Well, if not, you will be paying $1000 for the cheapest Intel CPU like before AMD was competitive. Remember the price for a 200 MHZ Pentium ? I think it continued up to about the 1 ghz befor AMD really started competing.
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Canterwood
You better pray that AMD can survive.Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Can AMD surive? Well can they?
:laugh:
Uh no. This is real life. Survival of the fitest. Skate....or die!
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Canterwood
You better pray that AMD can survive.Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Can AMD surive? Well can they?
:laugh:
Uh no. This is real life. Survival of the fitest. Skate....or die!
Well, if not, you will be paying $1000 for the cheapest Intel CPU like before AMD was competitive. Remember the price for a 200 MHZ Pentium ? I think it continued up to about the 1 ghz befor AMD really started competing.
The $700+ I paid for a P2-400 back in the day tells you to shove itOriginally posted by: FelixDeKat
Uh no. This is real life. Survival of the fitest. Skate....or die!
Originally posted by: hans007
Originally posted by: Steelski
there is still a long way till this gets released.
AM2 does smell like a stop gap for AMD though.
I am also very interested in what exactly is in those X1900 drivers? could it be a bet a or a newer version? the registry could be tweaked to have AI on?
Personally if all these benchmarks are real(most probably) then i am not too suprised at all. like many say, this has been a long time coming. I also think that AMD have not just been sitting idle. they have their 4-8meg cach coming on AM2, amongst other things. but certainly i would expect Intel to take the crown and keep it for a little while, at least 8 months before the new architecture from AMD comes along........ this was always on the cards when you consider the advantage the A64 got from having an on board memory controller, whilst the p4 was chuging along without.
4mb am2 cant happen until 2007 with 65nm. it probably wouldnt be for the general consumer anyway. the normal 2mb 2x1mb am2 that will come out in june is supposed to already be a 220 mm^2 die, when the supposedly sweet spot for cpus is like under 150mm^2.
if you have a really big die, the chance of defects is exponentially higher so maybe a 4mb one with 65nm, but that is still probably nearly a year away. plus cache is only good for reducing latency which is why intel puts on so much of it and amd doesnt (sicne their latency is already pretty good with the memory controller onboard)
itll be tough to see what amd does, they could maybe unify the current seperated caches
but i think they will have to do something like microops fusion and macro ops fusion as well as a few other things to really catch up.
Originally posted by: Steelski
Originally posted by: hans007
Originally posted by: Steelski
there is still a long way till this gets released.
AM2 does smell like a stop gap for AMD though.
I am also very interested in what exactly is in those X1900 drivers? could it be a bet a or a newer version? the registry could be tweaked to have AI on?
Personally if all these benchmarks are real(most probably) then i am not too suprised at all. like many say, this has been a long time coming. I also think that AMD have not just been sitting idle. they have their 4-8meg cach coming on AM2, amongst other things. but certainly i would expect Intel to take the crown and keep it for a little while, at least 8 months before the new architecture from AMD comes along........ this was always on the cards when you consider the advantage the A64 got from having an on board memory controller, whilst the p4 was chuging along without.
4mb am2 cant happen until 2007 with 65nm. it probably wouldnt be for the general consumer anyway. the normal 2mb 2x1mb am2 that will come out in june is supposed to already be a 220 mm^2 die, when the supposedly sweet spot for cpus is like under 150mm^2.
if you have a really big die, the chance of defects is exponentially higher so maybe a 4mb one with 65nm, but that is still probably nearly a year away. plus cache is only good for reducing latency which is why intel puts on so much of it and amd doesnt (sicne their latency is already pretty good with the memory controller onboard)
itll be tough to see what amd does, they could maybe unify the current seperated caches
but i think they will have to do something like microops fusion and macro ops fusion as well as a few other things to really catch up.
I think you are forgeting the fact that AMD bought a company with patents to a 4:1 compression ration in cach technology. that makes the 4 mb cores seem really simple if they are the same size as the 1 mb.
let me find a link
Well, I couldent find the link to the AMD accuisition story, but i found this from the inquirer. http://www.theinquirer.net/Default.aspx?article=29738
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I don't know about anybody else, but I took at look at these benchmarks here:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713
Kinda odd how the AMD X2 2.8 catches up to the Conroe in applications but not games...
Last I heard, F.E.A.R. was a GPU intensive game and that it relied very little on the CPU. So, why is it that in these benchmarks F.E.A.R. features an almost 40% lead over AMD? I mean, considering that this game hardly touches the CPU... That seems very odd to me.
The X2 that Intel was comparing to the Conroe didn't completely murder the Conroe in every application they listed, but they only listed a few applications. Conroe is supposed to be all-mighty, but can barely encode in DIVX better than an older processor? Intels have always ran applications better than AMD... So, what exactly is going on here?
I mean, if this doesn't raise questions, then I don't know what will.
EDIT: Had to rephrase... Sorry :/
Originally posted by: biostud
3. The game tests are done at pretty low resolutions for a X1900XT CF setup. Most will probably either only have one videocard or run at higher resolutions where the videocard probably still will be the limiting factor, and the advantage of Conroe will be smaller.
Originally posted by: Steelski
Originally posted by: hans007
Originally posted by: Steelski
there is still a long way till this gets released.
AM2 does smell like a stop gap for AMD though.
I am also very interested in what exactly is in those X1900 drivers? could it be a bet a or a newer version? the registry could be tweaked to have AI on?
Personally if all these benchmarks are real(most probably) then i am not too suprised at all. like many say, this has been a long time coming. I also think that AMD have not just been sitting idle. they have their 4-8meg cach coming on AM2, amongst other things. but certainly i would expect Intel to take the crown and keep it for a little while, at least 8 months before the new architecture from AMD comes along........ this was always on the cards when you consider the advantage the A64 got from having an on board memory controller, whilst the p4 was chuging along without.
4mb am2 cant happen until 2007 with 65nm. it probably wouldnt be for the general consumer anyway. the normal 2mb 2x1mb am2 that will come out in june is supposed to already be a 220 mm^2 die, when the supposedly sweet spot for cpus is like under 150mm^2.
if you have a really big die, the chance of defects is exponentially higher so maybe a 4mb one with 65nm, but that is still probably nearly a year away. plus cache is only good for reducing latency which is why intel puts on so much of it and amd doesnt (sicne their latency is already pretty good with the memory controller onboard)
itll be tough to see what amd does, they could maybe unify the current seperated caches
but i think they will have to do something like microops fusion and macro ops fusion as well as a few other things to really catch up.
I think you are forgeting the fact that AMD bought a company with patents to a 4:1 compression ration in cach technology. that makes the 4 mb cores seem really simple if they are the same size as the 1 mb.
let me find a link
Well, I couldent find the link to the AMD accuisition story, but i found this from the inquirer. http://www.theinquirer.net/Default.aspx?article=29738
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This is a specious argument. THey can use both easily. The only reason they dont is for non economically efficient reasons for consumers.
Originally posted by: Commodus
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This is a specious argument. THey can use both easily. The only reason they dont is for non economically efficient reasons for consumers.
Can they? Remember, it's not just a question of whether the chips are fast enough or how much they cost; it's also a question of being fast while letting Apple achieve what it wants in hardware and software design. Do you really think a MacBook Pro would have been best-off with a high-end Turion, which is currently just a single-core A64 with some power savings thrown in? Especially when OS X and many pro apps written for it are multithreaded?
Or look at the Mac mini. What kind of AMD chip do you think would have run in there with a minimum of cooling? Right now, Apple is shipping a dual-core Mac mini that can play back 1080p video. The company can't do that with AMD using a Mac mini case.
I think AMD is great for full-size desktops right now. But Apple only has one line of such systems. I think Apple would rather choose the CPU maker that will give the company good performance across the board - not great relative performance (for awhile) in one line and poor relative performance in another.
Originally posted by: stevty2889
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I don't know about anybody else, but I took at look at these benchmarks here:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713
Kinda odd how the AMD X2 2.8 catches up to the Conroe in applications but not games...
Last I heard, F.E.A.R. was a GPU intensive game and that it relied very little on the CPU. So, why is it that in these benchmarks F.E.A.R. features an almost 40% lead over AMD? I mean, considering that this game hardly touches the CPU... That seems very odd to me.
The X2 that Intel was comparing to the Conroe didn't completely murder the Conroe in every application they listed, but they only listed a few applications. Conroe is supposed to be all-mighty, but can barely encode in DIVX better than an older processor? Intels have always ran applications better than AMD... So, what exactly is going on here?
I mean, if this doesn't raise questions, then I don't know what will.
EDIT: Had to rephrase... Sorry :/
You better look at it again..the performance for the multimedia applications was measured in time..lower number is better..conroe was ahead in those as well..
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: stevty2889
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I don't know about anybody else, but I took at look at these benchmarks here:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713
Kinda odd how the AMD X2 2.8 catches up to the Conroe in applications but not games...
Last I heard, F.E.A.R. was a GPU intensive game and that it relied very little on the CPU. So, why is it that in these benchmarks F.E.A.R. features an almost 40% lead over AMD? I mean, considering that this game hardly touches the CPU... That seems very odd to me.
The X2 that Intel was comparing to the Conroe didn't completely murder the Conroe in every application they listed, but they only listed a few applications. Conroe is supposed to be all-mighty, but can barely encode in DIVX better than an older processor? Intels have always ran applications better than AMD... So, what exactly is going on here?
I mean, if this doesn't raise questions, then I don't know what will.
EDIT: Had to rephrase... Sorry :/
You better look at it again..the performance for the multimedia applications was measured in time..lower number is better..conroe was ahead in those as well..
That wasn't what I was debating.
A disclaimer: Conroe is going to be good, it's going to be a good chip and will make Intel competitive again. However, you guys have all slipped into some kind of reality distortion feild, and I'm going to try to pull you all out of it.
Now lets get down to it. The fact that all the game tests but FEAR were set up by Intel is no coincidence, as FEAR is the only test that Intel didn't have to rig.
You see, you guys think you are seeing some sort of marvelous new architecture. You aren't. You are seeing a good architecture that is around par with AMD64 that has lots, and lots of cache. The thing you guys are forgetting here is that Conroe has a 4MB *resizable* cache. In single threaded apps, you are seeing a core with 4MB of cache all to itself. Look at Quake 4, and the huge drop in leadership over AMD when both cores need to share that 4MB of cache.
Now why don't you guys also take a trip in the 'way back machine' to the days of Quake 3. ID made an assortment of time demos, and the performance difference between these time demos could be huge. AMD or Intel could be winning by a significant amount depending on which timedemo was used. Now, ye foolish, remember that these are *Intel created* timedemos. Who knows how much they could have swayed performance in their favour? Anywhere from 10-40% could be possible, but I suppose no one knows besides the Intel guys who made the timedemos in the first place. So in single threaded game performance the two chips will likely be even, with perhaps a slight edge to Intel, but in multithreaded tests AMD should win by quite a bit still. Of course that excludes FEAR...
FEAR is *extremely* cache sensitive. Despite a 200MHz clock disadvantage, the 165 beats the 3800+ by a good margin, and don't forget that AMD64 *is not* very cache sensitive. Without an IMF, conroe is a lot more cache sensitive than the A64, and in this case has *4X the L2 cache* as the FX-60 does. FEAR gets no performance advantage from going to 1 to 2GB's of memory, so who knows, a very good portion of the game code might fit in Conroe's L2.
Also The BIOS, which dates from 2003, does not even recognize the FX-60... come on.
EDIT: Even though the bios says copyright 2003 its actually from 2005, and as Rahul Sood points out:
-That Bios *enables Cool 'n Quite by default
-According to DFI the FX-60 is not recognized *and does not function poperly* with this Bios
-2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table Error (!)
-Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode (! Crossfire bug !)
Last but not least, the systems use a *modified* video driver. Why on earth would Intel need this? The excuse that it's needed to recognize Conroe doesen't hold water (When have you ever had to update your video card drivers to recognize a new processor?!) and almost cries out optimization. And with ATI's drivers generally sucking (that latest OpenGL fix should have been fixed *years* ago), the recent skype 'optimizations', the fact that ATI is now making a lot of Intel chipsets and this, how can you possibly accept these seemingly extraordinary numbers at face value?
Something to think about.
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: Commodus
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This is a specious argument. THey can use both easily. The only reason they dont is for non economically efficient reasons for consumers.
Can they? Remember, it's not just a question of whether the chips are fast enough or how much they cost; it's also a question of being fast while letting Apple achieve what it wants in hardware and software design. Do you really think a MacBook Pro would have been best-off with a high-end Turion, which is currently just a single-core A64 with some power savings thrown in? Especially when OS X and many pro apps written for it are multithreaded?
Or look at the Mac mini. What kind of AMD chip do you think would have run in there with a minimum of cooling? Right now, Apple is shipping a dual-core Mac mini that can play back 1080p video. The company can't do that with AMD using a Mac mini case.
I think AMD is great for full-size desktops right now. But Apple only has one line of such systems. I think Apple would rather choose the CPU maker that will give the company good performance across the board - not great relative performance (for awhile) in one line and poor relative performance in another.
The problem with this way of thinking is the:
Dual Core = Better Performance...
In reality, the truth is:
Dual Core = More Efficient Performance.
Just because a procesor is dual core, doesn't mean that it can run things "better". The Turion could very well be able to play back 1080p video.
Originally posted by: HurleyBird
A disclaimer: Conroe is going to be good, it's going to be a good chip and will make Intel competitive again. However, you guys have all slipped into some kind of reality distortion feild, and I'm going to try to pull you all out of it.
Now lets get down to it. The fact that all the game tests but FEAR were set up by Intel is no coincidence, as FEAR is the only test that Intel didn't have to rig.
You see, you guys think you are seeing some sort of marvelous new architecture. You aren't. You are seeing a good architecture that is around par with AMD64 that has lots, and lots of cache. The thing you guys are forgetting here is that Conroe has a 4MB *resizable* cache. In single threaded apps, you are seeing a core with 4MB of cache all to itself. Look at Quake 4, and the huge drop in leadership over AMD when both cores need to share that 4MB of cache.
Now why don't you guys also take a trip in the 'way back machine' to the days of Quake 3. ID made an assortment of time demos, and the performance difference between these time demos could be huge. AMD or Intel could be winning by a significant amount depending on which timedemo was used. Now, ye foolish, remember that these are *Intel created* timedemos. Who knows how much they could have swayed performance in their favour? Anywhere from 10-40% could be possible, but I suppose no one knows besides the Intel guys who made the timedemos in the first place. So in single threaded game performance the two chips will likely be even, with perhaps a slight edge to Intel, but in multithreaded tests AMD should win by quite a bit still. Of course that excludes FEAR...
FEAR is *extremely* cache sensitive. Despite a 200MHz clock disadvantage, the 165 beats the 3800+ by a good margin, and don't forget that AMD64 *is not* very cache sensitive. Without an IMF, conroe is a lot more cache sensitive than the A64, and in this case has *4X the L2 cache* as the FX-60 does. FEAR gets no performance advantage from going to 1 to 2GB's of memory, so who knows, a very good portion of the game code might fit in Conroe's L2.
Also The BIOS, which dates from 2003, does not even recognize the FX-60... come on.
EDIT: Even though the bios says copyright 2003 its actually from 2005, and as Rahul Sood points out:
-That Bios *enables Cool 'n Quite by default
-According to DFI the FX-60 is not recognized *and does not function poperly* with this Bios
-2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table Error (!)
-Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode (! Crossfire bug !)
Last but not least, the systems use a *modified* video driver. Why on earth would Intel need this? The excuse that it's needed to recognize Conroe doesen't hold water (When have you ever had to update your video card drivers to recognize a new processor?!) and almost cries out optimization. And with ATI's drivers generally sucking (that latest OpenGL fix should have been fixed *years* ago), the recent skype 'optimizations', the fact that ATI is now making a lot of Intel chipsets and this, how can you possibly accept these seemingly extraordinary numbers at face value?
Something to think about.
Yeah, just read through it all. The only real difference is the FEAR benches. 20% instead of 40% which is in line with the rest of the tests. Looks like intel have a beast of a processor.Originally posted by: Acanthus
benchmark follow up added, to crush all fanboi comments.
Intel was actually running slower memory timings than intended, the AMD system was ran with a stock BIOS, and some benchmark inconsistancies were cleaned up.
Intel still wins across the board in the new tests, the bios didnt make any difference and conroe gained very little from the timing changes.
Originally posted by: Sable
Yeah, just read through it all. The only real difference is the FEAR benches. 20% instead of 40% which is in line with the rest of the tests. Looks like intel have a beast of a processor.Originally posted by: Acanthus
benchmark follow up added, to crush all fanboi comments.
Intel was actually running slower memory timings than intended, the AMD system was ran with a stock BIOS, and some benchmark inconsistancies were cleaned up.
Intel still wins across the board in the new tests, the bios didnt make any difference and conroe gained very little from the timing changes.