Core 2 Extreme X6900 and Athlon 64 FX-64 preview...
- Thread starter RapidSnail
- Start date
No surprises there... I think it's well known that AMD needs >3.6GHz and/or a new core to match Conroe.
Do I get a prize for guessing X6900 comes out on top? 
Those results are pretty damning though, the FX-64 has a hard time beating an E6600... nuff said.
Those results are pretty damning though, the FX-64 has a hard time beating an E6600... nuff said.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Yeah, only they didn't do those tests right. They were letting their "FX-64" cheat, since it was the only processor of the bunch that was getting to use an overclocked fsb/HTT. Since the FX chips have an unlocked multiplier, it should have been ran at 15x200, not 14x215. That means that the few times it beat the E6600, it wouldn't have, if it had been running at 15x200.Originally posted by: harpoon84
Do I get a prize for guessing X6900 comes out on top?
Those results are pretty damning though, the FX-64 has a hard time beating an E6600... nuff said.
Originally posted by: myocardia
Yeah, only they didn't do those tests right. They were letting their "FX-64" cheat, since it was the only processor of the bunch that was getting to use an overclocked fsb/HTT. Since the FX chips have an unlocked multiplier, it should have been ran at 15x200, not 14x215. That means that the few times it beat the E6600, it wouldn't have, if it had been running at 15x200.Originally posted by: harpoon84
Do I get a prize for guessing X6900 comes out on top?
Those results are pretty damning though, the FX-64 has a hard time beating an E6600... nuff said.
oh puhlese.
since when are k8s bandwidth starved.
15x200 = 14x215 performance wise.
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
Originally posted by: myocardia
Yeah, only they didn't do those tests right. They were letting their "FX-64" cheat, since it was the only processor of the bunch that was getting to use an overclocked fsb/HTT. Since the FX chips have an unlocked multiplier, it should have been ran at 15x200, not 14x215. That means that the few times it beat the E6600, it wouldn't have, if it had been running at 15x200.Originally posted by: harpoon84
Do I get a prize for guessing X6900 comes out on top?
Those results are pretty damning though, the FX-64 has a hard time beating an E6600... nuff said.
oh puhlese.
since when are k8s bandwidth starved.
15x200 = 14x215 performance wise.
true, for K8, 15x200 vs 14x215 is maybe only 1% slower or maybe even less...
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
3.2GHz FX can barely catch up with a 2.4GHz E6600, let alone any 3GHz+ C2Ds. Look at how the tables have turned for Intel's favor in terms of both clock speeds and efficiency. Unfortunately for AMD, K8 is more or less maxed out at 3.2GHz, and I doubt AMD's 65nm process can push the ceiling higher.
And a open note to Intel: Release the damned E4300s already!
EDIT: My bad, FX-64 is 3GHz. Doesn't really matter anyway, like harpoon84 said.
And a open note to Intel: Release the damned E4300s already!
EDIT: My bad, FX-64 is 3GHz. Doesn't really matter anyway, like harpoon84 said.
It's actually a 3GHz FX-64 and 3.2GHz X6900, not that it makes much difference to the end result... 3GHz or 3.2GHz, K8 will never approach Core2 levels of performance...
As for the E4300, I'll agree. A $100 1.8GHz chip @ 3.6GHz making an FX-64 (or even X6900) look very ordinary... Celeron 300A reincarnated?
To me this review is no more than nonsense.
We all know that at stock speed, E6600 beats FX-62, not need to mention that with good but not expensive board and RAMs, E6300 can be OCed to 3.5G easily, don't we.
AMD need new manufacturing process and new architecture to match/beat Conroe.
We all know that at stock speed, E6600 beats FX-62, not need to mention that with good but not expensive board and RAMs, E6300 can be OCed to 3.5G easily, don't we.
AMD need new manufacturing process and new architecture to match/beat Conroe.
Originally posted by: tcG
No one yet
But I think it is reasonable to assume this. As retail E6300 could reach 3.5Ghz+ easily, do you think Intel would cripple manufacturing process and make E4200 less overclockable? I doubt that.
Far from easily... very, very few boards have reached a ~500+MHz FSB.
Unless you mean in the super-best case, not board limited scenario.
Unless you mean in the super-best case, not board limited scenario.
i do believe that a ton of ppl always were making fun of how much faster amd were than intel...its just a vicious cycle!!...lol
Because the P-Ds were like 1/2 the price of the cheapest X2? That was the main reason that I saw on the forums. Either that or the people were interested in video editing and encoding, which has traditionally favoured Intel. I don't seem to remember everyone rushing to buy X2s before the latest price cuts? The X2 3800+ was over $300, double it's current price. Whereas you could get the PD 805, many of which overclock to 4GHz, and while not matching overclocked X2s, was pretty close and at 1/3 the price.
Since AMD fanboys had no answer to the price equation, they started going on about power consumption and how it's more expensive to run the P-D. But while they are correct, it only worked out at a couple of dollars a YEAR...
Everything is not black and white, AMD vs Intel you know. Use common sense, you can often find the answer to your own question.
Actually whenever I posted regarding any problem and mentioned I had a Pentium D there would be some AMD Fanboy come rushing into the thread to trash all over it about how I should have bought a AMD.
AMD still makes an amazing processor, just the cycle has switched once again. In a couple of years I bet it switched back again.
I'm a little confused why AMD is even putting out the FX-64 though. I'm not sure who their target audience is supposed to be with it, because it makes very little sense to drop that kind of money if it can barely edge out an E6600.
Then again they haven't cut pricing on the FX-62 either, but why introduce a new product that isn't going to get sold.
Eh...maybe they're just gonna make like, 100 of them and hope there are enough wealthy AMD fanboys lol
Then again they haven't cut pricing on the FX-62 either, but why introduce a new product that isn't going to get sold.
Eh...maybe they're just gonna make like, 100 of them and hope there are enough wealthy AMD fanboys lol
Avalon
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2001
- 7,571
- 178
- 106
Originally posted by: myocardia
Yeah, only they didn't do those tests right. They were letting their "FX-64" cheat, since it was the only processor of the bunch that was getting to use an overclocked fsb/HTT. Since the FX chips have an unlocked multiplier, it should have been ran at 15x200, not 14x215. That means that the few times it beat the E6600, it wouldn't have, if it had been running at 15x200.Originally posted by: harpoon84
Do I get a prize for guessing X6900 comes out on top?
Those results are pretty damning though, the FX-64 has a hard time beating an E6600... nuff said.
Overclocking the HTT does basically nothing to A64 performance, and if the memory was running at 215Mhz instead of 200, that basically won't do anything for its performance either. Bandwidth increases don't do much for a K8, and that small of an increase certainly won't have an impact.
PianoMan
Senior member
- Jan 28, 2006
- 505
- 10
- 81
Agreed. The Pentium line was rapidly showing it age just recently, even with the dual core release - I think everyone (Pentium fans included) can say AMD typically would rule the benchmarks just up to a scant few months ago. I purchased a P4 3.0E for its hyperthreading capability (video editing) - something at the time AMD didn't have. For my gaming machine, after I upgraded to PCI-e, I purchased an AMD 64 3200+ (Venice), since, by the testing, it performed better. Recently, I stayed with S939 and went dual-core with an X2 3800+ (Manchester).
The future? I'll most likely go Core 2 Duo (when I'm ready to splurge for new DDR2 memory). They've got a great design on their hands, and the tables have turned.
Gotta love the competition between the two. Now with the merger with ATI, things can get pretty interesting.
A question out to the forum: do we think (or does someone know) Intel is going to a integrated on-die memory controller in the future? Seems like a likely step, but I'm not sure how much of an architectural challenge it is.
PM
Wow, so a 2.4ghz E6600 is generally slightly faster on average or equal to a 3ghz A64, which, according to that site, the 3ghz A64 benefited from better mobos in the graphics benchies. Glad I have an E6600 build going up tonight
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter