as clearcut as Conroe vs X2/Opteron just FYI.

As an AMD fanboy (I don't know if I'm really a fanboy) that has built 4 AMD systems, I frown at my Opteron. I now crave a Conroe, and while I have faith in AMD, I think the next few quarters will be very gloomy until K8L. Until then, I recommend Intel systems for evereyone.

KTHXBYE

 

[rcalzada51]

hmmm... ok the truth is... Intel finally stopped chasing AMD and have introduced a processor that will help them take back some of the market they have been loosing over the past 5 years or so. The fact also is that suppliers are not going to be able to keep up with the innitial demand until Q4 or even Q1 of next year. I applaud Intel on thier successful launch of a new and yes faster processor. However I know that AMD will continue the fight to reclaim their throne as top dog in the processor arena and Intel will do the same to maintain their new TopDog status. Technology will never stop renewing itself. Who knows... maybe in 10 years there will be a new competitor out there who blows both Intel and AMD out of the water... Do you think Cyrix will come out with a 100Ghz processor? lol

 

[imported_inspire]

Cyrix still makes CPUs?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: rcalzada51
hmmm... ok the truth is... Intel finally stopped chasing AMD and have introduced a processor that will help them take back some of the market they have been loosing over the past 5 years or so. The fact also is that suppliers are not going to be able to keep up with the innitial demand until Q4 or even Q1 of next year. I applaud Intel on thier successful launch of a new and yes faster processor. However I know that AMD will continue the fight to reclaim their throne as top dog in the processor arena and Intel will do the same to maintain their new TopDog status. Technology will never stop renewing itself. Who knows... maybe in 10 years there will be a new competitor out there who blows both Intel and AMD out of the water... Do you think Cyrix will come out with a 100Ghz processor? lol

Availability is jsut that a ?, we will have to see how it plays out, Conroe is mainly for the high end and mainstream, Pentium 4/Pentium D stock can go in the "budget arena" 150US or lower, where the majority of the market remains.

AMD won't regain the performance crown this year, 4x4 might help in heavily multithreaded scenarios, but those are fairly limited on desktop. Not to mention Kentsfield is on the way.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Now all we need is for nVidia and ATI to hurry their asses up to get us some more Core 2 chipsets as well as next gen GPUs to keep pace with Core 2. I'm going to love the encoding performance of Core 2, but its going to show me jack squat in gaming until I can get a new GPU to keep it company.

 

[nippyjun]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Now all we need is for nVidia and ATI to hurry their asses up to get us some more Core 2 chipsets as well as next gen GPUs to keep pace with Core 2. I'm going to love the encoding performance of Core 2, but its going to show me jack squat in gaming until I can get a new GPU to keep it company.

Quad sli

 

[xtknight]

I don't know what "real world" you live in. I live in the real real world, where Conroe actually can execute more instructions in a shorter amount of time.

 

[Pugnate]

Forget Quad SLI. DX 10 vid cards are around the corner.

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

this idiot posted the same BS thread on tomshardware.com forums.