Intel regains crown

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Seems interesting to me that nobody has mentioned the most immediate benefit to come from a 64bit processor....


More addressable memory. The old standard was 3.5 to 4GB. I think there are boards out now that can handle up to 16GB per processor. Seems like something that would be useful when computing large numbers or processor multiple files at once. Again it may not be used by very many people, but you can gain this advantage even using 32bit OS's.

P.S. put me down as someone who will be skeptical until I see both of the new generation architechures for AMD and Intel before I "Crown" the new king.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs more than 2 gigs of ram.
 
Merom will retain good battery life, he claimed. Conroe will give a 40 per cent improvement in performance with a 40 per cent reduction in power, he said. He reckons Woodcrest will give an 80 per cent improvement in performance and a 35 per cent reduction in power
- http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30111
Click to expand...
Inquirer is BS and so is any exec. But, the review speaks for itself.

Ine INQ has been right about Conroe. It's been right about the 7900gt. There are real moles working thier, with real info.
 
While that is true, there is really no need for any more than 2 gigs of RAM these days. Unless your doing some heavy decoding or graphics, there really is no need.

You are right though. Good point
 
Right now I’m on an AMD rig and its working great for me. Once it comes time for me to upgrade I can say with a 100% certainty I will go with what ever system will have the best price for the performance that falls into my budget at that time be it AMD or Intel.

Besides you always need good competition to promote growth and innovation, and with AMD taking Intel’s market, now Intel wants it back so they are gonna fight for it, but AMD sure as hell wont just give it up. Even though fanboy arguments are generally hated by everyone, it’s our job as consumers to play both ends against each other so that we get the best possible product for our money, and sadly fanboy arguments keep that going. Its kinda like ying and yang, you gotta have the black and the white to have a whole.
 
That's true. The thing is, I've always been an Intel enthusiast from the start. I never even thought of using AMD until one day, I was at a LAN party and saw how they performed. It was at that point, I built my first system using AMD.

I've never been one to be on anybodys bandwagon or watch benchmark results as, I usually don't believe in them at all. Its real world testing that matters to me.

Now, I have an opteron system and it is quite a bit quicker than my current Intel rig. Its good to have diversity and never be one sided. If you want to cheer for your brand, that's fine but just be respectful. The thing that bothers me the most is, people start calling each other names and for what? over two processor brands. How silly is that?
 
Seems interesting to me that nobody has mentioned the most immediate benefit to come from a 64bit processor....


More addressable memory. The old standard was 3.5 to 4GB. I think there are boards out now that can handle up to 16GB per processor. Seems like something that would be useful when computing large numbers or processor multiple files at once. Again it may not be used by very many people, but you can gain this advantage even using 32bit OS's.

P.S. put me down as someone who will be skeptical until I see both of the new generation architechures for AMD and Intel before I "Crown" the new king.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs more than 2 gigs of ram.

Riiiiiight.

And nobody needs more than a 1GHz Pentium III.

For about 90% of home users you are probably correct, but there are certain instances where it could be useful or even required.

I work in the Copier/Digital Document Mangament industry. We have a Scan Server software that the minimum build for operation is 2GB. That is the minimum. So yes there are applications that would require larger amounts of RAM.

I am surprised that someone championing Intel for producing the latest, greatest processor that is the be-all-end-all for high end performance, would make such a narrow and definitive comment.
 
Seems interesting to me that nobody has mentioned the most immediate benefit to come from a 64bit processor....


More addressable memory. The old standard was 3.5 to 4GB. I think there are boards out now that can handle up to 16GB per processor. Seems like something that would be useful when computing large numbers or processor multiple files at once. Again it may not be used by very many people, but you can gain this advantage even using 32bit OS's.

P.S. put me down as someone who will be skeptical until I see both of the new generation architechures for AMD and Intel before I "Crown" the new king.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs more than 2 gigs of ram.

Riiiiiight.

And nobody needs more than a 1GHz Pentium III.

For about 90% of home users you are probably correct, but there are certain instances where it could be useful or even required.

I work in the Copier/Digital Document Mangament industry. We have a Scan Server software that the minimum build for operation is 2GB. That is the minimum. So yes there are applications that would require larger amounts of RAM.

I am surprised that someone championing Intel for producing the latest, greatest processor that is the be-all-end-all for high end performance, would make such a narrow and definitive comment.

I meant typical desktop use. Of course more than 2 gig's is a prerequisite for certain uses; but in the general scheme of things, it's relatively rare.
 
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=2

Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz (1067MHz FSB) on an Intel 975X motherboard.
Click to expand...

look on the link, it clearly says that they set up an FX-60, but the images on benchmark representations shows conroe over X2.... which is designed for multitasking, not for gaming!!!


BIASED BENCHMARK! i hope THG soon create their own and much FAIRER benchmark...
 
I've never been one to be on anybodys bandwagon or watch benchmark results as, I usually don't believe in them at all. Its real world testing that matters to me.

...If you want to cheer for your brand, that's fine but just be respectful. The thing that bothers me the most is, people start calling each other names and for what? over two processor brands. How silly is that?
Click to expand...

I also don’t put too much faith in benchmarks but I do always make a point to read them, but mostly ask others about their real world experience with a product. I love newegg’s user responses put right in with the product page, those help me to narrow down the field of perspective products quickly.

Also I read your opty 165 overclocking post, it is also very intelligent and informative post. I recommend it to anyone interested in any type of ocing that has no experiance

Now if fanboys could only learn to debate, not argue we would be set.
 
AT had one hour with the two systems. They would have realised that something was wrong.
That there is a FX and it behaves like a FX. Your statement fails.
 
Seems interesting to me that nobody has mentioned the most immediate benefit to come from a 64bit processor....


More addressable memory. The old standard was 3.5 to 4GB. I think there are boards out now that can handle up to 16GB per processor. Seems like something that would be useful when computing large numbers or processor multiple files at once. Again it may not be used by very many people, but you can gain this advantage even using 32bit OS's.

P.S. put me down as someone who will be skeptical until I see both of the new generation architechures for AMD and Intel before I "Crown" the new king.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs more than 2 gigs of ram.


Riiiiiight.

And nobody needs more than a 1GHz Pentium III.

For about 90% of home users you are probably correct, but there are certain instances where it could be useful or even required.

I work in the Copier/Digital Document Mangament industry. We have a Scan Server software that the minimum build for operation is 2GB. That is the minimum. So yes there are applications that would require larger amounts of RAM.

I am surprised that someone championing Intel for producing the latest, greatest processor that is the be-all-end-all for high end performance, would make such a narrow and definitive comment.

I meant typical desktop use. Of course more than 2 gig's is a prerequisite for certain uses; but in the general scheme of things, it's relatively rare.

Okay again. I conceded that 90% and I might even go as high as 95% of users will never need more than 2GB of RAM.

Your comment was that Nobody needs more than 2GB of RAM. That is not true even of home desktop users. There are people doing video editing, massive compiling, and or 3D rendering that might need more than 2GB of RAM. I know of some people making custom content for a video game, in their free time at home, who have 4GB of RAM and a high end Quatro video card.
 
The world knows conroe is the best, and some still have thier heads in the sand. Real bechmarks, the FX did very well.

Vista uses 800mb at idle. You will need 4gb to play BF2!

FS: FX60, almost new, $150.
 
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=2

Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz (1067MHz FSB) on an Intel 975X motherboard.
Click to expand...

look on the link, it clearly says that they set up an FX-60, but the images on benchmark representations shows conroe over X2.... which is designed for multitasking, not for gaming!!!


BIASED BENCHMARK! i hope THG soon create their own and much FAIRER benchmark...
The FX60 is just an better made Toledo core Retard. The difference between an FX60 underclocked to an X2 4800 is non-existant.
 
yes, I think we can all agree that its not really fair to have Intel setup their own in house test machines. I mean after all, it is their show right? I mean, why would Intel setup these test machines? How dare they!

Anandtech IMO, is usually one site that shows its true colors in favor of AMD. You can't discredit them for saying the following though ...

F.E.A.R. Performance

F.E.A.R. gets its own page for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only gaming benchmark that we're using that doesn't use an Intel provided demo. This is the same demo we use in our tests.
Click to expand...

With that, I rest my case.
 
Seems interesting to me that nobody has mentioned the most immediate benefit to come from a 64bit processor....


More addressable memory. The old standard was 3.5 to 4GB. I think there are boards out now that can handle up to 16GB per processor. Seems like something that would be useful when computing large numbers or processor multiple files at once. Again it may not be used by very many people, but you can gain this advantage even using 32bit OS's.

P.S. put me down as someone who will be skeptical until I see both of the new generation architechures for AMD and Intel before I "Crown" the new king.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs more than 2 gigs of ram.


Riiiiiight.

And nobody needs more than a 1GHz Pentium III.

For about 90% of home users you are probably correct, but there are certain instances where it could be useful or even required.

I work in the Copier/Digital Document Mangament industry. We have a Scan Server software that the minimum build for operation is 2GB. That is the minimum. So yes there are applications that would require larger amounts of RAM.

I am surprised that someone championing Intel for producing the latest, greatest processor that is the be-all-end-all for high end performance, would make such a narrow and definitive comment.

I meant typical desktop use. Of course more than 2 gig's is a prerequisite for certain uses; but in the general scheme of things, it's relatively rare.

Okay again. I conceded that 90% and I might even go as high as 95% of users will never need more than 2GB of RAM.

Your comment was that Nobody needs more than 2GB of RAM. That is not true even of home desktop users. There are people doing video editing, massive compiling, and or 3D rendering that might need more than 2GB of RAM. I know of some people making custom content for a video game, in their free time at home, who have 4GB of RAM and a high end Quatro video card.

2GB doesn't help as much you'd think. For gaming, it hardly comes in handy, and even in powerful industrial uses it isn't always necessary.
 
I'm non-partisan to this whole debate really, but here's something to consider, from The Register, about Intel's new architecture:

""They have cranked a lot of knobs," said Kevin Krewell, editor in chief of the Microprocessor Report. "They have compensated for not having an on-chip memory controller.

"I think the new architecture will present a big challenge for Opteron."

Krewell noted that AMD will likely retain its edge with four-socket servers and above that make use of AMD's more scalable memory architecture. Intel, however, will put enormous pressure on AMD in the two-socket server market, which makes up the vast majority of system sales.

The only downside for Intel appears to be possibly higher costs for the future products.

"The Intel chipset is much more complex," Krewell said. "What they don't talk about is that the cost of the chipset will go up significantly."

Yes, this thread is mainly relating to the server market, but, who's to say that AMD can't "tweak some knobs" by the time AM2 is ready for mass production? A few months is all the time in the world to make adjustments.

Again, not to knock anyone, but just something to consider.
 
Did I miss something? the first page of the AT comparison said "Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz (1067MHz FSB) on an Intel 975X motherboard." yet in the benchmark testing, the cpu was an Athlon 64 X-2 2.8GHZ. So which one is it?
 
That's a good point and one to ponder upon. I for one don't see price hikes an issue with Intel. I think it's now actually cheaper for them to manufacture thier chips. Time will tell and we won't know until the release date.
 
:roll:
The world knows conroe is the best, and some still have thier heads in the sand. Real bechmarks, the FX did very well.

Vista uses 800mb at idle. You will need 4gb to play BF2!

FS: FX60, almost new, $150.
Click to expand...

Windows Vista Capable PC Requirements
Windows Vista Capable PCs need to pass the current certification requirements for Designed for Windows XP logo. In addition, these PCs would need the following combination of essential PC hardware for good overall Windows Vista performance: :roll:

• CPU — PC systems should have a modern CPU.

• RAM — PC systems should have 512MB of memory or more.

• GPU — PC systems should have a graphics processor that will support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM).

Not exactly 4 gigs required...
 
Quote: prozac - The test was stupid. They tested current gen AMD to a next gen Intel. Where's the comparison? It's unfair. But Intel is making huge improvements, which is good.

The pentium 4 released way before the A64 and they compared the A64 to that the whole time, so in your opinion it shouldnt have been fair to compare the A64 to Pentium 4 correct?

Im not trying to piss you off, but what I am trying to show here is that they are just trying to show what benchies on what is currently available, im sure they would show them in AM2 if they could. The reason why I went from my P4 660 system to the one you see below is because the chip as a whole was a newer technology that performs better...thats all im saying!!!

Antec NeoHE 550w PS
DFI Lan Party UT NF4 Ultra
AMD Athlon 3700+ Sandy @ 2.8ghz (10x280) - "Arctic Freezer 64"
2gb (2x1gb) Patriot Performance Memory (2-3-2-5)
ATI Original X1900XT
Creative XF-I
(2x120gb WD SATA II HD's) - Raid 0
 
You are still missing the point. I have conceded the fact the 95% of all home computing doesn't need 2GB of RAM. Heck, 95% of home computing probably doesn't even need 1GB of RAM, but there are situations and applications where it is recommended or even necessary. Do people really need dual cores or 64bit computing or 150fps video cards. Absolutely not, however, it is nicer and more convenient when you have those things. Most people probably surf the web, check email, and play solitaire or other such non-resource-intensive activities on their computer. Therefore they could get by with a Pentium III with 128MB of RAM and a 32MB PCI video card, but Dell, Gateway and HP don't sell rigs like that.

The whole deal is: Buy what you like, get as much performance as you are willing to pay for, and leave everyone else alone who does the same thing.

Regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom