Tom's review is up...( X2)

[fishbits]

Multi-tasking enables modern computing as we know it, letting the user run several applications and a large number of system services without any noticeable performance impact.

Really? Then there'd be no need for dual core.

A system equipped with one of these two-headed beasts will be capable of providing performance very close to what a real dual processor system can accomplish.

Actually, the "imaginary" two processors in the X2 seem to do quite a good job of blowing the doors off many "real dual processor systems."

For example, if I receive an email or create some other content, I want my system to be aware of the key information it contains in order to simplify my life. I don't want to spend one second considering whether I should store an audio file in a folder named after the artist or the kind of music it contains. ... What we need is for computers to become more intelligent, in order to enhance our efficiency at interacting with each other. We also want them to become capable of managing the digital lifestyle that everybody is promoting. And for many, this is not just a vision, but an urgent necessity.

Why did I think of Bob?

Eh, dunno, not familiar with Tom's work, but seems there's things that grate throughout.

 

[apairoflegsanyone]

I'm not an intel fanboy but a intel supporter(confusing ain't it) but god damn, I have to avoid the pentium d's and wait for the next generation. The athlon 64 x2 did a pretty good job in those benchies but I remember not to rely on benchies a 100 percent of the time.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: apairoflegsanyone
I'm not an intel fanboy but a intel supporter(confusing ain't it) but god damn, I have to avoid the pentium d's and wait for the next generation. The athlon 64 x2 did a pretty good job in those benchies but I remember not to rely on benchies a 100 percent of the time.

true when it is synthetic benches like 3dmark, pcmark, sissoft, etc....Many reviews like AT and TR benchmark real world apps and the performances are for the most part comparing across many reviews.....

I have felt pretty confident in the benchmarks of late...I read the same reviews and built my system and I get pretty much comparatively right on line with reviews...I think if you look at real world apps and understand their strengths of being either cpu intensive apps, IO intensive apps, or bandwidth intensive apps one can usually guestimate approximate performance pretty well.....

I trust the whole picture which is quite clear. I look at percentages increases from several reviews across many types of uses....

 

[slash196]

AMD's long term strategy has just paid off in a big way. And I have to disagree with the prevailing opinion that dual-core is only useful by heavy multi-taskers. I personally like the idea of being able to play Far Cry and listed to iTunes without taking a performance hit, and it seems dual core can give me that. I'm looking at these X2s with an envious eye, and next year I'll probably drop one in my system. Mmm...seamless multitasking...it tastes like beef...

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
I noticed that Far Cry seems to enjoy a boost from DC in THG's review.

more likely they screwed up naming the bars.

 

[apairoflegsanyone]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: apairoflegsanyone
I'm not an intel fanboy but a intel supporter(confusing ain't it) but god damn, I have to avoid the pentium d's and wait for the next generation. The athlon 64 x2 did a pretty good job in those benchies but I remember not to rely on benchies a 100 percent of the time.

true when it is synthetic benches like 3dmark, pcmark, sissoft, etc....Many reviews like AT and TR benchmark real world apps and the performances are for the most part comparing across many reviews.....

I have felt pretty confident in the benchmarks of late...I read the same reviews and built my system and I get pretty much comparatively right on line with reviews...I think if you look at real world apps and understand their strengths of being either cpu intensive apps, IO intensive apps, or bandwidth intensive apps one can usually guestimate approximate performance pretty well.....

I trust the whole picture which is quite clear. I look at percentages increases from several reviews across many types of uses....

I also like to point out that the athlon 64 x2 was going to win anyways because it didn't have to sacrifice clock like the pentium had to. 2.4 ghz athlon 64x2 lmb l2 cache is like two 3800 or 4000 athlon 64. The pentium d had to be at least 3.8 or 4ghz with a higher fsb to stay competitive. This is where I believe intel realizes this and used its aggresive pricing scheme to stay ahead. Why bother having the best processor out there if the average consumer doesn't know jack about this and will likely go for the cheaper processor which is the pentium d. Athlon 64 x2 did win in performance, but it looks like more people will go for the pentium d because of the price and because of intel's marketing strength.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: apairoflegsanyone

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: apairoflegsanyone
I'm not an intel fanboy but a intel supporter(confusing ain't it) but god damn, I have to avoid the pentium d's and wait for the next generation. The athlon 64 x2 did a pretty good job in those benchies but I remember not to rely on benchies a 100 percent of the time.

true when it is synthetic benches like 3dmark, pcmark, sissoft, etc....Many reviews like AT and TR benchmark real world apps and the performances are for the most part comparing across many reviews.....

I have felt pretty confident in the benchmarks of late...I read the same reviews and built my system and I get pretty much comparatively right on line with reviews...I think if you look at real world apps and understand their strengths of being either cpu intensive apps, IO intensive apps, or bandwidth intensive apps one can usually guestimate approximate performance pretty well.....

I trust the whole picture which is quite clear. I look at percentages increases from several reviews across many types of uses....

I also like to point out that the athlon 64 x2 was going to win anyways because it didn't have to sacrifice clock like the pentium had to. 2.4 ghz athlon 64x2 lmb l2 cache is like two 3800 or 4000 athlon 64. The pentium d had to be at least 3.8 or 4ghz with a higher fsb to stay competitive. This is where I believe intel realizes this and used its aggresive pricing scheme to stay ahead. Why bother having the best processor out there if the average consumer doesn't know jack about this and will likely go for the cheaper processor which is the pentium d. Athlon 64 x2 did win in performance, but it looks like more people will go for the pentium d because of the price and because of intel's marketing strength.

I dont think it will be that way for long....AMD is starting a new process which is supposed to lead FX models to 3ghz by years end so 2.2ghz and 2.4ghz models seem good now but really are not the top end of its process...INtel has a physical concern for its reasoning of speed...power and heat!!! they have limited themselves to the bottom on a process that is in all terms dead and waiting for 65nm to try to give it CPR.....


Also remember that in normal test a 2.2ghz 512kb chip is a 3500+...2.2ghz 1mb is 3700+....2.4ghz 512kb is 3800+....2.4ghz 1mb id 4000+.....I wouldn't say all of those are upper end....


I would also say why we know these chips should be able to win against the lower end prescotts remember the 3.2ghz prescott would have normally beaten or been equal to 4000+ A64 chips in multimedia apps (normal P4 stronghold)...NOw it is a 10-25% the other way....So taking the multimedia crown and convincingly is a surprise and not something anyone would have just assummed.....

The leads current now would take the top prescott speeds avaialble to come close and all talk is this wont happen....Instead AMD will push forward so it could bad and bad for awhile....

 

[Duvie]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-18.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-20.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-19.html

exactly what I sated a 640 is right there in most all of the test to a 4000+ or 3800+ and now it is a beating.....There was big advancements on the AMD side that goes way beyond E core revisions...It appears their implementation is better. Most sites do a piss-poor comparison when decding not to run a 640 in their reviews to see what percentage increase the apps enjoy from the second core. Some have run comparable single core A64'sbut I can think of really any running a 640. In the test I saw early on with the PD some did and I could see in some apps where I could measure AMD enjoyed larger gains with 2 cores then Pentiums...

The other thing is one must thing how AMDs Direct Connect Architecture is helping over Intel FSb based system which appears to be the bottleneck. Until Intel raises the FSB or gives each core it own independent FSB this will likely be the case...

 

[Intelia]

It can't be Tom's he did a fair review unbelievable . Run everyone the sky is falling.

 

[pplapeu]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bjc112


All i need to see..


315W!!!

eek, also note that the AMD systems used less power under Full Load than the Intel systems used while Idle.

so, you rely on solar alone at your house...LOL!<-----------


OMG...Intel, you poor sods.

Looks like AMD got it done again this time around.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
i might buy a P-D during the winter time!

My room is HOT enough I don't need presscots.

 

[EODetroit]

Personally I'm staying away from Intel CPUs until they run hot enough to fire pottery. Those kilns are expensive.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: n7
This review must been painful for Tommy Boy.

Here's the bottom line. If we had to recommend a single core processor, the choice would depend greatly on the type of applications in use. But in the dual core arena, though, there is not much that speaks for Intel: go with the Athlon 64 X2.

Best thing i've ever seen said at Tom's

And farther up:

After a deep look at all the interesting facets of both dual core technologies, the results are rather disappointing - for Intel.

And this quote:

The performance drawback on Intel's side is something we would absolutely be willing to live with for the sake of the multi-tasking experience, and we don't really expect the Pentium D to have any trouble being accepted by the market. However, there is something that we can't really tolerate: the Pentium D system manages to burn over 200 watts as soon as it's turned on, even when it isn't doing anything. It even exceeds 310 W when working and 350+ W with the graphics card employed! AMD proves that this is not necessary at all: a range of 125 to 190 Watts is much more acceptable (235 counting the graphics card). And that is without Cool & Quiet even enabled.

more watts=more heat=bad for Intel.......

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
I noticed that Far Cry seems to enjoy a boost from DC in THG's review.

more likely they screwed up naming the bars.

I doubt it - farcry is a technology slut - it really seems that if there's some obscure high end functionality that can be taken advantage of, if they don't support it, they're working on a patch.