Penryn benchmarks hit the net.

[crenn]

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!

[Crazy Buddhist]

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

[crenn]

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)

[alphastryk]

hmm... if only I had any money...to upgrade my gaming rig... ever (P4 Northwood baby... oh yeah!...lol)

[Spawn-Inc]

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

because

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?????

[Crazy Buddhist]

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.

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?????

[Scotty]

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.

I saw that too, no idea where...

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

[Bucko]

in the end that is what (unknowing or uninformed) people are going for. More Ghz..

I was guilty of that when I bought my 3.07Ghz Celeron D.
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.

[Crazy Buddhist]

AMD is not out of the game by any means.

My first rig was an Intel. Everything since has and will I suspect forever be an AMD. Because it isn't Intel.

Current rig: MSI K8N-SLI (jury out); AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ OC @2.44Ghz; cooled with Noctua NH-U9F Asus EN8500GT 512MB DDR3 Silent Magic GPU OC @ 500Ghz and going higher 2Gb High Density Noname Ram Onboard CreativeLabs 24bit Soundblaster chip K-World DVB-T Digital TV tuner Maxtor 160G IDE HDD Maxtor 40G IDE HDD, Windows 2000 Windows XP

[Quakken]

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.