Intel vs. AMD

Last post for a while as I' about to start the backup, format and rebuild.
Hopefully back online tonight.
I can cleaned most of the crap out and run Superpi for a last time before rebuild, I'll compare this the when it's done on a clean install with no extra software on it.(27.390 Sec for 1M)
I still get the lines at the top though, it'll be interesting to see if they go afterwards.
http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=myfastestsuperpisofarbm9.jpg

Compared to this guy 11.359 Sec, my system is crawling along:
http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bestsuperpievergc4.jpg

 

sam,
2843mhz so far.
BigDK,I probably could have worded it a bit better.
Sorry for that,all is good.
And now it's time for bed.

 

42.15% is pretty good!

27 secs for superpi to 1 million, I'll try that in a bit and see how I fare...

 

i was reading in a laptop mag today saying that amd laptops consume 35w while intel core duo consumes 32w.do you think there is a difference in the electricity bill.lol

 

Shouldn't be if it's a laptop. They use batteries. But there might be like a ten minute difference in battery life

 

But they'll use different batteries, so who knows? LOL. You're worried about a 3W difference? Don;t forget the motherboards will be varyingly efficient at converting 12V to the CPU voltage level, so it may just turn out that the AMD is still more efficient!

 

But I'm pretty sure that the Core Duo is much better clock-for-clock. It is based off the older Pentium 3 architecture and is the basis for the Core 2 Duo desktop processors.

I've always said intel made better mobile CPUs. The 2.13GHz Pentium M matched benchmarks with the FX-55. When overclocked to 2.3GHz it surpassed it. So I wouldn't be surprised if the much more efficient Core Duo at 2.13GHz out-performed almost every AMD processor there is.

For mobile power I recommend Pentium M or Core Duo. For single core and dual core desktop power I still recommend AMD. Even with the extremely powerful Core 2 Duo looming over us it just isn't available for commercial purchase as of yet. And when it does come out the only processors faster than AMD will be more expensive. intel mid-range competes with AMD mid-range because intel high-end only surpasses AMD high-end by about 20% in most cases. So AMD isn't obselete; just a bit slower per-class. But with the severely large price drops AMD is still very competitive.

intel's Fastest are going to be $1000 at the top with AMD's fastest already down to $830. So AMD is still going to be better for the price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103861

That is proof. The X6800 is going to be $999.99. So the price difference balances them out. In tests for gaming the X6800 only held about a 20-30FPS lead over the FX-62. But when you take the FX-62 up to 3.0GHz then you easily gain back most of that lead. It's nothing a bit of core revision and maybe some more L2 cache won't fix pretty easily.

The tests compare apples and oranges for the most part.

AMD FX-62:

2.8GHz
2 x 1MB L2 cache

intel X6800:

2.93GHz
2 x 4MB L2 cache

So you have to see how silly it is to compare the two. The X6800 just bullies its way in with higher clock speeds and WAY more L2 cache. I'm actually quite surprised with how well the FX-62 keeps up with it. So intel may not have a better core, just higher specs all around. If you give the FX-62 2.93GHz and 2 x 4MB L2 cache it is probably going to blow the X6800 away.

 

You have got to be kidding! The FX-62 2.93 GHz can't even compete with the lowest conroe.... much less oc'ing. What bench marks are you going by? By all of the independent testors, non of the current AMD cpu's are even close. Even the extreme AMD cpu's are outbenched by stock e-6600 conroe. Wish upon a wish... the conroe is so far ahead, that the AMD's can't even see there tail lights!

 

Actually you're both wrong. The X6800 has 2x2MB not 2x4MB cache, but the conroe architecture IS faster. a 3Ghz FX-62 will NOT match a 2.93Ghz Conroe at all. The X6800, being about $1300 makes very little sense when an X2 5000+ is $400 or so. Of course, the AMD isn't as fast as the intel, but dollar for dollar there's a lot more sense in buying one. The FX-62 OC'ed to 3.0Ghz will slaughter the E6300 unlike what intel fanboy baltekmi will have you believe, but the X6800 at stock will slaughter the FX-62 at any speed, no matter what Estuansis will have you believe.

 

estuanis,i was talking about running it from the mains not using the battery

 

It's interesting to see how so many opinions changed about Intel. I remember just a couple of months ago how many of the experts here took shots at Conroe saying it was just vaporware and that it was all just a ploy by Intel. I also liked how many began to build or boast about Intel when Tomshardware.com came out with a way to build a screaming PC with an Intel D805 CPU that cost now under $100 bucks. What’s good to know is that there is always two sides to every story and Tomshardware.com is a good source with real experts for all PC related information.

 

sammorris
If you read my post I was talking about the 6600 not the economy 6300.
and yes i agrees avaiability is not what it should. But when has Intel ever been forthcoming and truthful with its news. I would not even consider a build for some months yet anyway. The motherboards are the real problem and untill there more and bugs get worked out then by then the 6600 should be around the 350 mark. I'll just wait till then. And I do hope that Amd has an answer. I f the conroe is "all that" then the amd answer would be awesum. Just be sure to weigh in the cost vs speed like you are doing with the conroe right now. It's not enough that the conroe wins hands down, you amd fanboys think it has to beby a certain %. Just do the same when Amd Takes the crown back(lol).

 

We should all consider ourselves lucky that Intel has finally come up with a CPU that gives users a real choice between AMD and Intel for the first time in ages.
There are always cost implications when buying a system be it newly released or something that’s been available for ages..
I've always bought AMD for personal use, but have to admit that the scores, overclocking and power usage etc.. are all in the favour of Intel at the moment.
If Intel hadn't come up with the Conroe, then where would the pressure on AMD come from, and if you look at prices, then AMDs have never been historically cheap, its only as a result of the Conroe prices and spec's that AMD have been forced to drop the prices by a serious margin.
Saying that, a £250 E6600 will overclock to 4GHz, so even if only taken to 3GHz, it will still beat the £560 FX62 with up to a full 1GHz in the bank not being used.

Sam:
a correction to a point you made earlier on the Conroe L2 cache.
The 6800 does have 4MB Cache, but it is not statically split between the 2 cores (2x2MB) per core.
It is designed to allow each core to use an independent amount of the cache up to the full 4MB, and as each core deals with programs, cache is assigned to each of the cores as required, up to the full 4MB total.
This is yet another example of how good the design on this chip has been.

baltekmi:
I'm also waiting for a stable board to put the Conroe 6600 in, but unlike others you like the Intel chipsets, I want to use the nforce 590 chipset.
Presuming the AMD response is going to be awesome, is hoping at best.
If it was automatically set in stone that the competing company replied with an awesome answer, then someone should have told that to Intel for the last few years.
They have been behind for ages, this has given AMD free range on the field with enthusiasts; times are good for home builders at Last!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Scubabud: Precisely, I cannot hide I rooted for AMD up until now, or a couple of days ago. Now Conroes are actually available (every model if you look hard enough) here, AMD have to accept temporary defeat.
Baltekmi: I did read your post, which said "You have got to be kidding! The FX-62 2.93 GHz can't even compete with the lowest conroe". "Even the extreme AMD cpu's are outbenched by stock e-6600 conroe." - the second is true, the first is false, make your mind up! We don't believe in "hands down" because if it's 30% hands down and the next AMD is 45% faster, AMD will then win. If it's 60% hands down, Intel would keep the crown! We do still believe in technical accuracy. AMD fanboy I am no longer.
BigDK: Profound, but true. Finally some competition, and, oh look! Finally some reasonable prices! You're right about the cache on the 6800, but that still doesn't make it 2x4MB, that would imply 8MB, which there ain't!

Amen to that!

 

just incase you wanted ot know i found one of the best sony laptops available for £816.00.i just need to know if dabs is any good

http://www.ciao.co.uk/Sony_Vaio_FE21M__6483219

 

Quite a fast machine there, massive storage capacity for a laptop. Not a great deal of RAM to play with due to the 7400TC Graphics card, so you may want to be careful with that. Dabs are pretty good last I heard.

 

thanks for the feedback,i think you mistyped the gc are its 7600 not 7400.also for ram ill get it upgraded up to 2gb for like £50 so then ill have a ultra fast machine.

 

Not according to dabs. They reckon 7400. Afaik there's no 7600 with turbocache.

 

I use Dabs quite a bit.
The service is normally spot on.
Delivery can be as quick as 12 hours from order on a very good day, and returns are dealt with quickly.
They even text your mobile when item is shipped!!!