• Hey there, Guest! Share your idea for a new trophy in the forums and win bragging rights and a $100 Amazon gift card! Check out the New Community Trophy Contest here!
  • Pardon our dust as we work on some regularly scheduled forum maintenance. You may notice some missing features during this time. Thank you for your patience!

The last CPU post until next fall - intel wins the THG $300

dragonsprayer

Splendid
Jan 3, 2007
3,809
0
22,780
0
First let me state this post is meant to be provocative - I hope it stimulates some spirited debate! :twisted:

Please no more posts asking "should get amd or intel" - the answers is aways (I) :idea: and never (A) :x . This should be the final post until AMD releases its new chips in the fall 07. Intel wins at every level.

Well if you read any of my posts slamming amd you see that I am often criticized but rarely wrong. AMD is a second rate chip that only had its 18 months of glory. Anyone who thought 64 bit compute-ring was near in 2005 is stuck with a slow dog chip that still has not enough driver support for a complete system.

As THG states: net-burst wins the $300 throw down! THG wrote: "Ironically 8O , Intel won this shootout with a product that is based on its often criticized Net-Burst architecture. Such is life."

If you guys at THG would read my posts you would not say this is Ironic but to be expected - as I have claimed about the continual AMTI bias in the articles. :roll:


Lets add:

Intel wins the dual core throw down! E6300 vs fx-60 a no brainer! 8)

Intel wins the quad core throw down! 8) Some do claim that 4x4 wins - sure!

Wow intel just wins - As I stated last month net burst is not dead if material innovation could fix the leakage issue - guess what! Not only did net burst win the $300 el cheapo but as I predicted the leakage issue is also being solved: http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/8989/53/

"To overcome the problem of current leakage across super thin layer of silicon, Intel is using new materials to build the insulating walls and switching gates of its 45nm transistors. Intel says the new technology will dramatically reduce leakage and allow double the amount of transistors to be placed on the same sized chips."


Conclusion: While net burst did have a fast death and did not make 10 ghz Intel responded by 1) core 2 architecture beating amd 2) combining the 800 series dual core disaster with core 2 to make the first quad core 3) the first to make 45nm chips, putting amd on the chopping block the stock as fallen by 60%+, 4) Intel now sas extended the net burst architecture with new material breakthroughs and lower cost production.

I predict Intel will have better true quad core about the same time as AMTI! Long live net burst!

OK true AMTI lovers time slam me again!
 

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
0
Hmmmmmmmmm... with due respect to this site and ALL of it's contributors, let me say that of all the STUPID PRO-INTEL articles I have seen on this site, this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/19/the-300-pc/index.html
stands above all; NOT a gaming benchmark, NOT a computational benchmark, NOT a rendering, NO multitasking, NOTHING but all what the Celeron was able to beat the Sempron at; media streaming (finely subdivided into a dozen of different software and ever-idiot synthetic benchmarks to fill a whooping 3 pages); SHAME ON WHO WROTE IT.

When it has been proven and overproven that (especially on stock) the sempron is a cheaper and better performer than the CeleronD, BLAH.
 

dragonsprayer

Splendid
Jan 3, 2007
3,809
0
22,780
0
Well its a good way to flush out all the amti noobs?

lets add another stick in the amti back:


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Intel-bring-back-Hyperthreading-Nehalem-core-ftopict223998.html


the addition of hyperthreading to core 2 + 800 series technology along with improved materials? wow whats that swooshing sound... could it be the sound of AMD stock falling?

you amd diehards buttons are fun to push! My complete ban will come be for amd has a good chip!

I use as almost as many amd chips as intel its just fun to mess with you amti guys!
 

ajfink

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2006
1,150
0
19,280
0
wow that's personal - i bet you paid full price for fx-60 that cant get over 3.2ghz my e6300 beats it every time!

...


Are you seriously here, doing this?

I like how they didn't want to spend $10 more on the Athlon64 3200+ over the Sempron, even though it would have granted quite a bit better performance in the terms of scale they used.
 

BaldEagle

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2004
652
0
18,980
0
Hmmmmmmmmm... with due respect to this site and ALL of it's contributors, let me say that of all the STUPID PRO-INTEL articles I have seen on this site, this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/19/the-300-pc/index.html
stands above all; NOT a gaming benchmark, NOT a computational benchmark, NOT a rendering, NO multitasking, NOTHING but all what the Celeron was able to beat the Sempron at; media streaming (finely subdivided into a dozen of different software and ever-idiot synthetic benchmarks to fill a whooping 3 pages); SHAME ON WHO WROTE IT.

When it has been proven and overproven that (especially on stock) the sempron is a cheaper and better performer than the CeleronD, BLAH.
If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.
 

jaywalker256

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2006
88
0
18,630
0
AMD is a second rate chip that only had its 18 months of glory.
Intel was getting their ass handed to them by AMD for the past 3 years until the launch of C2D.

Anyone who thought 64 bit compute-ring was near in 2005 is stuck with a slow dog chip that still has not enough driver support for a complete system.
Yes, Athlon 64's are slower than C2D. But calling them "slow dog chips" is pure stupidity. And not enough driver support? Are you on meth?


Intel wins the dual core throw down! E6300 vs fx-60 a no brainer! 8)
You are comparing a brand new architechture to a 3 year old one. The new one sure as hell better win.

As THG states: net-burst wins the $300 throw down! THG wrote: "Ironically , Intel won this shootout with a product that is based on its often criticized Net-Burst architecture. Such is life."
It was a 1.8ghz, 256kb cache, 90nm processor vs. a 3.2ghz, 65nm, 512kb cache processor. Id say the sempron did pretty damn well considering the spec difference. Spend a little more money to buy say, an A64 3700+ and the celeron doesnt stand a chance.


I dont see your reasoning for posting this topic, other than to make a complete ass of yourself.
 

Mex

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2005
479
0
18,780
0
Hmmmmmmmmm... with due respect to this site and ALL of it's contributors, let me say that of all the STUPID PRO-INTEL articles I have seen on this site, this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/19/the-300-pc/index.html
stands above all; NOT a gaming benchmark, NOT a computational benchmark, NOT a rendering, NO multitasking, NOTHING but all what the Celeron was able to beat the Sempron at; media streaming (finely subdivided into a dozen of different software and ever-idiot synthetic benchmarks to fill a whooping 3 pages); SHAME ON WHO WROTE IT.

When it has been proven and overproven that (especially on stock) the sempron is a cheaper and better performer than the CeleronD, BLAH.
I had not seen this article. The fact that they cherry-picked synthetic benchmarks to put the Celeron in a positive light is disturbing. Articles like this are the reason THG is considered the laughing stock of the enthusiast world.

An Athlon 64 3200+ at 2.0 GHz and 512 kB L2 cache would have been an even better choice, but the $80 clearly would have exceeded our price limits. [...] The Celeron D processors with 512 kB L2 cache are not only slightly faster, they are also more energy-efficient, as they are based on the 65-nm Pentium 4 Cedar Mill core. The old one can be purchased for as little as $40, but it's worth spending $50 on a Celeron D352, which runs at 3.2 GHz. We paid $56 for ours.
A double standard - this article is BS, pure and simple. DragonSprayer, how are these articles AMD biased?
 

jeff_2087

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2007
823
0
18,980
0
You are comparing a brand new architechture to a 3 year old one. The new one sure as hell better win.
Although I think this entire thread is a waste of internet space and shouldn't even exist, I've seen this argument so many times I just have to comment on it. It's stupid.

So what if the architecture is 3 years old? The chip isn't. Frankly, I wouldn't care if the architecture was scratched on a cave wall in the Stone Age. All that matters is what you can buy right now and for how much.

It's only fair to compare current chips to current chips. The fact is, AMD is currently producing K8 chips. Age of the architecture is a meaningless defense.
 

conroe

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2006
523
0
18,990
2
I didn't like the article, but come on, what benchmarks was the sempron going to win? Gaming? I don't think so. The reason is IGP and the conclusion would be "both suck." True, both do suck.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Question: If upgrading is a serious part of this article (being that going s939 is NOT the way to go,being outadet/dead end) how much ocing with a c2d is possible using this ram and mobo? Say compared to s939 and same pricing?
 

conroe

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2006
523
0
18,990
2
Question: If upgrading is a serious part of this article (being that going s939 is NOT the way to go,being outadet/dead end) how much ocing with a c2d is possible using this ram and mobo? Say compared to s939 and same pricing?
I bought a $29 openbox ASRock 775Dual-VSTA and a E4300 overclocked to 2.565 GHz. I think thats compares to a X2 over 3 GHz. I'm not certain. I do have a 165 that runs over 3 GHz I could compare it to, but it also has a much more expensive mobo. I like 939.
 

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
0
If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.
The pitty is that even with the actual setup, the Sempron system is overall more responsive, more game capable, better multitasker than the CeleronD. I have assembled and tested mysel various Sempron and CeleronD systems but reviews speak themselves; just take a look to the firs article I was able to google, the other (THE REAL) side of the coin :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_7.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_8.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_9.html
P.S: For the CeleronD, most often check the last 2 lines of each table :lol:
 

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
0
I didn't like the article, but come on, what benchmarks was the sempron going to win? Gaming? I don't think so. The reason is IGP and the conclusion would be "both suck." True, both do suck.
Read my previous post, and most important, take a look at some reviews once in a while before talking like that, please; we've been all fooled by that article.
 

monkeymanuk

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2006
257
0
18,780
0
Here's the reason that you and the article's author are both wankers :!:



What's that? A dual core AMD system for the same price as a single core celeron system, oh my! oh my! :evil:
 

conroe

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2006
523
0
18,990
2
If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.
The pitty is that even with the actual setup, the Sempron system is overall more responsive, more game capable, better multitasker than the CeleronD. I have assembled and tested mysel various Sempron and CeleronD systems but reviews speak themselves; just take a look to the firs article I was able to google, the other (THE REAL) side of the coin :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_7.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_8.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_9.html
P.S: For the CeleronD, most often check the last 2 lines of each table :lol:
That's a 256 mb Prescott, not the 512mb Cedar Mill. Cache is very important to netburst.

The whole thing is moot, April 22 we will see Conroe based Celerons and Intel should have a good lead in the sucky CPU market.
 

Shizamaaur

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2006
210
0
18,680
0
It really is irresponsible of you to come in here to start a thread like this... I mean what are you even proving? nothing except that your an intel fanboy that can't accept the fact that technology fluctuates and that just because intel is winning right now you have to take advantage of it to make yourself feel better.. AMD was handing intels ass for 3 years get your facts straight you tool
 

Similar threads