Could Intel finally have a winner?

[Major SONAR Profile]

See the links below for previews of the new Intel chip "Conroe". This chip is frequently beating the AMD FX-60 by 30% - 40%. Admitidly these demos were provided by Intel, but do show amazing potential.

Who would have thought Intel could regain the lead over AMD? (yeah, but at what $$$)

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=1

[cavalierlwt Profile]

Yeah, I was reading the same articles. Should those stats hold up, we're talking 20-40% gains over AMD. Like you said though, at what cost? If it cost twice as much, screw it. Wait 8-10 months and get AMDs reply--at half the price. Besides, I hate to say it, but procs are becoming less and less of a bottleneck these days. Videocards seem to the place where we need the horsepower.

[Major SONAR Profile]

Videocards seem to the place where we need the horsepower.

Only if you're playing 3D video games.
Surely you use your computer for more than that?

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

Ok. So Intel was able to beat AMD's current generation of chips with their next generation of chips. DDR 400 for AMD and DDR2-667 for Intel. Big freaking deal. Obvious advantage there. I'll wait to see the comparison of apples to apples and not oranges to apples. Let's see what AMD's next generation can do.

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

Originally posted by Major SONAR
Only if you're playing 3D video games.
Surely you use your computer for more than that?

Negative.

[cavalierlwt Profile]

It's been a long, long, long time since I thought M$ Word ran too slow, or something similar to that. The only other place I need proc power is encoding movies to divx.

[Major SONAR Profile]

Here is my motto:

"IF IT'S NOT INSTANTANEOUS, IT'S TOO SLOW"

and PraiseAllah... That doesn't suprise me.
(just messin' witcha bud)

[JimmyTango Profile]

Many incorrect assumptions here.

First, the FX-60 is overclocked to FX-62 speeds, a future CPU coming from AMD. They are trying their hardest to do a simulation of a future AMD chip, and in my opinion a very good job.

Second, the difference in DDR will NOT give a 40% performance boost.

Third, if being picky about the difference in DDR, then you also must mention that the Intel chip is running at a slower clock speed than the AMD chip.

This is a very good CPU for Intel, they are breaking away from their core speed is best strategy and moving to their Pentium M strategy of lower clock speed, lower heat, lower power consumption. This will give Intel what it needs to compete with AMD.

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Many incorrect assumptions here.

First, the FX-60 is overclocked to FX-62 speeds, a future CPU coming from AMD. They are trying their hardest to do a simulation of a future AMD chip, and in my opinion a very good job.

Second, the difference in DDR will NOT give a 40% performance boost.

Third, if being picky about the difference in DDR, then you also must mention that the Intel chip is running at a slower clock speed than the AMD chip.

I still stand by my opinion regardless of your opinion. You are entitled to yours of course. I have read that there is a very large performance difference from DDR to DDR2 and also within the DDR2 family itself. Overall I still say that article doesn't prove a damn thing because they're comparing different generations of chips. Who knows what extra features/pipelines/RAM/etc. Intel has added into this chip? IMO bottom line is wait for AMD's next gen THEN compare. And for the record, my money is on AMD winning that contest.

[JimmyTango Profile]

Firs, the AMD is using sick timing on their DDR memory, at 2-2-2/1T timings. The Intel is using horrible timings of 4-4-4.

Early DDR2 ram ran slower than DDR1 ram even though the DDR2 ram was 'faster.' The reason? Crappy timings. You really need timings of 3-3-3 with DDR2 for a good performance boost.

I am sorry, but in no way are you getting a 40% performance boost in FEAR with DDR1/DDR2.

Performance of PC3200 vs PC5400

http://www.overclockercafe.com/Articles/DDR_vs_DDR2/pg_4.htm

[LordShard]

But yet there is still a reason why I won't use Intel even if this processor is the shit. All Intel's processor have built in HARDWARE DRM.

[cavalierlwt Profile]

I don't know much about Intel's DRM, but start getting used to DRM, it's the way of the future whether we like it or not. You haven't seen the tip of the iceberg yet, wait till it really gets going.

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Firs, the AMD is using sick timing on their DDR memory, at 2-2-2/1T timings. The Intel is using horrible timings of 4-4-4.

Early DDR2 ram ran slower than DDR1 ram even though the DDR2 ram was 'faster.' The reason? Crappy timings. You really need timings of 3-3-3 with DDR2 for a good performance boost.

I am sorry, but in no way are you getting a 40% performance boost in FEAR with DDR1/DDR2.

Performance of PC3200 vs PC5400

http://www.overclockercafe.com/Articles/DDR_vs_DDR2/pg_4.htm

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr2-ddr_2.html

Back at you bub. It depends on the system architecture.

[JimmyTango Profile]

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr2-ddr_2.html

Back at you bub. It depends on the system architecture.

I am extremely familure with that article, and was going to even link to it also. Read all of it, as that article completely agrees with me. They even state matter of fact how early DDR2 was slower than DDR1 and early DDR2 is also mentioned with the timings of 4-4-4 as being slow DDR2 ram, which once again is what Intel was using in this comparison.

[Major SONAR Profile]

in no way are you getting a 40% performance boost in FEAR with DDR1/DDR2

I agree. You may get a slight increase with DDR2, say 5% - 10% (Max), but you will never see a 40% boost. Still the demo's were provided by Intel. On the other side of the coin, Intel still has 4 - 6 months to tweak the chip. I would assume a slight increase in performance if anything.

Sure AMD has yet to retun fire, but a 30% - 40% increase in processor power is a huge leap. No doubt AMD has been making some great chips recently, but it seems that Intel has been their homework too.

In the end this competition will only reward the consumer.

LET THE BATTLE BEGIN!!