• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So basically, Conroe is another Northwood situation again

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Just think of all the foolish 939/AM2 owner who will actually sell their AMD systems because they are can't handle playing second fiddle to something else, even though they may well know that there will always be something out there that is better than what they have.

Buddhists might call this the misery of desire. You can never be satisfied as you'll always want more; instead, be happy with what you have.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you have a high end AMD system already, and they do kick some bootay, then there is no real reason to upgrade. But for those who have aging systems and yearn to build a new one, Intel. And for those who must have the best of the best of the best 25 hours a day 11 days a week, Intel, until the next faster part comes out.

 
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Just think of all the foolish 939/AM2 owner who will actually sell their AMD systems because they are can't handle playing second fiddle to something else, even though they may well know that there will always be something out there that is better than what they have.

Buddhists might call this the misery of desire. You can never be satisfied as you'll always want more; instead, be happy with what you have.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you have a high end AMD system already, and they do kick some bootay, then there is no real reason to upgrade. But for those who have aging systems and yearn to build a new one, Intel. And for those who must have the best of the best of the best 25 hours a day 11 days a week, Intel, until the next faster part comes out.
Click to expand...

Yeah the funny thing is if you'd thought for a minute before opening your fat mouth, you'd realized that we both agree on hardware choices.

Intel +nvidia= :beer: :thumbsup:
Not exactly sure how that destroys the fact of GPU limitations that exist.. but OK.. if you want to be a foaming-at-the-mouth Intel fanboy to no end.. so be it.

I still hold a reality-based perspective.. while Intel might be good stuff (tm), its by no means the only choice that does the job.
Though even I dont know if I'd jizzm in my pants over intel being "the best of the best of the best "..

Its what I like too, but AMD does the job as well. :thumbsup: Esp for 2006's GPUs.
This is a fact that you foaming at the mouth fanboys dont like. Too bad.
 
Potential situation: You buy an FX-62 cpu or a E6600. Both are more than a match for a single card solution (save the GX2) and the GPU's become bottlenecks.
Both systems offer equal performance NOW. You have to buy a little smarter. You have seen the difference in performance when the GPU bottlenecks are removed, correct? Conroe eats FX-62 alive. No amount of Intel fanboyism needed to see that. It is what it is. Raise up the resolutions to where the GPU becomes stressed and what happens? The fps can only go as fast as the card can render them. both systems are even. Enter next gen (Due any month from now to Sept) video cards. What happens to the GPU bottleneck? It moves up quite a bit doesn't it. People change video cards much more often than they change CPU's. Mainly because GPU's have a six month cycle going on and CPU's are MUCH longer.
 
Honestly there's nothing my processor can't handle to my satisfaction right now. I might pick up an X2 from people who are dumping them to get a new Conroe just to have that extra processing power available for the rare occasions when I do some encoding.
 
I agree with Crusader 100%. Conroe is a great chip, but for games the performance jump is not enough if you already have a dual-core AMD CPU. If I still had my Athlon XP (or if I was insane enough to buy a Pentium D), then there would be no doubt that I'd be upgrading to a Conroe based system.

But, most computer hardware enthusiasts (specifically gamers) already have a A64 based systems and game as high resolutions, 1600x1200, 1680x1050, 1900 etc... and for us the cost to switch to Conroe just doesn't make any sense.
 
Simply the new CORE2 duo lineup performs similiarly at high resolutions compared to the AMD counterparts.

At 10x7 and even 12x10, it shows the CORE2 duo family all taking the lead.

But this is just the gaming benchmark.

What many are astonished about is that CORE2 duo beats its competition in ALL benchmarks e.g Encoding/Photoshop/3dmax etc. (Namely the X6800 which doesnt get beaten by the
FX-62 .. not even once).

Gamers with OCed AMD X2 wont really see any benefit. But people who use their PCs for other apps it looks like CORE2 duo is a must. Even the E6300 (1.83ghz) beats the AMD X2 3800 at these tasks for less money and power.

 
I've got a single core Opteron, so I wouldn't mind upgrading to a Conroe for gaming purposes. For one, I'm res limited with a CRT that only provides 85hz up to 1280x960. I'd also like to go dual core to up my productivity in non gaming apps (although it does help very nicely in Quake 4). Plus I just want to overclock one 😛
 
I'm one of those people who won't be upgrading, I have AMD 3000+ (Non-Dual Core) and I game alot. Why not upgrade to C2D for my next system? Because it has taken Intel almost 5 years to come up with a good chip to beat AMD while AMD has been pumping out quality chips are reasonable price for the last 5 years. Yes C2D owns AMD in the face but the fact that it took them 5 years to develop this "Ub3r" chip questions their future for new chips. I can see AMD smashing C2D in the next 1-2 years easily, why? Because they have been known to do it time and time again. You guys can talk benchmarks all you want but when it comes to choosing a CPU I would rather choose a company that has actually taken some pride and respect for their customers and by giving us GREAT chips instead of presenting customers with out-of date technology and laughable chip performance.

Flame all you want on me but in the long run I think AMD will prove themselves like they always have.

I see people posting "I should have waited another year". You are going to be saying that in another year as well once you buy a C2D
 
Originally posted by: Kur
I'm one of those people who won't be upgrading, I have AMD 3000+ (Non-Dual Core) and I game alot. Why not upgrade to C2D for my next system? Because it has taken Intel almost 5 years to come up with a good chip to beat AMD while AMD has been pumping out quality chips are reasonable price for the last 5 years. Yes C2D owns AMD in the face but the fact that it took them 5 years to develop this "Ub3r" chip questions their future for new chips. I can see AMD smashing C2D in the next 1-2 years easily, why? Because they have been known to do it time and time again. You guys can talk benchmarks all you want but when it comes to choosing a CPU I would rather choose a company that has actually taken some pride and respect for their customers and by giving us GREAT chips instead of presenting customers with out-of date technology and laughable chip performance.

Flame all you want on me but in the long run I think AMD will prove themselves like they always have.

I see people posting "I should have waited another year". You are going to be saying that in another year as well once you buy a C2D
Click to expand...

In other words you are saying that at some point in the future AMD is going to surpass conroe performance.

Thanks nostradomus.

No one in their right mind would wait a YEAR to get a new PC based on new technology....

Conroe is the fastest if you buy now.

As much as i hate Rollo2 (the OP), hes right, i wont be changing from my Athlon 64 platform right away. If prices get good enough i might be convinced to jump on conroe though when i go with G80.

For all new systems i build though, its conroe all the way unless the customer specifically asks otherwise.
 
Egads! The motherboard tested by Anandtech was $260!! Are there any lower cost alternatives? I'm not familiar with all the Intel chipsets.

I don't see any huge reason for people with fast AMD systems to jump ship just yet, especially with motherboards at that price. It seems more sensible to benefit from the lower pricing that Conroe will put on the AMD processors, and just upgrade to a faster X2.
 
I'm definitely switching once they come out. I have been nothing but disappointed by my NForce4 system with a 3700+.

Since my 3700 system is limping along now (the network adapter keeps failing and the IDE controller seems to be having problems) and I'm ordering a new Intel system the day they come out.
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: Kur
I'm one of those people who won't be upgrading, I have AMD 3000+ (Non-Dual Core) and I game alot. Why not upgrade to C2D for my next system? Because it has taken Intel almost 5 years to come up with a good chip to beat AMD while AMD has been pumping out quality chips are reasonable price for the last 5 years. Yes C2D owns AMD in the face but the fact that it took them 5 years to develop this "Ub3r" chip questions their future for new chips. I can see AMD smashing C2D in the next 1-2 years easily, why? Because they have been known to do it time and time again. You guys can talk benchmarks all you want but when it comes to choosing a CPU I would rather choose a company that has actually taken some pride and respect for their customers and by giving us GREAT chips instead of presenting customers with out-of date technology and laughable chip performance.

Flame all you want on me but in the long run I think AMD will prove themselves like they always have.

I see people posting "I should have waited another year". You are going to be saying that in another year as well once you buy a C2D
Click to expand...

In other words you are saying that at some point in the future AMD is going to surpass conroe performance.

Thanks nostradomus.

No one in their right mind would wait a YEAR to get a new PC based on new technology....

Conroe is the fastest if you buy now.

As much as i hate Rollo2 (the OP), hes right, i wont be changing from my Athlon 64 platform right away. If prices get good enough i might be convinced to jump on conroe though when i go with G80.

For all new systems i build though, its conroe all the way unless the customer specifically asks otherwise.
Click to expand...

I figure it took Intel 5 years to make a GOOD chip, it will take AMD 1/5 the time.
 
Originally posted by: Kur
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: Kur
I'm one of those people who won't be upgrading, I have AMD 3000+ (Non-Dual Core) and I game alot. Why not upgrade to C2D for my next system? Because it has taken Intel almost 5 years to come up with a good chip to beat AMD while AMD has been pumping out quality chips are reasonable price for the last 5 years. Yes C2D owns AMD in the face but the fact that it took them 5 years to develop this "Ub3r" chip questions their future for new chips. I can see AMD smashing C2D in the next 1-2 years easily, why? Because they have been known to do it time and time again. You guys can talk benchmarks all you want but when it comes to choosing a CPU I would rather choose a company that has actually taken some pride and respect for their customers and by giving us GREAT chips instead of presenting customers with out-of date technology and laughable chip performance.

Flame all you want on me but in the long run I think AMD will prove themselves like they always have.

I see people posting "I should have waited another year". You are going to be saying that in another year as well once you buy a C2D
Click to expand...

In other words you are saying that at some point in the future AMD is going to surpass conroe performance.

Thanks nostradomus.

No one in their right mind would wait a YEAR to get a new PC based on new technology....

Conroe is the fastest if you buy now.

As much as i hate Rollo2 (the OP), hes right, i wont be changing from my Athlon 64 platform right away. If prices get good enough i might be convinced to jump on conroe though when i go with G80.

For all new systems i build though, its conroe all the way unless the customer specifically asks otherwise.
Click to expand...

I figure it took Intel 5 years to make a GOOD chip, it will take AMD 1/5 the time.
Click to expand...

You know that it takes approximately 4 years for a chip to go from paper to production right?
 
Originally posted by: redbox
Originally posted by: Pugnate
Goddamit I hate fanboys.

Athlon has been BLOWN out of the water. The $310 chip performs on the same level as the $1100 Intel chip.

What else do you need? Seriously some of you need to take that thumb out of your rear ends.

I am an AMD user too and won't be upgrading my processor for a long time, yet I have no shame in admitting that AMD was slaughtered.
Click to expand...

Yes conroe is good we have been hearing that for months now. I am just waiting untill all of the dust falls to see where the price performance will land. I expect this chip to be a hot chip and we all know what demand does for a chip that won't see more than 25% shipment. It's all in the dollar for me.

If I didn't already have a really nice motherboard with pretty decent ram I would probably be looking right at conroe, but I'm not because of the high cost of admission. Ya AMD got a good licken. I just want to see how good they can play the price war with intel. When Intel got their junk handed to them with the first dual core what did they do? They lowered their prices and quite a bit too. I just hope AMD follows suit and I get a nice cheap X2.
Click to expand...

I spent $1100 14 months ago for an Athlon 64 rig (MIS neo4 platinum, Venice 3500+ @ 2717mghz). I'm not going to spend more than $500 to upgrade unless new exciting applications make me feel that my computer is underpowered. I don't see them coming.
redbox is right. If a nice cheap X2 is available, I would swap out that Venice 3500+ then wait for another 6 0r 9 months to see how affordable and overclockable conroe would be.
After all, we end users must wait until Dell, HP, Lenovo finish their lunch.
 
Originally posted by: Crusader
Thilan-

Its a good CPU. No one said it doesnt rock.
What we're saying is that for people like you, and me who have A64s above 2.4ghz.. theres really little point to spending a ton of cash to move platforms at this point. When our games wont increase in performance (unless you dont game at 16x10/19x12 or higher I suppose, but even then you'd probably be best served getting a faster GPU for gaming).

As far as gaming is concerned, Conroe is not the alpha and the omega. Not today.
Might be better as GPU tech increases. If I didnt have my current CPU, I'd certainly build my next rig with one. IF the PRICE/PERFORMANCE/AVAILABILITY holds.
Why is that such a problem for so many of you to admit?

But by the time I need to update (CPU holding back my GPU)- I'm guessing the next A64 revision will be out to look at as well.
Click to expand...

Yes of course for gaming it's not gonna make a huge difference, but then people already knew that.

But for people who do things besides gaming (I myself do a lot of video encoding), Conroe would be a great upgrade. I was considering just dropping in a 939 X2 but I wanna overclock a lot and usually the X2s hit a wall around 2.7GHz from what I've seen.

I don't think you can compare this to Northwood. This sort of performance leap hasn't been seen in a while.
 
Originally posted by: Kur
I figure it took Intel 5 years to make a GOOD chip, it will take AMD 1/5 the time.
Click to expand...

Wow!!! AMD can build brand new CPUs in ONE year??? Jeez louiiiize...they must have some bionic engineers that require no sleep and fabs that are from the planet KUR!!!😉

Seriously, you think AMD is gonna suddenly have an all-conquering CPU in one year?? I doubt it. K8 came out in 2003 and it's 2006, so 3 years of the same architecture. I doubt even K8L will garner that much of a performance increase...but I'll eagerly await any new tech they have.

I was actually hoping that reverse HT was real...that would have been amazing...but it appears we were fooled.

In the mean time, don't be blinded and buy whatever suits your needs and budget.
 
LOL... I replied earlier but I just now read through all the replies and there is some funny sh!t here. You'd think this was a discussion about college football or somethin... "they've been on top for the past three years... this is a rebuilding year... they'll be back." 😀
 
New architectures don't fall from the sky. Depending on how different the architecture it it takes several years before a major revision comes out.

Original K7 Athlon
June 1999 (I think)

Original K8 Opteron
April 2003

K8L
Mid 2007

NetBurst (20 Pipeline)
November 2000

Itanium
June 2001

Pentium M
March 2003

NetBurst (31 Pipeline)
Feb 2004

Core
June 2006

Different at Intel they can do a 2 year thing becuase they have teams working in parrallel.
 
Originally posted by: n7
Hmm, so Crusader isn't just an insane nVidia fanboi, but also an insane AMD fanboi. :roll:

We all know games are GPU-limited @ 1600x1200+ resolutions.

That's not news, well, not to most of us anyway.

But that doesn't mean C2D isn't still a massive leap above A64s.

A64s were a big leap over P4s at the time, but not even they were as big of a jump as C2D.
Click to expand...

For AMD and the rest of the world it was more the shock value in that Chipzilla actually got trumped at all given the resource difference between the two companies. Chimpzilla kicks Chipzilla in the knee, and it buckled. C2D hasn't acheived anything yet except whet our appetites for more grunt. Let's be a bit patient and see what it brings out to the real world before giving it the status of "Holy Grail."
 
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Kur
I figure it took Intel 5 years to make a GOOD chip, it will take AMD 1/5 the time.
Click to expand...

Wow!!! AMD can build brand new CPUs in ONE year??? Jeez louiiiize...they must have some bionic engineers that require no sleep and fabs that are from the planet KUR!!!😉

Seriously, you think AMD is gonna suddenly have an all-conquering CPU in one year?? I doubt it. K8 came out in 2003 and it's 2006, so 3 years of the same architecture. I doubt even K8L will garner that much of a performance increase...but I'll eagerly await any new tech they have.

I was actually hoping that reverse HT was real...that would have been amazing...but it appears we were fooled.

In the mean time, don't be blinded and buy whatever suits your needs and budget.
Click to expand...

If you understood what I said about them pumping out better chips every year, who said they did'nt have something already in development?
 
Originally posted by: Kur
I'm one of those people who won't be upgrading, I have AMD 3000+ (Non-Dual Core) and I game alot. Why not upgrade to C2D for my next system? Because it has taken Intel almost 5 years to come up with a good chip to beat AMD while AMD has been pumping out quality chips are reasonable price for the last 5 years. Yes C2D owns AMD in the face but the fact that it took them 5 years to develop this "Ub3r" chip questions their future for new chips. I can see AMD smashing C2D in the next 1-2 years easily, why? Because they have been known to do it time and time again. You guys can talk benchmarks all you want but when it comes to choosing a CPU I would rather choose a company that has actually taken some pride and respect for their customers and by giving us GREAT chips instead of presenting customers with out-of date technology and laughable chip performance.

Flame all you want on me but in the long run I think AMD will prove themselves like they always have.

I see people posting "I should have waited another year". You are going to be saying that in another year as well once you buy a C2D
Click to expand...

It didn't take Intel 5 years to catch up, Intel already had the performance crown for awhile with Northwood C back in 2003, and for gaming no less not to mention overall.

A major core revision that could eke out 25% or more performance per clock doesn't happen fast.

I dunno, "reasonable" is subjective, given what AMD's has done with their Athlon 64x2 prices when they launched they want money just as much as Intel does. They also launched the Athlon 64 at considerable pricing as well. Not to mention Intel gave us some great deals with their Pentium D 9xx Series.

It certainly didn't take Intel "5" years to develop this chip. It is quite unknown how long exactly this chips design process took, as Intel typically runs multiple projects simultaneously.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top