• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AM2 slated....

Duke said:
Well going by the benchmark results over the last few months, it certainly looks to be a fair step ahead.
Click to expand...

I don't trust pre-release benchmarks - especially when Intel provide a system made by themselves with a hand-picked CPU designed to show off to reviews... ;)
 
Zefan said:
AM2 is simply a stepping stone to the DDR3 based chipsets.
Click to expand...

DDR3 isn't going to be around for a good while yet and its support has nothing to do with the chipset because the A64's have an on die memory controller.
They probably will use a new socket for DDR3 support though. Dunno if it might need more pins than the 940 on AM2?
 
idon't know how true this is.
intel benched the conroe against a fx-60 that had a motherboard with
old bios,not supporting dual core.and with quiet and cool on.
not very good.........
whats your views
 
bestyboy said:
idon't know how true this is.
intel benched the conroe against a fx-60 that had a motherboard with
old bios,not supporting dual core.and with quiet and cool on.
not very good.........
whats your views
Click to expand...

The tests were later repeated with the FX60 set up done right (whilst overclocked to 2.8GHz). The ~£300 Conroe was still 20% faster than the £700 chip.

Jokester
 
Sir Random said:
Well, the pudding arrives on July 23rd so have a big spoon ready :D
Click to expand...
What a class post. :)

AMD have shot themselves in the foot a bit by bringing out AM2 with no CPUs that take advantage of it. Having said that, unless they have been sitting on a radical new architecture for the past year or more (CPUs aren't designed in a couple of days :p) then I don't really see how they are going to match Conroe performance just by taking advantage of the greater bandwidth that DDR2 provides.

Think about it: Conroe is a completely different architecture to their previous chips, it's not analogous to AM2 which is essentially just a move to DDR2. But, if AMD don't come out with something big soon (will K8L cut it?) then they will definitely lose a lot of ground.

On balance I think its a good thing for consumers really - at least stuff like this will encourage competition. I have to say that I find it odd when people claim AMD is some kind of white knight to Intels evil faceless corporation - when AMD have been charging £700+ for chips (FX) that they knew were the fastest available, and capitalised on it in the pricing.....
 
I'd say that the days where the consumer really "won" were the Barton days: you got a lot of firepower for £65 even compared to the cutting edge out chip at the time. The equivalent in values now cost over twice that.

Perhaps we'll see AMD slash their prices when they officially lose their crown, and great value/leading performance once more when they strike back :)

AMDs existance is to make profit. Intel's existance is to make profit. Me? I just want fast chip at the lowest cost possible. No saint nor evil here ;)
 
Last edited:
one thing that a lot of people forget is we as INFORMED consumers only make up a small % of the buyers

a lot of people wont know that AM2 is slower than conroe, and will have had a amd system in the past and will nip down to the local shop/superstore to buy a better system

intel have been knocked about for the last few years by amd BUT when a normal family walk into PC world they mostly end up with a intel based system
 
Explicit said:
The whole point of AM2 was to let use "cheaper" DDR2 RAM, but as far as I'm concerned, £372 for 2GB of DDR2 RAM is anything but cheap.
Click to expand...

if your a memory manufacture company, currently uv got to make half of much of twice as many types of memory to satisfy everyone (ie 50% ddr, 50% ddr2)

therefore its going to cost more to make, once evryones using ddr2 it will make everything cheaper.

the market had to be unified eventualy, this is just the first step, were ddr2 intels significantly faster than their ddr counterparts at first???
 
Cyanide said:
I don't trust pre-release benchmarks - especially when Intel provide a system made by themselves with a hand-picked CPU designed to show off to reviews... ;)
Click to expand...

bestyboy said:
idon't know how true this is.
intel benched the conroe against a fx-60 that had a motherboard with
old bios,not supporting dual core.and with quiet and cool on.
not very good.........
whats your views
Click to expand...

Have a look at the recent review at h*xus.net titled "Intel's Conroe spanks AMD FX-62's botty - for real!!"

Then go over to XS and just look at what a few people with sample chips have managed to do: smash world records.

And yet you still refuse to believe that Conroe is a star in the making? :p
 
dark_hag666 said:
if your a memory manufacture company, currently uv got to make half of much of twice as many types of memory to satisfy everyone (ie 50% ddr, 50% ddr2)

therefore its going to cost more to make, once evryones using ddr2 it will make everything cheaper.
Click to expand...

All fair and well, but it still means that some people will have to buy DDR2 at expensive prices initially. How are we supposed to judge when DDR2 prices will fall so we can mould it into our upgrade plan? AM2 as it stands is hardly a cheaper solution (in terms of RAM prices) and we don't know how long it will take before DDR2 prices will be similar to DDR. And what's their excuse? Intel has been on DDR2 for a while now so it shouldn't be a radical change for manufacturers, should it? :)

Sorry for the double post.
 
Iraklis F.C. said:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31975
Click to expand...

This is no surprise really. The same thing happened with the A64. Socket 754 3000 was 2ghz, 512k cache. 939 was 1.8ghz, 512k cache. The dual-channel memory was supposed to make up for the loss of 200mhz. The same naming convention can be seen with the AM2 Semprons now that they support dual-channel ram.
 
I feel AMD should have kept making 939 cpus untill AMDs new 65nm. I think a lot of amd loyal users will be anoyed with the new am2 cpus with them not being much better than 939. AMD could have brought out 5000+ and FX62 on socket 939 I'm sure. They could have saved money on not creating a pointless new socket cpu too and put it towards the development of the 65nm cpus too.
 
turbotoaster said:
one thing that a lot of people forget is we as INFORMED consumers only make up a small % of the buyers

a lot of people wont know that AM2 is slower than conroe, and will have had a amd system in the past and will nip down to the local shop/superstore to buy a better system

intel have been knocked about for the last few years by amd BUT when a normal family walk into PC world they mostly end up with a intel based system
Click to expand...

Not entirely true that statement.

The power efficiency is a MAJOR consideration for servers.

Opteron won over Xenon because of this.
Intel will no doubt bring out a Xenon replacement to challenge the opteron in this space.

Lower power results in less electricity cost (inclusive of thermal cooling by air con) and the ability to get more servers into a rack results in less footprint cost..

This extends to the office PC in the selection exercise too..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom