Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Benchmarks: AMD's reign is over

  1. Benchmarks: AMD's reign is over

    TH has posted some FX-62 vs. Conroe benchmarks:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/...-62/index.html

    The Conroe is a $500 part, the FX-62 is about $1200. Apparently they bumped up the FX to about 3.0ghz, while the Conroe is 2.66ghz (there's a 3ghz model that they didnt test).

    And the FX gets smoked.

    Here are the game benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/...-62/page5.html

    Im glad to see Intel back in the game.
    Last edited by diffusionx; 06 Jun 2006 at 02:20 PM.

  2. Show me a benchmark where intel doesn't have twice the cache and i'll be impressed. Even then it wasn't really a sound beating. Intel has been throwing in rediculous amounts of cache to keep up with AMD for awhile, now that they fixed thier shitty architecture it's giving them an advantage that AMD will match soon enough. All the architectural features they talk about in that article are pretty standard for high end chips coming out now. Unless there's more they're not mentioning I'd say AMD and Intel will be fairly even this round.

  3. entry level conroes will be around $200.

    p.s. this is why i've been telling everyone the past couple months in their "build a pc threads" to wait for these. but NOOOOOOOOOOO. nobody listens.

    ce la vi

    Quote Originally Posted by stormy
    Show me a benchmark where intel doesn't have twice the cache and i'll be impressed. Even then it wasn't really a sound beating. Intel has been throwing in rediculous amounts of cache to keep up with AMD for awhile, now that they fixed thier shitty architecture it's giving them an advantage that AMD will match soon enough. All the architectural features they talk about in that article are pretty standard for high end chips coming out now. Unless there's more they're not mentioning I'd say AMD and Intel will be fairly even this round.
    what does AMD have down the roadmap? M2 and all it adds is a better memory controller.
    wow.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Dragonmaster Dyne
    p.s. this is why i've been telling everyone the past couple months in their "build a pc threads" to wait for these. but NOOOOOOOOOOO. nobody listens.
    A lot of people are holding off purchases. Maybe not ElCapitan or something (he bought a Fx-62, LOL), but a lot are. Computer manufacturers are worried and thats why MS unveiled their ready for vista program. I simply could not wait anymore, my PC died on me. Ah well hopefully by the middle of next year 939 FX-62s are $250 anyway.

    Show me a benchmark where intel doesn't have twice the cache and i'll be impressed. Even then it wasn't really a sound beating. Intel has been throwing in rediculous amounts of cache to keep up with AMD for awhile, now that they fixed thier shitty architecture it's giving them an advantage that AMD will match soon enough. All the architectural features they talk about in that article are pretty standard for high end chips coming out now. Unless there's more they're not mentioning I'd say AMD and Intel will be fairly even this round.
    Don't you work for Intel?

    show love for the home team, man...

    Anyway, AMD's next-gen chips aren't going to be out until next year. M2 uses DDR2 RAM but that doesn't close the gap (or do much at all, really). Fact of the matter for the rest of 2006 Intel will have chips that soundly outperform AMD and cost a fraction of the price. This yearlong gap doesnt bode well for AMD, it could destroy all the momentum they've built up the past 4 or 5 years.

    New shit!

    Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2771&p=5
    Last edited by diffusionx; 07 Jun 2006 at 03:25 PM.

  5. I had an offer from Intel doing MB chipsets, but i went elsewhere.

    It all depends on how long it takes AMD to react. The easiest thing to do is close the gap in cache. I haven't looked at what they have planned though, so maybe it will take them that long to implement something. I didn't think it would. The numbers given in the first article don't really say much to me about the underlying architecture because the cache is just so much higher it's masking any conclusions you could make. Hence i am not on the 'AMD is toast' bandwagon yet. Also, the FX-62 is still done with a 90nm process while this Intel chip is 65nm (not sure but i think). It's up to AMD how bad they get beat by how long it takes them to increase cache and move to 65nm.

    The main advancements that i'm aware of in Conroe are shared cache between cores, which AMD already had, and decreasing the number of pipeline stages, when AMD never got stupid about it in the first place. The power stuff has no real impact on performance. So that's why i'm not all that impressed with Conroe yet. I haven't done any deep reading about it so there could be more I'm just not aware of. We'll see the truth when AMD gets a simliar(process and cache levels basically) chip out.

  6. conroe is also a LOT cooler than previous Pentium chips and overclocks like Mzo's mom. but for AMD to get a "similar" chip out anytime soon is absurd. their roadmap lists nothing (at least last time i checked it when the conroe white papers went out) besides M2 which is garbage.

    there's also a rumor out there saying AMD wants to buy Ati.

  7. Hence i am not on the 'AMD is toast' bandwagon yet.
    They're not toast but they've gained their mo' mainly because Intel put out a crappy line of chips.

  8. Dyne: People 3 months ago are not able to wait to upgrade, they need their new rig now.
    I bought mine back in December and have been playing around with it for months, and it ought to be comparable to Conroe in terms of benchmarks. I have finally finished it now though, and the case is closing very soon.
    If I were buying a computer now I would totally go Conroe. But I'm not.

    I completely agree that AM2 is a waste of time. People who buy AM2 are retards who haven't thought things through. I think it offers less if anything as there aren't even any opteron AM2s, which accounted for a lot of AMDs sales on the socket 939s.

    Btw how cool does Conroe run?
    Cooler than A64?
    Last edited by Burky; 07 Jun 2006 at 06:07 PM.

  9. I thought all Opteron chips were socket 940.

    Anyway, it's nice to see Intel finally has their shit together, even if they're just copying AMD (64bit, multicore, energy efficiency, clock efficiency and virtualization were all advocated by AMD first). Once Conroe hits, Intel may finally be deserving of their marketshare.

    It's also good to see Intel dropping IDE from their chipsets. It's about time they started using their clout to advance the pc platform. UEFI is looking good, too.

  10. No, they did an series of opteron 939s, both dual core and single core, which are the best 939 chips out there. They use non-ECC ram, so they are not proper server cpus.
    My one, rated at 1.8ghz does 2.9ghz with little effort right now. I love it. That cost me ~$350.


    As for dropping IDE from the chipsets, is it a good idea?
    How will our DVD drives, etc work? By SATA?
    I heard that AM2 were keeping one IDE, which seemed wise.
    Last edited by Burky; 07 Jun 2006 at 06:48 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo