Why overpay for Conroe when performance is the same as AMD?

[alimoalem]

OP...if you have a $1000 CPU, you won't have a single 7800GTX, which is what the benchmarks were with. anand did some benchmarks with something a little more believable...

someone with the extreme edition or fx-62 will most likely have at least crossfire x1900xt's in their rig. you'll see the performance difference there.

someone with that kinda money won't be playing at 1280x1024 resolution

the 6600 should be compared to the 3800x2...let's see what happens when those two are compared (check anandtech's home page). the 6300 ~ = to the 3800x2. the $320 6600 > fx-62. you're basically comparing a suped up supra vs a 400hp ferrari and saying how just cause the supra is faster (and cheaper), you won't see the performance if you're driving legally. there's still a huge price difference

 

[schneiderguy]

what the hell, that HARDOCP article is retarded. derrr, no sh!t they're going to score the same at 1600*1200 with 4x AA and 8x AF, you're getting bottlenecked by the GPU at that resolution then they say the Core2Duo is useless when it costs half of the FX62 they were comparing it against and performs exactly the same dumbasses

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
what the hell, that HARDOCP article is retarded. derrr, no sh!t they're going to score the same at 1600*1200 with 4x AA and 8x AF, you're getting bottlenecked by the GPU at that resolution then they say the Core2Duo is useless when it costs half of the FX62 they were comparing it against and performs exactly the same dumbasses

I think it's a good comparison. Last time I checked, 1600x1200 was a VERY commonly used resolution. Just as common and maybe moreso is 1280x1024, and it would be even more bottlenecked at that res.

Not everyone runs 76200x62850...so the 80 or 90% of people that use 1280x1024/1600x1200 should know that they won't realize the full potential of Conroe at those resolutions.

 

[skooma]

Actually, its a little dated, but here at AT more people were running 10x7 than 16x12

Of course, thats before the 7900/1900 cards so maybe alot of people updated their monitors at the same time.

 

[dexvx]

Go look at the HL2 survey by Steam. The vast majority run at 1280x1024 or below.

 

[Mikey]

overpay for conroe? how are people going to overpay when price to performance wise, conroe is cheaper? even after amd has a price cut, you still get more bang for the buck from a conroe.

 

[skooma]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Go look at the HL2 survey by Steam. The vast majority run at 1280x1024 or below.

got it

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I run a lot more than games when I'm gaming. I wonder how the conroe compares with a game open, winamp, a few windows of IE, some sort of downloading client, and maybe recording with fraps. That's a reasonable multitask setup; I usually have a lot more running (visual studios, netbeans, tv from a tv card and more). Anyone know of any sites that have messed with multitasking benchmarks?

I like how hardocp had no problems running non-realworld benchmarks before conroe came out, but now that Intel has better performing chips all that matters when testing CPUs is to max out the video card so you can't tell the difference :disgust:

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Kyanzes
If I had an FX62 now, I would try to sell it as fast as I can before all human (and alike) buyer candidates who lived under a rock till now get convinced how unreasonable it is to choose the $1000 FX62 over a $300 CPU that can beat it. The real mistake you made was to compare AMD's flagship (more like a boat now) .

LMAO

 

[d3lt4]

Originally posted by: ITguy
This is for d3lt4.
I believe the following.

1. Conroe beats any AMD processor out now hands down in benchmark performance.
2. But in real world performance they will perform the same to the user for 99% of people due to modern CPU performance overkill and videocard and memory bottlenecks.
3. Conroe will continue to be sold at over list prices for a long while to come and will be used by Intel for bragging rights while the vast majority of their volumes will still be netburst.
4. AMD will release faster clocks and 65nm products and will cut prices as Conroe prices eventually fall.
5. AMD will announce 4X4's release soon to "try to steal the thunder from Conroe's release." 4X4 is expected to recapture the enthusiast crown and by that time X2 price cuts will be in full force and Conroe will even be dropping in price around that time.
6. I am not impressed with DDR2 over DDR.
7. I will consider waiting for DDR3, much better videocards, and Quad Cores before buying another high end system because right now, you get minimal realworld performance boosts for alot more money.
8. I would recommend only buying processors that cost <$200 for 99% of the gaming public until better and cheaper video cards are released.
9. I think bottlenecked PCI-E videocards is also why 4X4 with a GPU in one of the sockets could potentially be the holy grail of gaming. I just hope AMD is smart enough to recognize the potential and opportunity of the 2nd socket and spends money to partner and develop this. In the future, all top end gaming rigs could be dual socket by default.

All of this depends on what programs you use. I think that everyone could do fine with socket A computers, and around 512mb of ram or even 256. No one needs a conroe, but for the moment it is the best bang for your buck and who doesn't like having the best for cheap?

Why would you say not to get a conroe because it won't provide real world performance, and then plan on getting a 4x4 when 2cores don't even play nice together, and so the real world performance increase will be even lower, and it will cost like 10x more.

(Sorry if I sound mean)

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Go look at the HL2 survey by Steam. The vast majority run at 1280x1024 or below.

True, but that survey also includes a lot of Counter-Strike players who prefer playing at lower resolutions (something to do with bigger cross-hairs? I believe most competitive players prefer lower-resolutions.)

1280x1024 IS the current standard...but respectable 20" monitors (4:3 as well as widescreen) are not as expensive as they used to be. A premium 1600x1200 LCD could run over $700-800+ an year or so ago. Today, you can get a totally kickass LCD (like the Samsung 215TW, for instance) for $499. It's not cheap...but not exactly expensive either.

Any way, I refuse to respond to the misinformed original post and have started a thread of my own in the CPU section regarding the 'Real World Performance' Fiasco.

 

[dev0lution]

It's always going to be relative to where you're upgrading from and what you're upgrading to. I think you missed a key point in the article that basically stated that for the price the E6700 is a better value and "more future proof" (if there is such a thing) processor. Sure, if you're going to stick with your current board, memory and gpu then it wouldn't be all that much of an impact moving up to a Conroe since you'd be limited by your GPU with the current cards/boards you can match it with.

But, if you're looking to jump from single core to dual-core (939 to AM2) and have to change out your memory and board anyhow, why wouldn't you go with a $300 range Intel part that matches the $1000 AMD FX-62. Down the road, when GPU power increases and higher-resolutions are more common, the Conroe parts give you more headroom to grow.

I personally thought the review was pretty lame, since they chose to omit the E6600, which beats a processor 3x as expensive.

Since I'm still on single-core 939 and an older X800XL, I'll probably reserve judgement until I see the results with new 3rd party Intel boards. Then I can decide which board/cpu/gpu/memory combo will give me the most bang for my buck.

 

[Smartazz]

Originally posted by: Howard
Let's see here... either you actually believe what you're saying, in which case you're a fool and not worth replying to, or you don't, in which case you're a shill, and if you are, get the ****** out of here.

EDIT: To be fair, your argument has some merit, but nobody in their right mind buys the top of the line processor.

Well there are a lot of people that aren't in the right mind I guess.

 

[OSX]

This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. I actually feel dumber now.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ITguy
This thread will start the brawls going but this is a serious and good question.

Conroe is out now in limited release and is going for $1,359 and it will probably be selling for far over list prices for months to come. While it is a faster chip than AMD's current lineup, when you read HARDOCP's article on testing "REALWORLD" gaming situations it had basically zero lead on AMD's top end systems.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
So what that means is that for 99.9% of the world, a Conroe system will perform identical to an AMD system, even for gaming.

So the argument I make is this. If you already have some DDR RAM or an existing 939 system, you should use the price cuts and continue to build on 939 and still have a roughly identically performing system to conroe for dirt cheap and then upgrade only when both DDR3 and quads come out, and skip this little pitstop at DDR2 altogether. The video cards are just not there yet, even if you spend $1,200 bucks on the cards. Besides, DDR3 will be the real memory upgrade to get, not DDR2.

If you just have to have DDR2 ram, then you use the price cuts as an opportunity to get AM2 X2's for dirt cheap on your next build, because as predicted, it's looking like all versions of Conroes will be selling at over list prices for a long time due to the huge hype and limited release schedule.

According to their roadmap, P4's with netburst will continue to make up the bulk of Intel's desktop shipments through the remainder of 2006 and well into 2007 too.

The reviews don`t say performance is the same at all...
Your just being an AMD fanboy...your reading things into the reviews that are not there.

 

[smopoim86]

Everyone keeps talking about how amd is gonna get fried, have you thought about how much profit per chip they are making now (for the past 5 years)

I really think the x2s have been overpriced for quite a while......they have plenty of room to recover, selling cheap chips is where they came from.
Remember when they had all the cheap mid line chips?? If thats where they end up for 6-8 months it wont hurt them, they have been there.

 

[dev0lution]

Originally posted by: smopoim86
Everyone keeps talking about how amd is gonna get fried, have you thought about how much profit per chip they are making now (for the past 5 years)

I really think the x2s have been overpriced for quite a while......they have plenty of room to recover, selling cheap chips is where they came from.
Remember when they had all the cheap mid line chips?? If thats where they end up for 6-8 months it wont hurt them, they have been there.

They're not going to get fried, but they are going to be back where they started unless they come up with a new architecture in the near future, because if you think they have the cash reserves from a year of price premium'd X2's and FX's to go head to head with Intel in a price war then I want some of what you're smoking :laugh:

Cat is out of the bag though. AMD has established in the business and consumer's mind that they are a viable option. They just have to ride out the storm and make some smart moves until they can deliver something to market that matches Core 2.

Unfortunately I haven't seen much in the past 6 months that indicates they're going to do that. Dell's gonna stretch their supply thin and they still suffer from relying on 3rd party chipsets. Particularly in mobile.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: smopoim86
Everyone keeps talking about how amd is gonna get fried, have you thought about how much profit per chip they are making now (for the past 5 years)

Last 5 fiscal years up to the end 2005, AMD has a cumulative net loss of $1.4 billion.

 

[Effect]

It seems that the entire argument behind this thread is gaming performance between a C2D and A64. At some point, CPU becomes a non-issue in gaming performance, at least until you improve the graphics substantially. Once you've got oblivion running on a 3007FPW with quad SLI, you might see some decent performance gains from a more powerful CPU.

And let's all remember, not everyone is a gamer, there ARE other app's that people use, which WILL see performance increases from upgrading to a C2D.

Also, let's not forget overclocking, if what we've seen from the ES C2D's is any indication, why not grab an E6300 and see how far you can push it?

There are plenty reasons to 'overpay for Conroe', though if you're a gamer, and you've already got an A64, you're right, there's little use in upgrading right now, unless performance is lacking.

 

[imported_smilingcrow]

With AMD spending a lot of money on building new and updating old FABs, I don?t suppose a prolonged price war and loss of market share will help much. It puts the idea of AMD buying ATI into a different perspective.
The worrying thing for AMD is that Intel currently has such a lead in bringing out a process shrink. If Intel builds on the good work of C2D, then AMD need a better chip design just too equal Intel, due to Intel being ahead with the process shrinks. AMD?s fabrication issues seem more of a concern than their designs, which have been mainly excellent. If as seems likely the 1st generation of 65nm AM2 chips are simply shrinks with no extra IPC, then I have to question their call there. Surely, AMD have known that Intel has had the sleeping giant of Pentium M and that eventually they would wake up to its potential. They should have covered their asses me thinks.

AMD still have the best value laptop dual cores, although I think Merom will be a better chip. They still have the best value single core chips as far as I?m concerned and will do at least until Core 2 Solo for desktop eventually emerges.

Can you imagine a chip that used the best of Intel?s & AMDs designs and fabrication technologies? That would be something, although the fan-boys wouldn?t know whether to laugh or cry. That would be something also

 

[ahxnguyen]

Me too. Waiting a few more months wouldn't hurt my photo editing.

 

[Pandamonium]

A lot of you seem to have no sense of how much R&D is necessary to develop a CPU. AMD would be lucky if it could start designing new architecture today and have parts shipping in 3-5 years. AMD's architectural "retort" to the Conroe had to have been conceived a few years ago for AMD to show products competitive tothe Conroe within the next 12 months.

I am no fanboy - my last five builds have been AMD-powered based on the factors of price, performance, and heat. My next few builds will ostensibly be Intel-powered for those same reasons. As much as I would like to see AMD come back (I tend to root for the underdog), I have a hard time believing that AMD can in the next few years.

 

[Pandamonium]

Btw, after price cuts, the most rapid answer to the Conroe that I can see AMD developing is a die-shrink and re-spinning of X2 silicon again. Even then, AMD does not have the facilities to die shrink as much as Intel does. The last time I heard, AMD was moving to 65nm, while Intel was working on 45nm processes.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Pandamonium
Btw, after price cuts, the most rapid answer to the Conroe that I can see AMD developing is a die-shrink and re-spinning of X2 silicon again. Even then, AMD does not have the facilities to die shrink as much as Intel does. The last time I heard, AMD was moving to 65nm, while Intel was working on 45nm processes.

AMD are planning to start shipping 65nm process chips in Q1 of 2007. The next intel die shrink is quite a while off yet. There is a sucsessor to the current generation in the works, labled K8L, also due in 2007 i belive.

When that process shrink turns up AMD will become a lot more competitive, however they'd need massive speed gains to beat conroe. I suspect it'll just close the gap a bit rather than retake the lead.

 

[dev0lution]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost


When that process shrink turns up AMD will become a lot more competitive, however they'd need massive speed gains to beat conroe. I suspect it'll just close the gap a bit rather than retake the lead.

Now that's irony. AMD pumping up the Ghz just as Intel [formerly known as Ghz ruLez!] starts marketing that Ghz doesn't matter anymore. :laugh: