funeral for AMD

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I think it depends on what hardware is used. In the case of the conroe vs. FX60, they used a completely different hardware setup. That maybe why.
 
yes but fx-60 was overclocked to 2.8ghz... BUT in tomshardware clock speed of fx-60 is default at 2.6ghz..... still the fx-60 at tomshardware is 14fps faster... how can it be??
 
I've already been waiting a year to buy a Conroe. Now I may not be able to get one with everybody wanting one too. 🙁 Is it on pre-order yet?
 
yeah, it looks impressive but:

1) Why AMD processor is identified by AMD Processor model Unknown?

2) Would you blindly believe in benchmarks provided by a processor manufacturer? Obviously they would show only results where they win...

3) Why did intel overclocked FX-60? As far as i know it runs at 2.6 ghz so it would be very close to 2.66 conroe... are they giving amd some advantage or is this just an excuse to some tweaked amd processor or what?

well, i'm being very skeptical... i dont believe in results showed by a manufacturer; worstly, before its products being lauched. But i think competition is good for us consumers. I think all fanboys are retarded, wether amd or intel. They just forget about price/value ratio and seem to believe only in what they want...
I have owned amd chips for the last 4 years coz it has better price/value... but i would definetly swith to intel IF IT HAS A COMPETITIVE PRICE, what is something i haven't seen from intel in these 4 years...

EDIT:
if you read the article right:
"Next up is a Half Life 2 Lost Coast demo, once more an Intel supplied demo but there's only so much you can do to a demo recording to make it favor one CPU maker over another"
Click to expand...






My biggestproblemwith Intel is that they seem to react to AMD and not act. Everytime they have released new chips in the last 3 or 4 years you have to get a new MOBO. AMD has been using the same sockets for those 3 years. AT least the FX60 is an upgrade path, Conroe is not. It rquires all new everything almost.

The higher FSB means better RAM, a new socket and chipset since this Intel server was using FB-DIMMs. now Intel is where AMD was when they were trying to convince companies to use their servers.

Very few customers are going to throw away their Opterons in 3 months. Intel has coaught up but A BIG THING I NOTICED WAS THAT CONROE HAS 145 million more transistors. That's because 65nm lets them put more on the chip. AMD has done much with tweaks on 90nm. If they do hit 65nm this year, then you will see how Intel was able to squeeze so much more out of it. And don't forget K8L with the extra FP registers for server.


This is an exciting time because it was pretty pathetic watching AMD beat the crap out of em for years. I still say that AM2 is worth 30% at least so don't count it out. There still have been no benchmarks for DDR2 800 and the shipping version of the FX62 or Opteron 285885. The Opterons are said to even support DDR2 1066.


The summer will be hot.
 
Cause it wasnt.
I had like 7-10 LANs (dont remember the exact number) since I bought my P4 530 and none of my mates CPUs (3000+, 3200+, (Sempron 2800+), MT-37) was able to offer competition, which leaves me with the conclusion that HT simply is too powerful for any non-HT CPU to beat.
Click to expand...


Well, I had a P4 2.8 and my 3200+ was noticeably snappier, even though the the P4 had 1GB vs 512 MB. But then it was a Dell, which is the business man's cheap toy. I guess if you put it together yourself........

But then, my 3200+ was a Compaq(never again).
 
well i read the article at anandtech and am still sceptical about the new conroe and the merom very simply because intel is comparing their next gen processors with the current gen AMD? is the comparison more like comparing a 2000 season F1 car and a 2002 season F2 car?
 
What about prices, Conroe may beat current AMD processors, but it doesn't matter if your comparing an Intel chip that costs $1000, to an AMD chip that costs $600.
 
The difference could be that the 160fps was using high quality as stated, and the 174 could be standard default quality, which is commonly used to hype up scores but does not reflect the way you play the game.
 
this is it boys .......conroe, intel core microarchitecture equals funeral for amd
Click to expand...

Conroe will NOT put AMD out of business. It looks like it will most likely out-perform AMD at its release time.

If AMD were to go out of business you would have another Microsoft, but it would be called "Intel" and would sell processors. Remember, AMD keeps Intel on its toes and vice-versa.
 
Dude, AMD FX 60 costs right nearly $1100, and you can bet your balls the FX 62 which is not out yet and will cost as much if not more, ~~~ and that is the speed chip that was being tested against conroe, and it was still trailing way behind.
 
These are interesting results without a doubt, notice they are comparing a mid range Conroe CPU with 667MHz mem (not the 800MHz that will it will be launched with), pitted against a future top end FX-62. Now AMD does have Socket AM2 awaiting launch with DDR2, but this is not expected to be a major performance leap, and maybe even a slight hit due to latencies.

This was Intel's 2.66GHz clocked Conroe (a non extreme version using underclocked RAM and not the 3GHz version that will be launched) being benched against AMD's future extreme version dual core FX 2.8GHz!

Clearly it appears that Intel's Conroe is going to come out strong and scale up fast, which may indeed make it one of the best overclockable chips to date, always a plus for enthusiasts!

If anything, it appears the tests were in AMD's favor.
 
I think its more about the fact that INTEL released what amounts to a Press Release and some in the Tech community are treating it like an un-biased test. It was not!
I guess when you’ve starved for so many years a slice of bread looks like a feast.
 
Intel is and has not exactly been starved.
As much as many hate to admit, they make solid workhorses that perform well and continue performing 24/7 as expected.
And if you want the best and fasted notebook, what processor comes to mind?
 
THG is known to be very AMD biased and so is AnandTech, but both sites already crowned ICM the undisputed King of the hill. Hows that?
 
Dude, AMD FX 60 costs right nearly $1100, and you can bet your balls the FX 62 which is not out yet and will cost as much if not more, ~~~ and that is the speed chip that was being tested against conroe, and it was still trailing way behind.
Click to expand...

The top line AMD processor ussualy stay around that $1100 mark. When the FX-Whatever comes out it will most likely be in that $1100 area and the FX-60 price will drop. Intel does the same thing, don't go making up facts.

However, I do agree with you that AMD will have some catching up to do with Conroe and ICM.
 
Actually, this article crowns Intel with nothing but the King Of Lingering Questions.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/08/merom_processor/
 
Dude, AMD FX 60 costs right nearly $1100, and you can bet your balls the FX 62 which is not out yet and will cost as much if not more, ~~~ and that is the speed chip that was being tested against conroe, and it was still trailing way behind.
Click to expand...

Wow what part of CURRENT gen amd vs. NEXT gen intel dont u get. And i doubt that a FX-60 oc to 2.8 = a FX-62.
 
Current generation as amd is not changing their architecure. When conroe is released the amd fx62 will be what it will go up against. It's true that just overclocking the fx60 to 2.8 will not necessarily make it an fx62 but the conroe that was tested was middle of the pack chip not the high end EE which supposedly will be clocked at 3.0.
 
Improvement is good in the world of technology but let me ask you this. If AMD disappears then what? So now the only chip company is Intel. Yay every fanboy is happy now. Who pushes them to make improvements? The consumer can complain and what not but if that is all they are making, tough luck. Then you have a monopoly. No company I would think could enter this race because of the cost involved in setting up this type of business. So let one company die and really see what it does for the consumer. And yes the extreme gamers would "make" Intel push out faster chips. Wrong in a sense. They may release a faster chip but the improvement might be so slight. You would be so hard pressed for a new processor that you would jump on it. They still keep there profits coming in and don't need much R&D.

They both make good chips and you only have two choices anyway. Call me a fanboy of AMD if it makes you happy. I prefer to look at the future and see what that would hold without either company. Zero competition is not good for this business. It is the same argument with ATI and NVIDIA. Take it elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom