What is with these stupid Conroe Pwnz0rs threads.

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I didn't know there even was such a thing as an Intel-fanboy on AT forums
The vast majority of the people here are K8ers and hardcore-gamers (usually both). The early benchmarks had everyone (including me) extremely worked up and the overclockers even more. People finally had a choice in the CPU world (the great K8 vs. the craptastic Netburst was hardly a choice), which is why these threads are popping up.

Like someone above me said, the Video forums have had the ATi/nVidia wars for a long time...the CPU section hasn't seen a war in what, 3 years? People finally have a choice in what CPU to buy so no wonder they are all excited.

I'm sorry, but if A64 vs P4 wasn't giving people a choice, then how can Conroe vs A64 be giving people a choice all of a sudden?

Conroe beats A64 by a wider margin and in more benchmarks than A64 ever beat P4 in. Conroe beats A64 in EVERY benchmark, at a lower price, with lower power consumption. At least P4 won *some* benchmarks such as multimedia encoding.

If A64 vs P4 was a no brainer, then Conroe vs A64 is even more of a no brainer.

Not to be an ass - your point is still equally valid, but - PC Worldbench 5 General Performance. Nero. 208s vs. 213s.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I look at ALL computer hardware from a monetary value point of view. Others value particular brands which is kinda stupid in the computer hardware game.

Ah, I'd definitely spend the extra $$$ for a name-brand Optical Drive before buying another K-Hypermedia.

 

[BassBomb]

id say a 20% increase warrants an upgrade, it does in most cases...

how fast was AXP->A64 switch? and other examples...

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
id say a 20% increase warrants an upgrade, it does in most cases...

how fast was AXP->A64 switch? and other examples...

Cost benefit analysis.

aka, is it worth the extra cost and hassle to switch, just so you can see better numbers in benchmarks.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Cooler
AMD fans are now getting bashed by Intel fans because they where being bashed earlier . It?s a lot worse in video forum as there is an endless debate ATI vs. NVIDIA .

Whatever, XGI will own the discrete graphics card market by 2007, you didnt see their roadmap!!??

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
poor duvie.

The glory days are over!

You've been conroized!

I seem to remember hearing this from intel fans when the Northwood based P4's were faster(barely) than the AXP.

Northwoods were significantly faster than AXPs in a lot of tasks, including gaming.

Fatty is looking for another ban i see... He needs a permanent vacation, ive never seen a relevant post by that tard...

Duvie has done EXTENSIVE threads on his Pentium 4 and the benefits of hyperthreading.

 

[bobdelt]

"Intel Faithfull" ??

We're talking about hardware not sports teams. Grow up. When AMD releases faster chips everyone will be talking about that. Stop being such a fanboy.

 

[furballi]

Will upgrade to Conroe if I could pickup a decent MB/CPU combo for less than $120. Till then, my $ is earning 4.9% interest.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: furballi
Will upgrade to Conroe if I could pickup a decent MB/CPU combo for less than $120.

My point of no return is about double that. Everyone is different.

<-- so sayeth the guy who just purchased three Sempron CPUs for $114.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I look at ALL computer hardware from a monetary value point of view. Others value particular brands which is kinda stupid in the computer hardware game.

Ah, I'd definitely spend the extra $$$ for a name-brand Optical Drive before buying another K-Hypermedia.

Optical drives are a different story than most computer parts. I will only consider Plextor or Lite-On brands with the latter being the "value" option. I don't even consider K-Hypermedia and the other garbage brands to be the same piece of equipment... kinda like I don't consider a Yugo a car although technically it is, lol.

 

[imported_Crusader]

I want an E6600 like everyone else here. But I'm not going to buy one cuz I dont need one. Its not just a CPU its a platform change.

Either way, to sum up all the craziness.. basically what we have here is now 1 company doesnt have a crappy chip and the other company has a great chip.

Now we have two companies with great chips.

Theres nothing wrong with an Athlon64 though. Still fast.. and by no means are they like comparing a Prescott to a Venice.

Even though the E6600 is supposed to be $350.. if the 4600+ dips below $200, that'd be hard to not pull the trigger on considering I can use my same mobo/ram with it.

I think AMDs new pricing is $220? A 4600+ for $200 is pretty hard for me to pass up at least!
I hope everyone does buy Conroe (which they will) because I wouldnt feel like I had a small e-peen if I had a 4600+ for cheap.
Not for $200, get to use my existing memory and board!

And seriously, if my games wont improve moving from that to C2D.. I have a hard time justifying it. Theres alot of guys in my same boat also.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
poor duvie.

The glory days are over!

You've been conroized!

I seem to remember hearing this from intel fans when the Northwood based P4's were faster(barely) than the AXP.

Northwoods were significantly faster than AXPs in a lot of tasks, including gaming.

Fatty is looking for another ban i see... He needs a permanent vacation, ive never seen a relevant post by that tard...

Duvie has done EXTENSIVE threads on his Pentium 4 and the benefits of hyperthreading.

bull crap...I own both an AXP 3000+, NF2 combo and a P4 3.06ghz HT, SIS655 combo...there was barely anything between them, sure the P4 used to benchmark higher, usually in the order of 1000 3dmarks in 2001 and maybe 100 points in 2003, but when running games there was nothing in it and many times the P4 performed slower(barely) than the AXP.

for me the AXP 3000+ deserved it's rating although the P4 could out perform the AXP in most encoding tasks, for the rest they were pretty much equal.

Strangly enougth though my Gigabyte boards(GA-7N400 PRO and SINXP1394) both featured the same ITE Gigaraid IDE controller and yet the P4's Harddisk performance was miles ahead of the AMD's...I'm not sure if the processor had anything to do with this but I found it odd that the same IDE controller and 2 pairs of matched WD1200JB's would perform so differently.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
poor duvie.

The glory days are over!

You've been conroized!

I seem to remember hearing this from intel fans when the Northwood based P4's were faster(barely) than the AXP.

Northwoods were significantly faster than AXPs in a lot of tasks, including gaming.

Fatty is looking for another ban i see... He needs a permanent vacation, ive never seen a relevant post by that tard...

Duvie has done EXTENSIVE threads on his Pentium 4 and the benefits of hyperthreading.

bull crap...I own both an AXP 3000+, NF2 combo and a P4 3.06ghz HT, SIS655 combo...there was barely anything between them, sure the P4 used to benchmark higher, usually in the order of 1000 3dmarks in 2001 and maybe 100 points in 2003, but when running games there was nothing in it and many times the P4 performed slower(barely) than the AXP.

for me the AXP 3000+ deserved it's rating although the P4 could out perform the AXP in most encoding tasks, for the rest they were pretty much equal.

Strangly enougth though my Gigabyte boards(GA-7N400 PRO and SINXP1394) both featured the same ITE Gigaraid IDE controller and yet the P4's Harddisk performance was miles ahead of the AMD's...I'm not sure if the processor had anything to do with this but I found it odd that the same IDE controller and 2 pairs of matched WD1200JB's would perform so differently.

The XP deserved the ratings against 533FSB P4s but not the 800FSB ones.

Plus, the SIS chipsets are slightly slower than the i875 chipset.

From what I remember, the 3.0C was faster than the 3200+ in most things, and faster than the 3.06 as well, despite being 60MHz slower but it had the 800MHz FSB vs 533MHz on the 3.06.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Crusader
I want an E6600 like everyone else here. But I'm not going to buy one cuz I dont need one. Its not just a CPU its a platform change.

Either way, to sum up all the craziness.. basically what we have here is now 1 company doesnt have a crappy chip and the other company has a great chip.

Now we have two companies with great chips.

Theres nothing wrong with an Athlon64 though. Still fast.. and by no means are they like comparing a Prescott to a Venice.

Even though the E6600 is supposed to be $350.. if the 4600+ dips below $200, that'd be hard to not pull the trigger on considering I can use my same mobo/ram with it.

I think AMDs new pricing is $220? A 4600+ for $200 is pretty hard for me to pass up at least!
I hope everyone does buy Conroe (which they will) because I wouldnt feel like I had a small e-peen if I had a 4600+ for cheap.
Not for $200, get to use my existing memory and board!

And seriously, if my games wont improve moving from that to C2D.. I have a hard time justifying it. Theres alot of guys in my same boat also.

Considering the prices posted by DailyTech for AMD are OEM distributer prices, your dreaming if you think they are going to fall below 200US, 4600+ will be something around 250US, with the 5000+ falling in at 300US. Assuming there is enough supply to fill the demand on the AMD side of the fence.

AMD may have had enough supply to target the 300-600US market, but filling orders for 160-300US is another matter.

For gaming you can actually have a Pentium D 915/945 and still be allright. Hell, the lowest end 800FSB Prescott is also adequate. For "gaming" anyone on the LGA775, with a Pentium 4 HT is allright for the most part.

So even using your metric, there is no problem with Prescott vs Venice even for gaming. The video card remains the limiting factor even in that situation.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[AMDfreak]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
While the gloating is annoying, so is the whining from the AMD flag waving camp.

Those who whine simply don't want to see the truth. Yes, AMDfreak is joining the Dark Side!:evil:

 

[gobears34]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
poor duvie.

The glory days are over!

You've been conroized!

hahahaha

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
poor duvie.

The glory days are over!

You've been conroized!

I seem to remember hearing this from intel fans when the Northwood based P4's were faster(barely) than the AXP.

Northwoods were significantly faster than AXPs in a lot of tasks, including gaming.

Fatty is looking for another ban i see... He needs a permanent vacation, ive never seen a relevant post by that tard...

Duvie has done EXTENSIVE threads on his Pentium 4 and the benefits of hyperthreading.

bull crap...I own both an AXP 3000+, NF2 combo and a P4 3.06ghz HT, SIS655 combo...there was barely anything between them, sure the P4 used to benchmark higher, usually in the order of 1000 3dmarks in 2001 and maybe 100 points in 2003, but when running games there was nothing in it and many times the P4 performed slower(barely) than the AXP.

for me the AXP 3000+ deserved it's rating although the P4 could out perform the AXP in most encoding tasks, for the rest they were pretty much equal.

Strangly enougth though my Gigabyte boards(GA-7N400 PRO and SINXP1394) both featured the same ITE Gigaraid IDE controller and yet the P4's Harddisk performance was miles ahead of the AMD's...I'm not sure if the processor had anything to do with this but I found it odd that the same IDE controller and 2 pairs of matched WD1200JB's would perform so differently.

The XP deserved the ratings against 533FSB P4s but not the 800FSB ones.

Plus, the SIS chipsets are slightly slower than the i875 chipset.

From what I remember, the 3.0C was faster than the 3200+ in most things, and faster than the 3.06 as well, despite being 60MHz slower but it had the 800MHz FSB vs 533MHz on the 3.06.

I agree...once the P4c's came out with their 800fsb they reaklly came intpo their own...

i did extensive test way back then with a 2.4c at stock, then at 3ghz and 3.5ghz...throw in a Barton 3200+...What I found was the 3.0ghz beat the 3200+ in almost everything...with the added HT the 2.4c even bested the 3200+ in multimedia apps...

Sorry but it is the truth...

Also sis chipset were horrible...they performed far worse with memory and agp...those (SIS chipsets) are for the poor ppl who cant afford quality...

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Duvie
those (SIS chipsets) are for the poor ppl who cant afford quality...

lol wtf

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Duvie
those (SIS chipsets) are for the poor ppl who cant afford quality...

lol wtf

Yeah my little joke!!!! the only time (2 actually) I have ever bought a SIS chipset was for extreme budget and I regretted every moment...Pure crap mobo, terrible drivers, and subpar performance compared to reference intel boards....For Intel chips I do not stray from INtel chipsets. I have neevr looked at a Nvidia chiposet so with conroe and playing around I may try one...they always seem to deliver

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Duvie
those (SIS chipsets) are for the poor ppl who cant afford quality...

lol wtf

Yeah my little joke!!!! the only time (2 actually) I have ever bought a SIS chipset was for extreme budget and I regretted every moment...Pure crap mobo, terrible drivers, and subpar performance compared to reference intel boards....For Intel chips I do not stray from INtel chipsets. I have neevr looked at a Nvidia chiposet so with conroe and playing around I may try one...they always seem to deliver

IIRC the SIS655 chipset(655FX/TX) was faster than the i875..even AT found the SINXP1394 to be a very fast mobo

read here

SIS655TX REVIEW

GIGABYTE SINXP1394 REVIEW

I have used both Intel and SIS based Gigabyte P4 mobo's and found them both to be very reliable and performance wise they perform ver similar(although my GA-8S648FX-L(SIS648FX) smokes my GA-8I848P-L(Intel i848P) any day of the week...both are very similar mobo's)

 

[imported_wicka]

I've never actually owned anything other than AMD. I've been tossing ideas around for upgrading to a DDR2 platform and it's actually quite difficult, even with the Conroe essentially demolishing AMD. I've heard that AMD is cutting prices like crazy (around 50%) by the Conroe launch just to keep up. The one thing that really keeps me from Intel is that I just don't know anything about it. It's terrifying.

 

[harpoon84]

My mistake, my impressions of SiS chipsets haven't been good over the years - it looks like the 655 does perform better than i875, I guess you learn something new every day.

Unfortunately it didn't overclock well which may be why it never garnerned a big following, despite it's good performance. The fact that it came so late, after A64 was launched, was probably a major factor because by then everyone was hppping on the A64 bandwagon.

Cheers for those links.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: wicka
I've never actually owned anything other than AMD. I've been tossing ideas around for upgrading to a DDR2 platform and it's actually quite difficult, even with the Conroe essentially demolishing AMD. I've heard that AMD is cutting prices like crazy (around 50%) by the Conroe launch just to keep up. The one thing that really keeps me from Intel is that I just don't know anything about it. It's terrifying.

Having used both AMD and Intel platforms, all things considered the Intel platform is actually quite easy to understand IMO, at least from an overclockers perspective.

Due to the locked multiplier, it's really just raise the FSB, set the memory ratio and off you go.

I don't think you will find Intel too hard to use, and if you are upgrading to a DDR2 platform I'd have to say Conroe is the better deal overall.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
My mistake, my impressions of SiS chipsets haven't been good over the years - it looks like the 655 does perform better than i875, I guess you learn something new every day.

Unfortunately it didn't overclock well which may be why it never garnerned a big following, despite it's good performance. The fact that it came so late, after A64 was launched, was probably a major factor because by then everyone was hppping on the A64 bandwagon.

Cheers for those links.

It was one of the first P4 chipsets to hit the 800fsb...but yes you are right they are pretty average overclockers but all of my P4's are only 533fsb models so the Overclocking point is moot to me, the SIS boards have more than enougth head room for my CPU's

I can't figure out why SIS has such a bad rep...maybe because of there constant osociation with crap like ECS, but I have ALWAYS use Gigabyte boards and never had any problems with SIS based GA boards...infact the only GA board I've had die on me was my old GA-8PE800PRO i845PE board...it just bit the dust for no reason, worked fine one minute then refused to boot the next

 

[imported_wicka]

Well I'm not really looking from an overclocking perspective. Essentially what I'm saying is not that it's hard to use, it's just confusing for me because I've never been involved with the Intel scene. Since I've had so many AMD systems I know all the chipsets, which is better, etc. I have no idea where to start with Intel. I think the real question is how long the socket will last. Maybe somewhere here can help me: I know that AM3 is scheduled for early 2008 (I think), but when is LGA775's successor coming out?