Intel beats AMD with new CPU! Hell FrozeN?

[paraman]

This is very good news. Competition should benefit the consumer in the end.

Totally agree with you.

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

Sweet, glad Intel is trying better.. "leap ahead"... haha ;)

[revvo]

still dosent mean im gonna buy there crap lol

What he said.

Half of the people here are saying that competition is good but half of these people are also saying it blindly. We're talking about Intel here, a company that practices anti-competitive deals such as the latest one with Skype.

Competition is always good? Yes, when the companies allow competition. Intel reduces its competition ever since AGP and probably even before.

[Am_I_Evil]

Dilemma Intel or AMD, hmm wish they would merge as one company, so I wouldn't need to choose.

wow...now there's the worst idea ever....

can you image the prices of CPUs if there was absolutely no competition going on.... :|

(look at how high the top of the line already is....do you really want that to go even higher)

[Danrarbc]

I recently got a Pentium D 920, but now I'm curious as to how this performs against Conroe.

Well since that chip is slower than the Athlon FX-60 I think you can figure out where your Pentium D stands.

[Zkal]

Pipeline length you mean?

It's 14, Athlon 64 is 17, Pentium 4 Northwoods were at 24 I think, and Pentium 4 Prescotts were at 31.

Athlon 64 is 12. They added 2 to the 10-stage pipeline of Athlon XP.

Anyways, nice to see Intel catching up. Hopefully AMD has something to counter Conroe.

[yodat]

now if it doesnt cost an arm and a leg, i'll buy it!

Intel Desktop Processor Roadmap

Processor Brand Processor No. Clock Speed/FSB Cache Launch Date Price @ Launch

PPXE 965 3.73GHz / 1066MHz 2x2MB Q2'06 $999 (04/30)

PPXE 955 3.46GHz / 1066MHz 2z2MB Now $999 (now)

PPXE 840 3.20GHz / 1066MHz 2x1MB Now $999 (now)

Conroe E6700 2.67GHz / 1066MHz 4MB Q3'06 $530 (???)

Conroe E6600 2.40GHz / 1066MHz 4MB Q3'06 $316 (???)

Conroe E6400 2.13GHz / 1066MHz 2MB Q3'06 $241 (???)

Conroe E6300 1.86GHz / 1066MHz 2MB Q3'06 $209 (???)

Pentium D 960 3.6GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Q2'06 $530 (04/30)

Pentium D 950 3.4GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $637 (now)

Pentium D 940 3.2GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $423 (now)

Pentium D 930 3.0GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $316 (now)

Pentium D 920 (no VT) 3.0GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $178 (???)

Pentium D 920 2.8MHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Q3'06 $241 (now)

SOURCE: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=787

[Malisk]

Nice scores, but I'll bet that the 65 nm Athlon 64's that should be available alongside the Conroe won't be clocked at just 2.8 GHz.

True that, but look at the clocking on the Conroe too. :)

[LordSauron]

Can anyone explain 'fanboyism'. Surely everyone wants the fastest most powerful machine that their money can buy. Who sacrifices performance just to stay 'loyal' to their chosen company? makes no sense to me. The only issues people bring up to slag their 'enemy brand' seem to be about last gen processors from both companies. Not baiting, just confused. :wacko:

edit. I've been AMD for 4 years, but if that badboy is the best thing around come upgrade time it's hello intel.

[Proforma]

Come on :rolleyes: You're comparing tomorrow's technology to something that came out yesterday. Of course future chips from Intel are going to beat AMD's chips that were released last year! When AMD releases something comparable and Intel beats it, I'll give Intel the credit, but until then don't get to excited.

yeah, but this doesn't just beat it, it kills it.

I mean of course intel is going to show something that is faster with their backs against the wall, but this sinks AMD's current and probably future performance unless they have a secret weapon.

Looks like Intel did their homework and they saw that they were losing the hardcore PC market

and the server market and they are starting to lose money quick so they went back to the drawing board and produced something stunning.

I mean could you imagine a Conroe Dual Core processor at 3 Ghz? Wow!

[marie m]

No matter what bad things you have to say about Intel, I'd much rather compile on a Pentium than an Athlon. In my experience Intels are far more stable.

[Leddy]

40% performance increase over AMD's best offering right now.

I don't think AMD's ever cleaned Intel up by even half that much. Shows what Intel can do if they really, really, try to do it.

AMD will be hard pressed to meet Intel's performance over the next year, at least. Looks like Intel's going back to the top.

[Michael_C]

If I'm not mistaken Conroe is 65nm, so you won't be able to compare Intel Conroe until AMD comes out with a 65nm processor, which AM2 won't be. Now I won't argue that AMD is going to be behind Intel for a change, but that doesn't mean that the comparable processors won't beat Intel's processors.

So you are saying they(AM2 vs. Conroe|Kentwood) can't be compared because Intel's technology is better basically? Doesn't make any sense to me.

[Boeing 787]

1. It's 6 months away

2. I want more benchmarks from more sources

3. AM2 will be pretty good move

4. Will it arrive ontime or be delayed ?

Lots of speculation at this point where we will be in fall.

[Argi]

Wow, this is looking very good. Will definately be somethign to check out towards the end of the year when I'm planning to upgrade my pc.

[Cloud Geek]

theres a pic of a quad core intel there, i want benchmarks of that

wow intel beat amd and made a quad core

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/trades...iew/conroe2.jpg

"From top to bottom - Quad-core 65nm Kentsfield, dual core 65nm Conroe and 65nm Pentium D

Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz (1067MHz FSB) on an Intel 975X motherboard. "

"Kentsfield Will Be The First Desktop Quad Core"

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top...ered/page4.html

http://images.tomshardware.com/2005/12/03/...er_improved.jpg

"Whitefield, The First "Real" Quad-Core"

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top...ered/page5.html

"Yorkfield And Harpertown With 8 Cores "

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top...ered/page7.html

[+.Aaron Subscriber¹]

GO INTEL!! They have done it. I cant wait for the quad core CPU to come out.

[unimatrixzer0]

mmmmm, Quad Core. Needed that promotion to spend on whatever crazy price tag that cpu will have, lol.

[Cloud Geek]

GO INTEL!! They have done it. I cant wait for the quad core CPU to come out.

lol that or the 8 core cpu's

to go with the quad sli

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/04/one...te_motherboard/

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_28569.html

http://www.slizone.com/object/slizone_quadsli.html

now we just need:

4 channel ddr

4 sockets

4 bridges

4 sata ports on the back

4 gigabit and fibre optic ports on the back

4 sound cards with 4 7.1 surround sound speakers

:whistle: :woot: :D

dual sockets:

http://www.giga-byte.com/Server/Products/P...d_GA-9ILDTH.htm

Dual Gigabit Ethernet connection

Dual Channel DDR2

http://www.giga-byte.com/MotherBoard/Produ...uad%20Royal.htm

". The external SATA ports located at the back I/O provide smart setup and hot-plug functions."

http://usa.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=3&l2...981&modelmenu=1

Edited March 8, 2006 by MvT Cracker

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

NERD FIGHT! It's like kids tossing computer parts instead of food :p

im not going to doubt that intel's conroe will be sweet... but you really can fully trust a company's own benchmarks w/o other factors. they could have somehow tweaked their stuff to their favor or whatever. they also used an amd at 2.8GHz (fast as hell) but at stock DDR400 (no mention of timings, brand, etc) and stock HTT/fsb. also, at launch, the 2.66GHz model will be the fastest and most expensive, so it'll be interesting to see independent reviews of the 2.66GHz Conroe vs. the latest and greatest AM2 in 6-7 months... then we'd get the bigger picture. plus, GD, the Conroe has 4MB L2 cache... that right there helps intel exceptionally. id like to see some benchmarks of the same conroe w/ only 2MB vs. the one w/ 4MB just to gauge performance increases.

im just trying to cover the gamut here.

in my case, personally, im still going to buy an AM2. ive saved up for 8-9 months, ive waited well over a year now and it's time to ditch my XP computer. so at the end of the day, im going to be extremely happy w/ a [slightly slower than intel] AM2 simply b/c im upgrading from an Athlon XP. and i think i can wait 12-13 seconds for my encoding to finish...im not going to explode ;)

[freeeekyyy]

What he said.

Half of the people here are saying that competition is good but half of these people are also saying it blindly. We're talking about Intel here, a company that practices anti-competitive deals such as the latest one with Skype.

Competition is always good? Yes, when the companies allow competition. Intel reduces its competition ever since AGP and probably even before.

THe deal with Skype isn't anticompetitive. It's very competitive. AMD should try to get skype to cancel, or cut their own deals, instead of whining about it.

[SnowRanger13]

I've been using AMD for all the computer I build recently. But it's good intel is giving them some compition.

[+Batfink Subscriber²]

Remember the release of this Intel CPU is at least six months away! We all have to wait for the extra competition :(

In the mean time AMD will release the AM2 and the X2 5000... But they will need a new CPU design to beat this bad boy!

[Alex the man]

well i am a old AMD fan, i think that the m2 socket will make a significant difference, with teh use of ddr2 that mus of course count for a bit fo teh difference. not saying the intel conroe core isnt good it looks damn good. but i think as usual AMD will come out with a response that will kicks this ones arse, lol.

Shame i wont be available to afford one of these, what they gonna cost 2000 uS$ lol ?

[freeeekyyy]

well i am a old AMD fan, i think that the m2 socket will make a significant difference, with teh use of ddr2 that mus of course count for a bit fo teh difference. not saying the intel conroe core isnt good it looks damn good. but i think as usual AMD will come out with a response that will kicks this ones arse, lol.

Shame i wont be available to afford one of these, what they gonna cost 2000 uS$ lol ?

The top end is 500. Also, DDR32 alone won't make a huge difference for AMD. But, they may have something else up their sleeves. We'll have to see.