Conroe is hype

OC_A64 · 2 Oct 2006 at 10:37

I'm not saying AM2 is the better choice, what I'm saying is if someone does choose AMD over Intel/Core 2 then that's their choice.
The systems NOT gonna be slow by any stretch. It was also THEIR decision and no-one has the right to "dis" it.

(Whether that was the point that came across in earlier posts i dunno, probably wasn't

)

Regarding owning Conroe, got curious and fancied a change

Intel/Conroe's good fun to clock too

Tooks · 2 Oct 2006 at 10:43

I think your point probably did come across!

By the same token then, people, please, if you build an AM2 system, fair play to you, but then please refrain from coming on here and saying Conroe is all rubbish cos you built an AMD system!

richard smith · 2 Oct 2006 at 10:48

Tooks said:
All the fan boy comments aside (and what's wrong with being a fan of something anyway?!), the bit of gold within this thread is that whatever people are saying, the FACTS show that currently Allandale/Conroe chips are the fastest mainstream CPUs available, and if you're building a new system, you'd be a bit mad to discount them just because they're made by Intel...

Reminds me when the AMD X2's came out... "You'd be mad to buy Intel", people said for exactly the same reason.

Now, I've just got me a conroe rig.. E6600 running at 3.82.
Asside from SuperPi of 13.38 seconds (ooh, how useful is that!) it doesn't feel any different from my FX55 running at 3.4ghz. I actually had time to play half life yesterday and... it felt exactly the same as it did before.

So, yes, I have a monster uber fast beast but you can't actually tell that from doing anything (and no, I don't do encoding or anything like that).

AndyOcUK · 2 Oct 2006 at 10:53

Gibbo said:
Hi there

Some people really are too fanboyish, get a grip folks.

I purchase all of OcUK's hardware and am responsible for displaying it on our website and have all sales report to hand.

Anybody in my view buying an AMD setup now if doing a large upgrade or buying a new system are pretty much dumb and need good guidance from an un-biased source.

Looks guys OcUK don't care if you buy AMD or Intel its still turnover and profit for us but to buy AMD now you'd be a fool unless you just upgrading your current AMD CPU to a slightly faster one.

A CPU does not only effect games you know, it effects every application your computer runs. Also lets not forget the Core 2's run completely silent and are the coolest running CPU on the market.

Also games that are currently out can easily bring a high-end system to its knees if you have the right monitor capable of the right resolution. Its all about minimum frame rates. If your AMD rig is say capable of running game X at 1920x1200 with all details but in certain game areas drops to a choppy 15fps its gonna be pretty unplayable, however with the equivalent Core 2 processor your minimum frame rate could be increased by as much as 10fps. That means you no longer get slow downs in games.

Really if you wanna waste your money on AMD fine, OcUK does not care but look at the facts and don't let the fanboys blind you Intel are destroying AMD at the moment in every aspect, buy Intel. Again OcUK don't care you buy its still a sale but to recommend AMD now would be a crime.

Its the Fanboy attitude here thats getting my goat - as Gibbo says (and I've agreed with this) Conroe does kick ass - THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUMENT WITH THIS!.... Conversely, some people on this thread are basically slagging anybody off with a differeing opinion and anyone still with an AMD chip. The thread has turned into a "My rigs better than yours" playground scrap.

There are plenty of upgrades to a rig to improve frame rate without throwing the whole thing in the bin for a conroe rig. These are the kind of informed decisions I'm used to making rather than succumming to hype.

BUT - to totally agree with my colleague - when faced with a choice between an AMD or INTEL rig, AT THE SAME SORT OF PRICE POINT - You'd have to be ABSOLUTELY MENTAL to go the AMD route now.

Thats still no reason to **** off anybody on AMD who's PC is still fast enough for what they want - as long as they're happy...why should anyone else care?

AndyOcUK
OcUK Tech.

AndyOcUK · 2 Oct 2006 at 10:56

Tooks said:
I think your point probably did come across!

By the same token then, people, please, if you build an AM2 system, fair play to you, but then please refrain from coming on here and saying Conroe is all rubbish cos you built an AMD system!

Agreed

Stelly · 2 Oct 2006 at 10:56

AndyOcUK said:
Its the Fanboy attitude here thats getting my goat - as Gibbo says (and I've agreed with this) Conroe does kick ass - THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUMENT WITH THIS!.... Conversely, some people on this thread are basically slagging anybody off with a differeing opinion and anyone still with an AMD chip. The thread has turned into a "My rigs better than yours" playground scrap.

There are plenty of upgrades to a rig to improve frame rate without throwing the whole thing in the bin for a conroe rig. These are the kind of informed decisions I'm used to making rather than succumming to hype.

BUT - to totally agree with my colleague - when faced with a choice between an AMD or INTEL rig, AT THE SAME SORT OF PRICE POINT - You'd have to be ABSOLUTELY MENTAL to go the AMD route now.

Thats still no reason to **** off anybody on AMD who's PC is still fast enough for what they want - as long as they're happy...why should anyone else care?

AndyOcUK
OcUK Tech.

Dont just get fanboys in this forum mate

Stelly

AndyOcUK · 2 Oct 2006 at 11:00

easyrider said:
Coming from someone who spent an arm and a leg on a FX cpu!

I actually paid £150 for my FX from a mate with more money than sense.

AndyOcUK
OcUK Tech

Stelly · 2 Oct 2006 at 11:04

AndyOcUK said:
I actually paid £150 for my FX from a mate with more money than sense.

AndyOcUK
OcUK Tech

I wish that I had a mate like that... instead I'm a mate like that, but with not that much money and no sense lol

Stelly

AndyOcUK · 2 Oct 2006 at 11:13

AndyOcUK · 2 Oct 2006 at 11:14

Stelly said:
Dont just get fanboys in this forum mate

Stelly

No, not all - some people here are talking perfect sense.

Stelly · 2 Oct 2006 at 11:28

AndyOcUK said:
No, not all - some people here are talking perfect sense.

Cant be me

Stelly

easyrider · 2 Oct 2006 at 12:33

AndyOcUK said:
I actually paid £150 for my FX from a mate with more money than sense.

AndyOcUK
OcUK Tech

And a 6300 costing £120 when easily clocked to 3.4ghz flattens it thats my point.

Dolph · 2 Oct 2006 at 12:43

w3bbo said:
So AMD simply wanted to release a new cpu with a new skt simply for marketing purposes? Come on, get real. That must have been the biggest promotion boo-boo of all time then as all they have 'promoted' is a cpu that is inferior to intel. Performance was obviously an issue otherwise there is no real reason for any buyer to upgrade.

Performance wasn't the issue at all, that's why the new socket shows no performance gains. It wasn't marketing either, it's more fundamental than that.

With Intel shifting entirely to DDR2, and having a much much bigger market share, most of the memory manufacturers shifted the majority of their production capacity to DDR2. This would lead to an increase in DDR prices as supply dwindles. If AMD had insisted on carrying on with S939 and DDR, they would have suffered heavily due to this, especially as Intel's new chips (the C2D) offer better price/performance anyway, without having a cheaper ram advantage as well.

AMD created AM2 for this reason, to provide support for the commonly available ram, not for performance, and not for marketing purposes, it's simple economics.

easyrider · 2 Oct 2006 at 12:47

OC_A64 said:
Can't actually believe what people are starting to post now... Why the hell do these threads ALWAYS turn into a slagging match?

They don't,Its the Fanboys with blinkers on that refuse to admit that there is faster tech out there.

Really can't understand why some of you seem to have such a huge issue with people buying AMD/AM2 kit at the mo...
Conroe IS quick, but 99% of people don't actually need that much speed. They won't actually use it. Ok, they can encode a DVD a bit quicker, or maybe their F@H output will increase, but for 99% of people it doesn't actually matter. .

This is nonsense...Reason being regardless of wether you use this speed or not you get the fastest for your money.Thats human nature.Not buying a component cause you think a company will thank you for it.Brand loyalty is utterly pointless.It leads to stagnation in technology.

When new games come out, this extra power will be needed, so you might as well have this power from the word go.

If you've got a lower end gfx card too the performance increase over say AM2 is going to be practically non existant..

Again rubbish.Reason being everything else that does not need 3D rendering power will be faster.

If Joe blogs want's to build himself an AM2 system then well that's his choice. He shouldn't be made to feel like a tit, it's HIS baby. If you have comments/don't like his system/think he wasted his money then at least attempt to word it in a nice way.. .

Of course it is.If this choice is based on fanboyism,then good luck to him,If this choice is based on not having recieved the correct advice then that is wrong.Thats why people reccomend conroe to new system builders.Its faster than AM2.Simple.

FWIW I've got probably one of, if not the quickest conroe systems on the boards. It's a stunning piece of kit. Do I use it 24/7? Nope. Do I game on it? Nope. Why? Well A64 3800 @ stock is plenty enough. I'm hard pushed noticing the peformance difference (unless I actually run benchies etc) with the work I do - office, Web, light gaming etc.

If you do hardcore gaming ,video editing,rendering etc...Then you would notice a difference.

Just because you surf and send emails etc.. and this does not appear faster on a conroe rig.Thats because it wouldn't be stressing the cpu. The x2 3800 would feel the same as conroe.

This example is invalid.

My workstation at work is a celeron 2.8ghz and this feels the same as my conroe rig when using outlook etc..

But it would gring to a halt if I did what I do at home with my main 3.8ghz conroe rig.

subroutine · 2 Oct 2006 at 13:05

I just go for the best price/performance and atm that's Intel.

Stelly · 2 Oct 2006 at 13:06

easyrider said:
My workstation at work is a celeron 2.8ghz and this feels the same as my conroe rig when using outlook etc..

You poor poor man a Celeron at work... I'm using a Core 2 Duo at the moment...

Stelly

Duke · 2 Oct 2006 at 13:08

Stelly said:
You poor poor man a Celeron at work... I'm using a Core 2 Duo at the moment...

Stelly

Sempron here but it's the 3300 so not too shabby for office work.

Messiah Khan · 2 Oct 2006 at 13:13

Stelly said:
You poor poor man a Celeron at work... I'm using a Core 2 Duo at the moment...

Stelly

a P4 Northwood @2.8Ghz here, but it feels like im running a 486 due to all the rubbishy processes and roaming profile.

Stelly · 2 Oct 2006 at 13:17

messiah khan said:
a P4 Northwood @2.8Ghz here, but it feels like im running a 486 due to all the rubbishy processes and roaming profile.

We just got rid of roaming profiles but AD seems to hit performance a bit

Stelly

Messiah Khan · 2 Oct 2006 at 13:29

Stelly said:
We just got rid of roaming profiles but AD seems to hit performance a bit

Stelly

Yeah, were due to get rid of them soon. We are running Novell though.. says a lot really. Talking of AD, I mean to get it set up at home to have a play about.