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

[d3lt4]

Originally posted by: 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.

I believe reverse hyperthreading is coming out soon, which would make it worthwhile, but that's all just speculation.

 

[cheesehead]

Intel > AMD for anything OTHER than their bottom-of-the-line (3800+ vs. their cheapest moddel), and that's only due to Nvidia's awesome chipsets. Much as I like AMD (Intel is not developing PC's for the third world), the Intel Pentium-M (which is on the same architecture as the Core systems anyway) is an excellent processor.

However, I am buying AMD anyway.

Why?

A sempron 2800+ owns a 2.4ghz Celeron. A sempron OC'd to 2.4 ghz (50% OC! Woo!) is a pretty dang fast chip indeed.
Because I've got a spare case, CD-burner, DVD-ROM drive, and fans, I can pay maybe 400$ for a decent gaming box.

'Nuff said.

Plus, I can upgrade in a year and a half for another 300-400$, and still come out ahead.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: d3lt4

Originally posted by: 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.

I believe reverse hyperthreading is coming out soon, which would make it worthwhile, but that's all just speculation.

I don't think Reverse HyperThreading currently exists, as well as "Core Multiplexing Technology"

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: d3lt4

Originally posted by: 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.

I believe reverse hyperthreading is coming out soon, which would make it worthwhile, but that's all just speculation.

"Reverse HT" Does Not Exist

 

[Tig Ol Bitties]

Originally posted by: Pugnate

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

That looks pretty much like 1600x1200 to me.

I could be hallucinating.

No where in Anand's review of the processor at 16x12 does it indicate that its using AA, AF, or HDR in any of their tests. "High" or "maximum" in-game settings doesn't indicate to me that they're using it...either Anand isn't explaining their setup very well or they're not using the settings (AA, AF, HDR) at all. HardOCP's specifically stated using these options and reflect more of "current" real world gaming performance.

I'm not defending AMD in any way because quite frankly they get spanked in every other category of usage, but making that gaming comparison just doesn't seem fair to me. I'm glad HardOCP did benches reflecting AA, AF, and HDR performance hit because most gamers have or would prefer to have a combination of these settings on. When new GPUs start coming out, then we'll see the performance gains that the Conroe will provide since bottlenecks are supposed to be less of an issue, but as for now and the coming months until DX10, HardOCP's review means a lot more to me in terms of gaming which I mostly do on my rig. Those extra few seconds of waiting for video encoding on my X2 4400 will suit me just fine until AMD comes out with their 65nm solution, then we'll see who is King again and I'll make my choice then.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Visual
real world performance means ms office performance for most parts of the world
so i guess conroe isn't much better than my 486 after all.

Yes it is, as long as MS keeps bloating MS Office year by year.

Originally posted by: ITguy
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.

Hey, maybe the rest of us mere mortals can swoop in and pick up some cheap used DDR RAM and stay with under $100 socket 939 chips a while longer. Long live budget computing!

Originally posted by: inspire
Cyrix still makes CPUs?

The silence is deafening.

Those $300 Core 2 Duo chips look nice and all, but that's about double my usual CPU budget. Has any site reviewed $150 or cheaper Intel chips lately?

IF I were to spend $300 on a CPU (and if it were available to buy) and $150-200 on a motherboard, those Core 2 Duos sure look nice. However, in no way do I regret paying $88 for a brand new E6 core Athlon 64 3500+ to use on a nicely overclockable $80 motherboard.

Hey, why all the fuss over these more expensive chips? My question is will Intel come out with cheaper single core versions with 2MB cache, will cheaper-yet-massively-overclockable Intel motherboards come out and will they outperform the competing AMD chips at that low price range? That's what I'm looking forward to. C'mon Intel, give me what I want!

 

[dev0lution]

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.

Uh, well you definitely don't need a conroe if you can't get a X1900XT working properly, but the rest of us might just do things other than game or plan on upgrading our GPU down the road....

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Zap
The silence is deafening.

Those $300 Core 2 Duo chips look nice and all, but that's about double my usual CPU budget. Has any site reviewed $150 or cheaper Intel chips lately?

IF I were to spend $300 on a CPU (and if it were available to buy) and $150-200 on a motherboard, those Core 2 Duos sure look nice. However, in no way do I regret paying $88 for a brand new E6 core Athlon 64 3500+ to use on a nicely overclockable $80 motherboard.

Hey, why all the fuss over these more expensive chips? My question is will Intel come out with cheaper single core versions with 2MB cache, will cheaper-yet-massively-overclockable Intel motherboards come out and will they outperform the competing AMD chips at that low price range? That's what I'm looking forward to. C'mon Intel, give me what I want!

They still have NetBurst Inventory to remove, Single Core derivatives of Core Architecture aint't gonna arrive till 2007. Below 150US, you get some good deals on Netburst cores.

Pentium 4 524 64US, Pentium 4 531 74US, Pentium 4 541 84US, Pentium D 805 93US, Pentium D 820 113US, Pentium D 915 133US, Pentium D 945 163US. Above that all you should consider is Core 2 Duo.

 

[furballi]

Intel's best CPU is the KING of performance for the next 6 to 12 months. $1200 for a CPU/MB combo if you want to play. For the majority of gamers and PC users, an overclocked A64/Sempron at 2.5GHz is fast enough (no bottleneck). I spent $99 for an A64 3000 socket 754/MB combo. This rig is running at 2.68GHz. My applications take 1 to 2 seconds to open. I doubt that Intel's latest CPU will cut this time in 1/2.

Some folks like to brag about having the best of XYZ. I like to keep my $ working for me and only upgrade when my PC can no longer perform up to my expectation.

 

[lopri]

.. was uber suxage.

Off Topic: Not to mean anything, I really enjoy ever-growing internet vocabulary. This one is new to me and it brought a smile on my face. Well sorry I know I sound like an idiot but I couldn't resist.

Suxage. I love this word!

 

[Kaieye]

Originally posted by: furballi
Intel's best CPU is the KING of performance for the next 6 to 12 months. $1200 for a CPU/MB combo if you want to play. For the majority of gamers and PC users, an overclocked A64/Sempron at 2.5GHz is fast enough (no bottleneck). I spent $99 for an A64 3000 socket 754/MB combo. This rig is running at 2.68GHz. My applications take 1 to 2 seconds to open. I doubt that Intel's latest CPU will cut this time in 1/2.

Some folks like to brag about having the best of XYZ. I like to keep my $ working for me and only upgrade when my PC can no longer perform up to my expectation.

Agreed!

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Kaieye

Originally posted by: furballi
Intel's best CPU is the KING of performance for the next 6 to 12 months. $1200 for a CPU/MB combo if you want to play. For the majority of gamers and PC users, an overclocked A64/Sempron at 2.5GHz is fast enough (no bottleneck). I spent $99 for an A64 3000 socket 754/MB combo. This rig is running at 2.68GHz. My applications take 1 to 2 seconds to open. I doubt that Intel's latest CPU will cut this time in 1/2.

Some folks like to brag about having the best of XYZ. I like to keep my $ working for me and only upgrade when my PC can no longer perform up to my expectation.

Agreed!

Not exactly accurate, even a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ or Athlon 64 3200+ is "fast enough" for most tasks.

It doens't matter in the end, Intel will also have some competitive processor in this range, Pentium 4 524 64US, Pentium 4 531 74US, Pentium 4 541 84US.

 

[furballi]

At the moment, AMD still owns the value camp. A64 3000 socket 754 with ECS NF3 for $100. Easy 2.5GHz core speed (Prime and Memtest stable). No Intel combo can come close to this level of performance for $100.