Intel P4 vs AMD

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=219

Here is another article on Intel's Conroe.

 

The link just has the same Intel sponsored tests. Nothing new.
Without the NF4 chipset or the Optetron the AMD wouldn't be at its best anyway.

It's vaporware until they come to the marketplace.

 

Absolutely, and it could be a while.

 

The way I see it, the need for speed race is back on between AMD and Intel so no matter the final outcome, the consumer should be the beneficiary with lower prices on CPU’s currently on the market and faster CPU’s for the just got to have it consumers.

 

Since the need for speed is on, I might as well jump on the bandwagon! My next purchase will be a 175 Opteron. The FX-60 fell through. The money turned out to be too much for a no warranty of any kind purchase! Would have purchased the 175 today but I just ordered the Sceptre "Widescreen" yesterday so it will have to wait for a little while.

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

what size did you go with? LCD

 

Hopefully we will see a major price war between Intel/AMD.As we all know, AMD has always had more bang for the buck.Now maybe its Intels turn to give a good price/performance ratio.

 

conroe.. it;s for real... see you in my rear mirrior!

 

I can't see AMD taking this lying down. The M2 platform will be out in June, and that will quite majorly kick the behind of conroe since it will FULLY support DDR2 memory, and run with a TDP of around 60W even in high performance statements. The FX-62 will be around in the not too distanct future too.

 

aabbccdd,

I got a 20.1". Should look good for DVDs!

theonejrs

 

Probably the feeling Intel has had for a while. LOL Neither camp is going to take the opposition's advances lying down. To maintain the top market share, Intel needs to have some bragging rights. And for AMD to chip away at Intel's market share, they need to have some bragging rights; which they've had for a while now. Without the competition we consumers wouldn't have enjoyed nearly as many advancements in PC development as we have in the recent past. I suggest we cheer for both sides. LOL Shop wisely.

 

Regarding the test between Intel’s new Conroe core and AMD’s FX60.


Intel is definitely headed in the right direction but the test that they did was seriously flawed for a number of reasons.

1. The CPU that Intel used was an engineer’s model, which is always made up of the best of the best off the line. One can only imagine how many chips were tested before that one particular chip was chosen. Also engineer models have unlocked clocks, which places less stress on the front side bus and memory during over clocking this means that everything could have been over clocked except for the CPU. Lower the clock multiplier and increase the memory and front side bus speeds. The opposite however can also be done.

2. For instance the memory divider on the AMD could have been dropped to 333 MHz and the HTT to 3X while the front side bus speeds are being increased. The clock speed of 2.8 could be reached but it would be seriously affected by a loss in memory and Hyper Transport speed, which would create a bottleneck for a two core AMD system. And if an Intel chip can be binned for quality then the opposite is also true because there are variances in performance even within a particular line/model. Another point that was missed is that the FX60 easily over clocks to 3.0 GHz. My system’s memory with at 400 MHz mem divider, Hyper Transport at 4X, front side bus at 240, and the clock multiplier at 11X result in a 2.640 GHz.

3. Now if we do all of that with the FX60 with the only difference being its clock multiplier of 13 it would reach a speed of 3.12 GHz. I think that might be a bit high for even the FX60 but it would be nothing for it to hit 3.0 GHz because that would only require that the front side bus be only turned up to 231 MHz. That’s well below what I’m currently running mine at.

4. Now let’s look at chipset! Intel chose a board that used the slowest possible chipset for a dual core AMD. It was buried in a DFI smoke screen but the ATI chipset and crossfire setup is not on par with the Nv4 chipset. If Intel had selected a board with the Nv4 chipset and then ran two of the single but fastest cards things would have come out differently.

What is happening is that Intel is trying to stop the bleeding through marketing propaganda. Why? Because AMD has been making real gains in the consumer market and taking profits from Intel and Intel has nothing equivalent to offer consumers at this time. So Intel’s solution is to cast doubt into the minds of consumers just long enough for them to release their new product. And even if it’s not better or only just as good, it’s still Intel inside and that will be enough for many. Conroe is expected to hit the market in the next 6 months and that will tell the real story. By then AMD might also have something to release to the market to surprise Intel with. Whatever happens if Intel takes the lead and I’m ready for a new build then I’ll go Intel but for now I’m still happy with what I have. But in the end a speed contest between Intel and AMD has got to be good for the PC enthusiast.

 

@Sophocles,
I'll take your word for it!!!

 

We can speculate either way as to what the vaporware is all about. Best to look at the Conroe info as an ad release till we see some concrete reviews. Tests can be skewed, even by the so called unbiased sources. So take a look at what is being tested and how, and by whom. Sophocles spoke of an engineer's model. We have no idea of what went into selection. Granted, Intel and AMD are going to put their best foot forward. Neither is against a little advertising hype and neither are the proponents for each against pointing that out about the other. So, we can imagine Intel didn't use the worst CPU they'd tested. Once we wade through the would have, should have, could have, what do we have left but speculation at this point and what the ad release said. It's still wait and see.

 

Here is a Roadmap I found of chips coming out this year and next year:
http://endian.net/roadmap_timeline.asp?MapNo=2

@Sophocles

I thought that Tom's Hardware site did an article on the FX60 as stated that they only took it to 2.8 with air and that it needed water cooling to get to the 3+ mark?

Also, wasn't Intel's test chip only a 2.66, (no overclock,)but yet they overclocked the FX60 to 2.8?

Here are the articles from Tom's Hardware, as site I believe most agree is very reliable.

A Dual-Core FX-60 And The End Of Socket 939
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_fx_60_dual_core_assault/

Here is their article about 3 GHz With Liquid Cooling
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_fx_60_dual_core_assault/page4.html

As most have stated, we all should be the winners if this battle heats up!

 

LOL If it gets any hotter, somebody is going to get burned.

 

Scuba

Water cooling isn't that much better than good air cooling such as the Zalman CNPS7700 or CNPS9500. I have both of those. I feel confident that either of those two would keep the FX60's heat within a very comfortable range. The real problem after heat is stressing the memory and since the FX60 comes with an unlocked clock multiplier that's not an issue.

I believe that if Intel and AMD each had an engineer rep for that test, Intel would have lost.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_fx_60_dual_core_assault/page3.html

Above is where I got that information on the water cooling and like you mentioned, I'm sure a good heatsink and fan combo could do nearly as well.

As far as the test is concerned based on a Conroe @ 2.66 vs an overclocked FX60 @ 2.8, Intel should have lost, but the results showed otherwise. I can't wait for a random store bought chip to make it's way to the market for some real comparisons without Intel's or AMD's fingers in the mix! <G>

 

Sucba

I read the article at tomshardware and liguid cooling is nice but before you make a judgement read some articles about the CNPS7700 compared to liquid cooling. It really does get quite close.

 

As you can see, I agreed with you in the statement above.