Intel Promises Revolutionary 22nm Technology

[maddy143ded]

[citation][nom]ngoy[/nom]Nothing has to use your processor 100% to show that your processor is outdated. silentpcreview has a perfect article that shows the performance of the sandy bridge core i3 vs the 565 and 555. Yes, in the price arena, amd has intel beat for budget computing. The problem with budget builds is that the margins are so low, Intel has chosen to not compete in the space, and AMD wants market share so badly they've dropped their prices so low they can barely stay in business. An AMD 555+cheapest MB here in the US would be $90+$45=$135 total. A Core i3-2100 + cheapest MB is $125+$60=$185. For that extra $50 though, you get a processor that is on average, more that 33% faster than the AMD X2 555 chip on practically everything and uses almost 50% less power on average.It isn't Intel's fault that the country where you live is not a prime market for mid to high end cpu's. You said yourself that people there are most cost conscious. Which means that mid to high end parts sit on the shelf, hence the computer dealer having to try to sell stuff he already has.Still don't understand the anti-Intel sentiment, if you knew anything about the history of the two companies, the only reason AMD exists to compete in the space was because of an overreaching arbitration that AMD got back in the 80's. Intel has been doing everything in it's power since to squash them, and rightfully so.[/citation]

I went and read the whole article, on silentPC, and quiet frankly I am surprised that they didnt rename the website as Intel Fanboy.com

the reason for this is that the review doesn't take into account that the costliest offering from AMD is still cheaper by 15$ from the cheapest SB. also they don't take into account that AMD doesn't want its dual cores to compete against Intel. it is offering Quad cores to compete with Intel dual-cores.
also not to say anything bad about i3 (frankly i had one for 3-4 days and it was way faster and better then my 555 (not unlocked)). if I had to buy a new computer at this moment I would prefer to buy i5 2400. because that performance cant be beaten at the price range.

also they don't take into account that i3 2100 has an inferior HD2000. there is no mention of graphics comparison. and I am talking about IGP. there are many who have smaller monitors and can use their IGPs for gaming at low resolution.
HD2000 cant beat radeon HD4200 IGP. i used it to test dome old games as well as some new games, crysis 2 was not playeable on hd2000. i can play crysis 2 on hd4200(my current graphics card until i get new SMPS to run my HD5770) quite fine if i reduce the resolution and details to minimum.
also the HD playback on Intel HD2000 was some of the worse i have seen. and i have a comparison on Intel HD2000, AMD Radeon HD4200, Radeon HD5770 and Nvidia 9600GSO. nvidia is best by the way.

there fore the silentpc review is incomplete or biased.

 

[Guest]

tirinti: That has to be the most ignorant post I've ever read, I'll repost it for historic value, future generations will study this post to determine what went wrong with earth's civilization circa 2011:

Tirinti
Intel was able to make Pentium 4 3.8GHz in 2004 with 90nm technology with only 115W TDP. But stupid customers prefered pathetic athlons with lower TDP so intel started making pathetic core2. Now they can make i7 3.8GHz with 95W TDP and customers are happy. I wish nVidia did CPU. They would do 10GHz CPU with 1kW TDP and profesionals would be happy, like we are with GTX 590. Speed requires power!

 

[computertech82]

[citation][nom]previsionist_historian[/nom]tirinti: That has to be the most ignorant post I've ever read, I'll repost it for historic value, future generations will study this post to determine what went wrong with earth's civilization circa 2011:Tirinti Intel was able to make Pentium 4 3.8GHz in 2004 with 90nm technology with only 115W TDP. But stupid customers prefered pathetic athlons with lower TDP so intel started making pathetic core2. Now they can make i7 3.8GHz with 95W TDP and customers are happy. I wish nVidia did CPU. They would do 10GHz CPU with 1kW TDP and profesionals would be happy, like we are with GTX 590. Speed requires power![/citation]

yea, it wan't intellegent at all. Think he/she is stuck on ghz, not calculations per cycle. they have an illusion ghz will magically go faster then calculations per cycle.

 

[sinfulpotato]

TDP does not translate into speed. That is heat that has to be displaced. Generating heat is a BAD THING. The lower the TDP the better. This is why we have chip revisions. For example the P965 was 140 W, now its 125 W.

The fact Nvidia's GPU's generate so much heat is what holds the GPU back. Its a FLAW.

 

[screamer@77]

Yeah, AMD had to pull the hare out of the hat to catch up with Intel. I think they ponder too long on the Athlon 64 success. There bubble burst with the arrival of the 65 nm Core 2 Duo's. Since then AMD are falling behind more and more. It worries me, because Intel will soon have a monopoly and ask ridicules prices for there products. Take there socket change strategy. They change from the LGA 1156 to the LGA 1155 socket in a relative short time. That mean a new mother board if somebody wants to upgrade their CPU. THAT is not nice from Intel.

 

[silverblue]

Well, I guess the rabbit's out of the hat now. Tri-Gate transistors... who'd have thought it?