You should probably see this

[markymoo]

amd started out with cheap cpus didnt have the performance of intel but the masses bought them when they couldnt afford intel. which let them put together a cheap pc. all those semprons were just crap. now just cos you got the fx62 to run games fast. its old technology move aside. now the conroe is here. its a whole new architecture. its just the tip of the iceberg from intel. do you know not everyone plays games? do you know how many peoples pc is alot quieter due to the conroe as they dont have to run the fans as fast anymore?

2 cpus running at 3.0ghz which will be faster? the one with the higher fsb!


@Tsuwamono
Quoted from you "Intel fanboys please dont flame because you are pissed that you switched possibly prematurely."

You just dont see the big picture do you. Why dont you grow up.

 

[markymoo]

@OcHungry
take a look here. its surpassed fx62 it will surpass amd k8

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-preview_9.html

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: markymoo
its well known fx62 has been tweaked to run games fast from the start. but try to do heavy number crunching or everyday professional applications such as winrar or mpeg or adobe work, rendering and multi tasking. fx62 is disappointing. it sucks at floating point calculations. the high end p4 were better than fx62 then also. in fact reviewers said last few years if you play games get a fx62 or if you do anything else get a pentium 4 but nobody could afford a fx62. you show us one game benchmark and you think it owns. conroe is the all rounder. enter the core2 for a third of the price. which has more performance per watt. smart large core cache technology.

users want hardcore stability. you wont get that with amd. amd boards use that crappy horrible Via chipset which uses a software driver to get stable and even then it still crashes. its fragile cos its been tweaked so much. i know i used to build 20 pcs a day with top quality parts and qc everyday for 3 years.

just because conroe dont have a intergrated memory controller in the chip it still owns.

your facts are wrong and to make up for it you got to insult people and get personal shows your ignorance more. thats right 99% of reviewers and techs have been bought off and they all liars. right so its all because hype those amd fanboys leaving for intel. why have hardcore amd fans for years jumping ship after they done there own benchmarks and found conroe superior...so we should believe your one benchmark over the thousands that show support for c2d being superior and all this on lower watts.

lets say for arguments sake the fx62 is faster. with the lower cost of conroe i could afford to buy superior graphics and more ram to kick amds butt even more.

kids are buying allendales and making them run faster than the expensive fx62 and that makes people happy and makes the fx62 a ripoff. conroe with less watts means more power in reserve to push it and in 2007 it be more so.

@Tsuwamono
i think your just looking for some action.
you show a GPU benchmark. how can you compare dependant on graphics?

@OcHungry
Your like a captain and skipper going down with there sinking ship.

Ok well, I think you have some things confused. Via is not a major player in the market anymore. Way back wehn sure, but now it's all Nvidia and some ATI on the AMD side. Intel still owns their side of things and probably will for quite some time. Nvidia thus far on Intel has been terrible IMO and we have to see what DFI can do with RD600. Anyhow VIA doesn't even matter anymore and AMD boards are pretty damn stable to me. We're talking about performance of the CPU her because generally any system will be stable at stock.

You also compared a P4 to an FX62 but they aren't in the same market anymore.

 

[markymoo]

@cmdrdredd
not confused im talking about the build up to the fx62 and when i used to use them.
no the recommendation was to get a pentium 4 extreme edition over a fx62 when it first came out.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: markymoo
@cmdrdredd
not confused im talking about the build up to the fx62 and when i used to use them.
no the recommendation was to get a pentium 4 extreme edition over a fx62 when it first came out.

The FX62 is how old now? As in when did it hit retail...who would tell someone to get a P4 instead? Get a C2D for less than half the price of that FX.

P4 shouldn't even be in anyone's vocabulary. Not when an E6300 is around $190

 

[markymoo]

correction the fx60

 

[OcHungry]

Ok I did couple of runs w/ spi 32m and you can clearly see that w/ AMD a 17% increase in speed translate to 17% increase in performance (+/- 1% margin of error).

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9422/09272006204938tw6.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6241/09272006220444oa9.jpg

The ram timings stayed the same. I could not lower speed w/ the same memory timings to run spi at 30-50% lower speed. My ram can not handle that.
Anyway you see the proof and judge it for yourself.
Also take a look at this chard below and compare core 2's spi graph w/ Athlon 64 x2. This graph shows different speeds for both systems. read the chard very carefully w/ precision. it clearly shows Athlon 64 x2 has a steeper slope than core 2. it shows A64 x2 spi improves considerably when cpu speed is increased. core 2's graph is flatter, which means lesser improvement (on spi) than A64 if overclocked.
Anyway enough said and you believe what you want. I know my stuff and did a thorough search before deciding on buying a dual core. AMD gives me better price performance than core 2 when overclocking comes to play.

http://www.hwbot.org/newsLink.do?newsPostId=275987

Also check the link below shows core 2's graph by itself. its spi versus speed. Just study it for yourself. You don?t have to prove anything to me. Just do yourself favor and be objective and honest to yourself.

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_873

Good luck w/ your system build. End of story.

 

[raincityboy]

Is the E6300 cheaper than the X2 4400?
You made the right choice. :thumbsup:

Edit: Whats your max OC with that system?

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Ok I did couple of runs w/ spi 32m and you can clearly see that w/ AMD a 17% increase in speed translate to 17% increase in performance (+/- 1% margin of error).

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9422/09272006204938tw6.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6241/09272006220444oa9.jpg

The ram timings stayed the same. I could not lower speed w/ the same memory timings to run spi at 30-50% lower speed. My ram can not handle that.
Anyway you see the proof and judge it for yourself.
Also take a look at this chard below and compare core 2's spi graph w/ Athlon 64 x2. This graph shows different speeds for both systems. read the chard very carefully w/ precision. it clearly shows Athlon 64 x2 has a steeper slope than core 2. it shows A64 x2 spi improves considerably when cpu speed is increased. core 2's graph is flatter, which means lesser improvement (on spi) than A64 if overclocked.
Anyway enough said and you believe what you want. I know my stuff and did a thorough search before deciding on buying a dual core. AMD gives me better price performance than core 2 when overclocking comes to play.

http://www.hwbot.org/newsLink.do?newsPostId=275987

Also check the link below shows core 2's graph by itself. its spi versus speed. Just study it for yourself. You don?t have to prove anything to me. Just do yourself favor and be objective and honest to yourself.

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_873

Good luck w/ your system build. End of story.

Funny how EVERY SINGLE HALL OF FAME record is held by a Core 2 Duo....

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: raincityboy
Is the E6300 cheaper than the X2 4400?
You made the right choice. :thumbsup:

Edit: Whats your max OC with that system?

May or may not be as expensive for the cpu, but w/ E6300 I had my doubt if I could get substantial increase in performance when overclocked (compared to overclocking A64 x2). But to answer your (OC) question:
3106mhz but not stable.
2.9 ghz spi 32M stable but not prime. It's only ~6 weeks old and I am still working on it. Need to buy 2x1gig of DDR500 to complete this build.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: n19htmare

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Ok I did couple of runs w/ spi 32m and you can clearly see that w/ AMD a 17% increase in speed translate to 17% increase in performance (+/- 1% margin of error).

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9422/09272006204938tw6.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6241/09272006220444oa9.jpg

The ram timings stayed the same. I could not lower speed w/ the same memory timings to run spi at 30-50% lower speed. My ram can not handle that.
Anyway you see the proof and judge it for yourself.
Also take a look at this chard below and compare core 2's spi graph w/ Athlon 64 x2. This graph shows different speeds for both systems. read the chard very carefully w/ precision. it clearly shows Athlon 64 x2 has a steeper slope than core 2. it shows A64 x2 spi improves considerably when cpu speed is increased. core 2's graph is flatter, which means lesser improvement (on spi) than A64 if overclocked.
Anyway enough said and you believe what you want. I know my stuff and did a thorough search before deciding on buying a dual core. AMD gives me better price performance than core 2 when overclocking comes to play.

http://www.hwbot.org/newsLink.do?newsPostId=275987

Also check the link below shows core 2's graph by itself. its spi versus speed. Just study it for yourself. You don?t have to prove anything to me. Just do yourself favor and be objective and honest to yourself.

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_873

Good luck w/ your system build. End of story.

Funny how EVERY SINGLE HALL OF FAME record is held by a Core 2 Duo....

funny indeed


those 6600's owned

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: raincityboy
Is the E6300 cheaper than the X2 4400?
You made the right choice. :thumbsup:

Edit: Whats your max OC with that system?

May or may not be as expensive for the cpu, but w/ E6300 I had my doubt if I could get substantial increase in performance when overclocked (compared to overclocking A64 x2). But to answer your (OC) question:
3106mhz but not stable.
2.9 ghz spi 32M stable but not prime. It's only ~6 weeks old and I am still working on it. Need to buy 2x1gig of DDR500 to complete this build.

you should get a legit copy of Windows XP.... seems like you got some Authencity Validation issues

how you justified getting X2 over E6300, I DO NOT KNOW... you prolly had your "reasons"...
But when it comes to overclocking, the AMD still can't touch the C2D... heck it can't touch the lowest model E6300.
My bro's is overclocked to 3Gigs on STOCK FAN and something like 1.28V...
Can your X24400 Touch that on a stock cooling? the quick and painless answer would be "no".

 

[harpoon84]

This thread has become a place for AMD fanboys to worship and justify their decision to purchase an AMD based system.

One (OP) uses a GPU limited benchmark and claims that AMD and Intel are equal for games - they aren't, and not all games are GPU limited. I can easily dig up some RTS or flight sim based games, then we'll see if the 'almighty' FX-62 comes close to an X6800.

Another (OcHungry) uses some twisted logic (if I can call any of that 'logic'... I'm being too generous towards stupid people) in trying to claim that C2D doesn't scale with overclocking, when in fact a 3GHz+ C2D wipes the floor with anything current AMD chips can throw at it.

 

[markymoo]

@OcHungry

you lost by your own admission
the superpi 1meg test the conroe wins outright in green and yellow in the fastest time. theres 2 green other is the sempron.

why cant you make your benchmarks simple and show the same graphical layout as yours we can look at it detail

overclockers run superpi for fame but that isnt 24/7 stable

 

[markymoo]

"I originally set out with this processor to see if Intel was indeed attempting to pull one over on us with their "benchmark sessions" they have been holding across the country, but instead I found that Intel has been underselling their own product if anything. The Core 2 Duo E6700 tested here simply swept through the benchmarks, leaving everything in its wake"

"For all of those gamers, enthusiasts and techies that thought Intel was cherry picking benchmarks in their custom sessions from which performance numbers have been reported on before, I think you can clearly see that is not the case."

Never before has there been a cpu launched that beat the competition by so much, As computer enthusiasts I can not understand why some people continue to try to see it in a bad light I mean this is a $530 CPU absolutely thrashing a $1000 CPU and some people aren?t happy.

owned
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/multi_1.png
owned
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/08/...hg_tuning_test/call_of_duty_2_1024.png
owned
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-e6300/superpi.png
owned
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-e6300/farcry.png
owned
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-e6300/divx.png
owned
http://www.cooling-station.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1838

 

[OcHungry]

You still don?t get it do you? Instead of calling names and insulting people (a norm w/ Intel fans), or doubt my copy of xp, understand what is the criteria here. Has it not occurred to you that I am reinstalling window? And 15 days to register it? Is that what care the most? Peep around my monitor screen?
It's not about superpi or world record, or peeping whether or not my winxp is legit. I am simply showing you that overclocking core 2 is not as effective in performance as AMD. I showed you the percentage of overclocking directly reflecting the percentage of performance w/ AMD. But this rule does not apply to conroe no matter how you cut it.
What comes down to is this: Buy A64, overclock it, and turn it into a A64 twice or 3 times more expensive.
But with conroe- It's hard to tell. Because the percentage of overclocking does not reflect the same percentage increase in performance.
those who overclock appreciate AMD because of this and because overclocking it pays off.
Who cares if conroe is 10% or 15% faster, it's also more expensive. I buy a 4400 x2 for $230 overclock it to 2.8ghz and get the performance equal to E6700 or FX62 and save > $500. As simple as that.
So stop your insult and once in your f..king overclocking mind, respect your fellow overclocker and forum members. can you?

 

[DrMrLordX]

OCHungry, your point is moot. The extent to which Core 2 chips can be overclocked far outweighs any alleged "uncertainties" one may face when overclocking a Core 2 chip. It doesn't matter if the percentage of overclock reflects the same percentage of performance on Core 2 Duo; even a modest overclock to 3 ghz on a Core 2 chip whips any AM2 or s939 overclock you can achieve on air.

Spending $230 on an X2-4400+ and getting 2.8 ghz is unremarkable and hardly worth the money compared to an E6300 @3 ghz which costs $180 and outperforms any AMD chip on the market, overclocked or not.

 

[Tsuwamono]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
i wonder how much the OP and OcHungry are getting paid... (if they arent the same person)

is it alot? hm... maybe i could get a job....

You actually believe that if AMD was paying me i would sit around boards and post benchmarks that are in favor of intel for the most part?

You guys are clearly all retards. I merely stated that AMD isnt THAT far behind and this benchmark shows that cost wise its better to get an AMD still.

I even stated that Conroe still beats AMD in all but a few benchmarks and you guys flame me over Intel not winning one or two benchmarks by more then 4%.

This board actually used to be full of people who were open to benchmarks that had different figures, new ideas, opinions, and were in the pursuit of new information about technologies that are on the market. Now its just full of a bunch of fanboys Intel or AMD who just go back and forth b!tching and complaining constantly when someone posts a new piece of information that most people would find intrigueing and would discuss.

You guys are a discrace and due to repeaded events that i have just seen by looking through the archives i have decided to close my account here at Anandtech because its just not the same anymore. Ill go to a board that has more open minded and intelligent people.

Tsuwamono

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
You still don?t get it do you? Instead of calling names and insulting people (a norm w/ Intel fans), or doubt my copy of xp, understand what is the criteria here. Has it not occurred to you that I am reinstalling window? And 15 days to register it? Is that what care the most? Peep around my monitor screen?
It's not about superpi or world record, or peeping whether or not my winxp is legit. I am simply showing you that overclocking core 2 is not as effective in performance as AMD. I showed you the percentage of overclocking directly reflecting the percentage of performance w/ AMD. But this rule does not apply to conroe no matter how you cut it.
What comes down to is this: Buy A64, overclock it, and turn it into a A64 twice or 3 times more expensive.
But with conroe- It's hard to tell. Because the percentage of overclocking does not reflect the same percentage increase in performance.
those who overclock appreciate AMD because of this and because overclocking it pays off.
Who cares if conroe is 10% or 15% faster, it's also more expensive. I buy a 4400 x2 for $230 overclock it to 2.8ghz and get the performance equal to E6700 or FX62 and save > $500. As simple as that.
So stop your insult and once in your f..king overclocking mind, respect your fellow overclocker and forum members. can you?

Why are YOU getting all defensive?
I merely questioned your windows and didn't call you names.... Why you getting all mad? Or are you just mad because the next guy can spend $180 ($50 less than you), overclock it to 3.0Ghz on STOCK COOLING, i can guarantee you're not on stock cooling.
At the end, the 3Ghz E6300 will Walk over your 2.8Ghz AMD all day long. If you deny that, well, Theres no cure for you.

So WHO got a better deal?

The guy that spent $180 for a 3Ghz monster?
or
The guy that spend $230 +$40 for a cooler to achieve 2.8Ghz.......

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY IT.
THere in ONLY one way to justify your purchase. That is if you already had a s939 system with a say a single core 3000+ or something.

If you did a fresh build, then you just can't say that i get better overclocking with 4400+x2.... IT's THE END RESULT THAT MATTERS.

Why don't you just flat out say that I hate intel and i'll never own an intel based system, Instead of trying to somehow justifying your purchase. The first answer will gain you more respect and we will know why u got an AMD, and it's fully understandable. It was your PERSONAL PREFERENCE not because of overclocking scaling.

$180 3Ghz E6300 > $230 2.8Ghz X2-4400...... End of story.

but what ever floats your boat.

 

[swtethan]

im waiting for the Q6600

quad core... mmmm

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
OCHungry, your point is moot. The extent to which Core 2 chips can be overclocked far outweighs any alleged "uncertainties" one may face when overclocking a Core 2 chip. It doesn't matter if the percentage of overclock reflects the same percentage of performance on Core 2 Duo; even a modest overclock to 3 ghz on a Core 2 chip whips any AM2 or s939 overclock you can achieve on air.

Spending $230 on an X2-4400+ and getting 2.8 ghz is unremarkable and hardly worth the money compared to an E6300 @3 ghz which costs $180 and outperforms any AMD chip on the market, overclocked or not.

He won't listen. He's either a rabid fanboy or a viral marketer because no one could seriously say the things he says and believe them in the face of reality.

Originally posted by: OCHungry
AMD gives me better price performance than core 2(duo) when overclocking comes to play.

I wish someone would lock this thread, ban OCHungry, or both.

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: Beachboy
I wish someone would lock this thread, ban OCHungry, or both.

Where's the fun in that?

On a side note:

I used to like reading OChungry's.....scratch that.... Sharikous blog, because the comments people left made him look retarded. Now he screens the comments and is no longer fun ....

 

[The-Noid]

Hrm I will get some pictures when I am back from work. All 1M times.

Stock (266 mhz) Intel E6700 with 1:2 ratio (PC2-8500@4-4-4-4) 7,4xx meg read in Sandra, 18.451 seconds was my best.
Intel E6700 with 1:1 Ratio 400 mhz system bus (PC2-6400@3-4-3-4) 8,2xx meg read in Sandra 12.561 seconds
Intel E6700 with 4:5 Ratio 420 mhz system bus (PC2-8400@4-4-4-4) 8,7xx meg read in Sandra 12.291 seconds.

I would think it scales pretty well. At a 57% overclock I get a 50% advantage...but I have optimized stuff better for the system, so that is why I posted Sandra reads. All completed on WIN2K3.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: dexvx
SuperPi 8M (32M Available @ XS)

E6300 (1.83Ghz) @ Stock = 321.652s
X2-3800 (2.0Ghz) @ Stock = 445.875s

E6300 @ 2.94 Ghz = 214.297
X2-3800 @ 3Ghz = 317.829

Scaling:

E6300 @ 60% overclock is 50% faster, .833 Scaling Factor (of 1.0)
X2-3800 @ 50% overclock is 40% faster, .8 scaling Factor (of 1.0)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

Doesn't spi have a lot to do with memory speed and timings?? Even though the timings are nearly the same for both E6400 systems, i doubt the memory is running at the same MHz. When I get home I'll do some tests on my E6400@3.4GHz.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: dexvx
SuperPi 8M (32M Available @ XS)

E6300 (1.83Ghz) @ Stock = 321.652s
X2-3800 (2.0Ghz) @ Stock = 445.875s

E6300 @ 2.94 Ghz = 214.297
X2-3800 @ 3Ghz = 317.829

Scaling:

E6300 @ 60% overclock is 50% faster, .833 Scaling Factor (of 1.0)
X2-3800 @ 50% overclock is 40% faster, .8 scaling Factor (of 1.0)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

LoL, let me smack you down right now with real facts.

1) They are 2 different systems that you randomly dug up from imageshack.
2)

The 3.2Ghz system is running 1 instance.
The 4.1Ghz system is running 2 instances of SuperPI at the same time.

Now that you factor in 2 instances of SuperPI, lets recalculate:

Lets Assume going from 1P -> 2P yields a +80% increase in performance when running 2 threads (and this is VERY VERY generous):

3,2Ghz system: 2*(17.297/.80) = 43.2s
4.1Ghz system: 2* 16.531 = 33.1s

Ratio = 30.5% increase on a 25.6% increase in speed. OMFG-WTF-BBQ. 30.5% increase in speed with only a 25.6% increase in clock speed. Why? The FSB is also running 25% faster on the 4.1Ghz system. The 4.1Ghz system also uses tighter timings.

Now this is on 2 seperate and completely different systems with different memory timings and what not. In fact, this is done by TWO different people. Nice try though, at your PR FUD. Oh and BTW, this is SuperPI 1M (which uses about 32M of memory).

wow, 2 spi vs 1 spi, that has to be the dumbest comparison i have ever seen, so many things wrong with that