NGMA (Conroe) architecture expected to be 20% faster clock-for-clock than AM2 chips

Spudgun · 22 Feb 2006 at 08:50

competition between manufacturers only leads to benefits for us, the consumer. I couldn't care which of AMD or Intel are currently on top but as long as they compete against each other we will reap the benefits

mcmad · 22 Feb 2006 at 09:52

Spudgun said:
competition between manufacturers only leads to benefits for us, the consumer. I couldn't care which of AMD or Intel are currently on top but as long as they compete against each other we will reap the benefits

Exactly,

Intel or AMD
ATI or NVidia

who cares, strong products from more than one company can only be good for us all at the end of the day.

glad to see Intel finally coming back strongly

Emlyn_Dewar · 22 Feb 2006 at 11:15

As much as I like AMD, if Intel's new offering blows them out of the water I know who will be getting my money. (it won't be the slower one)

AWPC · 22 Feb 2006 at 11:26

Even as a lifelong hardcore Intel fanboy I gotta say this news about needing yet another mobo/chipset sucks badly.

I recently bought the most expensive latest greatest Intel chipset/mobo based on the 955X. @ the time it was the top model and my upgrade path was going to be a 955XE CPU. Its now just been replaced @ the high end with the 975X (another not Conroe ready mobo).

Now not only does this 955X not even fully support the 955XE (VT is not supported.I can live without that.) but I need to get yet another mobo if I want to use the same 775 design as the power regulators need another upgrade.

Why on earth did they not just redesign the board so that instead of giving loads of extra pointless to most features like firewire, 8 x USB 2.0 ports, 8 x SATA ports, 3 x IDE ports, dual onboard NICs, onboard HD audio (useless in games), onboard game port (most people use either the sound card one or a USB controller) etc etc you get the idea . Even drop the other PCI-E slot and or give only 1 PCI slot. You dont need all these extra SATA, IDE & USB ports. Half the number would still be more than enough for most people. I only ever use 2 x SATA, 3 x IDE, 2 x USB.

This is just another example of Intel creating a whole new chipset product line just because they know it boosts sales when people want/need to upgrade again :mad:

PinkFloyd · 22 Feb 2006 at 11:45

Will be interesting to see how this compares to the high spec AM2 options.
As my next serious upgrade will be to a new platform I'l get whatever is best, either way it involves getting a new mobo, ram and cpu.

Hopefully it will give AMD a run for their money, so long as it doesn't kill them off. Competition is good for prices.

tomos · 22 Feb 2006 at 13:47

i'm hoping amd will be able to respond to this so that they are still in charge for another year or 2.

if they can get a little bigger, get a few more fab plants going, then hopefully we will have an ATI Nvidia thing going with amd and intel. both competing like crazy and bringing out better and better chips

VeNT · 22 Feb 2006 at 14:19

thing is guys, how MUCH does a Intel chip cost comapired to the SAME chip from AMD, and how much MORE can you clock the AMD on AIR?

mike64 · 22 Feb 2006 at 14:27

i know most intel users have ddr2 ram but most dont have ddr2 ram capable of doing 800Mhz, most intel users will need new ram if there going to use their system to its max.

I wont belive these claims till the silicon is out and benched by independent sources! but i wouldn't be surprised if intel starts to properly challenge AMD

beh · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:29

Clock-for-clock? Personally I'm more interested in pound-for-pound performance. I'm also not inclined to believe marketing hype put out by any company, lets wait for benchmarks shall we?

PinkFloyd · 22 Feb 2006 at 17:03

VeNT said:
thing is guys, how MUCH does a Intel chip cost comapired to the SAME chip from AMD, and how much MORE can you clock the AMD on AIR?

How do you know that the new Intel chips are going to be more expensive that the AMD equivilents? Is it solely based on the fact that they are now so therefore they will when Conroe is released?

NathanE · 22 Feb 2006 at 17:40

The Pentium D "Presler" chips are pretty darn cheap at the moment.

Webzta · 22 Feb 2006 at 17:41

VeNT said:
thing is guys, how MUCH does a Intel chip cost comapired to the SAME chip from AMD, and how much MORE can you clock the AMD on AIR?

That statement is no longer an issue in my opinion, the cedar mill and presler are VERY good bang for buck, and are clocking VERY well on air.

Can't say that about the latest opterons, prices are rising and clocks are getting less consistant

Soul Rider · 22 Feb 2006 at 17:55

NathanE said:
It's a pretty moot point anyway. AM2 will require a new motherboard too (and new RAM.) So that means all the substantial upgrade paths this year will require quite a bit of outlay...

Assuming Conroe prices will be similar to what Pentium D's cost today, the AM2 will be the more expensive upgrade option because you will require a new motherboard and DDR2 Ram (which not many AMD users will own already.)

Unless you have the Asrock dual sata which has an expansion port for AM2 sockets, so you'll just need the expansion card, and i'm sure that will be a lot cheaper than a new motherboard...

easyrider · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:29

Webzta said:
That statement is no longer an issue in my opinion, the cedar mill and presler are VERY good bang for buck, and are clocking VERY well on air.

Can't say that about the latest opterons, prices are rising and clocks are getting less consistant

evidence please ?

My opty cost £300 and I'm running it on 2.7ghz stock vcore on air.I don't know yet what it will do with a bump in vcore.

Can uou get a 700 mhz overclock on a presler without a bump in voltage?

The Intel Pentium 4 930 Dual Core "LGA775 Presler" 3.0GHz costs £240 and yet the slowest x2 beats it in nearly every benchmark.

the lowest x2 running at 2ghz

so an overclocked 165 or 170 for example @ 2.7ghz -2.8ghz would destroy a presler even at 4ghz.

even the extra 2 mb cache the presler has is not enough to make it a AMD dual core contender.

stigggeh · 22 Feb 2006 at 20:24

VeNT said:
thing is guys, how MUCH does a Intel chip cost comapired to the SAME chip from AMD, and how much MORE can you clock the AMD on AIR?

I think you need to look at how the dothans clock to see what intel can do 1.1ghz (over 60%) overclock on air anyone ?

+ faster than single core AMD's clock for clock.... you get the idea

NathanE · 22 Feb 2006 at 20:30

easyrider said:
evidence please ?

My opty cost £300 and I'm running it on 2.7ghz stock vcore on air.I don't know yet what it will do with a bump in vcore.

Can uou get a 700 mhz overclock on a presler without a bump in voltage?

The Intel Pentium 4 930 Dual Core "LGA775 Presler" 3.0GHz costs £240 and yet the slowest x2 beats it in nearly every benchmark.

the lowest x2 running at 2ghz

so an overclocked 165 or 170 for example @ 2.7ghz -2.8ghz would destroy a presler even at 4ghz.

even the extra 2 mb cache the presler has is not enough to make it a AMD dual core contender.

And how does all that guff make his statement wrong? Presler's _are_ good bang for buck and they _are_ clocking well. Sure you can compare them to X2's and you're right they don't really contend too well. But those two facts on their own (price and OC'ability) make them a product worth buying

easyrider · 22 Feb 2006 at 20:35

NathanE said:
Sure you can compare them to X2's and you're right they don't really contend too well. But those two facts on their own (price and OC'ability) make them a product worth buying

why?

When you can get a better performing X2 for the same money?

Emlyn_Dewar · 22 Feb 2006 at 20:51

From what I have seen the preslers look to overclock quite nicely, and the entry level Presler is over £30 cheaper than the entry level 3800 X2 (going by ocuk price only)

Yeah they might not perform the same, although I haven't seen any direct comparisons between Preslers and X2's only between the Smithfields. You cannot deny that the entry level is cheap and has been proven to overclock though.

easyrider · 22 Feb 2006 at 21:05

Emlyn_Dewar said:
From what I have seen the preslers look to overclock quite nicely, and the entry level Presler is over £30 cheaper than the entry level 3800 X2 (going by ocuk price only)

Yeah they might not perform the same, although I haven't seen any direct comparisons between Preslers and X2's only between the Smithfields. You cannot deny that the entry level is cheap and has been proven to overclock though.

the presler is cheap and is proven to overclock.But the x2 3800 can be had for £190 making the entry level presler the incorrect choice.IMO

most X2 3800 clock nicley too.I had one that did 2.6ghz quite comfortably.

Emlyn_Dewar · 22 Feb 2006 at 21:19

I covered my ass with my (going by ocuk price only)

I'd also say the Presler is the incorrect choice, but I also don't see it as a poor CPU choice. I don't even know why I want to defend the Presler, I'm just not in the usual pro AMD mood tonight... :eek: