"Core 2 Duo -- The Embarrassing Secrets"?

[turpit]

That and the whole company perveracating, and misleading people ,and launching underperforming chips and doing soft launches when the say they dont. the whole disappointing ball of wax.

AMD doesnt soft launch. I know it for fact because they said so.

 

[Viperabyss]

Yes, because insisting that competition is good for us is "VERY biased" :roll:

Go read his comments... all pro-AMD. Always criticizing Core 2 Duo and always praising the so called superior AMD motherboards.
no offense, but i wouldn't categorize that as fanboyism...
i haven't read his posts on AMDzone, but i'm sure he wouldn't post something very different from what he posts here.

he can criticize Core 2, if he can provide facts to back them up. the real fanbois would be the ones who posted the "appreciation threads" this morning, where he did not cite anything to back his statements up. that's pure fanboyism.

criticizing, and backing it up with facts and benchmarks, is an act of debate, not fanboyism.

 

[epsilon84]

That and the whole company perveracating, and misleading people ,and launching underperforming chips and doing soft launches when the say they dont. the whole disappointing ball of wax.

AMD doesnt soft launch. I know it for fact because they said so.

They also have the fastest current CPUs. I don't even know why they need to bring out K10, since their K8 line is already faster than C2D!
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041%5E13077%5E14820,00.html

And before you Intel fanboys argue, this is straight from AMD, the epitome of 'smarter, consumer centric' products. They would never lie about their performance. All they care about is the consumer, not their bottom line, which is why they bled 611M for you ungrateful brats last quarter! :lol:

Bottom line - AMD, smarter choice. Intel users are dumbasses. Sharikou is right, Intel users have lower IQ! :lol:

Disclaimer: Satirical information, best consumed with a truckload of salt

 

[dasickninja]

I seriously can't believe they used a P945 board to test performance of Core chips. Talk about a handicap.

 

[Egon]

I wish JumpingJack had a blog.

 

[dragonsprayer]

what a noob! lol 2.93 exceeds its ...... lol!

that guy should be shot!

 

[Rripperr]

Amazingly enough, I was re-reading earlier today anandtech's review of the Core Duo vs. K8 Uarch from last August (before I saw this post).

Scientia has it all wrong. C2D has a totally reworked data assembly and execution scheme that borrows heavily from the Pentuim Pro (P6) and Yonah lines. It borrows the best of both, then further updates and refines both. Arguing what C2D would or would not be without the large L2 cache is pointless, as it is specifically designed to exploit it to the fullest. AMD, on the other hand, choose to go with smaller cache, and faster memory calls with it's intergrated memory controller. They're both unique solutions to the execution of data calls and storage. For smaller recursive programming, which includes a lot of games and multimedia, C2D (with better SSE support and execution) does better on a clock-for-clock basis. In applications that use alot of memory read/writing from (non-cache) memory, or use a lot of integer calculations, the X2 does somewhat better.

Trying to argue that C2D wouldn't be so good without the larger L2 cache, is like arguing that a '68 Corvette wouldn't be so so good with a 327 engine, instead of the 427. DUH!!! And the X2 line wouldn't be so good without it's IMC.

And as far as the 'claim' that the C2D is "exceeding the thermal limits of it's 65nm Uarch" is complete and utter B$. Obviously, whoever they are has a complete lack of understanding in how heat generation and dissapation works in micro-circurts. The C2D runs cooler than the K8 products at 65nm, even though Intel came out 3 months BEFORE AMD. So if Intel's bad, you definitely shouldn't buy the new Brisbanes- they still run hotter than similarly clocked C2D's.

Plus, this 'tries' to discount one of the C2D's biggest advantages.. headroom. The C2D has some of the best OC'ing room in just about any processor invented so far. Speeds of 3.0 Ghz with a stock fan. And 3.2-3.4 with just about any after-market HSF, better ones reach 3.6 . With water-cooling, the speeds reach from 3.8 to 4.0 Ghz. As far as I know, I've never heard of any AMD OC'ing to 4.0 Ghz with anything less than liqiud nitrogen and a heavily modded mobo.

 

[Rripperr]

The C2D runs cooler than the K8 products at 65nm, even though Intel came out 3 months BEFORE AMD. So if Intel's bad, you definitely shouldn't buy the new Brisbanes- they still run hotter than similarly clocked C2D's.

Timeline is off by 9 months,,,actually 11 ,months .the D series came out on 65nm in oct 05, core mobile dec 05.

nice counter sarcasm on brisbane, I think youre probably close on the heat but the difference isnt that great from one to another. My cpu idles around 30's and 40'c and only when i run orthos or prime will it go above 50.
Just out of oblivion my temps are 45-50. depending on ambient temps.

I know, I was just refering to the C2D though. Didn't want to confuse anybody. 8)
Still, I hope most would agree with my logic and analogies..

 

[xpresso]

Remember the sexually ambiguous it charachter on SNL? Pat? thats who bytch is. Not a fanboy or fangirl ,its a maniacle 'IT'. A Fannit. unless you have a better word.

that's funny i forgot about Pat from SNL

 

[immagikman]

My two cents Re: the OP.

The article was written by a hopeless AMD Fanboi. C2 Duo has proven itself in the games not just in benchmarks. Intel beat AMD's best offering...and now with AMD floundering and on the brink of real financial problems the guy is just trying to create a fantasy universe for himself.

 

[cryogenic]

My two cents Re: the OP.

The article was written by a hopeless AMD Fanboi. C2 Duo has proven itself in the games not just in benchmarks. Intel beat AMD's best offering...and now with AMD floundering and on the brink of real financial problems the guy is just trying to create a fantasy universe for himself.

Well it seem you twisted it's article in almost every posible way. I dint' saw in his article a place where he said that X2 is beter than C2D. I simply says that the press is lacking some bencmarks like heavy thread loading of cores.

 

[epsilon84]

My two cents Re: the OP.

The article was written by a hopeless AMD Fanboi. C2 Duo has proven itself in the games not just in benchmarks. Intel beat AMD's best offering...and now with AMD floundering and on the brink of real financial problems the guy is just trying to create a fantasy universe for himself.

Well it seem you twisted it's article in almost every posible way. I dint' saw in his article a place where he said that X2 is beter than C2D. I simply says that the press is lacking some bencmarks like heavy thread loading of cores.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=12

 

[cryogenic]

My two cents Re: the OP.

The article was written by a hopeless AMD Fanboi. C2 Duo has proven itself in the games not just in benchmarks. Intel beat AMD's best offering...and now with AMD floundering and on the brink of real financial problems the guy is just trying to create a fantasy universe for himself.

Well it seem you twisted it's article in almost every posible way. I dint' saw in his article a place where he said that X2 is beter than C2D. I simply says that the press is lacking some bencmarks like heavy thread loading of cores.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=12

That is hardly what I was expecting. I wan't multiple tasks to test multitasking not just multithreaded applications. If a multicore CPU's strong poit is multi tasking (as in multiple tasks, not necesarily multithreded applications) than I would definetly want to see some test backign up that claim. I don't expect X2 to beat C2D in those tests but I do wan't to see the scaling for each.

 

[epsilon84]

My two cents Re: the OP.

The article was written by a hopeless AMD Fanboi. C2 Duo has proven itself in the games not just in benchmarks. Intel beat AMD's best offering...and now with AMD floundering and on the brink of real financial problems the guy is just trying to create a fantasy universe for himself.

Well it seem you twisted it's article in almost every posible way. I dint' saw in his article a place where he said that X2 is beter than C2D. I simply says that the press is lacking some bencmarks like heavy thread loading of cores.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=12

That is hardly what I was expecting. I wan't multiple tasks to test multitasking not just multithreaded applications. If a multicore CPU's strong poit is multi tasking (as in multiple tasks, not necesarily multithreded applications) than I would definetly want to see some test backign up that claim. I don't expect X2 to beat C2D in those tests but I do wan't to see the scaling for each.

Dude, they are mixing Blu-Ray playback (very CPU intensive but single threaded) with multithreaded apps such as media encoding and 3d rendering.

That was under the title of 'multitasking', I'm not sure what you're after exactly. Perhaps a list of programs you want tested would be good, I've seen other sites like Xbitlabs use different programs/scenarios to test multitasking.

 

[InteliotInside]

...AMDZone?

 

[apache_lives]

Well, Scientia might be around here lurking, but the article he posted on his blog is kind of interesting to say the least. I think its a good read and a good way to exercise our powers of deduction and reasoning. with that said, please reply thoughtfully to the thread and leave the bashing out.

Although Core 2 Duo has been impressive since its introduction last year, a veil of secrecy has remained in place which has prevented a true understanding of the chip's capabilities. This has been reminiscent of The Wizard Of Oz with analysts and enthusiasts insisting we ignore what's behind the curtain. However, we can now see that some of C2D's prowess is just as imaginary as the giant flaming wizard.

The two things that Intel would rather you not know about Core 2 Duo are that it has been tweaked for benchmarks rather than for real code, and that at 2.93 Ghz it is exceeding its thermal limits on the 65nm process. I'm sure both of these things will come as a surprise to many but the evidence is at Tom's Hardware Guide, Xbitlabs, and Anandtech. But, although the information is very clear, no one has previously called any attention to it. Core 2 Duo roughly doubles the SSE performance of K8, Core Duo, and P4D. This is no minor accomplishment and Intel deserves every bit of credit for this. For SSE intensive applications, C2D is a grand slam home run. However, the great majority of consumer applications are more dependent on integer performance than floating point performance and this is where the smoke and mirrors have been in full force. There is no doubt that Core 2 Duo is faster than K8 at the same clock. The problem has been in finding out how much faster. Estimates have ranged from 5% to 40% faster. Unfortunately, most of the hardware review sites have shown no desire to narrow this range.

read the rest:
http://scientiasblog.blogspot.com/
© Scientia from AMDZone, April 15 2007

Comments?

Edited to save my ass from a copyright violation charge.

who gives?

aslong as its faster, colder (efficent) and within reason (price wise) i dont care - it ripps in games, it ripps in video editing, if this is "wrong" and somehow "cheating" then call me the devil.

Beating AMD is not cheating.

So fanboy, answer me this by picking one of the following, cause one of them is true: :lol:

1) AMD is slower then Intel
2) Intel is faster then AMD

 

[r0ck]

Well it seem you twisted it's article in almost every posible way. I dint' saw in his article a place where he said that X2 is beter than C2D. I simply says that the press is lacking some bencmarks like heavy thread loading of cores.

Surely there is some real world app that would represent that kind of work load. No? Oh.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx_12.html

Perhaps these apps aren't memory intensive or very threaded, but it's at least a RW situation.

 

[Mandrake_]

Beating AMD is not cheating.

Haven't you been paying attention? Core 2 Duo is a 'one trick pony': Cache. Intel designed C2D for benchmarks only. Benchmarks are unimportant anyway, since they don't reflect real world usage. Hardware sites like Xbitlabs, Anandtech and THG are all paid Intel pumpers.

Or so Sharikou, Scinetia etc. would like you to believe. :lol:

 

[xpresso]

Too bad when I was a kid there wasn't a guy in our class that everybody called the "Cricket Boy", because I would have liked to stand up in class and tell everybody, "You can make fun of the Cricket Boy if you want to, but to me he's just like everybody else." Then everybody would leave the Cricket Boy alone, and I'd invite him over to spend the night at my house, but after about five minutes of that loud chirping I'd have to kick him out. Maybe later we could get up a petition to get the Cricket Family run out of town. Bye, Bye, Cricket Boy you a-hole.

WTF??????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: How hilariously pointless to the thread. :lol: :lol: still laughing . :lol: :lol:

This is about the funniest most original mumbling I've read in a long time!!!!!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy:

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Yes, because insisting that competition is good for us is "VERY biased" :roll:

Go read his comments... all pro-AMD. Always criticizing Core 2 Duo and always praising the so called superior AMD motherboards.
no offense, but i wouldn't categorize that as fanboyism...
i haven't read his posts on AMDzone, but i'm sure he wouldn't post something very different from what he posts here.

he can criticize Core 2, if he can provide facts to back them up. the real fanbois would be the ones who posted the "appreciation threads" this morning, where he did not cite anything to back his statements up. that's pure fanboyism.

criticizing, and backing it up with facts and benchmarks, is an act of debate, not fanboyism.

Neither have I. I've never called him a fanboy. I believe it was Dasickninja who brought about that word.

I called him biased.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

That and the whole company perveracating, and misleading people ,and launching underperforming chips and doing soft launches when the say they dont. the whole disappointing ball of wax.

AMD doesnt soft launch. I know it for fact because they said so.

They also have the fastest current CPUs. I don't even know why they need to bring out K10, since their K8 line is already faster than C2D!
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041%5E13077%5E14820,00.html

And before you Intel fanboys argue, this is straight from AMD, the epitome of 'smarter, consumer centric' products. They would never lie about their performance. All they care about is the consumer, not their bottom line, which is why they bled 611M for you ungrateful brats last quarter! :lol:

Bottom line - AMD, smarter choice. Intel users are dumbasses. Sharikou is right, Intel users have lower IQ! :lol:

Disclaimer: Satirical information, best consumed with a truckload of salt

Now that's a Misleading test.

First of all it states..
"AMD Athlon 64 Processor Benchmark"

So from that you'd gather it's a CPU test.. but the catch is the line right under...

"Desktop UMA (intergrated graphics) Platform Performance - Overall Performance"

So it's actually an onboard Video test.. LMAO.

 

[halbhh]

[ ....

Unethical is not bad,illegal is bad. Unethical is also the IDF pamphlets. AMD has its history of unethical too. They just havent traversed the same path of illegalities yet.

Vern, it may be a different life experience, being older, or only just being influenced by different folks, but unethical has always been "bad" (that is undesirable and a fault) since as long as I can remember. I wonder if you only just switched your view to "unethical is not bad". Just looking at that, doesn't it make you do a double take? Sometimes it's possible that a group of people will lead themselves into rather dispicable behaviour, over time. History has a lot of examples. One of the things that happens is that words take on new meaning.

All that aside, I wouldn't say Intel was unethical (since I use to word to denote actually evil actions). Instead I'd say it simply tried to prevent competition, instead of allowing it. If you made a product and your competitor went to all the re-sellers and paid them kickbacks to sell either none or very small amounts of your product, with non-disclosure agreements, you'd think of them as....______?

I supposed I'd say cowards and liers, etc. But I couldn't call them unethical by my use of words. Unethical is still bad here in this house.

But that was then for Intel (2005, etc). Now Intel is on top for the moment, and doesn't need to do it, and has a spotlight on them, etc.

But....having been in business actually, my personal subjective reaction is I'd rather buy at a significant cost disadvantage to avoid the cowardly lying company. I just don't want to do business with them.

That's at the same time that I admire their products, their great engineering, and the beneficial effects of their competion when I do buy. So I like Intel, while I will not do business with them.

Some folks here would have it that I'm a bad person in some way because I state and have a personal preference that isn't their own, or isn't based on the same criteria as theirs. But "Freedom" is the opposite of this. Finally, some try to smear those who have different opinions, and that is indeed cowardly and lying both, isn't it?

Don't be afraid of such people, for your own self-respect, I say!

 

[rodney_ws]

You want a comment on the vile piece of trash?

And I'm saying this from a centrist viewpoint. First of all how can a processor be made to give benchmarked applications a boost? If the processor gives the applications a boost under a test, testing the application then it will undoubtably give the application a boost when performing it's normal routine duties.

I think the "author" (I use that term loosely) of the "article" (again, I'm being generous) was trying to state that the C2D line of processors was built to excel at benchmarks instead of actual applications. Think of stuff like 3DMark... sure, we all want higher scores, but that's not an actual game any of us play. I think that's where he was going with that.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

You want a comment on the vile piece of trash?

And I'm saying this from a centrist viewpoint. First of all how can a processor be made to give benchmarked applications a boost? If the processor gives the applications a boost under a test, testing the application then it will undoubtably give the application a boost when performing it's normal routine duties.

I think the "author" (I use that term loosely) of the "article" (again, I'm being generous) was trying to state that the C2D line of processors was built to excel at benchmarks instead of actual applications. Think of stuff like 3DMark... sure, we all want higher scores, but that's not an actual game any of us play. I think that's where he was going with that.

I know... but it excels in applications moreso then it does in 3D Mark or other synthetic tests. He used the term "benchmark". Benchmarking can be a test of any degree, real world or synthetic. Therefore he's claiming ALL tests done on the C2D are fake.

 

[tamalero]

This is so pointless.
1. How can INTEL optimize the CPU for better benchmark results??????
2. Why is the E6300+ are better than ANY AMD CPU in price/preforming?
3. Intel's architecture is much better than AMD (Look at the Penryn vs. Barc benchmarks)
3. Like others have said this guy is a fanboy

sometimes stuff can be dirty
you forgot how Nvidia had drivers specially optimized for 3dmark once? XD
companies whant your money, and at all costs anyway :|