JeremK
pggii wrote :
This is precisely why AMD is slowly beating the CRAP out of Intel in the desktop marketplace, and convincing major laptop makers (Dell, Lenovo-aka:ThinkPad, etc.)
I've never heard Dell was going to use AMD in their laptops.
I'm pretty sure the only AMD core that is used with Dell computers will be in the QuadOpteron servers.
Posted Tue 13 Jun 06 @ 10:08 am
ConQuest
Ah geez... I hate propoganda. A note to all the AMD fanboys. They're done:
Intel's entire 64-bit Core 2 line-up starting with the lowest end 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo's [Woodcrest = Server, Conroe = desktop, Merom = notebook] begin initial release next week and Core 2 Extreme starting at 3.33Ghz comes out within the next 6 months.
Intel's MID-RANGE Conroe processor is wiping AMD's HIGH-END FX-62 all over the floor with nearly half the power/heat dissipation [65W TDP/Intel Conroe vs. 110w TDP/AMD FX-62] and at half the price, less than $600/Intel Conroe vs. more than $1,200/AMD FX-62.
Here's an article [one of many that is spanking this cold, hard reality into AMD's fanbase] along with some gaming benchmarks for ya'll:
"Intel's Conroe spanks AMD FX-62's botty - for real!!"
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692&search=intel%20conroe%20botty
[from that article]
There's no real need for a summary. The benchmarks tell all. Intel's Conroe simply outmuscles every currently available CPU. Would you buy an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 now? AMD must be thinking that K8-L can't come soon enough.
A little bird also tells us that the Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition may well debut with a 3GHz clockspeed. Just imagine that. Gentlemen and ladies, start your salivating."
WHOA!!!
Just went over to another forum to grab a link to an article I had read last month that started proving that Intel's new Core 2 processors kick MUCH AMD butt, and I saw this:
"Conroe XE hits the scene"
http://www.xtremesystems.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=723&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Here's the forum discussion:
"5 GHZ Conroe..."
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101421
BTW, the people on those sites are SERIOUS computer users/modders. Lot's of them were AMD fanboys.
Now? Not so much.
You'll see quite a few of them on those forums who are disgruntled by the fact that they have purchased AMD boxes recently only to get SERIOUSLY beat down by Intel's wave of superior and cheaper priced Core 2 processors ... coming out NOW!!!
Intel's entire 64-bit Core 2 line-up starting with the lowest end 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo's [Woodcrest = Server, Conroe = desktop, Merom = notebook] begin initial release next week and Core 2 Extreme starting at 3.33Ghz comes out within the next 6 months.
Intel's MID-RANGE Conroe processor is wiping AMD's HIGH-END FX-62 all over the floor with nearly half the power/heat dissipation [65W TDP/Intel Conroe vs. 110w TDP/AMD FX-62] and at half the price, less than $600/Intel Conroe vs. more than $1,200/AMD FX-62.
Here's an article [one of many that is spanking this cold, hard reality into AMD's fanbase] along with some gaming benchmarks for ya'll:
"Intel's Conroe spanks AMD FX-62's botty - for real!!"
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692&search=intel%20conroe%20botty
[from that article]
There's no real need for a summary. The benchmarks tell all. Intel's Conroe simply outmuscles every currently available CPU. Would you buy an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 now? AMD must be thinking that K8-L can't come soon enough.
A little bird also tells us that the Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition may well debut with a 3GHz clockspeed. Just imagine that. Gentlemen and ladies, start your salivating."
WHOA!!!
Just went over to another forum to grab a link to an article I had read last month that started proving that Intel's new Core 2 processors kick MUCH AMD butt, and I saw this:
"Conroe XE hits the scene"
http://www.xtremesystems.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=723&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Here's the forum discussion:
"5 GHZ Conroe..."
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101421
BTW, the people on those sites are SERIOUS computer users/modders. Lot's of them were AMD fanboys.
Now? Not so much.
You'll see quite a few of them on those forums who are disgruntled by the fact that they have purchased AMD boxes recently only to get SERIOUSLY beat down by Intel's wave of superior and cheaper priced Core 2 processors ... coming out NOW!!!
Posted Tue 13 Jun 06 @ 10:44 am
ConQuest
MODS!!! PLEASE DELETE MY POST DIRECTLY ABOVE THIS! THANKS! Done!
Um... read my post above and try to say that with a straight face.
Dell has only chosen to use AMD processors to try and differentiate themsleves from their ONE REAL threat, Apple Computer.
Apple is now worth more than Dell http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Worth-More-Than-Dell-Again-22655.shtml, and uses ALL Intel chips. The Apple "account" was a BIG win for Intel over IBM and is one of the MAIN reasons Intel got off their butts to begin with [besides the fact that AMD had been making better chips for the past couple of years... I repeat... had].
[from that article]
"The animosity between Apple and Dell is well known. It all started on October 6 1997, when Dell founder, and then CEO, Michael Dell, when asked what he would do to solve the Apple problem, stood before a crowd of several thousand IT executives and answered "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
Less than a month later, on November 10 1997, Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded, speaking in front of an image of Michael Dell's bulls-eye covered face, "We're coming after you, you're in our sights."
BOW DOWN DELL! They're as finished as AMD and they know it. Why else would PC Magazine have a recorded conversation with Michael Dell himself saying that Dell Wants to Sell Mac OS X PCs? http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1957355,00.asp
Dell has come to realize the same thing that the 2-4 windows users who I switch to Mac everyday, 5x a week, for 4 years now, have come to realize; the problem with windows computers, IS windows itself.
Where lots of them jumped from one windows computer hardware manufacturer to another, thinking that the hardware was the problem [sometimes it was, but usually not], they now are realizing that the cause of there misery was actually windows all along.
Just like you wouldn't replace your car's battery if your car's tire blew out, switchers are realizing that in order to get rid of windows problems, they need to get rid of windows.
What alternatives does the COMMON public have. Linux?! Don't make me laugh. Even if they picked a distro and focused on that one, they still wouldn't have the seamless OS and hardware integration, as well as technical support that Apple is world reknowned for.
They would only get to Apple's level of quality control if they started making their own computers. I hope they do. Together, Apple and linux can expose windows for the junk OS that it is and bring down that untalented and criminal organization.
What do microsoft's own employees think about their company, their upcoming "new" windows xp sp 3 OS [vista], and their leadership? Take a look:
"Vista 2007. Fire the leadership now!"
http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2006/03/vista-2007-fire-leadership-now.html#comments
Apple is the only computer manufacturer whos notebook sales have made up nearly half of it's total, steadily increasing [nothiing slow about it], Macintosh computer sales for years now, because they are [and have been]desktop replacements.. That's why I always laugh when a windows user tells me that "Macs are too expensive".
They're meant to be mobile desktop replacements [look at the specs of a MacBook Pro and the iMacs], they last [minimally] 2, [average] 3 times longer than windows notebooks and THEY WORK RELIABLY THE ENTIRE TIME.
PERIOD.
- ConQuest [19 years dj'ing, 16 year computer professional including Xerox internal/external Digital Solutions Administrator [windows, Novell, Mac, Unix] and current Apple Specialist.
pggii wrote :
AMD chips are KNOWN for running much cooler than Intel, accross the board, no matter which chip class/family. This is precisely why AMD is slowly beating the CRAP out of Intel in the desktop marketplace
Um... read my post above and try to say that with a straight face.
pggii wrote :
...and convincing major laptop makers (Dell, Lenovo-aka:ThinkPad, etc.) to add AMD to their new lineups of laptops coming in the very near future.
Dell has only chosen to use AMD processors to try and differentiate themsleves from their ONE REAL threat, Apple Computer.
Apple is now worth more than Dell http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Worth-More-Than-Dell-Again-22655.shtml, and uses ALL Intel chips. The Apple "account" was a BIG win for Intel over IBM and is one of the MAIN reasons Intel got off their butts to begin with [besides the fact that AMD had been making better chips for the past couple of years... I repeat... had].
[from that article]
"The animosity between Apple and Dell is well known. It all started on October 6 1997, when Dell founder, and then CEO, Michael Dell, when asked what he would do to solve the Apple problem, stood before a crowd of several thousand IT executives and answered "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
Less than a month later, on November 10 1997, Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded, speaking in front of an image of Michael Dell's bulls-eye covered face, "We're coming after you, you're in our sights."
BOW DOWN DELL! They're as finished as AMD and they know it. Why else would PC Magazine have a recorded conversation with Michael Dell himself saying that Dell Wants to Sell Mac OS X PCs? http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1957355,00.asp
Dell has come to realize the same thing that the 2-4 windows users who I switch to Mac everyday, 5x a week, for 4 years now, have come to realize; the problem with windows computers, IS windows itself.
Where lots of them jumped from one windows computer hardware manufacturer to another, thinking that the hardware was the problem [sometimes it was, but usually not], they now are realizing that the cause of there misery was actually windows all along.
Just like you wouldn't replace your car's battery if your car's tire blew out, switchers are realizing that in order to get rid of windows problems, they need to get rid of windows.
What alternatives does the COMMON public have. Linux?! Don't make me laugh. Even if they picked a distro and focused on that one, they still wouldn't have the seamless OS and hardware integration, as well as technical support that Apple is world reknowned for.
They would only get to Apple's level of quality control if they started making their own computers. I hope they do. Together, Apple and linux can expose windows for the junk OS that it is and bring down that untalented and criminal organization.
What do microsoft's own employees think about their company, their upcoming "new" windows xp sp 3 OS [vista], and their leadership? Take a look:
"Vista 2007. Fire the leadership now!"
http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2006/03/vista-2007-fire-leadership-now.html#comments
pggii wrote :
Keep your eyes open! The next generation of laptops promise to be almost (if not) better than your standard desktop equivalent!
Apple is the only computer manufacturer whos notebook sales have made up nearly half of it's total, steadily increasing [nothiing slow about it], Macintosh computer sales for years now, because they are [and have been]desktop replacements.. That's why I always laugh when a windows user tells me that "Macs are too expensive".
They're meant to be mobile desktop replacements [look at the specs of a MacBook Pro and the iMacs], they last [minimally] 2, [average] 3 times longer than windows notebooks and THEY WORK RELIABLY THE ENTIRE TIME.
PERIOD.
- ConQuest [19 years dj'ing, 16 year computer professional including Xerox internal/external Digital Solutions Administrator [windows, Novell, Mac, Unix] and current Apple Specialist.
Posted Tue 13 Jun 06 @ 11:51 am
ConQuest
DJ-ALF wrote :
...AMD processors (like Athlon 64) are very cool, some models works below 40c, and Sempron is similar. Intel is a lot hotter (just see what coolers they use these day to cool down Pentium or Celeron, and their size!). Mobile Centrino is even worse....
pggii wrote :
DJ-ALF is absolutely correct! AMD chips are KNOWN for running much cooler than Intel, accross the board, no matter which chip class/family. This is precisely why AMD is slowly beating the CRAP out of Intel in the desktop marketplace, and convincing major laptop makers (Dell, Lenovo-aka:ThinkPad, etc.) to add AMD to their new lineups of laptops coming in the very near future.
Hmmm. No response in the face of cold, hard, discrediting facts?
It's okay. All the techs at my work who I've shown this same info, and were former AMD fanboys, are speechless too.
Not only because they're all dying to get their hands on Intel's Core 2, AMD butt-kicking, and much lower priced processors, but mostly because they want to get Apple's new tower CPU's that will use them. Less than 7 weeks away!!!
I predict that Intel's 64-bit "Woodcrest" Core 2 Duo SERVER class processors [they'll be introduced in 12 days - June 26th - at Intel's press conference] will go into Apple's high end PROFESSIONAL towers in quad processor configurations... or maybe just 1 or 2 of the 3 higher end PowerMac replacement's [they'll be re-named "Mac Pro"] will have them. Those are the professional class $2000+ G5 PowerPC models [$2000 - Dual, $2500 - Dual, $3300 - Quad]: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=29664A&nclm=PowerMac
I further predict that Apple will use Intel's "Conroe" Core 2 Duo DESKTOP class processors [the one's I provided the benchmarks for in my posts above] in an ALL NEW CONSUMER tower configuration. I suspect that there might be only 1 or 2 of these in the $1000 - $1500 price range.... maybe $1000 - $1700 if there are 3 of these models, but I doubt there will be 3.
Oh, by the way. THIS is why Dell bought Alienware. So that they can compete with Apple's Macintosh hardware that will be moving into the upgrade/modding/gaming market with there new tower line-up. ;)
Although the credibility of this site that I am referencing is "shaky" at best, the direction that they are describing is inline with where I believe Apple is going. Boot Camp was just the beginning.
Imagine this boys and girls: =)
"We have only a few more weeks to wait for the introduction of Apple's latest and greatest Intel-based computer: the Mac Pro, replacing the PowerMac G5.
Employing Intel's "Conroe" Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Extreme processors, there will be 2, 4, and 8-core models [Intel's Core 2 Quad/Quattro "Kentsfield" SERVER class processors due in Q1 of '07] available with DDR2-800 memory, multiple PCI Express x16-SLI graphics cards, lots of expansion options, and a new enclosure that expands the liquid-cooled PMG5 design to offer professionals everything and the kitchen sink.
The Mac Pro has been a long time coming, is the culmination of over a decade of as-yet-unfulfilled Mac power-user demands combined with Intel's latest and greatest technology.
The Conroe-class Core 2 processors will be over 50% more efficient than today's Core Solo/Core Duo processors at the same clock rate per-core....and that means amazing performance per watt.
The Mac Pro will be quiet, energy efficient, have considerably more expansion potential than any Mac to date, and will move overall performance up to 5X faster than today's PowerMac G5 Quad.
In some areas, performance will be 8-12X or even more in the case of graphics performance.
Four-way SLI with high-end nVIDIA and ATi graphics cards is going to bring the Mac gamer to the forefront of performance in a very big way."
http://www.macosrumors.com/20060606A.php
Posted Thu 15 Jun 06 @ 7:45 am
DJ-ALF
@ConQuest
Just to reply on this, my friend got a AMD64 3000+ (939 socket), and the temp is amazing 21c at 2800 RPM Boxed fan!!! When we put it on automatic fan rotation in Bios, I was AMAZED!!! The fan was stopped, and computer still working!! Try that with Intel, hehe, and prepare some money :) . We set it to start rotating at 31c, which finally happend after 7 minutes, and fan was rotating at unbelivable 800RPM, with CPU idle!
What Intel CPU was cheaper than the same speed at AMD?? I can't remember. AMD has better price, new instructions and lower temperatures than Intel for years now. You are talking about prices like 2500$ or 3300$? For what, a car :) ? You will soon see what AMD is preparing for the future. The war goes on!
Just to reply on this, my friend got a AMD64 3000+ (939 socket), and the temp is amazing 21c at 2800 RPM Boxed fan!!! When we put it on automatic fan rotation in Bios, I was AMAZED!!! The fan was stopped, and computer still working!! Try that with Intel, hehe, and prepare some money :) . We set it to start rotating at 31c, which finally happend after 7 minutes, and fan was rotating at unbelivable 800RPM, with CPU idle!
What Intel CPU was cheaper than the same speed at AMD?? I can't remember. AMD has better price, new instructions and lower temperatures than Intel for years now. You are talking about prices like 2500$ or 3300$? For what, a car :) ? You will soon see what AMD is preparing for the future. The war goes on!
Posted Sun 02 Jul 06 @ 7:08 am
ConQuest
MODS: PLEASE DELETE MY POST ABOVE. Thanks!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is why Intel Core is better than an AMD AM2 [wheee!, we're using DDR2... finally] using an FX-62:
Half the price, half the heat, WAAAY better performance.
It doesn't matter what AMD used to be. I'm not denying that they kicked Intel's butt for the past couple of years and I'm FAR from an Intel "fanboy", I only care about who's better so that I can have the best. I didn't care about the Intel vs. AMD thing last year because Macs only started using Intel chips 7 months ago, and now it's obvious why Apple went with Intel instead of AMD... because AMD is dead.
Intel has "Conroe" Core 2 desktop class dual 2.4 Ghz Core 2 chips [coming out this month] overclocking to 4Ghz... ON AIR. They've got those same chips overclocking to 5Ghz with cooling.
Conroe breaks 4Ghz
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=99981
Cost? Less than $600. AMD FX-62? Over $1100. Benchmarks show Intels MID-RANGE Conroe processor CLOBBERING AMD's HIGH END processor in every way, even GAMING!
The best part is that the Conroe chips used in all of these benchmarks [over a month old BTW] posted on the internet are ES [Engineering Samples], PRE-PRODUCTION and NON-OPTIMIZED.
Meaning they're going to be even better when they ship in less than a month.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/
Summary And Conclusions
"Again, we must emphasize that our testing situation was not optimal, because the Intel system had been preconfigured and didn't represent the final version. Even so, we were able to determine that not even AMD's top-of-the-line Athlon FX-62 CPU running at 3.0 GHz could clearly best the pre-release model of the Core 2 Duo (2.66 GHz Conroe) processor we tested. This comparison didn't even use the top-of-the-line Conroe processor, which Intel plans to introduce soon.
But how fast and powerful will Intel's new processor technology prove to be in practice? This is something we can only answer with some certainty after we've had a chance to test it ourselves in our own labs. In the meantime, it looks like AMD's going to have to get to work in order to keep up with Intel!"
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
"These are interesting results for a number of reasons, we are comparing the mid range Conroe CPU against that of the future top of the range FX62. Whilst we know that AMD has Socket AM2 around the corner, and also has DDR2 around the corner we have to say that Intel have a major performance lead. The clock speeds were low and can clearly increase over time, and apparently the CPU scales well."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's abundantly clear that Conroe will be the fastest CPU in town when it hits in a few weeks' time. It pulverises all present CPUs in the majority of CPU-based benchmarks. Just take a look at the Far Cry (speed) scores!
Take another look and let the numbers sink in. ...
There's no real need for a summary. The benchmarks tell all. Intel's Conroe simply outmuscles every currently available CPU. Would you buy an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 now?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Remember, knowledge is power. Read on and weep AMD fanboys:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692&page=1
In these benchmarks, Intel wins in 43 out of 47 categories [the RED numbers are the best scores]:
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/x6800vsfx62-10.htm
In that last benchmark, they used ES of the Core 2 Extreme which will ship in a few months [starts at 2.93Ghz] AND STILL COST LESS AND RUN COOLER than ANY OF AMD's offerings.
Speaking of the Core 2 Extreme Edition, if the PRE-PRODUCTION, NON-OPTIMIZED, MID-RANGE Core 2 [non-extreme] outperforms AMD's HIGH-END FX-62 at 2.4Ghz at LESS THAN HALF THE PRICE, AND can overclock to 4Ghz [On-Air] and 5Ghz [VapoChill], what do you think even the lowest end Core 2 Extreme @ 2.93 Ghz, but especially the 3.33Ghz chip will be capable of performance wise?
Also, in terms of TDP [heat dissipation]:
Intel Core 2 XE = 75w
AMD AM2 FX-62 = 125w
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/x6800vsfx62-11.htm
For all the GAMERS, here's the benchmarks that show Intel's LOWEST END [and don't forget, lower priced] Core 2 XE [2.93Ghz] SLAUGHTERING AMD AM2 FX-62 in EVERY test [including Half-Life 2, Doom 3, BattleField 2, & Splinter Cell CT:
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/x6800vsfx62-12.htm
For all the SERIOUS computer users who need multi core systems, let me introduce you to Intel's Core 2 "KENTSFIELD" QUAD core chip:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1527913
Intel's Core 2 "WOODCREST" dual core server class chips [AMD Opteron killers] were just introduced this past Monday. Core 2 "CONROE" dual core desktop class chips [AMD FX killers] will be out this month. Core 2 "KENTSFIELD" quad core server class chips will be out by January of '07 at the latest [6 months, but probably sooner]. Core 2 "MEROM" dual core mobile class chips will be out within 3 months along with the Core 2 "CONROE XE" [Extreme Edition] dual core desktop class chips [AMD FX will be killed twice this year].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon
Within 9 months to a year [when AMD will be trying to catch up to what Intel is coming out with NOW... K8L? pffff] Intel will have Core 2 "CLOVERTON" QUAD core server class chips [AMD Opteron killers] in DUAL configurations. That's right, 8 CORES.
Need more power than 8 cores? One word, "DUNNINGTON".
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dunnington
The 45 nm successor to Tigerton, which is said to be an quad-core processor, but rumours have placed the core count at anywhere from four to thirty-two cores.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
A.M.D. is D.E.A.D.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is why Intel Core is better than an AMD AM2 [wheee!, we're using DDR2... finally] using an FX-62:
Half the price, half the heat, WAAAY better performance.
It doesn't matter what AMD used to be. I'm not denying that they kicked Intel's butt for the past couple of years and I'm FAR from an Intel "fanboy", I only care about who's better so that I can have the best. I didn't care about the Intel vs. AMD thing last year because Macs only started using Intel chips 7 months ago, and now it's obvious why Apple went with Intel instead of AMD... because AMD is dead.
Intel has "Conroe" Core 2 desktop class dual 2.4 Ghz Core 2 chips [coming out this month] overclocking to 4Ghz... ON AIR. They've got those same chips overclocking to 5Ghz with cooling.
Conroe breaks 4Ghz
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=99981
Cost? Less than $600. AMD FX-62? Over $1100. Benchmarks show Intels MID-RANGE Conroe processor CLOBBERING AMD's HIGH END processor in every way, even GAMING!
The best part is that the Conroe chips used in all of these benchmarks [over a month old BTW] posted on the internet are ES [Engineering Samples], PRE-PRODUCTION and NON-OPTIMIZED.
Meaning they're going to be even better when they ship in less than a month.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/
Summary And Conclusions
"Again, we must emphasize that our testing situation was not optimal, because the Intel system had been preconfigured and didn't represent the final version. Even so, we were able to determine that not even AMD's top-of-the-line Athlon FX-62 CPU running at 3.0 GHz could clearly best the pre-release model of the Core 2 Duo (2.66 GHz Conroe) processor we tested. This comparison didn't even use the top-of-the-line Conroe processor, which Intel plans to introduce soon.
But how fast and powerful will Intel's new processor technology prove to be in practice? This is something we can only answer with some certainty after we've had a chance to test it ourselves in our own labs. In the meantime, it looks like AMD's going to have to get to work in order to keep up with Intel!"
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
"These are interesting results for a number of reasons, we are comparing the mid range Conroe CPU against that of the future top of the range FX62. Whilst we know that AMD has Socket AM2 around the corner, and also has DDR2 around the corner we have to say that Intel have a major performance lead. The clock speeds were low and can clearly increase over time, and apparently the CPU scales well."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's abundantly clear that Conroe will be the fastest CPU in town when it hits in a few weeks' time. It pulverises all present CPUs in the majority of CPU-based benchmarks. Just take a look at the Far Cry (speed) scores!
Take another look and let the numbers sink in. ...
There's no real need for a summary. The benchmarks tell all. Intel's Conroe simply outmuscles every currently available CPU. Would you buy an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 now?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Remember, knowledge is power. Read on and weep AMD fanboys:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692&page=1
In these benchmarks, Intel wins in 43 out of 47 categories [the RED numbers are the best scores]:
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/x6800vsfx62-10.htm
In that last benchmark, they used ES of the Core 2 Extreme which will ship in a few months [starts at 2.93Ghz] AND STILL COST LESS AND RUN COOLER than ANY OF AMD's offerings.
Speaking of the Core 2 Extreme Edition, if the PRE-PRODUCTION, NON-OPTIMIZED, MID-RANGE Core 2 [non-extreme] outperforms AMD's HIGH-END FX-62 at 2.4Ghz at LESS THAN HALF THE PRICE, AND can overclock to 4Ghz [On-Air] and 5Ghz [VapoChill], what do you think even the lowest end Core 2 Extreme @ 2.93 Ghz, but especially the 3.33Ghz chip will be capable of performance wise?
Also, in terms of TDP [heat dissipation]:
Intel Core 2 XE = 75w
AMD AM2 FX-62 = 125w
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/x6800vsfx62-11.htm
For all the GAMERS, here's the benchmarks that show Intel's LOWEST END [and don't forget, lower priced] Core 2 XE [2.93Ghz] SLAUGHTERING AMD AM2 FX-62 in EVERY test [including Half-Life 2, Doom 3, BattleField 2, & Splinter Cell CT:
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/x6800vsfx62-12.htm
For all the SERIOUS computer users who need multi core systems, let me introduce you to Intel's Core 2 "KENTSFIELD" QUAD core chip:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1527913
Intel's Core 2 "WOODCREST" dual core server class chips [AMD Opteron killers] were just introduced this past Monday. Core 2 "CONROE" dual core desktop class chips [AMD FX killers] will be out this month. Core 2 "KENTSFIELD" quad core server class chips will be out by January of '07 at the latest [6 months, but probably sooner]. Core 2 "MEROM" dual core mobile class chips will be out within 3 months along with the Core 2 "CONROE XE" [Extreme Edition] dual core desktop class chips [AMD FX will be killed twice this year].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon
Within 9 months to a year [when AMD will be trying to catch up to what Intel is coming out with NOW... K8L? pffff] Intel will have Core 2 "CLOVERTON" QUAD core server class chips [AMD Opteron killers] in DUAL configurations. That's right, 8 CORES.
Need more power than 8 cores? One word, "DUNNINGTON".
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dunnington
The 45 nm successor to Tigerton, which is said to be an quad-core processor, but rumours have placed the core count at anywhere from four to thirty-two cores.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
A.M.D. is D.E.A.D.
Posted Mon 03 Jul 06 @ 9:00 am
DJ-ALF
We will see in the future what happens, those pre-tests are not so belivable. Intel is doing good job and AMD is not sleeping, belive me. But, if you wanna go that way, I know it is not a PC based CPU, but how about IBM's Cell processor, the heart of the forthcoming Playstation 3? Cell has 8 cores (!). I was reading somewhere that some company will deliver in 2007 CPU that has 47 Cores!! Intel have reasons to be very affraid!
And one more thing, AMD is NOT dead as, same were said for Nvidia when ATI had the best GPU, but Nvidia is alive and kickin' hard with latest 7950Gx2!
And one more thing, AMD is NOT dead as, same were said for Nvidia when ATI had the best GPU, but Nvidia is alive and kickin' hard with latest 7950Gx2!
Posted Mon 03 Jul 06 @ 9:15 am
ConQuest
DJ-ALF wrote :
We will see in the future what happens, those pre-tests are not so belivable. Intel is doing good job and AMD is not sleeping, belive me. But, if you wanna go that way, I know it is not a PC based CPU, but how about IBM's Cell processor, the heart of the forthcoming Playstation 3? Cell has 8 cores (!). I was reading somewhere that some company will deliver in 2007 CPU that has 47 Cores!! Intel have reasons to be very affraid!
And one more thing, AMD is NOT dead as, same were said for Nvidia when ATI had the best GPU, but Nvidia is alive and kickin' hard with latest 7950Gx2!
And one more thing, AMD is NOT dead as, same were said for Nvidia when ATI had the best GPU, but Nvidia is alive and kickin' hard with latest 7950Gx2!
Oh boy, I'm the LAST person you want to preach to about PowerPC vs. x86. Remember, I'm a Mac user. You know the ones, those computers that don't suck like windows computers, because they don't use windows.
2 weeks ago IBM announced a 500GHz chip [no, that's NOT a typo]. That was with EXTREME cooling [as in sub-zero temperature]. At room temperature, it only runs at 350GHz... only 350GHz.
http://news.com.com/Chip+breaks+speed+record+in+deep+freeze/2100-1006_3-6085568.html
ALL 3 of the new major consoles [PS3, Nintendo Wii, XBOX 360] switched to PowerPC processors because PowerPC KILLS x86 [Intel, AMD] in processing. PowerPC was developed by AIM [Apple, IBM, Motorola] in the early 90's and all Macs had used PowerPC chips until the Intel transition started this past January.
Apple ONLY switched it's Macs to Intel chips because IBM could not develop fast enough AND small enough PowerPC chips to put in its computers, NOT because x86 is better because if that were the case, then why did all the gaming consoles switch to PowerPC and kick x86 out? Think about it. That's why Apple was only able to make a G5 iMac, but were never able to deliver a G5 PowerBook. SIZE RESTRAINTS. PowerPC processors could NOT be fabricated small enough OR cool enough to fit in Apple's 1 inch thick notebooks. When the decision was made, IBM's PowerPC processors were still being made using a 90nm process and Intel was already down to making 65nm chips. Intel is now scaling down to 45nm while AMD is trying to scale down to 65nm, where Intel already is at. Intel has already shown it's product road map to get down to 32nm and 22nm within the next 3 years.
This a$$ kicking that Intel is starting to hand to AMD will set them so far back, that i don't know what's gonna happen to them. Intel can produce a whole HECK of a lot more processors, a LOT faster, at lower prices, and with better performance thyan AMD.
Right now, AMD is MAD.
The question now is, is AMD mad enough to out innovate Intel [believe me, Intel's not gonna make the mistake of under-estimating anyone again], and even if they are, do they have the cash reserves to dump into research and development AND ship new product? In comparison to the money Intel has, the answer is "NO".
In June of 2003, IBM said that they would produce 3Ghz G5 PowerPC processors by June of 2004. It didn't happen. Even a year after that, IBM still maxed out at 2.7Ghz, so Apple opted for a quad core running 2.5 Ghz processors instead.
Here's the kicker. Apple is the ONLY computer manufacturer who can quickly begin offering PowerPC models alongside it's x86 models, or completely switch back to PowerPC if it wanted to.
Do you get the bigger picture of what's going on in the war between Apple and microsoft yet? The "war" between Intel and AMD is a little girly "slap-fight" in comparison.
Apple Macintosh computers can now run windows and Linux SEPARATELY from Mac OS X on a Mac within that OS's environment http://www.apple.com/bootcamp, run either of them [or both simultaneously] from WITHIN Mac OS X on a Mac http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/, and now even run windows applications WITHOUT even having windows loaded on a Mac AT ALL http://news.com.com/2300-1016_3-6090070-1.html.
Back on topic though, IBM's stuff is great, but it has no relevance to personal computing for quite awhile to come. In the meantime it's Intel vs. AMD, and as I said before, A.M.D. is D.E.A.D.
Posted Mon 03 Jul 06 @ 9:51 am
ConQuest
DJ-ALF wrote :
...Nvidia is alive and kickin' hard with latest 7950Gx2!
All I've got to say is... ATI R600. Nvidia's G80 will be out first [this month?], but there's a lot more high quality features that you'll get with ATI's R600 that will be out in the next 3 months or so. For example, you don't get FP16 HDR & AA with the 7950GX2. The G80 will give you those features, but it looks like the G80 will cost more than the R600 and you won't get much [if anything] more.
Also, ATI software enabled it's X1900XT for Crossfire support a couple of weeks ago, using the PCI bus and eliminating the need for other hardware and extra noise.
Crossfire AA is very usable even in new titles whereas SLI AA & high levels of SSAA on Nvidia hardware simply are not (except in old games).
Posted Mon 03 Jul 06 @ 10:41 am
ConQuest
Bottom line is that by the end of the year, my next tower cpu will be a Mac Pro [windows peecee killer] with an Intel Core 2 Duo Conroe processor [AMD FX killer] and an ATI R600 graphics card [Nvidea G80 killer].
For now, I'm perfectly happy with my MacBook Pro Core Duo notebook. Now I just need the Mac version of VDJ 4 to be released by next month [Numark Virtual Vinyl is due in August and since it's a dumbed down version of VDJ 4, I imagine it'll be released at the same time if not sooner] so that I can get this gawd awful OS [winBlows] completely off my Mac.
=)
For now, I'm perfectly happy with my MacBook Pro Core Duo notebook. Now I just need the Mac version of VDJ 4 to be released by next month [Numark Virtual Vinyl is due in August and since it's a dumbed down version of VDJ 4, I imagine it'll be released at the same time if not sooner] so that I can get this gawd awful OS [winBlows] completely off my Mac.
=)
Posted Mon 03 Jul 06 @ 11:04 am
ConQuest
I was looking at some benchmarks between Nvidea's 7950Gx2 and ATI's X1900XT. Nothing too impressive, and again, no FP16 HDR & AA.
Also, looks like I was wrong about Nvidea's G80 coming out this month. According to this article, it's looking like September at the earliest, and more probably Q4 of this year [October or November] by which time ATI will launch it's R600. Like the article says, "this one [Nvidia G80] will get R600 beast to compete with."
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32385
Also, looks like I was wrong about Nvidea's G80 coming out this month. According to this article, it's looking like September at the earliest, and more probably Q4 of this year [October or November] by which time ATI will launch it's R600. Like the article says, "this one [Nvidia G80] will get R600 beast to compete with."
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32385
Posted Mon 03 Jul 06 @ 11:28 am
TheHardshutter
i use virtualdj djc_edition vers.3.4.1 with external mixer dj control mp3,working good but when i try to record my mix i cant use asio driver end the sound is not so good CAN YOU HELP MY? i work whit vista hame premium 32bit
Posted Tue 12 May 09 @ 10:05 am
SBDJ
Thanks for bumping a 3 year old post ;)
Posted Tue 12 May 09 @ 10:22 am
spinnaJ
TheHardshutter wrote :
i use virtualdj djc_edition vers.3.4.1 with external mixer dj control mp3,working good but when i try to record my mix i cant use asio driver end the sound is not so good CAN YOU HELP MY? i work whit vista hame premium 32bit
Why do you need to use asio driver? Using timecode?
Have you download the latest hercules driver?
Posted Tue 12 May 09 @ 1:40 pm
grug
Hahah what a blast from the past...
Love the quote from CONquest... "A note to all the AMD fanboys. They're done:" Posted Wed 14 Jun 06 @ 1:44 am.
I just checked AMD's website, they're still alive and kicking, which is great of course because when theres competition the consumer gernerally gets a better deal.
Love the quote from CONquest... "A note to all the AMD fanboys. They're done:" Posted Wed 14 Jun 06 @ 1:44 am.
I just checked AMD's website, they're still alive and kicking, which is great of course because when theres competition the consumer gernerally gets a better deal.
Posted Tue 12 May 09 @ 6:03 pm
acw_dj
TheHardshutter wrote :
i use virtualdj djc_edition vers.3.4.1 with external mixer dj control mp3,working good but when i try to record my mix i cant use asio driver end the sound is not so good CAN YOU HELP MY? i work whit vista hame premium 32bit
You don't need ASIO with a DJControlMP3. Also you can use it because you have a Limited VirtualDJ version.
You need to have AS Windows DEAFULT a 4.1 or better soundcard and download the lastest drivers from www.hercules.com for your Console.
After doing that you will work ok With Windows Vista and your DJControl MP3.
Good Luck!
Posted Wed 13 May 09 @ 5:52 pm