Printable View
[Story]
OMG thats a crap load of performance boosting.
Intel Core 2 DuoE6550 (2.33GHz/4MB L2/1333MHz FSB) vs. Intel "Wolfdate"ES Sample(2.33GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB)
Performance from 0.22%up to a massive 115.63%. And some large temp drops and less power usage.
These things are SMOKING!
Me think AMD maybe screwed.
Me think you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty
If that's true (I don't know if the source is realilable) then AMD are going to have to come back hard.
Those intel guys are pretty much one step ahead all the time. I guess it's easier to do when you making money instead of losing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by crenn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Beam
I'm not too hot on the deep technicalities but I have read that AMD's method of linking multiple processors has better scaleability. I wouldn't be surprised to see them come out with something to match or exceed performance within weeks.
CrazyB
Not really, remember the Pentium D vs the Athlon X2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Beam
AMD did have a major advantage over intel for at least 2 years. AMD just need to finalise their design (I'm fairly sure they're redoing it over and over again so they're better or on par with intel) and release it to the market.
The only thing i hope is that AMD can come back. I don't care who wins i'll go with the best when i upgrade but if AMD disappear in the industry Intel are going to have no competiton that will make them slow down i think they can be more laid back, but at the moment they know AMD could have something hard hitting so they're getting on with the 45nm CPUs. The one thing i won't be too keen on from AMDs side is having to buy two processors. If a half decent speed chip is £150, then there would be no point because Intel have a half decent Quad for that much basically. So unless AMD are up for doing 2.4GHz equivalent chips for £75 i don't think a dual CPU set-up will bring it back for most people, rich buggers can have all the fun.
AMD phenom.
REAL quad cores.
not these skanky dual dual core things intel is throwing at the fan! (2cores x2. the intel cores have to go through the first two cores bus, then they go through another bus linking those. Amd has 4 cores through one bus.)
And, as always, in the low realistic-money market, the market that actually matters to people without pocketbooks the size of blue whales (it's hard to have such a pocketbook, so you'd be surprised how many people don't)
AMD is still chuggin along with their x2's that are very well priced, cool, and low wattage.
Intel can release all these things that they want. You don't usually judge a carmaker by the top of the line model, do you?
(it's like, someone thinks toyota is better than nissan because their formula one car is always winning over the nissan ones all the time)
Then don't think
becauseQuote:
intel is going to win with this, lolz
Quote:
this is their high end top of the line processor, which everyone will always buy and not buy the actual human processors at the mid range.
If you don't think that the prices of Intel dual-core and quad-core processors are realistic, then I don't know what's up. They are very human, and very realistically priced. For example, the E6750 is $211 at Newegg. They also have the 2.33Ghz E6550 for $178. Anything AMD has in that price range would be bound and gagged by those CPUs. Then when we get to the low-end range, there is the Pentium D 930 running at a nice 3Ghz for $149. You don't need a blue whale sized pocket book to get a very nice CPU from Intel. C2D: Lower wattage, bigger L2 cache, cooler, OCs like a dream... X2: Opposite. Plain and simple.
Really, I think the exact opposite! I've been pretty unimpressed with the 2900. For a good comparison...
I think AMD is taking on more than they can chew, producing GPUs and CPUs. Although we've seen GPUs more powerful than some CPUs so it's possible that AMD may released a GPU styled CPU which is more powerful......
If that makes sense!
From ZD Net: The Benchmark War: AMD vs Intel:
"And if all of that leaves you confused, think about it this way: all of these comparisons pit 90nm AMD processors against 65nm Intel products - meaning that AMD should jump to a 25% or greater lead when both are made at 65nm, and Intel will catch up again when they go to 4Ghz and 45nm."
In short AMD has the design lead and Intel has the manufacturing lead. At the moment that puts intel ahead but AMD are not far behind and when they catch up with the manufacturing lead they will be ahead. ... until next time Intel are.
CrazyB
Reading that article brought up the question, how do you define 'true' quad core.
Anyway, that article does have a point, but I'm very happy with my Q6600, and I do think it was better than getting an X2 5200+ (which I was getting before Intel dropped prices)
hmm... if only I had any money...to upgrade my gaming rig... ever (P4 Northwood baby... oh yeah!...lol)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quakken
i don't understand this thought process, is a duo core not a two core processor? and if you put 2 duo cores is that not 4 or quad core?????
I think it's about the overall efficiency of the bus designs. AMD quad cores are all on the bus. Intel quad cores have two in the luggage cart: they can only access the bus through the other cores which has an overhead.
As I have seen and posted elsewhere it appears that Intel's "lead" at this point is down to chip manufacturing technology in which AMD are rapidly catching up. At which point AMD's better designed architecture will put them ahead again for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawn-Inc
I saw that too, no idea where...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Buddhist
I think now that Intel has got soo far ahead AMD and Intel will just continuously change for the top spot. I don't think that AMD will have something that will do to Intel, what Intel did to them. As soon as AMD's new CPUS are out Intel will be straight into 45nm and more GHz
I was guilty of that when I bought my 3.07Ghz Celeron D.Quote:
Originally Posted by MintyMadness
I thought "How could a processor be so fast, yet so cheap?".
The question was answered after I got it. Celeron D chips are plain and simply ****. High clock speed or not, it is **** and I'll never buy another one again.
My first rig was an Intel. Everything since has and will I suspect forever be an AMD. Because it isn't Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by MintyMadness
Current rig: MSI K8N-SLI (jury out); AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ OC @2.44Ghz; cooled with Noctua NH-U9F :up: :up: Asus EN8500GT 512MB DDR3 Silent Magic GPU OC @ 500Ghz and going higher :up: 2Gb High Density Noname Ram :down: Onboard CreativeLabs 24bit Soundblaster chip :up: K-World DVB-T Digital TV tuner :down: Maxtor 160G IDE HDD Maxtor 40G IDE HDD, Windows 2000 :up: Windows XP :down:
Intel has had high clock speed processors for years. Since they have higher clock speeds, does that mean that they are neccessarily better?
Since there are just so many factors, clock speed is just part of the equation. Celerons, for example, suck the nuts off anybody in a 5 mile radius.
I admit, even though i hate intel and think amd is better (just preference) intel's large wallet and large facilities have produced a "quad core". This is just two dual cores stuck together, so the processing is split once then split again, whereas amd's quad cores they are going to come out with are split evenly around the 4 cores originally, working out those precious last seconds on a benchmark.
What will happen in the future? I say that neither AMD or Intel will ever "win" and completely remove the other from business. There is no market that both of them at the same time can have completely.
Personally, i will wait for AMD's next batch ("phenom", which i already mentioned) and see how it compares.
Then, regardless of how it works, i will buy a nice quad core AMD then pair it with whatever video card seems to be the best bang for the buck (buying at the cutting edge is stupid.).
I will be happy. The AMD chip i buy will probably be more than enough power for what i need. The video card will be more than enough for what i need.
We are sitting on an amazing amount of processing power. There is more power in your computer than there was in the entire world 35 years ago (easily).
Just so we can have see through window panes in vista.
The intel Core 2 Quads are true quad cores, just not as efficient. Well... that's my view on it.
As for clock speeds, they've been shown to help, however the netburst architecture was very efficient when processes per cycle. And you can overclock AMD CPUs as well to get higher clock speeds.... just you have to compare it to a intel C2D when at stock (sometimes).
AMD was the first to be efficient in processing per cycle. Intel eventually caught on that higher clock speeds didn't work. However, I still think AMD wins in the low to mid-range market because their CPUs still perform very well, especially when given a 400-800MHz boost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quakken
Agree with all you say :up:
Today I asked my PC to calculate Pi to 32 million digits. I was watching TV on it and searching the web at the same time it took a little over half an hour or so. Processor was tootling along at 60 - 70% and rose to 43 degrees :)
It's dumb this computing power is not fully harnessed - Seti and the like were interesting experiments in distributed computing.
nee'r mind: "Mod on"
Do you have dual core?
EDIT: And regarding SETI and such like, they love my computer. I can do 4 tasks at one time by adjusting the loading on my computer. (Setting Affinity ftw!)
AMD is currently working on a couple processor projects to compete with Intel.
One of them, as you may know, is the Barcelona Quad-Core, and the Phenom line of processors.
And also, AM3 is reported to be out some time in February.
Right now, the Penryn is kicking some major arse though.
It also flies better.Quote:
Originally Posted by MintyMadness
err .. 3 posts up Athlon 64 X2 4200+ OC 2.44Ghz; cooled with Noctua NH-U9F ? heheheheQuote:
Originally Posted by crenn
MatthewQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Buddhist
Oh and the Asus EN8500GT Silent Magic 512MB graphics card I like a lot. Its fanless and with a mahhoosive heatsink. I have a 120mm fan positioned to pull air into the desk drawer and 3/4 of it hits that heatsink. It comes set at 400Mhz GPU speed but I knocked it up to 500 for my first try Overclock and its stable as anything and never goes over 50 - 55 C. Its designed to run from 75 - 125 C. Here its all in the picture:
Oh and the best of it is ^^^^^ that little silver fan on the northbridge you see half of in this picture is the noisiest thing in the PC. The maker of my CPU cooler makes a northbridge cooler thoughh. It will be right in the airflow form that big fan even though its designed to be fanless. :)
Whoops xP.
To me anything over 50% loading is weird ^-^;
But did you have Super Pi running over the 2 cores?
Weird? I was trying to stress test my machine with its new cooler ^- see pic above -^ and see how hot it got. Could that explain it's weirdness or am I missing something.Quote:
Originally Posted by crenn
I was watching television. SuperPi could have been running anywhere for all I know.
Because I have a quad core computer, the 100% loading is divided by 4, one for each core. I find it weird because I've gotten used to having 4 cores, I can do intensive processing (like virus scans or WMV9 encoding) and still have enough power on the other 3 cores to run SupCom.
If you didn't tell Windows to make SuperPi run on 1 core, then it would have automatically run over the 2 cores.
I don't know how to tell windows how to do that. The X2 & Noctua only got installed 2 days ago. Haven't looked into what it does or anything. Have noticed that the really heavy apps I use are much much happier.Quote:
Originally Posted by crenn
If you have an app that you want to run on a specific core:
1. Press Ctrl+Shift+Esc
2. Go to the processes tab
3. Find the program in the list and right click, select set affinity. You can then tell it which core to use.
Games like SupCom run better on multiple cores (3 is the most it uses out of a quad core CPU). However I've found some games run better if running on 1-2 cores, any more and there are problems. If you want, I can show this with UT2k4.
These new processors ARE getting very very insane. Games, superpi, and a virus scan all at once?
i'm still rockin' an athlon64 3500...
But the problem is do i get a new mobo with am2 or wait for the new amd chips that will run on am2+?
And then i would have to get new ram too, i only have 1gig of pc3200, which would not do very well (or work at all) on a mobo that has ddr2 and pc6400.
And then i would want another video card. Probably throw in another PS (stock 300w compaq one currently) and a 500gig hard drive also.
Maybe i should get a job once school starts and tennis is over...
Well computers are actually cheaper than you think. You can get a basic computer for $500. Depends on what you need though.
And I believe there are some AM2+ motherboard, but I'm not 100% sure. But either way, you can use AM2+ chips on a AM2 motherboard.
Thats the chip I just upgraded from to a 4200+ X2. I was looking for an Opteron 180 to go in my socket 939 board. Stock it runs at 2.4G per core but its a server grade processor easily overclockable to 3.0G per core or 6.0Ghz total.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quakken
The 4200+ runs at 2.2G stock and I have it OC'ed to 2.44G at the moment - a respectable 4.88 Ghz total whipping power. It's noticeably nicer than the 3500+
I would check your Mobo manufacturers site and see what your mobo can take. a 4200+ on ebay will set you back £50 - 65 new roughly same in $ I guess, an Opteron 180 around £100 / $145.
If it can take a nice Opteron and you have the money it would be an upgrade that would see you through another two - three years with the same rig.
Matthew
It's a socket 939 board, and 939 isn't being supported by AMD at all anymore.
It's Not sli.
It's not DDR2.
It's not unsucky.
I've had this for a few years, and it was nearly obselete when i bought it (X2's where just coming out).
I think i will get an AM2 board once if i get a job. Sure, intel may be on top currently, but i always like AMD, they are the underdog and they try to fit more value into their chips because they don't have billions of dollars and the facilities to crank out junky chips. They also don't have the common name recognition that intel does. Most people, faced with the decision would go for intel's inflated gighertz number and name, because they have heard it before so it must be good.
But that's just me. You can think what you want, but i am going with AMD.
You can still find AMD 939 chips, they're harder because AMD has gone for AM2+ but there are there.
AMD wasn't always the underdog. And Intel don't "crank out junky chips". Intel do create good CPUs, the performance is good once they dropped the NetBurst Architecture.
A majority of people get pre-built computers, which is why they had no choice but to get a Intel processor, because at that stage you couldn't get AMD pre-built (in the forms of dell or acer). btw, Intel don't 'inflate' gigahertz anymore, they've caught on that, that doesn't work.
I'm an AMD fan as well, but I needed a computer to last, which is why I still bought an intel C2Q.
Most of my post, admittedly, was opinionated. Highly.
Amd's seem to be durable enough, though. We had a 1500+ that lasted for seven freaking years (i HATED that computer though, it was quite good for the first 4 years, but then things started breaking. the processor was cool and worked awesome for the entire time though). We have AMD in all of our computers currently, and have never had a problem with them. Although i bet intel chips would work just as well, admittedly. It's all personal preference.
Recently though, if you look at some of the not-intel-paid-off brands of computer, there are equal parts intel and AMD processors, which is good.
A monopoly on any market just makes the one company that has it churn out crappy products. Intel keeps AMD at the top of their game, and AMD does it for intel also. they want to kill each other, but they are both their reason for staying alive.
Now i leave that thought with you. This was posted from an AMD computer.
lol, I have an athlon XP 1800+ which still works, runs very hot though, but it hasn't died yet!
