AMD fanboys,time to admit.

[hardwareking]

I guess its about time all the amd fanboys out there admitted that Core 2 Duo from Intel a.k.a Conroe destroys all K8 AMD processors(in their price segment)in all benchmarks except memory bandwidth/latency.And it performs better while consuming less power at both idle and load.
So its about time u admitted it.Intel is on top!!!!!
Say it with me.Intel is on top,yeah!!!!
And how many of u are gonna get core 2 duo?(non amd fanboys included)?

 

[Griswold]

Dont forget to use a hanky afterwards. :lips:

 

[Stoneburner]

mind pointing to threads where you did the opposite anytime the last 3 years?


hopefully you'll get a temp ban for this blatant trolling.

 

[Neurorelay]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
I guess its about time all the amd fanboys out there admitted that Core 2 Duo from Intel a.k.a Conroe destroys all K8 AMD processors(in their price segment)in all benchmarks except memory bandwidth/latency.And it performs better while consuming less power at both idle and load.
So its about time u admitted it.Intel is on top!!!!!
Say it with me.Intel is on top,yeah!!!!
And how many of u are gonna get core 2 duo?(non amd fanboys included)?

How old are you, honestly, stop trolling.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
I guess its about time all the amd fanboys out there admitted that Core 2 Duo from Intel a.k.a Conroe destroys all K8 AMD processors(in their price segment)in all benchmarks except memory bandwidth/latency.And it performs better while consuming less power at both idle and load.
So its about time u admitted it.Intel is on top!!!!!
Say it with me.Intel is on top,yeah!!!!
And how many of u are gonna get core 2 duo?(non amd fanboys included)?

Umm, I think the A64's use less power than Core 2 Duo when idle, but more when under loads. And AMD still takes Sciencemard Primordia by a huge margin over Core 2 Duo.
I agree that Core 2 Duo is the new "roxorz", but it's kind of childish the way your are going about this. "Nyah, nyaaaaaah, nyah nyah nyaaaaaaah" is a phrase often used by my 4 year old son.

 

[cmrmrc]

o god...since the release of conroe...this forum changed alot...it ain't the helping amd users forum but the trolling forum now

 

[acegazda]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
mind pointing to threads where you did the opposite anytime the last 3 years?


hopefully you'll get a temp ban for this blatant trolling.

he hasn't been around for 3 years on this forum, but yes, when k8 came out, everyone was saying "switch to AMD!" the tables have turned. Hardwareking: when the mods ban you, don't 4get to put the quote in your sig.

 

[wolfman11]

True, these things now go in cycles. I think we are kind of forgetting that when AMD passed Intel a few years ago in performance that that was for the first time ever (a clear performance lead across the board). A little bigger deal than Intel taking the performance crown back that they had held forever basically.

I personally don't care much as I'm not buying a new system right now. If I was I'd buy Conroe based system but not till new rev of boards/better chipset with 1333fsb support are out. Lots of reviews showing incredible scores, but also stating ancilary things like how poorly certain games load, stuttering, etc that represent the immaturity of the platform overall.

 

[eoniverse]

Yup. Conroe is King.

For now.

So how long did it finally take this time for Intel to pass tiny (relatively) AMD?

I choose to support AMD because if there was no AMD:

1. Conroe would cost $3000.00
2. Intel would not have develped Conroe for another 10 years.
3. Every Intel cpu revision would have a new socket and require a new MB purchase.
4. Intel would have only released the P3 800mhz by now.
5. And the P3 800mhz would only cost $2000.00

Hopefully AMD will have an answer. I can easily wait a year with my 3800x2. I'll decide what to do then.

 

[Kyanzes]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
I guess its about time all the amd fanboys out there admitted that Core 2 Duo from Intel a.k.a Conroe destroys all K8 AMD processors(in their price segment)in all benchmarks except memory bandwidth/latency.And it performs better while consuming less power at both idle and load.
So its about time u admitted it.Intel is on top!!!!!
Say it with me.Intel is on top,yeah!!!!
And how many of u are gonna get core 2 duo?(non amd fanboys included)?

Are you under some kind of mind control? It's very dangerous for one to become affected by one's own influence.

 

[Pugnate]

Yes let's all be big enough to admit that Conroe have delivered a rather powerful blow. A blow that AMD won't recover from for at least a year.

 

[jiffylube1024]

These kinds of gloat threads are absolutely asinine and should get the poster a weeklong vactation IMO.

We can all read and it's pretty obvious that Conroe takes the performance crown. They say as much several times in the AT article.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
These kinds of gloat threads are absolutely asinine and should get the poster a weeklong vactation IMO.

We can all read and it's pretty obvious that Conroe takes the performance crown. They say as much several times in the AT article.

 

[Canterwood]

Say it with me! Hardwanking is a childish noob! Yeah!!!!

 

[Pandaren]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Umm, I think the A64's use less power than Core 2 Duo when idle, but more when under loads.

I don't think this is necessarily the case:

THG Power Consumption figures

The Core 2 Extreme system consumes 160 watts at idle with SpeedStep enabled. The FX-60 consumes 161 watts with Cool n' Quiet enabled. The FX-62 consumes 192 watts at idle.

The AnandTech article shows a small lead for the AMD systems. My guess is that on average, it's a wash at idle speeds, depending on motherboards, BIOS versions, and other small factors.

 

[Regs]

"Private Pile what is your major malfunction? Mummy and daddy didn't give you enough attention when you were younger?"

I loved that movie.

 

[Cruise51]

Is conroe better than athlon 64? Performance wise, yes.... Value wise, that is yet to be seen.

 

[jlbenedict]

Who cares. If there were no competitors such as AMD, there would be an even slower rate of technology advances.
I thank both AMD and Intel for the research and engineering that goes behind these wonderful CPUs that we are able to get our hands on today.

 

[Pens1566]

So where is OP going on his week-long vacation?

 

[akshayt]

I would be much happier had the technology development rate be half or even one third.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Is conroe better than athlon 64? Performance wise, yes.... Value wise, that is yet to be seen.

The place to make the stand on the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+. Thats true innovation. Not to say when K8L's new chips ship it wont be the same from the opisite end. We (the consumers) are the winners here. Honestly tho, when Conroe finally makes it into mainstream, I couldnt blame anyone going either way. With AMD's price cuts, and Conroe's performance, everyone is a winner!

Its just a great time for people wanting to upgrade/build...."the golden era" you might say.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Pandaren

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Umm, I think the A64's use less power than Core 2 Duo when idle, but more when under loads.

I don't think this is necessarily the case:

THG Power Consumption figures

The Core 2 Extreme system consumes 160 watts at idle with SpeedStep enabled. The FX-60 consumes 161 watts with Cool n' Quiet enabled. The FX-62 consumes 192 watts at idle.

The AnandTech article shows a small lead for the AMD systems. My guess is that on average, it's a wash at idle speeds, depending on motherboards, BIOS versions, and other small factors.

Unfortunately, we cant really go by Toms as they have been known to favor intel since that ridiculous Dual Core Stress test thing they turned into a fiasco.
H has a more trustworthy power consumption bench here.

And here is AT's here.

 

[Cruise51]

[/quote] the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+. [/quote]
A projected price compared to a current price, I expect FX-62 prices to be cut by at least two thirds when e6600 is readily available.

I agree it is a great time for upgrading.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Cruise51

the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+. [/quote]
A projected price compared to a current price, I expect FX-62 prices to be cut by at least two thirds when e6600 is readily available.

I agree it is a great time for upgrading.[/quote]


Honestly I havent come accross ANY price cuts for thier FX line. The only thing I have seen is this:

AMD's planned price cuts

EDIT: Altho I will agree that a 2/3 price cut on the FX line will keep them competitive (which is what we all want)

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Pandaren

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Umm, I think the A64's use less power than Core 2 Duo when idle, but more when under loads.

I don't think this is necessarily the case:

THG Power Consumption figures

The Core 2 Extreme system consumes 160 watts at idle with SpeedStep enabled. The FX-60 consumes 161 watts with Cool n' Quiet enabled. The FX-62 consumes 192 watts at idle.

The AnandTech article shows a small lead for the AMD systems. My guess is that on average, it's a wash at idle speeds, depending on motherboards, BIOS versions, and other small factors.

Unfortunately, we cant really go by Toms as they have been known to favor intel since that ridiculous Dual Core Stress test thing they turned into a fiasco.
H has a more trustworthy power consumption bench here.

And here is AT's here.

Well I dunno while going by site favor X works sometimes, I prefer to see if their data is inline with more reputable sites like TechReport and Anandtech, that being said Anandtech is not infallible either, we had seen some wierd power consumption numbers from here where they showed the 6xx Series hotter then the 5xx series, when jsut about everyone else showed the opposite.

I think the best thing to do in the end is to get as much power consumption data and compare to get a rough idea what the average may be.