Intel Fanboys still waiting for Conroe

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It looks like Intel Fanboys are coming out of the closet !!
As for running KDE, OSX, etc, I will rather do that in in a Vista VM window instead of a multi-boot system.

The only thing needed to make me Linux forever was having good games run on Linux. To bad that never happend. Maybe have the OSX be 100% Linux, not just "Linux-like" can help boost Linux stuff.
 
lol i also noticed the conroe has beaten the xeons... wouldn't that be a little "weird" for intel to launch a better product on a home market than on the commercial market ?

oh and opterons are still before the conroe so...
it's not the best

i doubt conroe will be as good as announced.

every tests shows it beats fx-60 in dual core operation... and that's why EVERY games were run with max resolution, max details AND dual monitoring... i'm certain that cpu won't give anything if running without the proper multitask applications.

intel worked alot with hyperthreading and multitask operations.
they know how to optimize a cpu for it
amd worked at virtualization and this will rock any form of multitasking.
 
This is my first post in these forums but I've visited this website for years. First of all I will say I'm not a fanboy of either brand all I want is the best hardware I can buy at the best price. I currently have a computer that I built myself and am currently in the process of building another. The computer I have now is an AMD system, what path I'm going to take with the one I'm building is still up in the air.

It consits of a Lian Li pcv1000 black windowed case with an Antec Neo 550 watt power supply, 3 hard drives two 100 gb sata maxtors, 150 gb raptor, and a dual layer burner. I'm holding out on a dx10 graphics card and trying to decide between AM2 and Conroe.

I am very excited about conroe and hope it lives up to the benchmarks that have been posted around the web. The only thing that worries me about Intel is everytime they roll out a new processor you have to get a new motherboard. AMD has been much better about supporting new processors with current available chipsets. It will be a tough decision for me to make, and probably for others as well. When AM2 and Conroe are out I will make my decision based on if Intel's conroe is really as good as Intel claims, and weigh that against knowing I will probably have more of an upgrade path with the AMD based system.

It will be a very hard decision I am sure.
 
humm.. i know i'm the dullest, but not when you are around.

Now that's a bulletproof comeback, definately on par with I know you are but what am I? :roll:


If you want to flame each other, please start your own thread.
 
But even when the Intel CPU is overclocked at 4.26 GHz, the dualcore Athlon 64 FX processors still offer better results for most applications. Sure, the new Extreme Edition CPU is competitive, but it does not outperform the Athlon 64 FX-60, even at 3.73 GHz.


Costs a grand too..

I disagree with you posting in this fashion. Of course Intel fanboys are waiting for the next big thing. I sick of looking at the same FX-60 benchmarks and I'm waiting for the next big thing from AMD.

What's up with the immature "AMD pwns Intel" junk? The fact is that even though AMD has an edge with their FX-60 it is a very small edge. AMD is superior by a matter of a few frames per second, they are not blowing Intel out of the water.

If Intel delivers the numbers they have promised it will be enough to convert those of us who are truly performance fanboys over to Intel. However, if Intel fails to deliver or if AMD turns it up a notch I think you'll see some Intel boys starting to buy AMD.

Also, you describe Conroe as costing over $1000, NOT TRUE. The Conroe we saw benchmarked will be in a reasonable price range ($300-$500 I believe). They will have other, faster processors that will cost more than the 2.66ghz one we saw.
 
But even when the Intel CPU is overclocked at 4.26 GHz, the dualcore Athlon 64 FX processors still offer better results for most applications. Sure, the new Extreme Edition CPU is competitive, but it does not outperform the Athlon 64 FX-60, even at 3.73 GHz.


Costs a grand too..

I disagree with you posting in this fashion. Of course Intel fanboys are waiting for the next big thing. I sick of looking at the same FX-60 benchmarks and I'm waiting for the next big thing from AMD.

What's up with the immature "AMD pwns Intel" junk? The fact is that even though AMD has an edge with their FX-60 it is a very small edge. AMD is superior by a matter of a few frames per second, they are not blowing Intel out of the water.

If Intel delivers the numbers they have promised it will be enough to convert those of us who are truly performance fanboys over to Intel. However, if Intel fails to deliver or if AMD turns it up a notch I think you'll see some Intel boys starting to buy AMD.

Also, you describe Conroe as costing over $1000, NOT TRUE. The Conroe we saw benchmarked will be in a reasonable price range ($300-$500 I believe). They will have other, faster processors that will cost more than the 2.66ghz one we saw.

That's the same thing I read ~$500 for the baddest Conroe. I was just about to convert to AMD until I saw the price of the Conroe. I may still convert if I run out of patience.
 
But even when the Intel CPU is overclocked at 4.26 GHz, the dualcore Athlon 64 FX processors still offer better results for most applications. Sure, the new Extreme Edition CPU is competitive, but it does not outperform the Athlon 64 FX-60, even at 3.73 GHz.


Costs a grand too..

I disagree with you posting in this fashion. Of course Intel fanboys are waiting for the next big thing. I sick of looking at the same FX-60 benchmarks and I'm waiting for the next big thing from AMD.

What's up with the immature "AMD pwns Intel" junk? The fact is that even though AMD has an edge with their FX-60 it is a very small edge. AMD is superior by a matter of a few frames per second, they are not blowing Intel out of the water.

If Intel delivers the numbers they have promised it will be enough to convert those of us who are truly performance fanboys over to Intel. However, if Intel fails to deliver or if AMD turns it up a notch I think you'll see some Intel boys starting to buy AMD.

Also, you describe Conroe as costing over $1000, NOT TRUE. The Conroe we saw benchmarked will be in a reasonable price range ($300-$500 I believe). They will have other, faster processors that will cost more than the 2.66ghz one we saw.

That's the same thing I read ~$500 for the baddest Conroe. I was just about to convert to AMD until I saw the price of the Conroe. I may still convert if I run out of patience.

Ummm this was about the 3.73 EE chip which is supposed to hold you over until conroe's release not about conroe.
 
where are the results to prove your statements? We have discussed this ad naseam, here is the article from anandtech, I do not know if this is the revised version, either way here it is

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713


Pricing of Conroe is estimated at 500, 315, 241, 189.
Face it Intel came out with a good product as far as we can tell, quite the flamboy crap, I do not want a repeat of the first couple days after Conroe results came out.
 
Oh but you are the dullest. Be proud of it.
Not tryin to harm u or something, but have u ever said something interesting on these forums? Because all of your replies I've seen is to insult people or sayin sh*t. All of them are empty posts. Sorry.
 
is it just me or this AMD fanboy doesnt know what conroe is?

Conroe will smash AMD's prices down so we can all get a FX60 at mid range prices have a think bout it - no matter how you put it, performance of either a P4 or A64 are around the same area, bang for the buck matters more.

Is there some kind of keyboard virus here or something? spewing bs all over the web like a fanboy virus, dam morons.