Intel seen gaining edge over AMD

[CrazyCrusher]

I wonder if the tide is turning.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8GK1370D.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc

[Shoreguy]

"...after two analysts speculated..."
The chips aren't slated for release until Q3. I'm keeping my money under the mattress where its safe(r).

[CrazyCrusher]

well that would be the smart thing to do, but I honestly feel they are going to do something nice, well lets put it this way they (Need) to do something big to gain some respect they have lost allot of it in the last few years with some really bad Chips.

[Midknyte]

Conroe is expected to be better than AM2 cpus. That's no secret.

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

AMD doesn't have the facilities to produce 65nm chips in quantity yet, so it'll be an uphill battle for them. Same old, same old.

[CrazyCrusher]

thats a much better review then the one I had, it gives alot more detail.

[MadPistol]

Intel has been on the back burner for so long now, not many people are going to trust that intel has taken the lead until we see those chips in quantities and see AMD's loss of performance compared to intel. Until that time comes, there is nothing to brag about from intel. they have a faster chip, but it's still in beta testing, and not due to release till Q3. That's more than enough time for AMD to bouce back. We will see what happens. :t

[RamonGTP]

Given that the release is still about six months away and they already have working CPU's that are outperforming an overclocked FX60, I highly doubt Intel well have any trouble producing an ample quantity of these CPU's when the release date comes.

[CrazyCrusher]

, but it's still in beta testing, and not due to release till Q3. That's more than enough time for AMD to bouce back. We will see what happens. :t

yes still in beta and look how well it performs against an OC FX60, that says allot for a beta product dont you think?

[Midknyte]

And that's not even the "Extreme" edition. So pricing should be more palatable than any FX series chip.

It’s also worth noting that the 2.66GHz E6700 we previewed here is simply a high end mainstream part, it is not an Extreme Edition flavor of Conroe. At 2.8 or 3.0GHz, a Conroe EE would offer even stronger performance than what we’ve seen here.

[MadPistol]

yes still in beta and look how well it performs against an OC FX60, that says allot for a beta product dont you think?

I agree. I'm no AMD fanboy either (To prove this, my gaming rig is a 2.8Ghz P4, and the laptop I'm typing on is a 1.8Ghz Centrino), but AMD may have something up their sleeve that they haven't released to the public yet. I want to see if AMD can take on this challenge by Intel...

However, if they can't, the tides will turn in favor of intel yet again. Just like the days of the P4 Northwoods, only much more powerful. I must say, that is quite a chip for 2.66Ghz. I wonder what thier secret is.... :t

[pandaz3]

I have liked Intel in the past, but I have more of a wait and see attitude. Arnand has always seemed prejudiced toward Intel and did not acknowledge the A64 as a leader untill it was kicking him in the teeth. It does not matter untill there really is production, who knows what a real production line product can do. Maybe not as good as the beta, maybe better. Bank-for-the-buck moved me from a P-166 to a K6-2, and the Athlon T-Bird 1400 kept me going AMD since (Still have two 1400s), I moved up the XP line and now have three A-64s. Bang-for-the-buck will move me back to Intels fold...if it happens

[Someone Stupid]

Intel can literally force this to come out at the speeds advertised more than likely if they wanted to take a short term loss. Hell, they got the upper end prescotts to 3.8 on dinky stock cooler with some time and some problems, but they did it. They got dual core versions running around the same TDP as well. Quite an accomplishment. One done by force than by finesse, but still done. They also have a six month window on which to improve an already nearly finished chip. If the samples are out and the tapeout it about 6 months away, that's another 2 spins for sure, maybe one more. Intel is in good shape again unless AM2 is wondrous or they fix the problems IBM is having with SOI on 65nm. Remember that IBM gave them full reign to play with 65nm before they even released chips for it. That means IBM hasn't figured it out and needs more help. AMD is the lab rat for this. If AMD is going to stand even or slightly close to it 6 months from now 65nm needs to be ramped up fast. Nobody at AMD is talking about their actual 65nm production ramping (although they have a conference soon, but not at dresden ironically). Look at how the A64 ramped up - it took quite awhile before a decent bit of their production was 90nm. Either they can't get the fab tools in mass (likely with Intel bidding against them, at least IBM will be slightly more sympathetic and has been), can't get the process polished, don't have the money, or more than likely more than one of the above.

Goliath is about to smash David again. That sling isn't cutting it anymore.

[RamonGTP]

Whoa, slow down there, just a wee bit over-dramitic aren't we? I think its a bit too soon to be writing AMD's epitaph just yet. Have we forgotton how badly they were being beatin with the P4 Northwood vs Athlon XP line? While i'm fairly confidant that Conroe will be outperforming its AM2 counterpart for some time to come, I'm also confidant that this is a cycle like it always has been. It may last a year or two, but as with all cycles, the tables will turn yet again... and again... and again.

[Strawbs]

I'm still waiting on the 10GHz P4! It can't be far off now. ;)

[lv2wk]

not happening, for next 2 years, AMD cpu is out performed INTEL.

[MadPistol]

not happening, for next 2 years, AMD cpu is out performed INTEL.

If you can't prove it, you're more than likely wrong. Intel is probably going to have the upperhand by a pretty healthy margin in a couple of months. If a $315 chip by intel is on par with a $1000+ chip from AMD, you know there's going to be some fierce competiton to come. Either AMD releases something amazing (they've said nothing so far) or they're going to have to drop prices dramatically to compete with intel. :t

[Mood]

Bang for the buck is whats gunna win this battle... simple as that.

[RamonGTP]

Bang for the buck is whats gunna win this battle... simple as that.


If Intel vs AMD market share was equal, then i'd agree with you. However Intel still dominates the market, even though AMD has gained a good amount of market share, its still not enough. The only way they will continue to gain market share is if they have the BETTER product period, not a better "value" product.

[AllGamer]

hmm... over in the other website there was a really good article about the AMD Quad vs. Intel Quad, and AMD is out performing Intel by at least 38% in the same test.

Server tests

later this year both Intel and AMD are coming out with the Octaron or whatever they will call that, so 4 core in 1 cpu, times 2 cpu in 1 board = 8 cores.

i'll like to see those going head to head again :D

our company had to adjust our software selling model to match these ever increasing cores per CPU

some times next year Intel announced (not in the media yet) already a 1 cpu x 8core, so that will make a dual cpu board 16 core :x

but AMD couldn't answer us on the 16core thing.... so hmm... maybe Intel might eventually have a lead again, if AMD doesn;t do anything ;)

[pandaz3]

Well likely each core will have less capability and cache so what's the point?

[AllGamer]

not quite, everytime they bump another core they double Independent cache and bandwidth for each core (AMD)

Intel was the only one that had problem with Cache and bandwidth per Core.

although their most recent, and more expensive versions of the Cache per Core (copy-cat AMD) fixes that issue.

it'll be interesting to see how they can fit 16 meg of L2 cache in the entire Dice :x

[herosrest]

The hardware advances are fantastic but.....

until the software programing catch's up nothing is going to change greatly.
There is no real innovation in parallel programing for x86 multiple core processors.
Best to date, just seem to hog a single core.

Who ever figures it out will be a star of the 21st century.

Going from 4core to 8 is perhaps not that clever a move.
4power2(16) is the hurdle worth concentrating on.
After that simply take each 16 core processor 3d.
Stack 'em on top of each other up to 16 high in chip.

[pandaz3]

I think past four there will be serious heat problems

[AllGamer]

I think past four there will be serious heat problems

:D as this rate, soon enough Liquid cooling will be a Standard for Desktop/Home PC, and Liquid Nitrogen for Servers at work places :r

those liquid cooling companies will be rich! :x

[herosrest]

Item here re programing technique.. we r saved..

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:62xs4DO_CysJ:tcc.stanford.edu/publications/tcc_scool2005.pdf+java+transactional+memory&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=opera

[Mood]

If Intel vs AMD market share was equal, then i'd agree with you. However Intel still dominates the market, even though AMD has gained a good amount of market share, its still not enough. The only way they will continue to gain market share is if they have the BETTER product period, not a better "value" product.

I didnt say anything about a value product... im saying bang for the buck... period... if intel and amd make a chip that is equal in specs but one of them costs less... then that company is the one thats going to be on top... It used to be that because intel was the name in the game that it didnt matter... people payed out the money for the same thing.,

[RockNRoll]

I own an AMD, and I love it. When I bought it it was better than what intel had out and AMD was for a while better. Just like ATi and NVidia, gains will bounce back and forth between the two. I guess what it really comes down to is, you want something fast, affordable, and solid, and be it from AMD or Intel if it's the way to go then why the heck not abandon all brand bias and go git yerself one! :D:D :t

[AllGamer]

eggxactly... just buy what is fastest for the buck, when you are going to build, and forget the brands :t

[MadPistol]

I have been reading some runs they've been doing with Conroe's overclocked to 2.9 GHZ @ www.xtremesystems.org and I must say those chips are monsters. If this is what is in store for us from Intel in just a few short months, this may be a very golden time for processors. I can't wait to see how AMD counters this. Expect massive price cuts :t

[RamonGTP]

I didnt say anything about a value product... im saying bang for the buck... period... if intel and amd make a chip that is equal in specs but one of them costs less... then that company is the one thats going to be on top... It used to be that because intel was the name in the game that it didnt matter... people payed out the money for the same thing.,

Then enlightn me as to the difference between "value" and "bang for the buck" and to put it quite simply, you are wrong. AMD currently has not only the better "bang for the buck" product but also the better product overall and they are still a LONG way away from being on top. Intel still dominates the market. People are STILL paying for the Intel name, sysopt members make up an incredibly small portion of the worlds population, the VAST majority of people still are unfamiliar with AMD. Sad but true. Atleast when AMD has the better product, the few that are "in the know" can recommend AMD over Intel to the less tech savvy folks, that is how AMD gained market share with the A64 line, by haveing the BETTER product. Having the better value OR "bang for the buck" product is simply not enough to overtake Intel.

[MadPistol]

Intel puts a ton of money into PR and promotions for their products. It is because of this that whenever a normal personal hears the word "PC" they think "Intel" in terms of the type of system configuration they have. Most of the time, that's all they know though, and for Intel, that's enough to sell another one of their products. The P4's were **** in terms of their efficiency. The Pentium M's are great and deserve recognition as a great mobile solution. The new Conroe chips coming out are going to combine the Best parts of the Pentium 4 and the Pentium M into one chip, and it will eliminate NetBurst from the Intel line. The thing I like about this architecture is that Intel has finally learned that It's not about how fast a chip is, but about how efficient the chip is per clock. Considering that a 2.4 Ghz Conroe is as powerful as a 2.6 Ghz Athlon FX-60, Intel has gained the lead in efficiency per clock for the moment. We will see how this plays out.

[JackTwist]

Apple pwnes everybody!!!!


http://bpbthree.ytmnd.com

[AllGamer]

WTF is that? :eek: :x

[Magua]

Can't you IP ban?

Enough

[BipolarBill]

The pendulum swings both ways, my friends. No matter which is faster in the future, you can bet on one thing for sure - both will be faster than what you have now.

[Rugor]

From the looks of things, Conroe is better than Venice, at least on a per-core basis. However Intel still isn't scaling as well for multi-cores due to the architectural differences and their reliance on still using a front-side bus.

However, we still don't know what's going to happen with the K8L series, or the K9. The pendulum has swung before, and it will again.

As many people have said: buy what best fits your needs regardless of brand. I have a Centrino laptop, and an AMD64x2 desktop. They both work just fine.

[GrefMofovich]

Then enlightn me as to the difference between "value" ... simply not enough to overtake Intel.

good point, I didn't get the difference either.

"If a $315 chip by intel is on par with a $1000+ chip from AMD" - MadPistol, you got it backwards, buddy. last I checked, the high end intel chips still cost more than high end AMD chips, although the difference has shrunk somewhat from the 50%-100% difference it was before, heh. you have to check price in the right places, such as pricewatch.com, and not... CompUSA :(

It's pretty pointless to say that either company's products are all-around BAD. Brand loyalty is for drug addicts an pushers. =\ But intel loves being the big cartel, and is really good at it. not that it takes much, when most people can't keep their drool from dripping when they hear their new cpu's "EXTREME"!


(* however not all pricewatch price quotes are legit - don't order your $1000 chip at 50% off from BarrysBootlegChips.com and you should be fine :t )

-GM

[MadPistol]

"If a $315 chip by intel is on par with a $1000+ chip from AMD" - MadPistol, you got it backwards, buddy.

Wrong. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Check these links.

Intel pricing list (kind of hard to read though)

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060525PR210.html


Gaming performance

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=4&articleid=794&cid=1

Also, you can read the rest of that article on other application types to see what I'm talking about.


Last but not least, newegg's pricing for the FX-60.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103608

The price is now $830, but when I posted that last statement, it was over $1000.

I really don't like to be mean about this, but do some research about this subject before you go around calling me wrong. The facts are clear: Conroe destroys Athlon 64 FX. You can even go over to www.xtremesystems.org and check out some of the guys that have gotten their Conroe chips to 4.5+ Ghz, and you will see just how powerful these chips really are. :t

EDIT: Btw, if you're talking about the current generation Pentium 4 and Pentium D chips, you're preaching to the choir buddy. Everyone knows that those things suck compared to the Athlon 64's in most applications. I'm talking about the future of Intel with Conroe.

[BipolarBill]

In this case you *are* wrong. That benchmark is between a pre-release Intel Conroe (Core 2 Duo) and the FX. That CPU will not be available for months. It's not fair to back up your argument with hardware that can't even be bought.

Intel and AMD are about even in both price and performance today.

[MadPistol]

I wrote on my post that in the current generation chips, if you compare the Pentium Extreme to the Athlon 64 FX chips, the Athlon 64 chips win in pretty much everything. However, this thread is called "Intel seen gaining edge over AMD" and that implies Conroe over Athlon 64 FX.

However, if you're talking about performance for today, you're right. They're about even in price.

[BipolarBill]

You included a benchmark without the necessary footnote. You did, however, try to correct that with an edit while I was typing my response.

We'll see about Conroe. I have a funny feeling it won't be all that these leaked chips would indicate. Still, if you take away the benchmark differences, it's still pretty impressive.

[MadPistol]

I've been checking out the Xtremesystems.org forums lately to see what their takes on Conroe have been so far, and all of them (including the die hard AMD fanboys) are amazed at what Conroe can do. I've seen a superclocked Conroe break into the 10 second range for doing a SuperPi 1MB run. To put that in perspective, my 2.8Ghz P4 Northwood does 54.6 seconds. A stock 2.66Ghz Conroe does that run in under 20 seconds. The 3D runs these guys have done are the same way. They are pulling incredible SLI and Crossfire benchmarks with Conroe, and the reason they think that's true is because there isn't as much CPU overhead with these new processors. They're efficient enough to handle the load needed to run Multi-GPU platforms properly.

I've seen a few AM2 benchmarks from the FX-62's now and they look very promising too, but as of July 2006, intel will have the lead in the performance market.

Also, I don't know about you guys, but I'm planning on building a new system by the end of the summer, and it will probably be a 2.66Ghz Conroe setup (if the chips are readily available). These chips are going to be great.

Is it just me, or does it seem kind of peculiar that I'm going from 2.8Ghz to 2.66Ghz? :eek:

[BipolarBill]

It has become apparent that GHz=heat. Efficiency is the buzzword these days and it seems to be paying off.

[GrefMofovich]

Well prices are always changing, so the point is moot anyway. I was just amused at the notion of AMD being any kind of gouger as compared to Insmell. guess that little quip makes me a fanboy. personally though, I like to take the position that there's a lot fewer AMD fans than Intel anti-fans, since it's hard to love a company notorious for its profiteering practices. very different thing than loving, for example, a teddy bear... which of course says nothing about their ability to deliver superior products. but the fact is, in the past they've had little motivation to do so. and the fact that they didn't just start giving those Celerons away for free shows that they have no qualms about setting prices grossly disproportionate to the actual value of things, and that's what irritates I guess the majority of people.

So why do you think that Intel not only persisted in hollering to the world how great all it's chips were, including the budget chips, but even clung to the (infamous) Celeron name? it wasn't just desperation. if you think about it, the higher the tech you're dealing with, the greater is the effect of brand recognition acting as a direct replacement for product quality. and pc's are pretty much way up there, far as home use products go. that's why Intel had to spend billions on advertising - they needed time to regroup, and it was easier/cheaper to start tooting their own horn more than before than making a product that could actually compare favorably with AMD's new stuff. but whether that will be the case in the future is anyone's guess, and certainly depends a lot on how wisely AMD has been using their recently increased resources.

-GM

[MadPistol]

Marketing is half of the game. Some companies do it and are successful. Some are not successful. The fact that performance savy people saw past Intel's marketing ploy proves that marketing isn't everything. Marketing takes advantage of those who are less educated in the field. However, I don't think calling them "Insmell" is a good way of making your point. If AMD had done that kind of marketing during the times of their old Athlon CPU's, you would have said the same thing about them. Business is a game, and unfortunately those businesses with the most funds tend to win just about anything they want to.

If I had done a rebuild during the times of the Athlon 64, I would have most definately chosen them because they were better for gaming. However, I got a 2.8Ghz P4 before the Athlon 64's were introduced. Back then, the Athlon XP's were AMD's highend platform, and back then, Intel's Northwood P4 outperformed the similarly priced and numbered Athlon XP equivilants. If AMD is touting something better when I get around to building a new system, I will go with them. Otherwise, Conroe is the winner.

[BipolarBill]

Well, we're not all as susceptible to marketing as you may think. What if this "pre-release" of the Core 2 Duo is just that - marketing? For all we know, these CPUs may be ringers and the actual models may be neutered. No one has seen a production version yet.

They sold you, so I guess their marketing worked.

[Rugor]

Bill's right.

Let's see what production silicon is like in machines real people can buy. No engineering samples, just OEM tray and retail box. Once they're out, look at the tests, then decide which is best for your needs.

Buying decisions should always be based around price and availability when you're buying, not the next best thing since sliced bread due out in x weeks. Once it's out, then we should know.

[MadPistol]

They sold you, so I guess their marketing worked.

But you see, this isn't marketing. This is other real world people with the chips in their hands. Yes, they are engineering samples, but it would be stupid on Intel's part to release a chip that's weaker than these are. I think these are the chips we will see when Core 2 Duo is released at the end of July.

I agree about price and availability. I'm not going to pay $1000 for a 2.6Ghz Core 2 Duo that should cost around $300-500. Based on what I'm hearing from some of the people with insider information (wheather this is true or not, I don't know), Dell is probably going to suck up every Core 2 Duo chip that's initially released given their very close partnership with Intel. It could be months before we actually see retail chips, so AMD has some time to answer, and with their given availability, it would be a good time to kick intel in the hiney. :t

[GrefMofovich]

*does a fanboy cheer*

[MadPistol]

I'm not a fanboy. If you read the reviews on the Core 2 Duo's you will see that they are vastly superior to AMD's current offerings.

Also, Step 5 of the Core 2 Duo has been released as engineering samples. It is rumored that these are the chips we will see in retail. For reference, a 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo can overclock to 4Ghz on air :eek: If things stay like this, I will be getting one of those chips. :t

[CrazyCrusher]

thats one of the main reasons I didnt and havent upgraded yet, I was going with an AMD FX but I am happy I held off for as long as I did.

[pandaz3]

thats one of the main reasons I didnt and havent upgraded yet, I was going with an AMD FX but I am happy I held off for as long as I did.


Well keep holding off and wait for the next big one that is always around the corner.... how did you ever advance past a Commodore 64 or Osborne?

[CrazyCrusher]

Well keep holding off and wait for the next big one that is always around the corner.... how did you ever advance past a Commodore 64 or Osborne?

I didn’t because I never owned them :rolleyes: such helpful info , did you think of that all by yourself?

you’re more than likely a compulsive shopper eh. Way to go with the helpful input on this thread ill note that and use it next time I go shopping.

[Rugor]

Given everything I've seen, I would say Core 2 Duo is a better processor than the Athlon64x2. Having said that, I'm happy with my Athlon x2 system, but the Core 2 Duo wasn't available when I bought.

Once it hits the stores, see how much performance is available at what price, and go with what best suits your needs. If I were to buy another system at the end of the year I would very likely go Core 2 Duo, but it's only very likely at this point because I don't know how much it will cost here in Canada and how many will trickle down to retail.

[MadPistol]

Dude, if you've already got an Athlon X2, I would say keep it and wait until the next big architecture comes out. As for me, I'm still stuck on a lowly 2.8Ghz P4 system, so I'm in need of an upgrade.

Also, I just figured out today that my current job isn't paying me what I expected it to. It looks like I won't be building that new rig before summer is over. :(

[Rugor]

My X2's a 3800+ overclocked to 2.4GHz and I'm great with it. The only reason I'd build a new system this year is if the gf's system (she has a PIII) dies and I can finally wean her off WinME. In the meantime she uses my Centrino laptop as much or more than her own system so who knows.

[DKJones96]

Interesting that you say that the regular computer shopper doesn't hear much about AMD, you go to best buy and about 80% of the computers on their storeroom floor is an amd based machine from gateway or HP or sony...I still don't know what to think, amd has a tendancy to keep their mouths shut on the up coming processors at a time like this till just before it's released. you never know...

[MadPistol]

you go to best buy and about 80% of the computers on their storeroom floor is an amd based machine from gateway or HP or sony...

Actually, I think it's the other way around. I used to work @ Circuity City, and I've been in Best Buy, and Intel still controls the majority of the market. People have this weird tendency to think that "More expensive means better performance" Since the P4 and Pentium D machines are usually a little more than the Athlon 64 machines. However, AMD has been doing some major advertising on their current systems, so I think they finally have stepped up a little for competition sakes, especially with Conroe just around the corner. :t

[DKJones96]

come to think of it...i don't think i've ever seen an AMD commercial on the tv...

[MadPistol]

come to think of it...i don't think i've ever seen an AMD commercial on the tv...

I've seen a few, but that's not what I meant. I mean there are all kinds of interactive demos on HP's and Compaq's with AMD processors that are geared towards luring people over to their machines.

In terms of TV adds though, Intel is still a beast, and AMD gets the leftovers. :t

[CrazyCrusher]

Well keep holding off and wait for the next big one that is always around the corner.... how did you ever advance past a Commodore 64 or Osborne?


And I rest my case, it was well worth holding off.

[pandaz3]

As long as you are happy that is all that really counts....

It looks as if AMD might have been preoccupied?

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=mergersNews&storyID=2006-07-22T000712Z_01_N21314930_RTRIDST_0_TECH-ATI-AMD-UPDATE-2.XML

[bushmaster]

All to funny to watch this thread again and again over the years. AMD vs. Intel.....who gives a rats rectum. It all boils down to personal preference and what your wallet can handle. Just don't buy the latest and greatest because in two weeks it'll be legacy, and 30% cheaper.

[Rabbitrunner51]

I just got done answering a post about the advantage of dual core CPU's and was defending my X2 series by AMD.. but only about the graphics in general..., and am still happy with mine.., buit after reading up on the latest Intel offerings of the new duo core dual CPUs and esp. how much they cost I think I will get sick now...

Four times the cache i have... and much higher Ghz along with the archetecture, not to mention other attributes..and the equvilent ( Intel would still be faster ) , and I just lost another $160.00 in less than a half a year. OUCH!

I bought mine for like $318.00, a good deal at the time... and now it sells for like $160.00 or so??? Some places alot more i suppose.

Yeah, as much as i am happy with my little ole X2 3800, I would get the Intel for sure if choices wer made today... LOL ( read 'Toms Hardware' article on the new Intel duo core CPUs... ist article on top left of CPU section ) LOL

[BipolarBill]

Don't be silly. For all of those stated improvements in the achitecture of the Conroe, it should perform better than 40% faster.

I don't think that you would have gone Intel. The motherboards cost $200 and up and *require* DDR2 and a PCIe video card. That's a huge investment for some users. I, for one, can't justify the upgrade.

Get used to the march of technology. It's been this way forever and won't stop anytime soon. Everything is relative.

I can tell you one thing - I have never had a geek bully kick sand in my face because of my PC. It does what I need and more. That's the only measure that counts. The rest is ego.

[Rabbitrunner51]

DITTO! DITTO! DITTO! BPB... very well said. Overall I tend to agree wholeheartedly ( have always maintained one should always be happy with what they have in general )

Yeah one who is a consumer in this market is always going to lose monies.., its just the nature of the beast.. And what a beast it is...

[GrefMofovich]

I'm not sure what people mean by "the consumer loses". I've done nothing but win, ever since the classic athlon came out way back when! My choice is semi-arbitrary though - namely I liked the idea that I was kicking mr -inside in the jimmy by boycotting their products, which have *historically* been sold for gouging prices due to minimal competition. To explain more graphically, I'm like the ne'er-do-well in the crowd that runs off with the sweet loaf when a ruckus occurs, get it? That's me anyway. But now that intel woke up and instituted competitive - as opposed to exploitative - pricing, I love to shop them when I have a need. Phrases like "Extreme edition" that seem like they belong on a snowboard or a can of caffeine though, that's absurd, that's amusing! Just try to imagine the train of thought that their marketing departments must have gone through to arrive at that... The bottom line: it is our DUTY as techies to mock such antics mercilessly.

-GM

[Rugor]

The whole point of an advancing industry is that you get a better product if you buy it later. I'd go for a Core 2 Duo if I could get one now, and I just got a 3800+X2 about 3 months ago.

But it's not what was available when I was doing my upgrade. When it's time for the next one, that's when I'll compare AMD and Intel for what will work for me.

[MadPistol]

Don't be silly. For all of those stated improvements in the achitecture of the Conroe, it should perform better than 40% faster.

I don't think that you would have gone Intel. The motherboards cost $200 and up and *require* DDR2 and a PCIe video card. That's a huge investment for some users. I, for one, can't justify the upgrade.

Get used to the march of technology. It's been this way forever and won't stop anytime soon. Everything is relative.

I can tell you one thing - I have never had a geek bully kick sand in my face because of my PC. It does what I need and more. That's the only measure that counts. The rest is ego.

That is true. The motherboards and prices on low latency/high frequency DDR2 modules will definately drive the price up a good bit. To make things worse on Intel's end, AMD is making massive price cuts that will make them competitive. In essence, this is a processor price war, so everyone wins... Or do they?

Intel requires that you get either the 965 or 975 series of motherboards in order to get Conroe (Core 2 Duo) to run optimally in a system, and those boards are not cheap. While the processors themselves are "affordable" for their performance gain, the motherboards are not as friendly in price as the processors are.

At the same time, Conroe is still in its infancy on the market, and as we all know, new technology always draws a premium when it's first released.

Solution: wait a few months for wide availability and price drops on Conroe. Once this happens, though, it should become the solution of choice for everyone. Right now though, going AMD X2 may be the correct path. Either way, they are both very fast and very efficient processor lines. :t

[MadPistol]

The whole point of an advancing industry is that you get a better product if you buy it later. I'd go for a Core 2 Duo if I could get one now, and I just got a 3800+X2 about 3 months ago.

The Core 2 Duo's are fast, don't get me wrong, but I think you made a good choice, given your options. The X2 3800+ overclocks really well for an AMD chip (if you're even into that), but the industry is at a turning point. Socket AM2 for AMD and the Core 2 Duo line for Intel seem to be the next big thing for each one.

Don't be displeased with your purchase though. That's still a very nice chip you've got. Besides, Core 2 Duo is really drawing a premium from everyone.

On Dell's site, the XPS systems that they have say that you have to pay a $1000+ price difference to go from a Pentium D 3.0Ghz to a Core 2 Extreme 2.93Ghz. That's pushing it considering that the price of a 3.0Ghz Pentium D Presler is $193 and the Core 2 Duo is supposed to be around $1000. In otherwords, Dell is going to be making a very healthy profit on anyone that buys a Core 2 Extreme on one of their systems.

I've said this once, and I'll say it again; WAIT! Do not buy Core 2 Duo right now. The prices are inflated due to demand, and if no one were to buy the chips at those premium prices, they would fall back to MSRP. If we wait a few months to buy those chips, prices will fall, and the consumer will have the advantage. :t

[Rugor]

I'm perfectly happy with my X2, I got a good deal on it at the time. It does overclock very well (2.4GHz up from 2.0GHz with no fuss at all and less than 5C increase in temps if that). It's got 2GB of fast RAM and a 7900GT and I'm sitting pretty.

I still need a new sound card, but I'm waiting for a sale on the x-fi, in the meantime I can live with the onboard.

I made the best choice for my needs at the time.

Also, much as I like the Conroe, I don't care much for the platform choices. I think it was stupid to completely remove native IDE support from the chipset before the vast majority of optical drive makers have realized SATA exists.

[Rabbitrunner51]

May be stretching the post thread here...., but since i read from just about everybody who has the X2s ( I have the same one as you Rugor X2 3800 ) , Most seem to OC like yourself and 2.4GHZ sounds about right on. I really have no need to do any more ,since its a dual core and it is fast anyways...

Since i loaded a new freash install, i lost my bookmarks from the sites i visied about doing an OC.., and it wouldn't be a problem for me but This of course is a whole new platform for me.. ( had an Intel and Asus 865PE mobo ) Now I've got this ASRock Dual Sata 2 board and the bios has alot of things you can manually change unlike the older Asus board which was setup for auto OC and just two things like bus speed and voltage might be changed...ect..

I am only running 1GIG of ram but its like very good ram ( Corsair Platinum TwinX 2-3-2-6 timings ), but a cheaper 520 watt PSU , which is stable enough but very unsure if it can handle an OC. ( its an Aspire.. been very good so far for over 1 1/2 years ).

Given that mostly all one has to do to OC is change like acouple of things... Can someone give me some clues as to what they are..llike bus speed ( think im at 200 right now ), and maybe the voltage thing and anything else to meddle with.

It should be no biggie as if it does not take with my ram or whatever..I an always go back and set the bios for default. Boy I wish I had bought 512 sticks instead of 256MB sticks because I have to either get a whole new set of ram ( 2GB ) or remove 2 sticks and put 2 512's in to toal little over 1.5 GB total. I am running it at DDR400 now in dual channel mode with the 2000MHZ bus speed. Either way, its always a trial and error thing as with most of you to get it like the speed you like.

[Rugor]

Luckily for you Rabbitrunner51, I not only have the same chip but I also have the same board. It's a snap to OC. Go into the bios then: Advanced=>CPU

Set overclocking to CPU, PCIe Async. (lock the PCIe and other busses)
Set the CPU to 240, the PCIe to 100.

Go down (in the same section) to Memory and set it to DDR333
Save and reboot.

Instant 2.4GHz with RAM in spec.

[Rabbitrunner51]

Rugor.. Thanks so much for the info... I am generally not an OC fan.., but since i finally have a CPU that is worthy.. I thought i would give it a try.

Soo.. your saying that if i change the ram to default ..( which is DDR333..as i had to manually change it..) then it would be faster at that ram at 2.4GHZ? ) In truth I know from all I have read that DDR33 is just slightly slower but not noticable..so it makes sense that the higher GHZ would up it a good bit.

If not for these forums ..alot of us would be lost... I am so appreciative to all of you for the help you give us...

Still... in my minds eye , I could spend the next fifty years studying computer knowledge and never get it all.. just goes on and on.... LOL

[Rabbitrunner51]

Yippee! Rugor.. WORKED LIKE A CHARM... NO PROBLEMS..

CPU: X2 3800 : sys. bus @ 240MHZ
RAM: DDR333

[Rabbitrunner51]

One has to wonder if this whole faster bigger better thing is going to go on.., but I guess in retrospect that is what they do.

A question comes to mind..: Are the two makers really doing this chip wars thing with the gamer, overall average consumer , or the big time companies ( servers and other ) in mind? Obviously, a market exists for all three.. and it must be real interesting to witness just how each company ( Intel and AMD ) is going about dealing with trying to make everybody happy and still eek out a profit and market share.

Here I sit.. an avid gamer...with intents on doing many more things with this rig.., and right now after OC my X2 chip some .., I am more than happy with the speed and performance.
Some of yu have higher end machines than others ..and some have a godly(ist ) machine ( top of the heaps ), and still for some strange reason somewhere WE as a majority want more and more and more.... and I mean speed and performance that is.

Conroe or AM2 .. ?? Somewhere there must be a need for either..or is it just stiff competiion??

Another thing I find interesting if not a bit funny is that the chips like everything else in the computer tech. field are gettting smaller and smaller..trying to fit more stuff onto that chip... and its beyond me as to when it all will come to a tech. end or stalemate...

I do find it all very interesting stuff.... nonetheless , as do us all. LOL

[DKJones96]

it'll never stalemate or end. once we've reached the limits of RF clock cycles and what can possibly be done with current technology something new will be out ie a processor that uses light and mirrors to make computations like a dlp projection tv on a much smaller scale. or some sort of quantum processor.

just like the automotive industry topped out mileage they went to hybridization.

[Rabbitrunner51]

Boy.. some of you are smarter than I. Interesting comments..LOL