New Intel 3.73EE - Another Anti Intel Article @ Toms!

[AWPC]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/22/pentium_extreme_edition_965/

Despite being very close in all benchmarks @ std clock rates & even winning some @ overclocked speeds vs an oced FX60 Toms hardware still manage to put it down

I agree its not good VFM with Conroe around the corner but as the price is the same as an FX60 surely on merit it should be considered a valid alternative to those who prefer Intel over AMD as the difference between an FX60 vs 3.73EE (965) is now less than 2% across all the benchmarks tested by Toms.

 

[sargatanas]

Seems pretty even to me, not one has the clear eprformance over the other, i dont know why theyre so hard on it considering the FX60 is around the same price.

 

[bbreezeuk]

whats wrong with puting intel down that intel cpus are rubbish anyway if it was me id have the FX60 even if the intel beats it

 

[Xez]

Yeh because your the typical fan boy. I have to admit that the intel is a lot closer than i thought it would be though.

 

[sargatanas]

whats wrong with puting intel down that intel cpus are rubbish anyway if it was me id have the FX60 even if the intel beats it

And tell me why would you buy a cpu thats worse than a 'rubbish' one?

 

[Raikiri]

whats wrong with puting intel down that intel cpus are rubbish anyway if it was me id have the FX60 even if the intel beats it

That mentality is stupid.

Although the P4 probably ran hotter, costs the same, a little slower and motherboards in general cost more. So there are a few advantages to the AMD right now, not that many people are mental enough to buy either anyway

 

[sargatanas]

That mentality is stupid.

Although the P4 probably ran hotter, costs the same, a little slower and motherboards in general cost more. So there are a few advantages to the AMD right now, not that many people are mental enough to buy either anyway

It is a lot closer than most people, myself included expected though, and its not as much hotter as you might think according tot he heat tests.

Still gonna wait and see how conroe does before upgrading though.

 

[TooNice]

Wasn't Tom's accused of being pro Intel long ago (P2 days)? When did that change? I went Intel in those days, AMD in the Athlon days, just built an Opteron. But if Intel makes the better Quad-cores, I wouldn't mind going back to them.

My loyalty lies in my wallet

 

[mrthingyx]

Wasn't Tom's accused of being pro Intel long ago (P2 days)? When did that change? I went Intel in those days, AMD in the Athlon days, just built an Opteron. But if Intel makes the better Quad-cores, I wouldn't mind going back to them.

My loyalty lies in my wallet

As soon as Athlon 64/FX broke out of the AMD stable, THG went AMD - prior to that, they couldn't snuggle close enough to Intel without commiting lewd acts. It's swings and roundabouts and it always will be... anybody who - as stated so eloquently above - has loyalty to anything other than their wallet when it comes to buying PC hardware is a bit silly, really.

It's a good effort by Intel to pull something out of their generally languid desktop CPU lineup to put a bit more hurt on AMD. With a bit of luck, this will have them both scrambling to out-do each other in the next phase: Conroe is shaping up to be a very nice piece of kit so classic commercial competitive sensibilities would say that AMD is going to have to burn the midnight oil to come up with something just as special. The real winner in such situations, assuming the pricing is sensible? Us. Either way.

 

[div0]

It ammuses me so much how review sites like THG get labeled as pro-intel or pro-amd.....

When THG reviewed AM2 and the results seemed to show that AM2 wasn't much better than standard 939, all the AMD fanboys came out and said - "I'll wait until its reviewed by a site that isnt pro-intel.

Now that a review is done on an intel processor that dosnt say its the best processor ever made - the same site gets accused of being pro-amd.

So in less than a month they have change thier "allegiance"!?!

Surely everyone can accept that reviews may not ever give the entire picture and so you are always best to get your information from as many sources as possible. But just because one review site doesnt give the results you'd have liked, theres no need to blame "bias".

 

[bbreezeuk]

i would nuy the FX 60 over the intel as the Fx 60 runs at 2.8 and achives the same benchmarks as the intel that runs at 3.7 therefor having more power at lower clocks making the AMD use less power to achive the same results, for years intel have used clock speeds to achive higher results whearas AMD use technolgy like 64 bit amongst other stuff

 

[Havana_UK]

bleh - delete me!

 

[sargatanas]

i would nuy the FX 60 over the intel as the Fx 60 runs at 2.8 and achives the same benchmarks as the intel that runs at 3.7 therefor having more power at lower clocks making the AMD use less power to achive the same results, for years intel have used clock speeds to achive higher results whearas AMD use technolgy like 64 bit amongst other stuff

The new Intel cpus are 64 bit, and the way its done is just down to the architectural differences in the way they are made. Intel did screw it up by going too much into clock speed, but theyre saving it now. What about intels new cpu? conroe, from the benchmarks shown it beats, no actually it kicks the living poo out of an overclocked FX60, at lower clock speeds.
Don't be so short sighted man, if AMD could get higher clock speed while maintaining their architechure, they would. It shows how even the very different designs can be.

*edit* Just so you know, the FX60 runs at 2.6Ghz, not 2.8

 

[Durzel]

Wasn't Tom's accused of being pro Intel long ago (P2 days)? When did that change? I went Intel in those days, AMD in the Athlon days, just built an Opteron. But if Intel makes the better Quad-cores, I wouldn't mind going back to them.

My loyalty lies in my wallet

So does Tom, evidently.

The whole article reads very negatively to be honest, which is a shame. The opening paragraph of the conclusion reads: "Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition processors have always been controversial products. First, they are very expensive. At around $1,000, most people would opt to buy an entire computer rather than only a single processor."

I don't see how a price point of $1,000 per unit is controversial to be honest, when the comparable FX product costs exactly the same. The argument about people buying an entire PC for the money is conjecture too, and shouldn't be part of any unbiased review. It may be overpriced in individuals minds, but its certainly not overpriced when you compare it against its immediate competition (as is the point of a review surely).

I'm neither pro or anti Intel or AMD, I'm pro-choice .. but that article isn't even worth taking that seriously to be honest. If you can't abide by the tone of the supposedly unbiased reviewer, how can you put any stock in the graphs, etc being completely unbiased?

 

[m3csl2004]

i would nuy the FX 60 over the intel as the Fx 60 runs at 2.8 and achives the same benchmarks as the intel that runs at 3.7 therefor having more power at lower clocks making the AMD use less power to achive the same results, for years intel have used clock speeds to achive higher results whearas AMD use technolgy like 64 bit amongst other stuff

the fact that amd uses 64 bit on there cpus actually makes no difference to performance unless you have windows 64 - and the intel is 64 bit anyway

a64 does more work per clock then netburst but netburst clocks higher (a lot higher on 65nm), i would go for the better clocking intel if i was to spend that sort of money