Why I'm staying with AMD

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Xsorovan
All the hype around Intel's C2D chip is, quite honestly, making me feel a little sick. It seems every reviewer on the internet is completely drooling over these processors and driving a frenzy of "best CPU ever" from people who have yet to play with the processor. In a world where computer technology changes so quickly it seems very short sighted of reviewers to put all their stock into this one chip.

My main reason for staying with AMD right now, as well as when I buy a new machine in a couple of weeks, is the nanometers. AMD is still running at 90nm. Intel gained a 20% increase from going to 65nm. Of course, this is to be expected, everything is that much closer together. What happens in January when AMD drops their 65nm chip? Intel goes back to being behind as AMD generally does better work with their chips. So while AMD might be behind now, I think it's short sighted to say that Intel is worth investing in as a long term winner over AMD. Granted it's going to give you a speed boost now, but what about in January when all the benchmarks come in on the AMD 65nm and it beats Intel?

I understand the hype, this is the first available 65nm chip available to everyone, and there are obviously speed increases that come with that, but just because Intel beats AMD to market doesn't mean that Intel will have a faster chip than AMD's 65nm. I say we hold judgement until we can race them side by side. I'll buy my AM2 mobo and slap a 4600+ into it now, knowing that the C2D is faster, but also knowing that when AMD drops their 65nm chip I won't have to buy a whole new machine when suddenly its "AMD's newest chip is soooo fast!! I must have one!"

There are multiple problems with this, your assuming AMD will gain performance right away with 65nm at launch. That won't be the case.

They will be doing a "Winchester" style transition. so only lower models, 3800+, 4200+, 4600+ at 65W. There will be no additional performance, just reduce power conusmption and production cost.

Also, you compare what is out at the current time to what is out at the current time. Intel doens't need to have their 65nm > AMD's 65nm, because, after AMD transitions to 65nm, Intel will be more then halfway through 65nm's life, and 45nm will be arriving fairly soon.

Sorry to say without K8L, AMD will not have the performance crown in comparison to Conroe, and no competitor period to Kentsfield.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

OP, Google up "AMD Desktop Roadmap" and tell me when AMD will be launching their 65nm 3Ghz+ C2D-killers?
By your logic, people looking for new PCs NOW should buy AM2 X2s today/next month rather than C2Ds because in your magic 8-ball, you see AMD's 65nm chips reign supreme in the kinda-near-yet-distant future?

Who the eff (except hardcore enthusiasts) upgrades CPUs ever year?!? There are people who get great use from GPUs for 2+ years these days...! Is it too much to expect at least two-three years of loyal service from a CPU? At first, the AMD fans cry hoarse over AM2-C2D comparisions: Conroe is next-gen, it's true competition is K8L although that didn' stop them from comparing K8 to Netburst. Do you make up rules based on weather patterns? And BTW, die-shrinks didn't help Intel ramp up clock-speeds significantly (Prescott?) and I doubt it will help AMD go much higher: what they need is major enhancements to their architecture, not ramping up clockspeed.

BTW, Quad-core Kentsfield is scheduled for a Q4 2006/Q1 2007 according to bit-tech.net. Now get this: Kentsfield will run on CURRENT Conroe-compatible motherboards. AMDs response, the 4x4 needs a NEW dual-CPU socket motherboard ($$$).

Internet forums are a place to pursue the truth and making informed decisions as $-paying consumers: not indulge in misguided, blatant fanboyism and trolling. And BTW, Conroe isn't the first 65nm chip available to consumers: heard of Cedar Mill/Presler? The Pentium D 9-series?

 

[twjr]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
OP, Google up "AMD Desktop Roadmap" and tell me when AMD will be launching their 65nm 3Ghz+ C2D-killers?
By your logic, people looking for new PCs NOW should buy AM2 X2s today/next month rather than C2Ds because in your magic 8-ball, you see AMD's 65nm chips reign supreme in the kinda-near-yet-distant future?

Who the eff (except hardcore enthusiasts) upgrades CPUs ever year?!? There are people who get great use from GPUs for 2+ years these days...! Is it too much to expect at least two-three years of loyal service from a CPU? At first, the AMD fans cry hoarse over AM2-C2D comparisions: Conroe is next-gen, it's true competition is K8L although that didn' stop them from comparing K8 to Netburst. Do you make up rules based on weather patterns? And BTW, die-shrinks didn't help Intel ramp up clock-speeds significantly (Prescott?) and I doubt it will help AMD go much higher: what they need is major enhancements to their architecture, not ramping up clockspeed.

BTW, Quad-core Kentsfield is scheduled for a Q4 2006/Q1 2007 according to bit-tech.net. Now get this: Kentsfield will run on CURRENT Conroe-compatible motherboards. AMDs response, the 4x4 needs a NEW dual-CPU socket motherboard ($$$).

Internet forums are a place to pursue the truth and making informed decisions as $-paying consumers: not indulge in misguided, blatant fanboyism and trolling. And BTW, Conroe isn't the first 65nm chip available to consumers: heard of Cedar Mill/Presler? The Pentium D 9-series?

Totally agree.

Look AMD fanbois its time to wake up and smell the silicon, you're beat. Period. Just look at some half decent reviews, it is pretty hard to argue with the numbers.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: cmrmrc
AMD will regain some ground with 65nm, i'd say max 5%...switching to 65nm is not just a die shrink, they can improve the architecture just a little bit...i remember when AMD switched from 130nm to 90nm, there were something like -2 to 5% increase in performance.

They've got the performance up on AM2 over 939 by between 5 & 10 % as of late, not quite as good as C2D, but then there's probably some more gains to come, given the diff in RAM speed yet to be fully exploited. Stay tuned. And don't forget that AMD now also have a unified platform with Athlon's and Semprons on it, and that's got to be a plus. Hopefully, (prey really hard) we might get some dual core Sempy's to compete with the now "gulp" budget P4's, Now that could be worth writing home about.

 

[imported_wicka]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Internet forums are a place to pursue the truth and making informed decisions as $-paying consumers: not indulge in misguided, blatant fanboyism and trolling. And BTW, Conroe isn't the first 65nm chip available to consumers: heard of Cedar Mill/Presler? The Pentium D 9-series?

The truth. Belittling other members is rougly equal. The fact remains that none of us can tell the future. For all we know, AMD could release the K8L now. Or now. Of course they won't, because that would be a ridiculously improbably explanation. Occam's razor: the explanation of any occurance should make as few assumptions as possible. Let's compare our two majority viewpoints.

1. After years of arguable domination by AMD, Intel has released a processor that, without any forsight by the public, retakes the entire high end market - for a much cheaper price - for at least the next two years.
2. AMD will release a new processor much sooner than expected, based on an architecture that is already apparantly behind Intel's, that regains their enthusiast foothold. Instantly.

Stop and think about how ridiculously improbable either occurance is. #1 assumes that Intel threw away every design principle they have; #2 assumes that AMD is magic. Both are near-impossible (but the second more likely than the first ). Of course the truth lies somewhere in between.

The fact is that it doesn't matter. AMD isn't going to be run out of the market by Intel's success. It's already been shown that gaming, one of the primary PC uses for enthusiasts, is vastly more GPU-intensive. So gaming isn't going to be impacted by either processor. The only thing that will improve are media applications and calculation-intensive apps. For the vast majority of people, the differences in these benchmarks are too little to notice (though they may be in the minutes, and for some of us time is precious).

Buy what YOU want to buy, not what someone else tells you to buy. I'm buying AMD because the boards are far cheaper, and because I'm more familiar with it, not because the OP is sick of Intel. And I'm not getting Intel just because theprodigalrebel suddenly points that AMD's 65nm won't be out quite soon enough.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: twjr

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
OP, Google up "AMD Desktop Roadmap" and tell me when AMD will be launching their 65nm 3Ghz+ C2D-killers?
By your logic, people looking for new PCs NOW should buy AM2 X2s today/next month rather than C2Ds because in your magic 8-ball, you see AMD's 65nm chips reign supreme in the kinda-near-yet-distant future?

Who the eff (except hardcore enthusiasts) upgrades CPUs ever year?!? There are people who get great use from GPUs for 2+ years these days...! Is it too much to expect at least two-three years of loyal service from a CPU? At first, the AMD fans cry hoarse over AM2-C2D comparisions: Conroe is next-gen, it's true competition is K8L although that didn' stop them from comparing K8 to Netburst. Do you make up rules based on weather patterns? And BTW, die-shrinks didn't help Intel ramp up clock-speeds significantly (Prescott?) and I doubt it will help AMD go much higher: what they need is major enhancements to their architecture, not ramping up clockspeed.

BTW, Quad-core Kentsfield is scheduled for a Q4 2006/Q1 2007 according to bit-tech.net. Now get this: Kentsfield will run on CURRENT Conroe-compatible motherboards. AMDs response, the 4x4 needs a NEW dual-CPU socket motherboard ($$$).

Internet forums are a place to pursue the truth and making informed decisions as $-paying consumers: not indulge in misguided, blatant fanboyism and trolling. And BTW, Conroe isn't the first 65nm chip available to consumers: heard of Cedar Mill/Presler? The Pentium D 9-series?

Totally agree.

Look AMD fanbois its time to wake up and smell the silicon, you're beat. Period. Just look at some half decent reviews, it is pretty hard to argue with the numbers.

So why do we all need new 775 mobo's to run C2D? We needed new mobos to run Tualatin, and then again for Willamet, and then again for Northwood, and Prescott only changed the name, and then we needed a new motherboard. Crikey don't pay AMD out over platform changes please. (Oh and don't the forget RAMBUS fiasco) and they still buy Intel platforms.
Kentsfield is way too far off to even guess if it will run on the new boards, and we new more about Conroe than we still do about Kentsfield. Already mobo manufacturers have had to shift the ATX connector to the center of the board in order to provide adequate stable power delivery, thats sounds a bit quirky already. Granted Conroe is quick, but it has hardly ramped up the clock speed, in fact it's clocked way down. Sure it looks as if it will OC well, but I don't think Intel covers this in the warranty? And I bet it won't appear in the advertising campaign either. I've always regarded AXP as a P3 rival, AXP 64 as a P4 rival, and K8 as the C2D rival. Just face facts Intel fans, AMD gets more life out of each step, and each time they get in front it take Intel longer to catch up.

 

[twjr]

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser

Originally posted by: twjr

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
OP, Google up "AMD Desktop Roadmap" and tell me when AMD will be launching their 65nm 3Ghz+ C2D-killers?
By your logic, people looking for new PCs NOW should buy AM2 X2s today/next month rather than C2Ds because in your magic 8-ball, you see AMD's 65nm chips reign supreme in the kinda-near-yet-distant future?

Who the eff (except hardcore enthusiasts) upgrades CPUs ever year?!? There are people who get great use from GPUs for 2+ years these days...! Is it too much to expect at least two-three years of loyal service from a CPU? At first, the AMD fans cry hoarse over AM2-C2D comparisions: Conroe is next-gen, it's true competition is K8L although that didn' stop them from comparing K8 to Netburst. Do you make up rules based on weather patterns? And BTW, die-shrinks didn't help Intel ramp up clock-speeds significantly (Prescott?) and I doubt it will help AMD go much higher: what they need is major enhancements to their architecture, not ramping up clockspeed.

BTW, Quad-core Kentsfield is scheduled for a Q4 2006/Q1 2007 according to bit-tech.net. Now get this: Kentsfield will run on CURRENT Conroe-compatible motherboards. AMDs response, the 4x4 needs a NEW dual-CPU socket motherboard ($$$).

Internet forums are a place to pursue the truth and making informed decisions as $-paying consumers: not indulge in misguided, blatant fanboyism and trolling. And BTW, Conroe isn't the first 65nm chip available to consumers: heard of Cedar Mill/Presler? The Pentium D 9-series?

Totally agree.

Look AMD fanbois its time to wake up and smell the silicon, you're beat. Period. Just look at some half decent reviews, it is pretty hard to argue with the numbers.

So why do we all need new 775 mobo's to run C2D? We needed new mobos to run Tualatin, and then again for Willamet, and then again for Northwood, and Prescott only changed the name, and then we needed a new motherboard. Crikey don't pay AMD out over platform changes please. (Oh and don't the forget RAMBUS fiasco) and they still buy Intel platforms.
Kentsfield is way too far off to even guess if it will run on the new boards, and we new more about Conroe than we still do about Kentsfield. Already mobo manufacturers have had to shift the ATX connector to the center of the board in order to provide adequate stable power delivery, thats sounds a bit quirky already. Granted Conroe is quick, but it has hardly ramped up the clock speed, in fact it's clocked way down. Sure it looks as if it will OC well, but I don't think Intel covers this in the warranty? And I bet it won't appear in the advertising campaign either. I've always regarded AXP as a P3 rival, AXP 64 as a P4 rival, and K8 as the C2D rival. Just face facts Intel fans, AMD gets more life out of each step, and each time they get in front it take Intel longer to catch up.

Intel has actually moved forward they release of kentsfield to the end of the year. That isn't that far away. And all you AMD fans are saying that k8l is going to be compatable with current am2 mobos. what makes it any less likely that intel will do the same?

 

[imported_wicka]

Well AMD has stated that AM3 processors will run in AM2 sockets. K8L is assumed to be released with AM3. Even if it isn't, and K10 is AM3-compatible, it makes no sense that AMD would introduce a new socket for K8L, then switch back to AM2-compatibility for AM3.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser
So why do we all need new 775 mobo's to run C2D? We needed new mobos to run Tualatin, and then again for Willamet, and then again for Northwood, and Prescott only changed the name, and then we needed a new motherboard. Crikey don't pay AMD out over platform changes please. (Oh and don't the forget RAMBUS fiasco) and they still buy Intel platforms.
1. Kentsfield is way too far off to even guess if it will run on the new boards, and we new more about Conroe than we still do about Kentsfield. Already mobo manufacturers have had to shift the ATX connector to the center of the board in order to provide adequate stable power delivery, thats sounds a bit quirky already. 2. Granted Conroe is quick, but it has hardly ramped up the clock speed, in fact it's clocked way down. Sure it looks as if it will OC well, but I don't think Intel covers this in the warranty? And I bet it won't appear in the advertising campaign either. I've always regarded AXP as a P3 rival, AXP 64 as a P4 rival, and K8 as the C2D rival. Just face facts Intel fans, AMD gets more life out of each step, and each time they get in front it take Intel longer to catch up.

1) Gigabyte said that the 12-phase VRM on their 6-Quad P965 motherboard was designed keeping Kentsfield in mind. Core 2 Duo didn't really need a new core logic chipset: it just needed new VRM. I'm not defending Intel and frankly, I get mixed up when I think about the 845/850, 865/875, 915/925 chipsets because I was using AMD back then (and still am). Off the top off my head, the 850 chipset used RD RAM, the 845 included SDRAM/DDR RAM support. The 865/875 stepped up from 400MHz FSBs to 800MHz FSBs and launched Hyper-threading. The 915/925 chipset moved to HD Audio, DDR2 and PCIe (all industry first, you gotta give them some credit for this). The 955 Chipset brought in dual-core support and 975 did Crossfire. Now do you know why you needed new motherboards? Do you also know AMD launched three different motherboard-types within a few months, confusing people - the short-lived Socket 940 with expensive registered RAM, no dual-core 754 and then 939?

2) Isn't it rather impressive that Conroe works better at much lower speeds than the Pentium 4 it replaced? You almost make the reduced clockspeed sound like it's a negative thing.

3) See, this is what I meant when I talked about AMD-fanboys making up the rules to suit their needs. First of all, its not AXP 64 but A64. And FYI, A64 and K8 are the exact same thing. And AMD-fans, unite and please settle this once and for all: What is a fair comparision - Conroe vs. K8 or the future ass-kicking K8L?

I make a post against rabid fanboyism and you counter it...with more fanboyism?

 

[imported_wicka]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser
So why do we all need new 775 mobo's to run C2D? We needed new mobos to run Tualatin, and then again for Willamet, and then again for Northwood, and Prescott only changed the name, and then we needed a new motherboard. Crikey don't pay AMD out over platform changes please. (Oh and don't the forget RAMBUS fiasco) and they still buy Intel platforms.
1. Kentsfield is way too far off to even guess if it will run on the new boards, and we new more about Conroe than we still do about Kentsfield. Already mobo manufacturers have had to shift the ATX connector to the center of the board in order to provide adequate stable power delivery, thats sounds a bit quirky already. 2. Granted Conroe is quick, but it has hardly ramped up the clock speed, in fact it's clocked way down. Sure it looks as if it will OC well, but I don't think Intel covers this in the warranty? And I bet it won't appear in the advertising campaign either. I've always regarded AXP as a P3 rival, AXP 64 as a P4 rival, and K8 as the C2D rival. Just face facts Intel fans, AMD gets more life out of each step, and each time they get in front it take Intel longer to catch up.

1) Gigabyte said that the 12-phase VRM on their 6-Quad P965 motherboard was designed keeping Kentsfield in mind. Core 2 Duo didn't really need a new core logic chipset: it just needed new VRM. I'm not defending Intel and frankly, I get mixed up when I think about the 845/850, 865/875, 915/925 chipsets because I was using AMD back then (and still am). Off the top off my head, the 850 chipset used RD RAM, the 845 included SDRAM/DDR RAM support. The 865/875 stepped up from 400MHz FSBs to 800MHz FSBs and launched Hyper-threading. The 915/925 chipset moved to HD Audio, DDR2 and PCIe (all industry first, you gotta give them some credit for this). The 955 Chipset brought in dual-core support and 975 did Crossfire. Now do you know why you needed new motherboards? Do you also know AMD launched three different motherboard-types within a few months, confusing people - the short-lived Socket 940 with expensive registered RAM, no dual-core 754 and then 939?

2) Isn't it rather impressive that Conroe works better at much lower speeds than the Pentium 4 it replaced? You almost make the reduced clockspeed sound like it's a negative thing.

3) See, this is what I meant when I talked about AMD-fanboys making up the rules to suit their needs. First of all, its not AXP 64 but A64. And FYI, A64 and K8 are the exact same thing. And AMD-fans, unite and please settle this once and for all: What is a fair comparision - Conroe vs. K8 or the future ass-kicking K8L?

I make a post against rabid fanboyism and you counter it...with more fanboyism?

I think, simply put, all he is saying is that the K8 has been around for quite a long time. To compare it to the C2D is unfair, as the C2D is Intel's next arch and the K8 is not - it competed with the P4. Basically, Intel released their next architecture before AMD did, and it's going to work out well. Hopefully.

Also, I quite verbosely countered your post against fanboyism

 

[hans007]

i still dont understand your logic. who cares if intel is at 65nm and amd is at 90nm.

the intel is still better right? i mean what are you rooting for a sports team or something?

shouldn't you just buy the better one? i mean the intel is better. its better in every single way. it might still be better even when amd does it shrink. so exactly where is the huge decision to be made there?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser
Kentsfield is way too far off to even guess if it will run on the new boards, and we new more about Conroe than we still do about Kentsfield. Already mobo manufacturers have had to shift the ATX connector to the center of the board in order to provide adequate stable power delivery, thats sounds a bit quirky already.

Actually Kentsfield samples are already being tested in certain 975 MSI and Intel CURRENTLY available boards on xtremesystems.org.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: wicka
I think, simply put, all he is saying is that the K8 has been around for quite a long time. To compare it to the C2D is unfair, as the C2D is Intel's next arch and the K8 is not - it competed with the P4. Basically, Intel released their next architecture before AMD did, and it's going to work out well. Hopefully.

Things aren't that convenient. You compare with what's out at the time.

Otherwise we may as well be comparing K10 and Core 4 Quadro...always waiting for the next CPU.

Like when the NVidia 6800 series came out and was SM3 capable, they compared it to ATI X800 cards which were not SM3 capable, while ATIs SM3 cards were more than a year away.

You can't pick and choose what to compare to, you compare with available products.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: sindows
I think you forget that Conroes can clock to 4+ghz with proper multilpliers...

Except that they're locked.

Except the unlocked EE chips IIRC.

 

[imported_inspire]

I think what everyone forgets is that K8L, as I understand it, won't be seen until mid '07. So, to be fair, AMD's counter to Conroe won't be K8L in a chronological sense. And, by that time, we'll be seeing the 45nm transition and Kentsfields might even be affordable.

No, AMD's answer to Conroe is the mystical, top secret, classified 4x4 - and very little is known about it. Launch dates are rumored to be anywhere from end Q3 06 to Q1 07, but without any official announcement, I'm inclined to think the latter (if at all).

And 4x4 will only compete (bang for your buck-wise) on a few conditions. If a person can grab two AM2 3800+ X2's and OC them to 2.6 GHz for the price of an E6600, we may have a good game on our hands. AMD has leaked that performance gains on the 4x4 platform scale well - to 80%.

What we neglect when we consider that is the omgwtfbbqpwnedrofflecopter Overclockability of Conroe itself - even OC'ed to 2.6 GHz with a scale factor of 80%, such an AM2 4x4 setup would be (theoretically) neck and neck with an E6600. Once you consider that E6600's are OC'ing by 40% on air, the game changes.

What will save AMD (salvage is probably a better word) is the partnerships it has in the software development market. We're already hearing about the flagship multi-threaded games (Crysis) that are going to be able to take advantage of four cores. So, when the playing field of software changes, AMD will suddenly find itself with a nice boost - offering an affordable and competitive quad core solution.

Will those gains be enough to beat Conroe in multi-threaded games? We don't really know yet, but AMD's also planning an 8x8 architecture sometime in the next year or two, and I think they've made the steps they need to make to stay in the game.

K8L I can honestly say, is far enough off that when we actually get there, I think we'll have a whole different ball game on our hands.

That's my opinion, and I've only been here for a few weeks, so I'll go grab my flame-sheild.

 

[OatMan]

I totally agree with what the original poster wrote. We live in an age of silly Hyperbole... And the point about the die shrink is bang on all things being =.

Sometimes all things aren't equal though. A die shrink provides an opertunity that must be taken advantage of with engineering. A die shrink won't make a ****** archatechture magically good, so yes 65nm netburst still sucks ass.

AMD does eventually need a new architecture of course. Its a good thing we still aren't seeing them make K6, so they've managed it once or twice

AMD does NOT seem to need a new architecture to stay competative with Conroe. The K8 architecture seems to be designed in a way that will allow it to scale with a die shrink. I disagree with the notion that 65nm will do little for K8. Most analysis I've looked at assumes K8 will compete with higher clocks, it just can't happen from 90nm.

That said...

Conroe is a great CPU. While we shouldn't let hype blind us, it works in both directions. Just because the hype isn't annoying, it would be silly to write off something just for that.

Conroe seems to be fantastic. Its not just a 20% (on average +/-) increase in speed, but also a 20% DECREASE in power consumption. Together that is a huge performance per watt increase. HOw is this not a good thing, especially considering the announced price structure?

I expect AMD will compete on a level playing field at 65nm. I also expect their next architecture ('08?) to leapfrog Intel's of the time. This is all good!

I'll probably upgrade in a year or so, and when I do it is very likely it will be a deffection to Intel, for no other reason then it would be the best option at the time. Brand loyalty is mostly silly in this day and age IMO. Companies have no loyalty to their employees or customers. A well run company today could be total crap a year from now... It would be stupid to stick with an infiror product with my hard earned $$$ just because I like ATI, or nVidia better...

just MHO.

Right now its hard to make a bad choice. Pentium D at these prices is not so bad a choice. Conroe is fabulouse value in price/ performance. DC opties from Monarch that will clock to 3GHz for $230!!!! This is ALL GOOD!!

 

[TheSlamma]

Get a life

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: OatMan
This is ALL GOOD!!

It's true. This level of performance/price hasn't been seen for a while.
With an AMD/Intel price war, we all win.
It's about time too. I'm tired of "Today's Special" being minor speed bumps.

Things for CPU buyers to consider...
* Benchmark results for the types of applications YOU run.
* Total upgrade price for the CPU and platform (MB, RAM, HS), needed to run the new CPU.
* Overclockability, if that's your game.
* Along the lines of overclockability... heat generation. Some people want dead silence, while others will tolerate much more cooling noise.
* YOUR own cheapness profile...
a. Some people will buy bleeding edge products at premium prices and not give it a second thought.
b. Others go for 2nd tier components to get a bigger bang for the buck. They don't mind running sub-bleeding edge if the price is right.
c. Yet others don't want to or can't swing the higher cost of anything but a "budget rig".
We all have different wants and needs :laugh:

 

[imported_wicka]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: OatMan
This is ALL GOOD!!

It's true. This level of performance/price hasn't been seen for a while.
With an AMD/Intel price war, we all win.
It's about time too. I'm tired of "Today's Special" being minor speed bumps.

Things for CPU buyers to consider...
* Benchmark results for the types of applications YOU run.
* Total upgrade price for the CPU and platform (MB, RAM, HS), needed to run the new CPU.
* Overclockability, if that's your game.
* Along the lines of overclockability... heat generation. Some people want dead silence, while others will tolerate much more cooling noise.
* YOUR own cheapness profile...
a. Some people will buy bleeding edge products at premium prices and not give it a second thought.
b. Others go for 2nd tier components to get a bigger bang for the buck. They don't mind running sub-bleeding edge if the price is right.
c. Yet others don't want to or can't swing the higher cost of anything but a "budget rig".
We all have different wants and needs :laugh:

You're exactly right. My point is that we're no longer in a situation in which a platform is blatantly better than another. Remember, Conroe isn't even out yet. I know all the benchmarks say it's amazing, and that probably true, but you can't be so sure yet. The decision falls down to things like budget, availability, what you are familiar with, etc. not which CPU is fastest in tests.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Xsorovan
All the hype around Intel's C2D chip is, quite honestly, making me feel a little sick. It seems every reviewer on the internet is completely drooling over these processors and driving a frenzy of "best CPU ever" from people who have yet to play with the processor. In a world where computer technology changes so quickly it seems very short sighted of reviewers to put all their stock into this one chip.

My main reason for staying with AMD right now, as well as when I buy a new machine in a couple of weeks, is the nanometers. AMD is still running at 90nm. Intel gained a 20% increase from going to 65nm. Of course, this is to be expected, everything is that much closer together. What happens in January when AMD drops their 65nm chip? Intel goes back to being behind as AMD generally does better work with their chips. So while AMD might be behind now, I think it's short sighted to say that Intel is worth investing in as a long term winner over AMD. Granted it's going to give you a speed boost now, but what about in January when all the benchmarks come in on the AMD 65nm and it beats Intel?

I understand the hype, this is the first available 65nm chip available to everyone, and there are obviously speed increases that come with that, but just because Intel beats AMD to market doesn't mean that Intel will have a faster chip than AMD's 65nm. I say we hold judgement until we can race them side by side. I'll buy my AM2 mobo and slap a 4600+ into it now, knowing that the C2D is faster, but also knowing that when AMD drops their 65nm chip I won't have to buy a whole new machine when suddenly its "AMD's newest chip is soooo fast!! I must have one!"

now that is just plaion wrong. there ARE P4s on th 65 nm process that get there ass handed to them by amd.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: wicka

I know all the benchmarks say it's amazing, and that probably true, but you can't be so sure yet.

We can all safely rely upon the data that Anandtech has provided to us in their latest review. We don't have to be poison Kool-Aid drinkers to know good data when we see it.

Core 2 is amazing. K8 is still good, but it ain't that good.

 

[RallyMaster]

I'll also be staying with AMD. I'm not getting rid of the parts I just got 8 months ago. It's just simply not logical. However, I will take a loss on this CPU and get a dual core 3800+

 

[janitor53]

I don't get all the fanboi'ism....why wouldn't someone just go with the better product if they are buying a PC today? What's with the brand loyolty when something is clearly inferior, as the AMD chips are now compared to the Core?
I have an AMD but was going to upgrade around Christmas, pretty much thought I'd stick with AMD but if Intel keeps up the advantage, it's Intel here I come...

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: janitor53
I don't get all the fanboi'ism....why wouldn't someone just go with the better product if they are buying a PC today? What's with the brand loyolty when something is clearly inferior, as the AMD chips are now compared to the Core?
I have an AMD but was going to upgrade around Christmas, pretty much thought I'd stick with AMD but if Intel keeps up the advantage, it's Intel here I come...

Originally posted by: Blain
Things for CPU buyers to consider...
* Benchmark results for the types of applications YOU run.
* Total upgrade price for the CPU and platform (MB, RAM, HS), needed to run the new CPU.
* Overclockability, if that's your game.
* Along the lines of overclockability... heat generation. Some people want dead silence, while others will tolerate much more cooling noise.
* YOUR own cheapness profile...
a. Some people will buy bleeding edge products at premium prices and not give it a second thought.
b. Others go for 2nd tier components to get a bigger bang for the buck. They don't mind running sub-bleeding edge if the price is right.
c. Yet others don't want to or can't swing the higher cost of anything but a "budget rig".
We all have different wants and needs :laugh: