Intel beats AMD with new CPU! Hell FrozeN?

[gwai lo]

I have now finished reading this thread.

My conclusion .. GET LAID. :rolleyes:

whoops, guess computer hardware isn't a hobby anymore...i guess liking something and reading is suddenly not cool...o wait it never was..

why are you even registered? 712 posts of flamebait? that's got to be impressive...

so what's filling all that empty space in YOUR head?

[Rigby]

Sorry if this was answered already but will the new Core processors use LGA775? I'm looking to by a new motherboard soon and I was going with an Athlon 64 system, but after reading this I must say I'm intrigued by the possibility of getting an Intel motherboard now and maybe upgrading to one of these new chips when they are released.

[gwai lo]

No socket change, might require new chipset though...so I wouldn't make any buying decisions yet. It's quite a while to wait though...

Oh and thanks to Mako360 over at [H] for compiling this from the various IDF reports...

Six versions of the Conroe processor at launch:

Conroe Extreme Edition (XE): 3.0GHz or more, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB shared L2 cache, unknown price.

E6700: 2.66 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4 MB shared L2 cache, $530.

E6600: 2.40 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4 MB shared L2 cache, $316.

E6400: 2.13 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2 MB shared L2 cache, $241.

E6300: 1.86 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2 MB shared L2 cache, $209.

E4200: 1.60 GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2 MB shared L2 cache, uknown price.

Corresponding platform chipset launch:

P965, Q965, G965: Introduces ICH8 southbridge, support for DDR2-800, 1,066MHz/1333MHz FSB speeds. "Q" and "G" models offer integrated Intel GMA graphics.

[freeeekyyy]

Sorry if this was answered already but will the new Core processors use LGA775? I'm looking to by a new motherboard soon and I was going with an Athlon 64 system, but after reading this I must say I'm intrigued by the possibility of getting an Intel motherboard now and maybe upgrading to one of these new chips when they are released.

As far as I know, the first generation will use the current socket and chipset.

[IceBrewedBeer]

I have now finished reading this thread.

My conclusion .. GET LAID. :rolleyes:

What's the point in even posting in here if not to flame? Nice contribution.

[Rigby]

No socket change, might require new chipset though...so I wouldn't make any buying decisions yet. It's quite a while to wait though...

As far as I know, the first generation will use the current socket and chipset.

Thanks :)

[.Kompressor]

When will the Merom be released??? :woot: any exact dates yet?

arrrggghh can't wait!!.....help I'm meeelllltttingg, I'm meltinggg!!nooo...

[Espada04]

I still stand by what i said.. even if people are just going to ignore it... and besides.. AMD still has 6 months to come up with a good competitor... and 6 months in the technology world is a long time.. i wouldnt count AMD out of the loop just cause you see a few benchmarks of Intel's new chip vs AMD's current chip.. (even tho i dont think it was a far test... seeing how the BIOS of the board didnt fully support the FX-60.. so yeah...)

btw.. heres another site regarding the "benchmark"

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/03/was-a...d-by-intel.html

just read it.. you might realize something, you might think its a lie.. doesnt matter.. it might even change your mind on this topic... Anandtech did their test in an Intel controlled enviorment.. how do we know they didnt tamper with the AMD system to make it look like the Intel is ALOT faster than the AMD.. maybe is just a little bit faster or not at all.. we would never know but still this is what I believe in..

[RootWind]

I still stand by what i said.. even if people are just going to ignore it... and besides.. AMD still has 6 months to come up with a good competitor... and 6 months in the technology world is a long time.. i wouldnt count AMD out of the loop just cause you see a few benchmarks of Intel's new chip vs AMD's current chip.. (even tho i dont think it was a far test... seeing how the BIOS of the board didnt fully support the FX-60.. so yeah...)

btw.. heres another site regarding the "benchmark"

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/03/was-a...d-by-intel.html

just read it.. you might realize something, you might think its a lie.. doesnt matter.. it might even change your mind on this topic... Anandtech did their test in an Intel controlled enviorment.. how do we know they didnt tamper with the AMD system to make it look like the Intel is ALOT faster than the AMD.. maybe is just a little bit faster or not at all.. we would never know but still this is what I believe in..

If you think the test is rigged, compare it to other reference benchmarks with similar settings. Such as here. Sure, we see that the Intel supplied OC'ed AMD system is actually slower than a normal FX-60, but I doubt OCing the same reference FX-60 would have caused that big of a jump:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03/08/in...benchmark_fear/

[.Neo]

Looks like Apple made a good choice to go with Intel.

[Woody.]

Psh, I still love my AMD much more, and you won't get me to change *ahem*Biased results!*ahem* :p

[SIE]

Why are so many people taking these benchmarks at such face value?

I'm sure conroe will be a very good chip and put Intel back on top so to speak but those benchmarks show the conroe giving upto a 50% increase over the top of the line P4, when did you last see a new CPU that was 50% faster than the current top of the line?

Until Intel start handing out chips to testers i'll take these benchmarks with a massive pinch of salt thanks.

[Alex the man]

Same LOL, as some guys psoted before on here

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/03/was-a...d-by-intel.html

read throught it got some intresting stuff. there is deffinatly somthing fishy with those benchmarks and i think we should all wait till those chips actually get sent off to testers and then see what the benchmarks are.

[raskren]

Blah blah blah.

Has anybody bothered to read part II of the Conroe article at Anandtech?

They got Intel to update the bios on the AMD machine which closed the FX to Controe gap in the FEAR benchmark only. The rest of the benches were the same and any change was small enough to fall into the usual error margin.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716

Intel is still 20% > AMD.

[Sammyinnit]

because you can eally tell the difference between 350(AMD) and 532(INTEL)frames per second

Because AMD has been beat :)

You all knew it was coming.

I will NEVER in a billion years ever buy a Intel :x :x

Fanboy.

Why not?

Maybe cause hes a Fanboy?

Why is that?

Again, He's a Fanboy.

AMD fanboys are in denial HAHAHA

Yes! :laugh:

I am for certain AMD will respond and win.

Nah. I doubt that, Ive always seen Intel as my chosen processor, and for a reason :)

huh? I've used nothing but AMDs on my personal computer for about 8-9 years now, and never had any problems with overheating... in fact, no problems at all. One the other hand, I knew plenty of people that had problems with Intel chips (not overheating, though), and that's why I stuck to AMD. I've always preferred them, and I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Every AMD I had over heated, either that or got very high in tempreture. And Ive had no problems with any intel over the last 8 or 9 Years.

[theresiststance2003]

Mmmmm fanboyism. Who cares? As long as it works.

[Firefawx]

Why is everyone saying 'wait until AMD play their cards'? The whole point of the industry is to keep a step ahead in time! That's certainly how things are between Nvidia and ATi.

[Chosen One]

What makes AMD's product truly better?

Reliability? Got any hard numbers to back this up?

This is a good example of how not to post.

u wanna relax a little with the "This is a good example of how not to post"....ur just soo much better then everyone aren't u...lol

[Smigit]

Nah. I doubt that, Ive always seen Intel as my chosen processor, and for a reason :)

Every AMD I had over heated, either that or got very high in tempreture. And Ive had no problems with any intel over the last 8 or 9 Years.

Fanboy? AMD's run very cool, often cooler than Intels.

I dont personally like to take benchmarks on face value or I'll wait for more test from around the place. If they have indeed overtaken AMD then good for them and good for computer users. I dont personally care who is faster, I prefer amd as a company but a faster cpu is a faster cpu so this is good news for computing. EWspecially since we had a while back there where cpu performance seemed to freeze still with not alot happening due to design difficulties.

Lets watch AMD jump back. They will do it at some point, I mean intel just managed once for what seems like the first time in YEARS so theres no reason AMD cant bounce back.

Anyway exciting news, especially since I want a new system a year from now, means I might have something worth getting then.

[Nashy]

I like how all the Intel fans (myself Included) said that Intel would bounce back like all good companies do. I also remember all the AMD pets not being able to come to grips with this.

Owned

[SamNeeds]

Cool...go Intel! *ducks from stoning from fellow Neowinians*

Nah, its good other manufacturers can come out and make something worth competing against and possible worth buying.

[MrStoo]

This is becomming a fanboy thread, as long as a processor works, stable, secure, reliable, and fast, then thats all that matters.

[raskren]

u wanna relax a little with the "This is a good example of how not to post"....ur just soo much better then everyone aren't u...lol

Yeah sure.

You still haven't backed up anything you said.

Go for it.

[Woody.]

AMD's run very cool, often cooler than Intels

Thats just plain wrong. AMD runs at a much higher temperature than intel - simple.

Nah. I doubt that, Ive always seen Intel as my chosen processor, and for a reason :)

And that reason is......

I'm very satisfied with my AMD and I will not be changed on these few results

[dL]

So you're saying the Athlon64 series runs hotter than the P4? I wonder... 30 degrees Celsius vs 50.

dL