Intel regains crown

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Agreed, but nothing stops them from just releasing the CPu on this platform and move to a newer one not too long after. Some Northwood board where able to support prescot, the 955/975 came out afterwards..., I agree its not as abig of a jump but its still posible. As ak47is1337 said, intel can jew with us!
 
Agreed, but nothing stops them from just releasing the CPu on this platform and move to a newer one not too long after. Some Northwood board where able to support prescot, the 955/975 came out afterwards..., I agree its not as abig of a jump but its still posible. As ak47is1337, intel can jew with us!
Click to expand...
wtf? how can i jew with you?
 
It will for sure use the same LGA775, and it may work with the 975X chipset, but whether Intel will let it get recognized on those boards is unknown. There have been rumblings that Conroe would not be supported on 975x boards.

There will be a 965 chipset (like the 945 today) that will run them, and probably an enthusiast "985" too.
 
I hate to borrow someone else's post, but I have to point this one out, I thought it was interesting:

Here's something really interesting that explains what wen't wrong with the AMD setup.
Rahul Sood's weblog

You’ll notice that the image I am referring to on Anandtech's website states that the AMD processor is “unknown” which makes me believe that the bios they are running is outdated. So, I did a bit of digging and low and behold, the DFI bios version “D49C-32” they are running is from 10/11/05. There has been 1 major revision with major fixes that include:

Set Cool 'n' Quiet Default to Disabled

- With Cool & Quiet enabled, AMD processors will throttle in order to save power and bring their thermal load down. This means the processor could be running as low as 800MHz in certain programs – no matter what the program is. In theory Cool & Quiet is supposed to throttle up to maximum in games but this is not always the case. No enthusiast PC goes out with Cool & Quiet enabled unless it’s a fanless machine or media center.

Add Support for AMD Athlon 64 FX60 CPU

- According to DFI the FX-60 will not operate correctly without this bios update. Without official support for the FX-60 CPU I’m not sure what we’re comparing against here.

Fix Memory Timings 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table Error.

- Memory latency can make a massive difference in performance. If the latency was not running at the correct latency we can see a pretty big difference in all kinds of performance. Anandtech stated “The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings…” Apparently this isn’t the case, but they would not be able to tell without having the platform in house.

Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode.
- More apparent performance issues under Crossfire mode.

Next, when you take a future Intel chipset and compare it to a chipset that no enthusiast supports (RD480) with an outdated bios it’s like taking a Ferrari and putting it on Bias-Ply tires. It’s just not a good way to show off a “new” technology.

Had Intel taken an RD580 (Crossfire Xpress 3200) and coupled with the AMD Athlon FX-60 processor they almost certainly would have seen some better numbers just based on the bios issues alone. The ATi Xpress 3200 would have improved the overclocking and decoding performance as well. You don’t need a time machine to jump over to the nearest Newegg and buy the latest parts. It’s almost like Intel took their time machine 6 months ahead while throwing AMD into a time warp set a few months back in time.

So now a few numbers caught my attention based on another email I received last night.

If we go and check out the numbers on Anandtech we’ll see the Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmark showing 160fps on the unknown AMD X2 processor while the Intel Conroe at 2.66GHz came in significantly higher at 191fps.

Though this isn’t exactly conclusive, if you go back and re-read some old FX-57 reviews on Tom’s Hardware you’ll see a benchmark for the same game set at the same resolution, the FX-57 running at 2.8GHz scored 183.4fps. The funny thing is it’s using an Nvidia Geforce 6800 GT which seems to me that something is totally wrong here. Note that a single core Athlon 64 4000 achieved a better score in the benchmark run by Tom (160.5fps) than the one provided by Intel (160.4) at IDF.

AMD still has some big performance gains with AM2, we are talking about a new platform with low latency DDR-2 support along with new processors. While I’d love to tell you how much performance difference this would give you on a clock to clock basis, I’m afraid you’ll have to use your imaginations for now.
Click to expand...
This will teach you not to believe every bullsh!t posted by intel.
 
I hate to borrow someone else's post, but I have to point this one out, I thought it was interesting:

Here's something really interesting that explains what wen't wrong with the AMD setup.
Rahul Sood's weblog

You’ll notice that the image I am referring to on Anandtech's website states that the AMD processor is “unknown” which makes me believe that the bios they are running is outdated. So, I did a bit of digging and low and behold, the DFI bios version “D49C-32” they are running is from 10/11/05. There has been 1 major revision with major fixes that include:

Set Cool 'n' Quiet Default to Disabled

- With Cool & Quiet enabled, AMD processors will throttle in order to save power and bring their thermal load down. This means the processor could be running as low as 800MHz in certain programs – no matter what the program is. In theory Cool & Quiet is supposed to throttle up to maximum in games but this is not always the case. No enthusiast PC goes out with Cool & Quiet enabled unless it’s a fanless machine or media center.

Add Support for AMD Athlon 64 FX60 CPU

- According to DFI the FX-60 will not operate correctly without this bios update. Without official support for the FX-60 CPU I’m not sure what we’re comparing against here.

Fix Memory Timings 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table Error.

- Memory latency can make a massive difference in performance. If the latency was not running at the correct latency we can see a pretty big difference in all kinds of performance. Anandtech stated “The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings…” Apparently this isn’t the case, but they would not be able to tell without having the platform in house.

The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings, while the Intel system used 1GB of DDR2-667 running at 4-4-4. Both systems had a pair of Radeon X1900 XTs running in CrossFire and as far as we could tell, the drivers and the rest of the system setup was identical.
If you look at AMD's performance, it is obvious it was performing on par to a 2.8GHz PC.

Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode.
- More apparent performance issues under Crossfire mode.

Next, when you take a future Intel chipset and compare it to a chipset that no enthusiast supports (RD480) with an outdated bios it’s like taking a Ferrari and putting it on Bias-Ply tires. It’s just not a good way to show off a “new” technology.

I have a RD480 and it is about as enthusiast a board you could get, up till a couple of weeks ago with the RD520 just released.

Had Intel taken an RD580 (Crossfire Xpress 3200) and coupled with the AMD Athlon FX-60 processor they almost certainly would have seen some better numbers just based on the bios issues alone. The ATi Xpress 3200 would have improved the overclocking and decoding performance as well. You don’t need a time machine to jump over to the nearest Newegg and buy the latest parts. It’s almost like Intel took their time machine 6 months ahead while throwing AMD into a time warp set a few months back in time.

I found it surprizing they overclocked the FX-60 200MHz over stock! That is the equivlant of a FX-62, which is a Future Product!

So now a few numbers caught my attention based on another email I received last night.

If we go and check out the numbers on Anandtech we’ll see the Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmark showing 160fps on the unknown AMD X2 processor while the Intel Conroe at 2.66GHz came in significantly higher at 191fps.

Though this isn’t exactly conclusive, if you go back and re-read some old FX-57 reviews on Tom’s Hardware you’ll see a benchmark for the same game set at the same resolution, the FX-57 running at 2.8GHz scored 183.4fps. The funny thing is it’s using an Nvidia Geforce 6800 GT which seems to me that something is totally wrong here. Note that a single core Athlon 64 4000 achieved a better score in the benchmark run by Tom (160.5fps) than the one provided by Intel (160.4) at IDF.

Is that difference due to running on High Quality Mode, not standard mode as the benchmard defaults too?

AMD still has some big performance gains with AM2, we are talking about a new platform with low latency DDR-2 support along with new processors. While I’d love to tell you how much performance difference this would give you on a clock to clock basis, I’m afraid you’ll have to use your imaginations for now.

Hmm, DDR-2 is higher latency than DDR1, and the platform itself is doubtfull to boost performance much, it could even slow it down a bit. The performance comes from more available bandwidth for higher MHz and redesigned chips to take advantage of...
Click to expand...
This will teach you not to believe every bullsh!t posted by intel.

Very true, avoid the bullsh!t allright! :wink:
 
I did a quick check base on F.E.A.R. Since I dont care much for quake4 and I beleive(might be wrong, not really the point anyway) that its a better benchmark. Plus it wasn't pre-loaded by intel...


IDF
RIG
Anand - Conroe VS FX-60
Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz
running on a DFI RD480 motherboard.
The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings
pair of Radeon X1900 XTs

]Anand home test
RIG

ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2x 1GB DDR400 2:3:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStream PSU


Toms hardware Test
RIG
ATI Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition - Reference
ATI Xpress 200, BIOS version 02.58
ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512MB GDDR3 650MHz Core 1.55GHz Memory
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2.8GHz, 1.0GHz Bus, 1MB L2 cache
Corsair CMX1024-4400Pro
2x 1024 MB @ DDR400 (CL3.0-4-4-8)





IDF
Fx-60@ 2.8 - DFI RD480 - 1gig DDR 2-2-2-5(I think) 2X X1900XT - Avg fps in fear 1280X1024, :132

Anand Home
FX-57 2.6ghz - 2gig @ 2-3-2-8 - 133

Toms Hardware
FX-57 2.6ghz-2gig 3-4-4-8 radeon 1900[/b]XTX 145
 
I did a quick check base on F.E.A.R. Since I dont care much for quake4 and I beleive(might be wrong, not really the point anyway) that its a better benchmark. Plus it wasn't pre-loaded by intel...


IDF
RIG
Anand - Conroe VS FX-60
Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz
running on a DFI RD480 motherboard.
The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings
pair of Radeon X1900 XTs

]Anand home test
RIG

ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2x 1GB DDR400 2:3:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStream PSU


Toms hardware Test
RIG
ATI Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition - Reference
ATI Xpress 200, BIOS version 02.58
ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512MB GDDR3 650MHz Core 1.55GHz Memory
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2.8GHz, 1.0GHz Bus, 1MB L2 cache
Corsair CMX1024-4400Pro
2x 1024 MB @ DDR400 (CL3.0-4-4-8)





IDF
Fx-60@ 2.8 - DFI RD480 - 1gig DDR 2-2-2-5(I think) 2X X1900XT - Avg fps in fear 1280X1024, :132

Anand Home
FX-57 2.6ghz - 2gig @ 2-3-2-8 - 133

Toms Hardware
FX-57 2.6ghz-2gig 3-4-4-8 radeon 1900[/b]XTX 145
Click to expand...

Um... the FX57 is a single core, the FX60 is dual core and some games slow down with dual core.
 
Um... the FX57 is a single core, the FX60 is dual core and some games slow down with dual core.
Click to expand...

lol now I have heard all the Fanboy comebacks, that's a classic! I'm adding that to my SIG, that's too priceless! lol

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Um... the FX57 is a single core, the FX60 is dual core and some games slow down with dual core.
Click to expand...

lol now I have heard all the Fanboy comebacks, that's a classic! I'm adding that to my SIG, that's too priceless! lol

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

ah i see u gave up defending heh
 
Um... the FX57 is a single core, the FX60 is dual core and some games slow down with dual core.
Click to expand...

lol now I have heard all the Fanboy comebacks, that's a classic! I'm adding that to my SIG, that's too priceless! lol

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

ah i see u gave up defending heh

I gave up convincing fanboys they're wrong, so I'll just LMAO @ Fanboys that post hillarious posts, LOL

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Well anyways; I think Intel should have benched a 955EE side by side with the Conroe. This way we wouldn't have the constant conspiracy theory going on, and we could still compare it to performance we know.
 
Well anyways; I think Intel should have benched a 955EE side by side with the Conroe. This way we wouldn't have the constant conspiracy theory going on, and we could still compare it to performance we know.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and some Prescotts too. That would be nice.
 
Absolutely. Thats what I said from the start, the gain are more impressive against Intel itself than against any AMD chip, claimed, actual, or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yup. Intel is probably scared to admit they screwed up. However, they did compare it to a 4.1ghz P4, which is a decent comparison.
 
U guys miss the point here.
OK it is really unfair to compare different generations CPU's
And yes, it is stupid to say the least to compare CPU's AMD offers right now, with Intel CPU's that are to be offered in 6 months time (maybe more...Who knows...)
It is also a fact though, that Intel seems to have finally developed a proper CPU. Mhz isn't everything and that CPU proves it. So Intel basically followed the path AMD follows for years now concerning the MHz (or GHz if u prefer) battle.
Some things need to be considered though. M2 is not out yet! And although we have some ideas from previews, the result might be compelety different!

Also it is so very wrong to say that Intel has the crown because they have a good CPU that will be released in 6 months!

When this new CPU is released, if it surpasses the AMD CPU that will be on the market in 6 months, then yes, Intel will regain the crown! For now, and for the next 6 months the crown belongs to AMD since its CPU's are way faster!

Finally, you must also consider the price!
What if in 6 months, the Intel CPU offers 5-10% performance gain over the AMD M2 one, but the Intel one costs 600$ and the AMD one costs 400$.
The Intel one will have the lead in performance...But which one is better to buy???

Proce will be a factor and AMD has successfully used this factor in the past. I believe they will again, if they have to!
 
Well, I bet they didn't do that as they would sell very few desktop CPUs until the Conroes came out. Beating up on AMD doesn't make Intel look bad, but proving that their OWN current line is even worse does.

You always have to remember the bottom line!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom