Intel WILL win the next round.

nO}{8 · 11 Mar 2006 at 11:30

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=4

The Conroe chip looks poised to rule the cpu market soon, the first set of benches look very interesting. Goodbye AMD

Jokester · 11 Mar 2006 at 11:38

So they messed up the FEAR benchmark, in reality it was "only" 20% faster

Jokester

matt1 · 11 Mar 2006 at 11:43

Not kept up to date with hardware stuff lately, or posted here, but this sure is interesting as AMD has been top dog for games. I simply couldn't afford the shift to Intel at the moment, shall be sticking with socket 939 for another 12 months+

nO}{8 · 11 Mar 2006 at 11:45

Jokester said:
So they messed up the FEAR benchmark, in reality it was "only" 20% faster

Jokester

would you be happy to switch sides, I know your an XS hermit and theyre very AMD orientated, but the first glimpse is very promising. Im wondering about the overclocking capabilities on the intel board theyve never been as good as AMD in terms of unlocked multis etc...your thoughts?

Phemo · 11 Mar 2006 at 11:50

I know I'll be buying whatever's fastest when it comes to upgrade my box again. I've got an X2 for now, but I'll have no problems getting an Intel chip again if all this stuff is true - and there's no reason to completely dismiss it right now. I can't wait, CPUs have got interesting again.

VeNT · 11 Mar 2006 at 11:50

the issue with intel is that its WAY more expencive than AMD, and always will be

welshtom · 11 Mar 2006 at 11:54

VeNT said:
the issue with intel is that its WAY more expencive than AMD, and always will be

Well its not atm?? Can pick up a dual core intel and mobo for the same price as an X2.

Jokester · 11 Mar 2006 at 11:55

nO}{8 said:
would you be happy to switch sides, I know your an XS hermit and theyre very AMD orientated, but the first glimpse is very promising. Im wondering about the overclocking capabilities on the intel board theyve never been as good as AMD in terms of unlocked multis etc...your thoughts?

I'll just buy the best. And by the looks of things Intel are finally getting something right as this is apparently a mid range CPU destroying a FX60 overclocked to what is supposed to be FX62 speeds (which will get released at about the same time).

I just hope there's suitable motherboards to reach silly FSBs.

Jokester

Phemo · 11 Mar 2006 at 12:12

VeNT said:
the issue with intel is that its WAY more expencive than AMD, and always will be

I disagree, they're generally pretty similarly priced. In fact, Intel even have cheaper dual core processors out - like the P-D 805 at £100.

VeNT · 11 Mar 2006 at 12:16

maybe so, but I've always thought of AMD as the underdogs, I'd go intel if they where significantly cheaper, but atm they have so meny sockets/builds that its hard to understand (or atleast harder than AMDs is).

Digital Punk · 11 Mar 2006 at 12:33

matt1 said:
I simply couldn't afford the shift to Intel at the moment, shall be sticking with socket 939 for another 12 months+

Same here.
I simply can't justify a new mobo, new ram (DDR2) and a new cpu in the next twelve months no matter how good Conroe is.

The most I intend to upgrade is my Graphics card, which should keep games running happily on my dual Opty rig for another year.

spookywillow · 11 Mar 2006 at 12:50

any ideas how much the conroes will cost?
________
Kawasaki MB5

AWPC · 11 Mar 2006 at 14:05

Jokester said:
I just hope there's suitable motherboards to reach silly FSBs.

Jokester

You can already get Intel mobos based on the 955X + 975X chipsets which have native DDR2-800 support so that has potential for a native 1.6 Ghz FSB without any overclocking.

The Conroe CPU tested last week was only on a 1333FSB using DDR2-667.

The final production run is currently scheduled to have native DDR2-800!

ajgoodfellow · 11 Mar 2006 at 15:06

It's a next gen CPU and I'm not surprised it's faster than the FX60. If it wasn't it'd be an embarrasment for Intel to say the least - they've been trailing behind for a long time. Presler became more competitive and now they've got a new trick up their sleave. We'll have to wait to see how AMD responds

It does annoy me though when people keep saying that Intel dual core chips are cheaper. This is just not true. Granted they start cheaper but when you compare like for like they're not.

Intel P-D 805: £99.82 (2.6GHz, 1MB cache)
Intel P-D 820: £164.44 (2.8GHz, 1MB cache)
Intel P-D 920: £182.07 (2.8GHz, 2MB cache)
AMD X2 3800+: £214.97 (2xA64 3200+, equivalent to a P-D 3.2GHz)
Intel P-D 830: £223.19 (3.0GHz, 1MB cache)
Intel P-D 930: £240.82 (3.0GHz, 2MB cache)
AMD X2 4200+: £258.44 (2xA64 3500+, equivalent to a P-D 3.5GHz)
Intel P-D 940: £323.07 (3.2GHz, 2MB cache)
AMD X2 4400+: £334.82 (2xA64 3700+, equivalent to a P-D 3.7GHz)
AMD X2 4600+: £387.69 (2xA64 3800+, equivalent to a P-D 3.8GHz)
AMD X2 4800+: £458.19 (2xA64 4000+, equivalent to a P-D 4.0GHz)
Intel P-D 950: £469.94 (3.4GHz, 2MB cache)
Intel P-D 840 EE: £693.19 (3.2GHz, 1MB cache, HT Tech)
AMD FX60: £728.44 (2xA64 FX55, equivalent to a P-D 4.3GHz)
Intel P-D 955 EE: £763.69 (3.46GHz, 2MB cache, HT Tech)

welshtom · 11 Mar 2006 at 15:19

i dont think 4000 = 4ghz p4 though.

The PR ratings arent meant for that.
I think a 4000/Fx55 will be a fair bit better than a 4ghz p4 tbh

Tom

ajgoodfellow · 11 Mar 2006 at 15:30

Then that just further supports my argument for the AMD Dual Core chips being cheaper

VeNT · 11 Mar 2006 at 15:40

yeah, more bang per buck

Jamie1984 · 11 Mar 2006 at 15:45

VeNT said:
maybe so, but I've always thought of AMD as the underdogs, I'd go intel if they where significantly cheaper, but atm they have so meny sockets/builds that its hard to understand (or atleast harder than AMDs is).

exactly, pentium d, pentium m... all seem to be rated at the same GHz, ill stick with some nice simple numbering thanks

Raikiri · 11 Mar 2006 at 16:01

AWPC said:
The final production run is currently scheduled to have native DDR2-800!

Thats not a good thing, means you will need one of the £160 motherboards and overclocking 1:1 will be much more dificult. Not to mention memory costing more

ACESHIGH · 11 Mar 2006 at 16:37

ajgoodfellow said:
It's a next gen CPU and I'm not surprised it's faster than the FX60. If it wasn't it'd be an embarrasment for Intel to say the least - they've been trailing behind for a long time. Presler became more competitive and now they've got a new trick up their sleave. We'll have to wait to see how AMD responds

It does annoy me though when people keep saying that Intel dual core chips are cheaper. This is just not true. Granted they start cheaper but when you compare like for like they're not.

Intel P-D 805: £99.82 (2.6GHz, 1MB cache)
Intel P-D 820: £164.44 (2.8GHz, 1MB cache)
Intel P-D 920: £182.07 (2.8GHz, 2MB cache)
AMD X2 3800+: £214.97 (2xA64 3200+, equivalent to a P-D 3.2GHz)
Intel P-D 830: £223.19 (3.0GHz, 1MB cache)
Intel P-D 930: £240.82 (3.0GHz, 2MB cache)
AMD X2 4200+: £258.44 (2xA64 3500+, equivalent to a P-D 3.5GHz)
Intel P-D 940: £323.07 (3.2GHz, 2MB cache)
AMD X2 4400+: £334.82 (2xA64 3700+, equivalent to a P-D 3.7GHz)
AMD X2 4600+: £387.69 (2xA64 3800+, equivalent to a P-D 3.8GHz)
AMD X2 4800+: £458.19 (2xA64 4000+, equivalent to a P-D 4.0GHz)
Intel P-D 950: £469.94 (3.4GHz, 2MB cache)
Intel P-D 840 EE: £693.19 (3.2GHz, 1MB cache, HT Tech)
AMD FX60: £728.44 (2xA64 FX55, equivalent to a P-D 4.3GHz)
Intel P-D 955 EE: £763.69 (3.46GHz, 2MB cache, HT Tech)

True.

In the end for me it will come down to performance for price (bang per buck).

For arguments sake lets say, the Intel Conroe is 20% faster than X AMD chip but cost 45% more, will i buy Intel or AMD. More than likely AMD will again get my money. Intel have had good chips in the past too, but they have allways been more expensive (even when their chips were worse).