Let's say Conroe and AM2 came out today

[peternelson]

Hmmmmmm, I think I'd go for the Quad core socket F OPTERON with a closely coupled Xilinx FPGA.

Oh sorry, if I had to choose, well note that the Conroe is not so big a percentage ahead, and that NONE of the preview benchmarks looked at lots of FLOATING POINT MATH. ie Intel might still be slower at FP when running IN 64 BIT MODE (www.swox.com/gmp see link to benchmarks paper). So, I would benchmark them both on prime95 (www.mersenne.org) and make my decision based on performance in FP.

 

[bongsteen]

i'll buy the one with better heatsink.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Spend the $300 on a new video card.

That's the most sound logic yet. I wouldn't mind a 7900GT - would be more beneficial to me than a new CPU/mobo at this time.

Originally posted by: xenolith
I think i need a new decoder hat.

How about a tin foil hat? May work just as well.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: TekDemon

lol if it wasn't for AMD we'd actually have IA-64 systems instead of being bonded to x86 for another decade. That's quite the "innovation" there.

Yes, prices would probably be higher than they are now, but then again there'd always be other companies taking up the slack on the low end for price pressure (Cyrix, Transmeta, etc.).

And intel would have to keep pushing the performance envelope, if only to get people to buy newer intel processors. If they just stayed at 700Mhz nobody would upgrade, and they'd go bankrupt anyways. They'd always have to release new procs significantly faster than their previous ones.

So really, I don't buy your argument. Procs would just be more money, but then again they might have been really better procs (IA-64 is technically way superior to x86-64)

You really think that if given the time and leisure intel wouldn't have strung us along for another decade before releasing anything revolutionary? If AMD through some miracle were to rise up and drive intel out of business they'd do the same thing. We'd be paying premium prices for what amounts to useless technology (MMX?).

If there's noone else competing in the high performance sector then why not hang onto that old architecture, slap a new buzzword on it and sell it for $100 more? Obviously you need to create reasons for people to upgrade, but if you're the only standard by which performance is measured then you can define what constitutes a reasonable upgrade. A "significant" increase in performance would be defined by you and your marketing department.

If you're trying to say that intel had some vision for the future that was derailed by AMD being audacious enough to build a better performing processor, I beg to differ. I believe that we wouldn't be seeing anything close to Conroe's performance now had there not been some kind of competition from AMD or whoever.

Oh yeah, and I think I'd get the Conroe system. :shocked:

 

[degeester]

All things equal....Intel

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: degeester
All things equal....Intel

That real scientific ! Especially when neither one has a finished product to even really test.

 

[Spook]

ALL things being equal... well that's a coin toss isn't it...

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Spook
ALL things being equal... well that's a coin toss isn't it...

Topic Title: Let's say Conroe and AM2 came out today
Topic Summary: And Conroe performs as in the AT benchies (1:1.2)

I don't see where this "all things being equal" idea came about, but the topic summary seems to indicate the we are to assume that Conroe will have a ~20% advantage. In that case I chose conroe. Of course I'm no prognosticator and I can't tell you what things will look like at the time of launch. In any case that's outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Spook]

Well, i guess the point is... if im looking to upgrade, and Conroe is a +20% accross the board... then that should be the answer... Intel has provided a good decent stable platform over the years, and the only thing that would make me reconsider a +20% advantage is an unstable platform. Had to deal with this a few years back with the Athlon XP, and the VIA chipests.... Not AMD's fault... but VIA spoiled the broth...

 

[TanisHalfElven]

none cuz i am more than happy with my opty 165. now if could only gather money for an x1900xt i'll be set.

 

[kobymu]

not sure...
as of the last 3/4 years, motherboard core logic (aka chipset) / stability / features / design+layout / quality of components / overclockability is almost as, if not more important than the cpu it support.
maybe its because A. i almost never upgrade (cpu that is, ram, hdd and add on cards get upgraded on a per need basis), and when i do it is usually motherboard+cpu (and ram if need be) or B. i just don't like 99.9% of the motherboard that are out there right now, i'm much more fussy when it comes to motherboard quality then I am to cpu, especially now since both AMD AM2 and Intel Conroe, on paper at least, looks like excellent products, i don't think you can go wrong either way.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I'd go with AMD because it's a safe bet that it'll go through 2 or 3 more core revisions before you need a new motherboard/chipset.

Ain't that the truth. Lets see we got Intel 915, 945, 955, and 975. Some with two or three flavors. A regular Intel/Ben and Jerrys

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Intel for me of course. Mostly because this was me giving Intel one last chance to do a turnaround, or else I would have been going AMD this summer, without a doubt. Now, I have strong doubts that AMD will ever make it info my home/office.

Dude please....you sound like those nutts from Dell. Last turn around? Where have you been the last five years?

Now, I have strong doubts that AMD will ever make it info my home/office.

If AMD didn't make it in your office, its because you are a bleeping drone. Only a complete fool would say AMD hasn't had a product worthy of being in their office/home. Give me a break. And by the way I am typing this on a P4 so spare me the fanboi retort. What a joke :roll:

 

[Avalon]

If we're assuming the AT Conroe preview is true, and that my AM2 overclock will be 3.1 while the Conroe will hit 2.9, I'd still take the Conroe, everything else equal. The AM2 will only have a 6-7% clock speed advantage over my Conroe, which won't be enough to dissolve the 20% performance advantage we're assuming Conroe will have over AMD here.

We'll just have to see how things go, though.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Intel for me of course. Mostly because this was me giving Intel one last chance to do a turnaround, or else I would have been going AMD this summer, without a doubt. Now, I have strong doubts that AMD will ever make it info my home/office.

Dude please....you sound like those nutts from Dell. Last turn around? Where have you been the last five years?

Now, I have strong doubts that AMD will ever make it info my home/office.

If AMD didn't make it in your office, its because you are a bleeping drone. Only a complete fool would say AMD hasn't had a product worthy of being in their office/home. Give me a break. And by the way I am typing this on a P4 so spare me the fanboi retort. What a joke :roll:

Should work on those people skills "classy". Because not only was it kind of rude, but you also have no idea what you're talking about. And actually, AMD did make it into one of my systems. I had it for quite a while. I actually just gave it away to my sister.

 

[Athlongamer]

AM2 is going to suck....it's already outdated if you want to be honest.

I've never owned an Intel before but I like the way they're looking.

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: TekDemon

Originally posted by: plus
All things being equal, I'd choose AMD of course. If there were no AMD we'd be paying $1000 for a 700mhz cpu.

Seriously, don't you have to give AMD credit for consistantly outperforming INTC with 1/10 the R&D budget?

Go back and look at what INTC spent it's money on... most of the time it was on platforms designed more to lock out the competition than to benefit the customer. AMD says they're customer oriented, and I believe them.

Am I an AMD fanboy? You bet I am...

Plus

lol if it wasn't for AMD we'd actually have IA-64 systems instead of being bonded to x86 for another decade. That's quite the "innovation" there.

Yes, prices would probably be higher than they are now, but then again there'd always be other companies taking up the slack on the low end for price pressure (Cyrix, Transmeta, etc.).

And intel would have to keep pushing the performance envelope, if only to get people to buy newer intel processors. If they just stayed at 700Mhz nobody would upgrade, and they'd go bankrupt anyways. They'd always have to release new procs significantly faster than their previous ones.

So really, I don't buy your argument. Procs would just be more money, but then again they might have been really better procs (IA-64 is technically way superior to x86-64)

Yes its way superior, but without competition u get something like microsoft, swiss cheese product which has huge ammount of problems, now if the os market was not a monopoly microsoft would of already been ages out of business.

My system is plenty fast for me, i dont see a reason to get conroe or am2, i prolly will upgrade my gfx card before then (g80 or ati equivalent) when they come out. Maybe in over a year i will get a new cpu, only if there is significant difference.

I did enough side grades in the last 4 years for no reason, p4c 2.8 > p4c 3.2 > a64 3200+, should of just waited and went from p4c 2.8 to athlon dually, the performance diff between those upgrades was now where close to going to dually.

 

[elkinm]

I have been a big AMD fan-boy since the K6 came out.
Even if the benches favored Intel, I always found comparable AMDs to be faster in general apps and responsiveness.

But if anand's benchmarks turn out to be accurate, I think I will be going with Intel for the first time in some time.

 

[TAGImperialMarch]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: TekDemon

Originally posted by: plus
All things being equal, I'd choose AMD of course. If there were no AMD we'd be paying $1000 for a 700mhz cpu.

Seriously, don't you have to give AMD credit for consistantly outperforming INTC with 1/10 the R&D budget?

Go back and look at what INTC spent it's money on... most of the time it was on platforms designed more to lock out the competition than to benefit the customer. AMD says they're customer oriented, and I believe them.

Am I an AMD fanboy? You bet I am...

Plus

lol if it wasn't for AMD we'd actually have IA-64 systems instead of being bonded to x86 for another decade. That's quite the "innovation" there.

Yes, prices would probably be higher than they are now, but then again there'd always be other companies taking up the slack on the low end for price pressure (Cyrix, Transmeta, etc.).

And intel would have to keep pushing the performance envelope, if only to get people to buy newer intel processors. If they just stayed at 700Mhz nobody would upgrade, and they'd go bankrupt anyways. They'd always have to release new procs significantly faster than their previous ones.

So really, I don't buy your argument. Procs would just be more money, but then again they might have been really better procs (IA-64 is technically way superior to x86-64)

Yes its way superior, but without competition u get something like microsoft, swiss cheese product which has huge ammount of problems, now if the os market was not a monopoly microsoft would of already been ages out of business.

My system is plenty fast for me, i dont see a reason to get conroe or am2, i prolly will upgrade my gfx card before then (g80 or ati equivalent) when they come out. Maybe in over a year i will get a new cpu, only if there is significant difference.

I did enough side grades in the last 4 years for no reason, p4c 2.8 > p4c 3.2 > a64 3200+, should of just waited and went from p4c 2.8 to athlon dually, the performance diff between those upgrades was now where close to going to dually.

Well, you have to consider the fact that every hacker in the world doesn't target Linux or OSX, they target Windows. That's why so many holes are opened. I don't think OSX could begin to hold up to the pressure that hackers put on Windows. I don't know about Linux though.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
And you could get a Conroe @ 2.0ghz + decent o/cing mobo for $300 that o/cs to 2.9ghz

Or you could get an AM2 @ 2.0ghz + decent o/cing mobo for $300 that o/cs to 3.1ghz

We're also ignoring things like power consumption, TDP, etc...

------------

Which would you get?

edit: changed it up a bit

Why not ignore performance and speed and price too? Seriously... power consumption is as important to some people, if not more.

 

[compgeek89]

Well, I have conroe coming to me... purely for speed, couldnt care about power consumption, though that is a bonus.

 

[Henny]

It's a no brainer. Go with Conroe at 2X the performance at 1/2 the cost of AMD.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Henny
It's a no brainer. Go with Conroe at 2X the performance at 1/2 the cost of AMD.

Why not go all out and say 1 million times the performance and 2% of the cost? It would be just as accurate...:disgust:

Of course the truth is that it will probably be 15-20% faster at launch, and we have no idea what the cost difference will be for many reasons...

1. We don't know what AMD will be selling their product for at Conroe's launch

2. Availability of Conroe will probably effect it's price...to quote Anand:

"There is a lot of concern about the availability of Conroe, as Intel has only committed to around 25% of its mainstream and high end desktop processor shipments being Conroe by the end of this year. After Dell and HP buy up all the Conroes they will want for their systems, there simply may not be any left for the end user to buy in the channel market. Alternatively, there may end up being some supply in the channel market but at significant markups due to a shortage"