Penryn benchmarks hit the net.

[Scotty]

[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.

[.Maleficus.]

Me think AMD maybe screwed.

Me think you're right.

[crenn]

If that's true (I don't know if the source is realilable) then AMD are going to have to come back hard.

[Jim Beam]

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.

[Crazy Buddhist]

Those intel guys are pretty much one step ahead all the time.

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

[crenn]

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.

Not really, remember the Pentium D vs the Athlon X2?

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Quakken]

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

intel is going to win with this, lolz

because

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.

[.Maleficus.]

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.

[.Maleficus.]

Really, I think the exact opposite! I've been pretty unimpressed with the 2900. For a good comparison...