X-bit labs

Started by: Mrswap | Date 02/19/07

Comments: 52 | Last Comment:  06/03/08

[1-20 | 21-29]

1. I'd love to know what temperature it was sitting at while overclocked, I have a 4800+ and a Zalman 9500 and that sucker could fry eggs anywhere after 1.45V, 2.75Ghz. Good to see a K8 processor competing with an E6600 though.

2. "AMD K8 micro-architecture turned pretty obsolete" Because of Intel incentives and marketing money ? Let us not forget that the Core architecture is Pentium III/M based with intelligent and big cache..

"Let us not forget that the Core architecture is Pentium III..."

If so, then AMD k8 is even more obsolete if it's getting whooped by a two-gen old Intel architecture.

3. Was all of the CPU's tested with 64-bit Vista? Benches do indicate still improved performance on XP, don't they? Why was ScienceMark left out? Bottom line, should I trust your benching Ilya?

4. 32bits bench would probably favor the intel cpu even more since some of the tweaks intel use in its C2D do not work on 64bits mode.

don't get delusional, the current AMD cpu just plain suck.

Sure compared to the very expensive quad core.. why must everything *suck balls* etc.. they are pretty descent performing about the same as the E6600. But im guessing your saying that the E6600 sucks too cause something faster is out.

something that cost $500 and works less than something that cost $350 cannot be called DECENT. i'm saying that this suck because the other brand very top of the line cpu do bazillion better in bench but because something that cost less perform slightly better in 90% of the bench/test than that expensive 6000+ crap from AMD.

i'm comparing donkey with donkey and not donkey with race horse. something you prolly don't understand and hurts your AMD fan boy ego.

"i'm saying that this suck because" = i'm not saying that this CPU sucks(...)

I should sleep more...

another thing.

After the AMD fan boy laughed(hard) at the Intel fan boy willing to pay high priced poor performance p4 instead of lower priced better performing AMD CPU, now Intel fan boy laugh at AMD fan boy willing to pay premium price for lower performing AMD CPU.

Am I the only one seeing the irony here?

get real and trade your stock options for something else.

All AMD will ever be is second rate. After all they do make x86 (Intel) clones even if it's Kraptonite or whatever lame ass name they come up with next.

No they don't suck, they are just a design generation older than C2D, and that shows in games and encoding/decoding benchmarks, but they still kick ass in some very important areas. If you are indicating that some of the other CPU's are benched with 32-bit XP, then I would say that this whole article is a very poor piece of benchmarking at best. This kind of information should be disclosed in the article, enabling reader to make some sensible extrapolation. I do not believe Ilya had the opportunity to test all of these CPU's with Vista-64. Who's the fanboy did you say? Just how would AMD disappearing from the market place help your ignorant mind?

I was replying to Silver brainlessly-biased-lousy-fanboy comment

And where did I write with for AMD to leave the market place? Here you need to help me cause I can’t find it. Sorry.

AMd leaving the marketplace would just give Intel the opportunity to raise the price of CPU like they did in the past. But don’t praise AMD for that because they aren’t church kids either, even them did raise their price when they had monopoly of fast CPU.

“No they don't suck, they are just a design generation older than C2D, and that shows in games and encoding/decoding benchmarks, but they still kick ass in some very important areas.”



If you ask me yes AMD CPU suck for two things, they use an old micro-architecture and they are expensive. I’ll leave nostalgia to you.
Check the 5600+ review and tell me you expect this CPU(6000+) to do a LOT better compared to a 5600+?

I hope AMD will come back with something that's up to the c2d because right now it's like AMD caught the p4 disease.

Got to love biased people.

They suck because their top CPU is not competitively priced. OK, if that was what your narrow mind tried to bring fourth, then I guess I have no problem with that. Try to make that clear the next time, simply "they suck" tend to make people think you are biased, even a fanboy, get it?

what do you expect me to say?
those AMD CPU perform awesomely but cost more, are less powerful and are more power hungry than the rival brand?

lot of contradiction here don't you think? that's probably what a fan boy would say or think but i'm neither Intel nor AMd fanboy, I'm being objective.

As I already said, these CPU cost more(tho now AMD lowered their price -again-) they generate more heat and perform less(sometimes a lot less, sometimes just less and in -rare- occasion slightly better) than the rival brand.
sorry but my definition of such criteria is that, even if it hurts stock holders and fanboys, they plain suck. if you call me narrow minded for that, then i'm sorry for you.

when Intel CPU perform less than AMD you say that they suck, don't you?
be honest and don't tell me you make a flan book-type-crap saying that they're good but perform less...


next time you tell somebody he's narrow minded ask yourself if it's not you who's being a total jack ass.

5. When something is slower, it sucks
Enough explanation?

6. Would you pay 450$ instead of 300$ just for having a performance loss?
Me not.

And if say "45W more power consumption" and "no overclock"?
That's the inner meaning of "sucking".

Sciencemark=AMD benchmark
Glad not to see it.

SM it is the only bench telling you anything sensible about numbercrunching capabilities of the CPU. Apart from the rendering benches it is the only one geared towards anything of interest for people using the CPU for something other than play. Somebody do use CPU's for something worth while. Go back to your room and play.

Picky: the problem with ScienceMark is not that is a scientific benchmark, but that it is written by a AMD Employee.
http://www.sharkyforums.com/archive/index.php/t-165292.html
So the results are biased.
Gotcha?

They are not biased and anybody knowing shit about scientific software knows that, gotcha? I have discussed with one of the developers on some occasions, he is indeed very balanced. Now please would you go back to your room and play.

I can back this up. Anybody doing some serious scientific stuff knows K7/K8 is pretty good at it.
C2D is usually better clock for clock however the difference is pretty small compared to "palying" benches.

Thanks for bringing some sense into the discussion. Just to elaborate, the C2D has twice the SSE(2) capability of K8, which makes it excel in single threaded float code, typically exceeding the K8, while parallel runs typically stress the memory system, giving the lead back to K8. These are the general rules, but it is of course application dependent.

heh...Any CPU from any company is going to be good at something. AMD and Intel don't suck. Their both good at what they do. Core 2 is based on the architecture of the PIII Pentium M chips and Core is basically a new architecture. When AMD came out with K8....that was based on the original K7 chips with four major differences and some architectural enhancements. So Intel did pretty much the same thing and got some kick ass chips out on the market. Like they say...History repeats itself again. AFAIK AMD is still dominating the price/performance segment of the market and they do a good job making mid range chips. BTW...is 60 fps compared to 80fps really a performance difference when the human eye can only see about 30? meh...AMD doesn't suck...Intel doesn't suck...you suck :-)

Yeah...even if AMD is second rate, their performance is pretty damn close to the top competitor...right?

7. AMD had the lead over intel for more than 3 years in a ROW !!! Intel can't beat that! If you take a good look at the many benchmark results you'll notice the fact that the K8 is a very good design after all. It's quite old and it's on average not that much slower compared to the newer generation intel core.

Intel has the fastest platform at the moment. But I have yet to see intel maintain that leadership for more than 12 months. I bet intel can't do that. We've still haven't seen any Core chips above 3GHz.
And that's not without a reason. Overclock doesn't mean a thing. I've seen a 7GHz Pentium 4 chip so think about it.

Intel is @65nm, AMD is still @90nm and yet AMD is able to do (almost) the same thing intel can @65nm. So intel will need to switch pretty quick to 45nm if they want to stay ahead of AMD
So if you're an intel fanboy you better be careful because soon AMD will laugh at your face.

Remember Northwood? I still remember the intel fanboys back then.
Core 2 Duo is the same story. Soon AMD will take the performance crown back from intel. Intel won't even manage to keep the lead over AMD for more than 12 months. Mark my words.

I see that there are many AMD haters speaking up right now. I mean what is your peoples problem with AMD? AMD has a better platform compared to intel. Now you don't hear too much about it all because intel cpu's are on average faster.

Once AMD restore their performance lead you'll understand why intel has only been "lucky" for a few months.

AMD will be the nr1 chip maker in 2009. Intel has the fastes chips at the moment but in the near future they'll need a lot more than just fast processors.

The Core 2 Duo E6600 haves a stock speed of 2.4Ghz, most CPU's will do over 3Ghz with ease and no overvolting. I think the Core 2 architecture does have some headroom for mainstream models and also some good batches for the high-end models to go for 4Ghz :)

At least Intel still remmbers its world-renowned Pentium M architecture, and can incorporate it into C2D and beyond. Yah, I do agree with you that Intel is still love to reuse its previous design, but the newest design has yet to come out. So probably Intel is still designing its new architecture. However, in terms of processing technology, Intel is leading. By the way, its new architecture is going to have soon a integrated MCH and a new successor to its old FSB technology called CSI (Common System Interface) to compete with AMD's HTT. Oh... new HT technology called STT (Simultaneous Threading Technology) for 45nm process CPU.

Hope Intel can bring out its current-researching new material for use in its future CPU which utilises light to transmit data. Gonna to break the barriers which all CPUs are facing - limiting data transmission/handling rate and the heat which can "kill" the CPU maximum performance.

rotflol.....please. AMD was only slightly ahead of intel with K8....this architecture totally blows their sorry ass chips out of the water. The only reason why K8 won benchmarks was because Intel had HT enabled in all of them. Intel totally blows those chips away with HT disabled.

8. What CPU do you have in Home Man???
The Config..in AMD is Though but when you Know how to do it the AMD will Win with Intel CPU, the most problem with AMD chipsets are that there is no good Mainboard for this CPU because it is too NEW and Intel is showing only things that they had 5 years ago, so their chipsets are better Config... with CPUs, CORE DUO is nothing new it has only Buffer bigger nothing more nothing less so what can you say about that???
Buf...8mb or 4mb makes big change, so AMD must work with this problem..!!

you know AMD released their own chipset right? The AMD 580x? The one designed by AMD to provide maximum performance and compatibility?

9. good if around 300$

10. K8L is on the way...

11. Buying the fastest processor does not always work for everybody. The only component that slows down the computer is the hard drive, so you should opt for a faster (low accessing time) hard drive when going for the fastest processor.

For an architecture to last for three years and still be slightly behind of the latest processor that has a newer and advanced architecture takes a lot of effort. Intel can not be two to four times faster than AMD's old architecture, so they go easy on AMD by only going 1.25 times faster. That is their downfall when the K8L comes out.

AMD has Intel beat on total system price. Also only AMD systems provides nVidia's SLI which is more reliable, stable, and economical than ATI Crossfire which Intel supports on majority of their chipsets.

Sure we can get the fastest processors that can win all brag wars, but it does not help to improve total system performance and paying close to $2000 for a complete system.

I prefer buying AMD systems because they are still are half the price compared to Intel systems. Though, I suggest do not buying any faster than AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+.

BTW, yelling out gibberish while making your point does not make any point. Writing your yelling and raving in proper grammar will make your point.

Interesting that you praise AMD for powerful compatible systems, then back their competitor in the graphics market.

12. poor amd

13. well, it seems AMD is having alot of troble staying up there with intel, from what it looks like, i dont think i will be buying any AMD CPU's for While.

CPU: C2D Qx6700
HDD: Seagate Cuda 500Gb
Video: Nvidia GF 7950 GT
Board: Evga 680 I

Don't even buy any AMD cpus period. All AMD is and will ever be is crap. My Pentium 4 3.0ghz HT blows the crap out of any single/dual core AMD chip. The only thing AMD can do a little better is render graphics. To do this....all they did was add more MMX extensions aka "3DNow!". All they do is carbon copy tech from Intel.

14. Is is important to note that AMD has been able to keep a foothold in the upper echelons of the processor market for a long time now, without any major changes to their architecture.

AMD has taken what has been repeatedly called an 'obsolete' technology and forced it to perform alongside the newer 'next generation' technologies that were the initial reason it was called obsolete.
For that reason I still have faith in their engineering capability.

All of that aside, I am waiting for K8L to settle all debates, one way or the other.

15. I think I should also mention that in most benchmarks the 6000+ is only slightly outperformed by the e6700, yet costs around $60 less.

16. Intel гавнище!!!! сука блять интел дерьмо, курячий памет ито лутше в милион раз за процессоры Интел!!! АМД это круто!!! и не надо лахматить бабушку!!!!

17. the amd athlon 64 x2 6000+ might not be the fastest CPU in existance but since its recently lowering in price its pretty much worth purchasing it instead of the more expansive core2duo e6600.
i realy hope AMD will lower the price a bit more soon and i also hope they will stop producing older models so they can take a large margin away from intel for the low buget and main stream market.

18. I would like to see more info on rendering in premier pro. A time means nothing to me with out more info on the raw file and length of the film.

19. waw bi3a2id

20. gra3o

[1-20 | 21-29]