Not defending Amd, sense and reason says wait for a full balanced review before uttering nonsenses like 'massive margin' ,there is no substance to this story with the discrepancies that have come to light! just IMO of course.Originally Posted by aidanjt
I was going to post something on this however someone already beat me to it somewhere else.
I didn't see it posted before so here...
If only they had a time machine...
I would like to take a moment to congratulate Intel on showing Conroe to both Anandtech and Hexus at IDF. As I suggested a few months ago, Intel derailed themselves a number of years ago by staying with their Pentium 4 architecture. There is little doubt that they will be getting back on the rails later this year.
I would like to pipe in a simple counterpoint on a few things, because I feel it’s important that people understand the entire picture before rushing to judgment. In years of being in this business I cannot recall a time where a company debuts information on a product that is six months out. I can only assume that by doing this they have completely lost faith with their current desktop products.
Intel jumped into their time machine to show off a fetus that has six months to mature before it turns into a baby. They basically gave themselves the opportunity to ride in this time warp without giving AMD a chance to get in the passenger seat. Anytime you compare a future technology with an existing one you should expect to see some performance differences, but looking closer it seems as if they are comparing future technology with older technology, rather than current, in some respects.
First of all, though it’s claimed that you’re running an FX-60 processor on the machine, I have yet to see an established motherboard and processor with an image that says "processor unknown".
You’ll notice that the image I am referring to on Anandtech's website (the bios image) states that the AMD processor is “unknown” which makes me believe that the bios they are running is outdated. So, I did a bit of digging and low and behold, the DFI bios version “D49C-32” they are running is from 10/11/05. There has been 1 major revision with major fixes that include:
Set Cool 'n' Quiet Default to Disabled
- With Cool & Quiet enabled, AMD processors will throttle in order to save power and bring their thermal load down. This means the processor could be running as low as 800MHz in certain programs – no matter what the program is. In theory Cool & Quiet is supposed to throttle up to maximum in games but this is not always the case. No enthusiast PC goes out with Cool & Quiet enabled unless it’s a fanless machine or media center.
Add Support for AMD Athlon 64 FX60 CPU
- According to DFI the FX-60 will not operate correctly without this bios update. Without official support for the FX-60 CPU I’m not sure what we’re comparing against here.
Fix Memory Timings 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table Error.
- Memory latency can make a massive difference in performance. If the latency was not running at the correct latency we can see a pretty big difference in all kinds of performance. Anandtech stated “The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings…” Apparently this isn’t the case, but they would not be able to tell without having the platform in house.
Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode.
- More apparent performance issues under Crossfire mode.
Next, when you take a future Intel chipset and compare it to a chipset that no enthusiast supports (RD480) with an outdated bios it’s like taking a Ferrari and putting it on Bias-Ply tires. It’s just not a good way to show off a “new” technology.
Had Intel taken an RD580 (Crossfire Xpress 3200) and coupled with the AMD Athlon FX-60 processor they almost certainly would have seen some better numbers just based on the bios issues alone. The ATi Xpress 3200 would have improved the overclocking and decoding performance as well. You don’t need a time machine to jump over to the nearest Newegg and buy the latest parts. It’s almost like Intel took their time machine 6 months ahead while throwing AMD into a time warp set a few months back in time.
So now a few numbers caught my attention based on another email I received last night.
If we go and check out the numbers on Anandtech we’ll see the Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmark showing 160fps on the unknown AMD X2 processor while the Intel Conroe at 2.66GHz came in significantly higher at 191fps.
Though this isn’t exactly conclusive, if you go back and re-read some old FX-57 reviews on Tom’s Hardware you’ll see a benchmark for the same game set at the same resolution (and the same color depth), the FX-57 running at 2.8GHz scored 183.4fps. The funny thing is it’s using an Nvidia Geforce 6800 GT which seems to me that something is totally wrong here - perhaps it's somewhere locked in the settings, but I won't know until I sit down and compare our own benchmarks with consistant settings. Note that a single core Athlon 64 4000 achieved a better score in the benchmark run by Tom (160.5fps) than the one provided by Intel (160.4) at IDF. Here is a link to Tom’s review.
These are just a few of the thoughts that I have been able to gather. I have received over 100 emails in the last 18 hours about this to see what my thoughts are. Quite simply, I would say go back and read my original article on Conroe – I certainly expect Intel to be back on the rails, but I don’t see them to be wiping the floor with anyone other than their Pentium 4 team come launch time.
AMD still has some big performance gains with AM2, we are talking about a new platform with low latency DDR-2 support along with new processors. While I’d love to tell you how much performance difference this would give you on a clock to clock basis, I’m afraid you’ll have to use your imaginations for now.
We can speculate all we want, but why bother? By simply changing the bios and ensuring that Cool & Quiet is disabled, that the FX-60 is fully supported, and that there are no memory timing issues I imagine we would see a fairly significant performance gain on those merits alone.
The long and the short of it is Intel has crafted an excellent marketing strategy to show off their baby in its first trimester. They are trying to win the hearts and minds of enthusiasts half a year before they have anything to show us. They created these platforms in house, and we can only hope they unknowingly crutched the AMD system by using a chipset and motherboard - with an outdated bios - that no enthusiast supports. EDITED FOR CLARITY - If you read the article you'll see that the AMD system is clearly crutched - I am hoping that Intel had no clue that this was the case. I suspect they did this unknowingly.
I’m going to give Intel an “A” for their P.R. effort, good job guys, and thanks for the show. I can’t wait to see the real substance. Let's assume for now that AMD is not standing still, shall we?
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/
I think you should form your own opinion before taking the opinion of a company that just got slammed for losing market share to their lowly number two competitor.
Discrepancies?.. You must think Intel hires the biggest bunch of idiots on earth.. either A) you're trying to say that they havn't a clue as to how to build an AMD system, or B) they rigged the AMD machine to give out crap results, or C) Hexus gives sloppy/biased reporting.. iif you mean A, they shrink semi-conductors for a living, wise up.. if you mean B, not even an idiot would try that, considering FX60's are available now, other people could build a likewise rig and validate the results shown and tarnish Intel's image.. If you mean C i suggest you stop talking and start using your brain.
Give it a god damn rest with the AMD fanboy kneejerk reactions, Intel has the day, get over it, suck up your pride.. AMD will have a chance to react soon enough.
That is hillarious...
Intel builds an AMD system with today's chip and puts it up against their own 6 month from now chip and everyone says..."WOW...Intel rules!" You do realize that Intel has pulled this crap before. Itanic was shown to be faster...bleah! Sorry but I don't think Intel would setup an AMD system to go faster then theirs. They are falling and the only way they have to get back up is pull tricks...or is it turn tricks?
He is absolutely correct...we need a fair and balanced review...not one engineered by Intel.
PenStar Systems has more insightful commentary. I'd forgotten about AMD's habit of sending out engineering samples that were far short of production specs. AMD may yet surprise us. AMD, under Hector Ruiz, doesn't telegraph its full future capabilities. They've also added features to new core revisions, such as SSE3 support in the X2 and Turion chips, so interesting tweaks to the Rev. F cores would be far from unprecedented.
Am I correct in assuming that making the ATI video drivers "recognize Conroe" means that they were compiled with Intel's compiler that's been optimized for Conroe? I can think of no other reason to "recognize" the chip. Intel has played very dirty with its compiler in the past, including disabling SSE/SSE2/etc optimized codepaths on chips that don't report being GenuineIntel instead of asking the CPU whether it supports those individual features like it should.
Current ATI drivers have dual core support for CPUs that it knows has dual cores, i would imagine this would be a list of CPUIDs, which would mean having to add Conroe's CPUIDs in order to take full advantage of the X1900's.. I don't see how this gives Intel any kind of bias. Speculating on what 'may' is just more fan boy type reactions. More facts and less speculation please.
Why wouldn't it just ask the BIOS how many CPU cores there are, so it would also support multiprocessor systems? There's probably a Windows API call that will tell you that too.
Edit: Here's one.
Since there's no way to get all the facts just yet, we have to speculate a bit. Heck, it's prototype hardware, the facts are going to change between now and production anyhow.
What's most interesting to me is that Intel would give hands-on previews of a chip that thoroughly spanks their existing CPUs several months before the new CPUs are ready. Surely they've heard of Osbourne? Or have high-end P4 sales dropped off to the point where it just doesn't matter?
YOU call ME a fanboy ...cheek . A- they shrink semi-conductors for a living true and 'if' they have managed to create something that will topple a competitor whose entire revenue is less than Intels advertising budget ,after chasing Amd's rear for a number of years then well done Intel.
B & C - Not my words -link for B&C just for Aid David himself said they were rushed results, why can't you stop being so abusive and see the whole picture ,reserve judgement till a full scale review has been done, could be you are right, could also be Intel are up to their dirty tricks again, if so you will look a right fooland i will remind you! ( I should'nt rise to it really but hey ho)
I have never seen such a blinkered view as yours. I really could'nt give a 5h1t who's got the fastest cpu my feind ,tho i am glad the days of the £1000 cpu are over, and thats all thanks to AMD......Long live both companys, long live competition.
Exactly. It only can deter those buyers who were considering AMD... (Intel is experiencing shortages and inventory overcapacity at the same time? Hmm...) Smart move, even if dirty play.
Disclaimer: I consider myself an AMD fan.
I already know there's a windows API call for CPU count, but most software check CPUIDs directly because its more portable and gleams more information regarding the chip for optimisations purposes.
A bit of speculation is fine, when you use speculation as your only defense for your beloved CPU that's something else entirely
Intel are already fabricating these CPU's for Apple.. I imagine the only thing delaying the release is lack of EFI motherboards, and operating systems with EFI bootloaders (mainly waiting for Vista), afterall there's no point selling a CPU that doesn't have software to run on it.
Guys, we are NOT saying this is a review, its a few numbers... something to give you guys an indication what is coming.
Of course the normal reuslts will be done in our labs...
Most of us known this is just a quick and dirty preview of what is coming. I think it is just in our nature to speculate and flatulate for fun. Again I am hopeful Intel can pull a rabbit out of it's _ _ _! I have been an AMD fan for quite awhile now, although I am not ANTI-INTEL and hope to see someone light a fire under AMD ASAP! AMD has done well but it's time we see a REAL revolution from both companies...for OUR benifit (-:
I have owned nothing but AMD forever but, i have to say it is nice to see Intel making a push here. I've been rather disappointed with AMD's miniscule improvements on their cpus since the release of the athlon 64's while gpu's are improving by leaps and bounds..... i.e. nvidia will soon be releasing a quad sli setup that will be completely pointless as it will be completely cpu bound unless you have a huge monitor with insane res. Hopefully the battle between AMD and Intel will escalate to the point of the battle between Nvidia and ATI and then we will all win!!!
I am skeptical of the result. The FX60 numbers looks lower than they are supposed to be. Besides, there was no clear specs of each system so one cannot tell what the reference is.
Lets see a formal review that has all the baseline validated and critiqued by peer sites. They way the real truth will show itself.
Sorry, Intel , I cannot see how your 2.67Ghz can give such numbers compared to a 2.8Ghz Athlon. Are you guys sure it is not 3.67Ghz ???.
I honestly believe that the P4 was designed from the ground up to be an HT platform. Nothing made sense with the early silicon until they announced the later HT variant. I think 2 threads is pointless though, the Tera MTA that they got the idea from ran thousands. Each Tera thread was slow, but the overall throughput as a server was tremendous.
with numbers like that, it's going to come down to price.
the encoding specs don't surprise me at all, as I still only use intel for physics rendering and photon mapping - but always AMD for brute force renders.
If conroe can beat AMD on brute force I think that's when everyone will take notice.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote