Intel Pentium D 920 and Pentium D 930 review

[dug777]

Originally posted by: sonoran

Originally posted by: dug777
at the risk of sounding like the 'rollo' of the CPU forum i have a question on the whole benchmarks we've seen so far of conroe matter...while of course intel would have picked benchmarks that favoured conroe, is it reasonable to say that the results in those games/apps have traditionally been representative of overall CPU performance? Say looking at Anand's comments on the Q4...

With SMP enabled we see that Conroe holds an even larger 31% performance advantage and with it disabled, the unreleased CPU was 29% faster. If anything, Intel?s own demo was a little more conservative on Conroe and definitely not optimized to make AMD look bad.

Is it likely that the chip will be this much better in only q4 & the specific apps that intel allowed to be run (at a reasonable clock speed deficit at that), and considerably worse in other apps? Are they specifically apps that love large cache? I don't know myself, not having sat down & digested how those specific benchmarks have related to teh general overall picture (although i'm sure somone has on here & can tell me)...

I guess we will see soon enough, that's the golden rule with all this 🙂

Dug777 - the Conroe architecture is designed to perform considerably better across the board on non-optimized software (whereas the P4 really needed SSE optimized, multithreaded software to perform up to its full potential). Although I had nothing to do with their setup, I am confident there was nothing bogus about the machines or software available for testing at IDF. In any case, the benchmarks on final release products will tell the true story in the end. If people want to believe conspiracy theories until then, I won't waste my time trying to convince them not to... 😕

* Not speaking for Intel Corp *

Amen to that.

 

[Duvie]

Nope....you didn't tell me much....

I wonder what you told me I didn't already say...I wonder what I said that isn't true....

TDP is exactly what I said....It is in Intels own words to the acronym...It is measured in watts just as Intel's own charts show it....


I said definitely correlated meaning they have a correlation or a relationship...I did not say definitive...learn to read, it would be useful...



My link was appropraite if you read it...You P-M link doesn't tell me anything different...



Your rant after the quote I got from INtel, has me perplexed why you even went there...




NOW YOU LINK SILENTPCREVIEW....
What was wrong with the silentpc review I linked a week ago that explained the same Intel TDP farce that was shown in this article from Xbit, yet once again??? good for the goose???

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Nope....you didn't tell me much....

I wonder what you told me I didn't say...I wonder what I said that isn't true....

TDP is excatly what I said....It is INtelsown words to the acronym...It is measured in watts cause in Intel's own charts it says in watts....


I said definitely correlated meaning they have a correlation...I did not say definitive...learn to read, it would be useful...



My link was appropraite if you read it...You P-M doesn't tell me anything different...



You rant after the quote I got from INtel has me perplexed why you went there...




NOW YOU LINK SILENTPCREVIEW....

wasn;t there artcile I linked a week ago that explained the same Intel TDP farce that was shown in this article from Xbit, yet once again??? good for the goose???

I'll respond when you have something intelligible to say.

As for the SilentPCReview thread, I said the system power draw was not accurate because the test systems used were totally different (Dothan used 1GB Memory, Turion used 512MB, different HDD's, and the like).

You, and some other members have repeatedly used the false 75% TDP rule, probably derived from Vanshardware.com, as the definitive truth. You claim Intel's TDP is not worst case and differs from AMD, when in fact they are more or less the same.

 

[Duvie]

I have never said 75% and I repeatedly said that in last weeks thread....

So quit spreading your FUD....


Dont be upset...it was a good try...you just didn't say anything that wasn't already known and didn't say anything that challenges what xbitlabs showed in their diagram.....

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I have never said 75% and I repeatedly said that in last weeks thread....

So quit spreading your FUD....

Yea my bad, you never said the 75% rule, it was openwheelformula1


But you did say:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...adid=1822869&STARTPAGE=1&enterthread=y

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Looking at AMD and Intels TDP for their next gen chips Conroe's TDP is about half of the FX-62s. So, if you use those number clearly Conroe is much cooler. But it doesn't really matter that much, Conroe will deffinitely be as cool if not cooler then the performance athlons (not counding hte LV ones which will likely get a Conroe LV to compete agaisnt them). Current coolers are already so big that all of them should work well with Conroe. Maybe Intel will try to ssave some money by giving us crappy coolers, but hopefully not.

Also, Conroe has alot smaller die size than the Athlon X2, so it probably doesn't cost anymore to make, and likely it could cost less (although no company wil ever tell you what it really costs them).

Where have you been in the past?? intel is famous for misleading TDP??? AMD figures on max under extreme load and iNtel does not...Get educated and read past TDP charges for INtel chips of recent and translate that into how you know they ran in the real world....

The TDP definitions you quoted were in the datasheets of the processors. The TDP definitions I quoted are straight from the Thermal Design Guide.

 

[Duvie]

Yeah...why wouldn't I quote datasheets from the manufactrurer when I was discussing Intel and its chips???

 

[openwheelformula1]

75% is not a rule, it's a rough estimate as I have clearly stated before. Go ahead and do the math guys, it's roughly 75%. The TDP topic has been beaten to death at SPCR, it's exahausting to see another arguement.

 

[designit]

I dont know about 920/930, but I would say PD 805 for $115 DC is a win win deal. I don?t care about bencmarks, I am an average joe who is testing dual core, spending little.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: designit
I dont know about 920/930, but I would say PD 805 for $115 DC is a win win deal. I don?t care about bencmarks, I am an average joe who is testing dual core, spending little.

Agreed...if you absolutely must have a dual core, even when it performs slower than a single core, then the 805 is very well priced.

 

[dmens]

Hey duvie, I don't know if you actually read my critique of the silentpc article because of the little flamewar ongoing at the the time, but I argued that the data gathering methods used by both companies is consistent, and your acceptance of AMD's Imax at absolute face value is incorrect.

Here is the link again, if you care to look. I don't know how one can arrive at the conclusion that two TDP methodologies are radically different using incomplete data.

 

[openwheelformula1]

dmens your arguement was simply denial.

 

[dmens]

Yeah, it is denial of ignorant conspiracy theories cooked up by jackasses like yourself. I'm still waiting for a substantial argument from you. So go read my post and respond to my points instead of burying your head in the sand.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dexvx

You, and some other members have repeatedly used the false 75% TDP rule, probably derived from Vanshardware.com, as the definitive truth. You claim Intel's TDP is not worst case and differs from AMD, when in fact they are more or less the same.

According to the data sheets they aren't the same, and this is published and talked about in a number of places...
This article is one good example...

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6


People buy the things they like all the time because they like them. Why buy a Chevy when you can spend your money more wisely on an Accord? It's not logical to buy the Chevy. No one seems to have much of a problem with folks buying the Chevy if that's what they want/like.

Again with the stupid and nosense CPU-cars analogy. It's different to buy cars and to buy CPUs. Didn't read my last post?. The average car user will buy the car they like most: visually, inner space, the confortability they won't care a crap about the performance, In the CPU case the average user could buy and AMD CPU with an intel inside sticker in the case and they will be happy, they don't know what they are buying. But for a power user the most important is performance/price, power consumption and stability. If you like to buy intel is because you like to have the intel inside sticker out of the box, in that case you are very stupid, an intel employee or a die hard intel fanboy (ok that would be the same than being very stupid).

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: carlosd

Originally posted by: LTC8K6


People buy the things they like all the time because they like them. Why buy a Chevy when you can spend your money more wisely on an Accord? It's not logical to buy the Chevy. No one seems to have much of a problem with folks buying the Chevy if that's what they want/like.

Again with the stupid and nosense CPU-cars analogy. It's different to buy cars and to buy CPUs. Didn't read my last post?. The average car user will buy the car they like most: visually, inner space, the confortability they won't care a crap about the performance, In the CPU case the average user could buy and AMD CPU with an intel inside sticker in the case and they will be happy, they don't know what they are buying. But for a power user the most important is performance/price, power consumption and stability. If you like to buy intel is because you like to have the intel inside sticker out of the box, in that case you are very stupid, an intel employee or a die hard intel fanboy (ok that would be the same than being very stupid).

so you are calling the VAST majority of laptop owners who bought a machine in the last maybe 3 years stupid? 😉 That doesn't sound very clever to me...

 

[LTC8K6]

You appear to buy cars in a different way than me.

It's not a CPU-cars analogy anyway. It's a brand analogy. Change the brands to any two other competing brands you like. It's still the same.

I don't care what you think about what I spend my money on.
I will still buy the CPU and chipset that I like to run with.
That's Intel.

Buy AMD all you wish. That's fine with me.

Stop preaching to me about what I should buy and how I should choose it.
You are the one making the sales pitches, not me.
It's a good thing that I know you don't represent most AMD users.
You aren't helping AMD at all with the argument that I am stupid for buying Intel.

If you read my sig, you'll see that I have already been through this silliness before.

So now apparently I am mentally unstable and stupid for running Intel hardware.

Happy now?

 

[LTC8K6]

Hey! Maybe that can be AMD's long awaited ad blitz slogan.

Don't be stupid, buy AMD!

😀

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: dug777


so you are calling the VAST majority of laptop owners who bought a machine in the last maybe 3 years stupid? 😉 That doesn't sound very clever to me...

I am talking about netburst CPUs.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Hey! Maybe that can be AMD's long awaited ad blitz slogan.

Don't be stupid, buy AMD!

😀

I am just saying THAT IN MEANTIME INTEL DESKTOP AND SERVER CPUS ARE CRAP, I will buy whatever with the best price/performance stability and power consumption I DON'T CARE IF IT'S INTEL OR AMD. I don't care about what you buy, just poiting out that your cars-CPU comparisons or Brand analogy is absolutely unaccurate. Brand preferences are only marketing brainwashing, and it seems intel completely brainwashed you, but I don't care , you are the one who get screwed. The intel marketing deparment are genius! , they sell you crap.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: carlosd

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Hey! Maybe that can be AMD's long awaited ad blitz slogan.

Don't be stupid, buy AMD!

😀

I am just saying THAT IN MEANTIME INTEL DESKTOP AND SERVER CPUS ARE CRAP, I will buy whatever with the best price/performance stability and power consumption I DON'T CARE IF IT'S INTEL OR AMD. I don't care about what you buy, just poiting out that your cars-CPU comparisons or Brand analogy is absolutely unaccurate. Brand preferences are only marketing brainwashing, and it seems intel completely brainwashed you, but I don't care , you are the one who get screwed. The intel marketing deparment are genius! , they sell you crap.

I guess if brand preferences are marketing brainwashing, I suppose synthetic benchmarks and power consumption stats are brainwashing as well, which is everything that AMD users use to counter against Intel cpus.
At the end of the day, an Intel based system still accomplish its most important task, and that is to satisfy its buyer, whether that is running Microsoft Word, or playing Half-Life 2. AMD based systems accomplish these same goals..

Too many people get too caught up in the hype about benchmarks, power consumption, heat dissapation, etc etc... Just use your damn computer, and stop waving the E-penis's around.. who cares if you run AMD... who cares if you run Intel.. Its all about having a choice

 

[LTC8K6]

I am just saying THAT IN MEANTIME INTEL DESKTOP AND SERVER CPUS ARE CRAP

Say it all you want and type it in caps, that still doesn't make it true.

So now I am a brainwashed, mentally unstable, stupid, screwed, Intel user.

Got it.

Are there any more insults you want to hurl at me?

Try to work moron in there. I like that one......

Don't be a moron, buy AMD!

Got it.

I am still free to choose to be a moron though, right? 😀

 

[LTC8K6]

BTW, I just built a Prescott system.

Spent a lot more than I would have with AMD.

It's nowhere near as fast as an AMD system would have been.

Used a P4P800 SE board and a retail 3ghz Prescott.

Bought an X1600Pro AGP card to boot.

I could have done a lot better...

Doesn't that just burn you up?

😀

 

[designit]

What is this deal about Intel's core duo that eating FX60 for breakfast.
check the test at XS, it's impressive. SPi 1M 21 second is insane.
I am getting the Duo 2400 for $244, and overclock it to dou 2600 and start eating FX's for my snack. Its eating FX60 on phase and the Duke (I am calling it the Duke from now on) is on air. Its amazing. Looks like table has turned finally,
anyone?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=90743

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819111180

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: designit
What is this deal about Intel's core duo that eating FX60 for breakfast.
check the test at XS, it's impressive. SPi 1M 21 second is insane.
I am getting the Duo 2400 for $244, and overclock it to dou 2600 and start eating FX's for my snack. Its eating FX60 on phase and the Duke (I am calling it the Duke from now on) is on air. Its amazing. Looks like table has turned finally,
anyone?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=90743

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819111180

Cool! I've never played SPi, is it fun? 🙂

 

[designit]

Yes, and all kinds of clubs to join, break the record and win trophy.
This Yunah is something to look into if interested in upgrade.
A lot of AMD enthusiast are jumping ship.