![[GSV]Trig is offline](https://forums.hexus.net/images/hex_statusicon/user-offline.png)
David, can you not get a properly configured AMD system to the spec's provided in the Intel tests and rerun the tests they did, at least that way it'll shut up a few of the blinkered idiots here that are being fan boys....?
It'll at least generate a bit of traffic on the main page...
That's a darned good point!Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig
At end of the day, the consumer wins.. but I just feel heart-felt sorry for AMD... I bet those numbers are rigged in a way aidanjt.. Not that I'm against Conroe or anything, but those number sure looked suss.. How can an FX60 do under 160FPS on UT2004, my 3200+ does things faster than that..
I'm not asking for trouble or anything, but ask yourself, don't you even by once question those numbers? The drivers and such problems may / may not be significant.. If you'd tried running an ATI card with Nv drivers in it, then u know wat im talking about. I'm not saying that the Conroe drivers loaded to both system were purposely created as the culprit to hinder some instruction protocol's for AMD.. but I think those numbers should be at least closer..
Clock for clock, we knew Pentium M was equal and most of the time marginally better than Athlon FXs.. So it came to no suprise Conroe will be roughly the same.. But 40-50%? Get your thinking hats and figure that out.. I don't build computers for a living, but I can tell those numbers seemed rather rigged. Not manufactured, just tampered.. Probably the guys at HEXUS knows it too.. Just cant be arsed to comment since they're provided by Intel.. And they ARE created real time, so the damage should have came from the system setup, or a single unified macro (enbedded registries in conroe drivers perhaps?) that screws up BITS of the whole system.. skeptical I know, but you yourself should know Intel and their habits by now... And YES, of course then arent stupid.. they're just crooked, or perhaps even shrewed.. but not stupid, so no one would be able to question their results (with the fresh install and all).
And we ARE just speculating, Intel Core will be big.. no need my recommendation, Intel's own advertising work should be able to pull enuf customers. But we are from the start just saying that the numbers seemed rather biased... We just feel its rather unfair for AMD or less informed potential AMD buyers these few months... cause most of them is going to go like 'aww gee... amd is so slwo compared to intel's new chip, I might just jump on the Intel boat and get a i975X chipset instead. Notice intel even noted that Conroe will work with i975X? So more ppl would cover their senses that P4 wasnt so great and just jump on the bandwagon for Conroe to arrive.
Again, shrewed.. not entirely fair play.. but effective nonetheless, and yes.. IDF news already went to my professor's ears.. and he's asking me to cahnge back to Intel (after like 3 months convincing him that AMD was faster and got a dual Opty server), so all new PCs from now on will probably be from Dell AGAIN... He was very impressed with the Opty, but the rediculous cool numbers shown here and in the IDF slideshow have ultimately changed the perspective of less informed user, including my boss and all my collegues.
Me want Ultrabook
Ye I see your point about the advertising.
Are the Xeon's going to have a major revamp (they need it)
Hmmm found this:
Config:
scheda madre: Asus A8R32-MVP Deluxe (chipset ATI Radeon Xpress 3200 Crossfire)
scheda madre: Abit AT8 Crossfire Edition (chipset ATI Radeon Xpress 200 Crossfire)
processore: AMD Athlon 64 FX60 (clock 2.600 MHz - cache L2 1 Mbyte per ciascun core)
memoria: Corsair CMX1024-3500LL PRO (2-3-2-6 1T); 2x1 Gbyte
hard disk: Seagate Barracuda 7.200.7 80 Gbytes - Serial ATA
scheda video: ATI Radeon X1900XTX + ATI Radeon X1900XT Crossfire Edition
sistema operativo: Windows XP Professional, Service Pack 2
driver video: ATi Catalyst 6.2
From: http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/stampa/skmadri/1443/
That's at 2.6ghz mind.
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
Man oh man, keep this lark coming its had me in stitches all day, who gives a rats backside if intel or amd are faster. The fanboy arguments really do crack me up. The amount of times I have been told my intel rig is pants as it doesn't push 100+ frames, who cares, as long as it plays the games and runs fine does it really matter who has the most frames or slightly faster chip.
At the end of the day both chips will do what it says on the tin, they allow you to use your computer, play games etc etc so just buy what you can afford and leave it at that. This is definately a thread worthy of a bookmark as I feel a hell of a lot more fanboy shenanigans are going to come of this
People want the best for their money. Or the best full stop.
So it is not surprising to see heated debates.. especially when we are looking at a very significant improvement.
Bit-tech grabbed some time with the Conroe and FX-60 rigs, and ran the FEAR bench at 640x480, no AA, no AF, and the results are interesting....
The Intel constructed AMD apparently overclocked to 2.8 performed worse than bit-tech's reference FX-60 at stock clocks which is grounds for some concern, but that said Conroe's performance is impressive to say the least. They do make the point that this was a fast and dirty bench, and not to place too heavy a reliance on it. FEAR is apparently highly cache-intensive, which ought to benefit Conroe.
Nasty, but not shocking, it's standard Intel practice (going on past experiences).
I think fear is optimized from processors that are good at rendering dull, square corridors
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
Quake 4 @ 1280 x 960
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=3
Quake 4 @ 1600 x 1200
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/fx60/quake4.htm
Just curious ya know.
I would be surprised if intel didnt manipulate the system.
Business is business afterall.
They did:http://www.7hmgaming.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3736
I remember that. At that time I was on a Duron 800.
Although, AMD has had a few major upsets.
- 1 st to drop 1Ghz processor
- 1st to patent and drop SOI which was MASSIVLY efficient and also included a memory controller that fixed so many bottle necks.
- Got rid of FSB
- First to drop a backwards compatable 64bit processor which Intel now licences the technology from AMD.
- Opteron (nuff said)
- First do drop Dual core...
There's a blog I found which reviewed the initial benchmarks on the new Conroe cores from Rahul Sood, who is the CEO of Voodoo PC.
Now, some highlights of what he's said.
First off, with the Anantech review, you'll notice that the processor "AMD Unknown" is there. This is because of the bios revision on the motherboard doesn't even support an FX-60, never mind a simulated FX-62. Some other things were said such as how they basically had the settings to put the AMD processor 6 months behind, where the new Conroe isn't going to be available for another 6 months. This is basically comparing technologies which are a year apart.
For instance, Tomshardware ran a benchmark on the FX-57 where it was pulling 183.4 FPS in UT2k4 on an NVIDIA Geforce 6800 GT and the Anantech review the FX-60 was only pulling 160 FPS. These numbers by Tom are almost a year old. This means some serious fishy **** is going on.
Follow the links and check the trail. It's quite possible that AMD will still be coming on top marginally again with the release of the AM2 and DDR-II 800 low latency support. I wonder who will be the first to solve the PCIe bottleneck.
Even MORE!!! INTEL PROVIDED THE AMD SYSTEM!!
Both Intel and AMD have pulled stunts in the past so any review, especially one with hardware provided and set up by an interested party, should be a) written with that perspective in mind and b) read as such.
"Intel had 2 rigs setup for us to use" should set the brainbox into "I wonder why they are doing that?" mode.
I have no problem with the reporting of Intel's results, they are mighty impressive, but it would have been shrewder had Hexus just reported the Intel benchies then set up their own AMD rig using the same hardware as the Intel provided AMD rig for a comparison.
It's very clever marketing by Intel to let two respected hardware sites get their mitts on the latest Intel can offer knowing full well that their system beats their competitors by a (fair?) margin. People will now stop the upgrade cycle (i.e. buy AMD64) and wait for Conroe based on the amount of good press it's getting and not on a like for like comparison. I can hear the champagne corks and the glasses chinking in the Conroe PR/marketing dept.
I am just a cinic really and don't believe the hype about any PC related product until it's out in the market and review sites, friends and yours truly can get our sticky mitts on it. It's interesting to see people query the numbers and amusing to see others defend and attack them but when all is said and done the results are to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Personally i couldn't care less who "wins" this round of the never ending fight, all I'm sure of is that due to the intense competition the consumer will ulitmately benefit and the educated consumer will chose on a cost/performance basis that suits their needs.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
I'm not all that interested in the next gen processors yet. I feel that right now the processors that are out do the job to handle programs which are currently released. They do the job very well and are able to play games and perform tasks at alarming rates with awesome multi tasking capabilities. Furthermore, I can have Photoshop CS2 open with 100 4 Mega pixel pictures opened, FireFox with roughly 10 tabs (we all know this is a memory hog) and still pull 60 FPS in Unreal Tournament 2004 on my current setup (AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 2GB PQI 2-2-2-5 TCCD, Gigabyte NF3, and a 6800U.
The system I want is an AMD X2 4400+ on the DFI Lan Party With 2 Gigs of Corsair XMS. Throw a 7800 GT in that thing and you've got yourself a machine that will stand up to Vista or any other program out there currently, or for the next two years for that matter.
The only reason I want the new processors to come to fruition is to see the current technology's price to drop.
anandtech follow up...bios issues etc
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716
As said, price is the important factor in whether Conroe will sell (for me, at least). The Pentium 4 may well have been faster than the Athlon XP, but it seemed to me that the Athlon XP still provided better value for money, so I plumped for the Athlon.
Still, I hope that Intel manage to catch up with AMD - nothing better than a good bit of competition!
"Well, there was your Uncle Tiberius who died wrapped in cabbage leaves but we assumed that was a freak accident."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Steam: (