CNET embarrasses Intel in Dual core review

[Beowulf021]

All the penny pinchers cheer!!!!!

 

[Schmide]

Dude I think you might be looking at a non-normalized graph upside down. Although I do believe that the 820d is the price to performance leader, by that graph the 3800x2 is to the right side of the curve. 8O

I did some fuzzy calculations and crash is right.

[code:1:bb8fa52e71] 4200 8.9 400 0.02225
3800 8.4 320 0.02625
830D 8.3 310 0.02677
820D 7.8 240 0.03250[/code:1:bb8fa52e71]

 

[ltcommander_data]

When you're talking price/performance Intel may regain the lead in the top-end again. The Intel 955 Extreme Edition is now to be launched December 27, 2005.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28074

The article saids its late, but its actually ahead of the originally scheduled January 15, 2006 launch. I guess they mean behind performance-wise. While the 955EE looks faster than the X2 4800+ due to its increased clock and increased FSB, it will be eclipsed by the FX-60 when its launched in January 10. I guess the 955EE will only have the raw performance lead for 2 weeks.

What's interesting though is that while the FX-60 looks to be faster, it is also significantly more expensive. The FX-60 will retail around $1199 which is a 20% premium over the 955EE.

"With the price set at $999, Intel is heavily under pricing AMD's FX-60 and 5000+, which will sell for a daunting 20% more. "

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27743

This of course means that Intel will finally reclaim the price/performance lead at the processor top-end.

 

[rettihSlluB]

This of course means that Intel will finally reclaim the price/performance lead at the processor top-end.

Don't make a fool of your self with those statements.

AMD will still remain the price/performance once the FX 60 comes out.
You're forgetting the X2 5000 which will be priced as the currently X2 4800 ($803).

Anyhow, the X2 4800 will decrease in price once those processors arrive next year. IMHO, the real price/performance king will be the X2 4800 since many can overclock it to 2.8 GHz on standard air cooling.

 

[ltcommander_data]

The X2 5000+ looks good but I'm not sure when it'll be released. AMD has been pushing forward the FX-60 launch date in response to Intel constantly moving forward the 955EE. With AMD's focus on the FX-60, the X2 5000+'s launch date hasn't been announced yet as the January 10 day is only for the FX-60.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28083

Most likely the X2 5000+ won't launch until a month later in order to avoid cannibalizing FX-60 sales. The FX-60 is clocked at 2.6GHz and the current X2 4800+ is at 2.4GHz. I haven't heard exactly what features the X2 5000+ will have but it'll probably also be clocked at 2.6GHz and will be differentiated from the FX-60 by having less cache. That would still put their performance levels pretty close, so it'd make sense for AMD to hold off on the X2 5000+.

If you want to take overclocking into consideration, the X2 4800+ isn't the only processor that can clock nicely. Cedar Mills have been shown to clock to 4.5GHz while Presler can clock to 4.25GHz. Both these results were using a stock Intel HSF.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2578&p=3

At least the 65nm process finally restrains the Pentium 4 architecture's heat and power consumption levels. Anandtech has already shown that 90nm processors use 21% more power than their 65nm counterparts. As well, its interesting that although the 955EE has a 266MHz higher clock speed, a 266MHz higher FSB, and double the L2 cache it still runs cooler than the 840EE. While the 840EE heats up to 66C at full load, the 955EE only goes to 61C, an 8% drop.

http://hkepc.com/hwdb/65nm975x-8.htm

This was from earlier in November, so its only using an engineering sample CPU running on an early production i975X motherboard so the actual results should be a bit better.

 

[endyen]

Considering what temps we saw in the stress test, I'd hazard that 61 is not with HT @ at full usage. Put 4 instances of F@H, say 1140 cores on there, and I'd bet the temps passed 61 quite quickly, on thier way up to the 70s. I'd also wager that all cores didn't complete @ the same time.

 

[K8MAN]

Hey Fugger, I'm behind you on that, if they used memory at 200MHz clock and CAS5, they intentionally hadicapped the system by a wide margin.

Also, even with whatever handicap, Intel won the price/performance comparison, way at the bottom with their 820D. Look at the curve, price ramps up much faster than performance for all processors tested, so the cheapest one gives you the most bang for the buck!

First place in bang for the buck: D-820

Second Place in Bang for the Buck: D-830

So even if they didn't purposely handicap the system, Intel still wins the price/performance comparison.

I agree as long as u do everything but game, there is no need for an x2. If u game and multi-task, X2 is the way to go.

 

[Crashman]

A Honda Civic beats a Carrara GT in price to performance ratios.

 

[Unolocogringo]

For years in this forum Ive heard BUY AMD it has the best Price/Performance ratio.
Now Intel has the best Price/Performance ratio, and all I hear is BUY AMD its FASTER.
So basically what I get from this is All the Puppies
Fanbois /Trolls /Monkeys /Lemmings will say buy AMD no matter what.
I think it is funny as hell.
And yes I quite enjoy the occasional Fugger arguements.He may be a Intel Fanboi but at least he knows his hardware. Something I can not say about a lot of the AMD Fanboi's arround here.

All of the above statements are FACTS. If you have a problem with them then you need check yourself in the mirror and see which category you fit in.
The Cnet review is a joke, plain and simple. Lets run the test with a inferior motherboand and terrible memory timings. Our readers are AMD fanbois and need to see the AMD system win by a wide margin

 

[K8MAN]

Once Intel gets something worthwhile out the door you will see the true nature of the Intel fanboys.

 

[Atolsammeek]

Let think here. A year ago when P4 3.4ee came out. Laptop I went for that. Then when my Old computer started having problems I upgraded to a Amd 64 3000+. I pick which out runs best at the time. With fewest Problems at the time.

Like Prescott Heating problems
Or Intel P4 chip 1ghz recall.
And there the Intel Caculation error of frist generation intel.

But amd also had heating problems with the older chips. Amd 2100+ to 3200+

Problems we have on this fourms is people Like Fugger And his well known boyfriend who flames anything Amd.

 

[endyen]

Anyone who thinks Intel has the best price/performance ratio is a fool.
You cant run any of the "D" chips without high end cooling. If you want performance, you have to get high end ram as well.
If you think they are good value, buy them. Nobody who has any sense would.
PS, you Intel fanboys are always welcome here.

 

[Crashman]

I'm going by THEIR OWN CHARTS when I say that. I wouldn't be getting a space heater for my own system.

But if you want to get generic, Intel boxed processors include a noisy cooler, and Corsair XMS2 5400C4 1GB twin packs (2x512MB) cost only $111.

 

[endyen]

Yes, but if asked to build a dual core system, would you put your name on an 820 build?
I would only do it under duress, and I'm sure you are the same.

 

[Crashman]

Probably not unless a P4 dually was specifically requested, and even then with the warning that such a hot processor is going to come with a fairly noisy cooler.

In the summer I can't get my office cool, going with a P4 Dually would require me to add another air conditioner and likely increase my electric bill by whatever 81.6 KW/h cost at peak rates.

 

[Unolocogringo]

So now it is down to personal attacks.
You have nothing to post but insults and bullshit?
When logic ,math and reasoning dosen't come out in favor of AMD you guys really lose it.
Oh and F U. I have AMD and Intel systems at home. Both do what I want them to do. I've never been a fanboi or troll.
But I really like laughing at their blatant stupidity, like your post above.

Oh and if manufacturers had went with BTX as specified by Intel there would not be the heat problems we have now.

 

[Zoron]

When logic ,math and reasoning dosen't come out in favor of AMD you guys really lose it.

*Snicker* I laughed out loud after reading this... and I laughed even harder after reading this next statement:

Oh and F U.

But hey, we're not losing it and are in total control of ourselves here, aren't we?

Yeah, right.

Oh and if manufacturers had went with BTX as specified by Intel there would not be the heat problems we have now.

Talk about bullshit...

It's been discussed before; BTX does have a marginal improvement over ATX for Intel's heat problems. To me, it's more of a band-aid fix and doesn't solve the underlying problem: Intel processors generate too much heat for the performance they offer. If AMD can give you the same or more performance with much less heat... does it really make sense to stick with Intel?

(And that's why I'm ordering an Athlon 64 and a new motherboard to put it in today)

 

[Crashman]

Kind of rediculous that they had to re-design the entire enclosure for one CPU. In fact, had Intel not screwed up their power consumption so badly, we would never have heard of BTX.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

It's been discussed before; BTX does have a marginal improvement over ATX for Intel's heat problems.

Yeah, by making a significant detraction to most GPU's cooling. As if that's a plus.

BTX only serves Scotty's insane heat. For anything else it's crap. :lol: :lol: :lol:

And actually, unless I'm missing something, it also makes kick arse coolers like the xp-120, sonictower, etc. impossible, no?

 

[sledgehammer70]

lol that is why I will never buy Intel ever!!!!! AMD has always been the better choice! even in the Duron Days

 

[slvr_phoenix]

lol that is why I will never buy Intel ever!!!!! AMD has always been the better choice! even in the Duron Days

One word: Northwood. :tongue:

 

[sledgehammer70]

[/quote]One word: Northwood. :tongue:[/quote]

4 words... Piss on a Tree!

it is more like Deadwood now

 

[slvr_phoenix]

4 words... Piss on a Tree!

it is more like Deadwood now

You bring up Duron and you call Northwood dead? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[sledgehammer70]

I never said Duron was better in performance than the Northwood.. i just said it was the better choice. I didn't mean to start an argument

 

[slvr_phoenix]

I never said Duron was better in performance than the Northwood.. i just said it was the better choice. I didn't mean to start an argument

**ROFL** I never said that you said that. I just found it funny that when I mention Northwood you call it dead, but you have no problem mentioning Duron, which has been 'dead' for even longer. :lol: :lol: :lol: