Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
AMD Conquering 3GHz: Athlon 64 X2 6000+ CPU Review

Started by: Mrswap | Date 02/19/07 10:15:43 PM
Comments: 63 | Last Comment:  12/19/15 06:39:24 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


"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..
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/19/07 11:00:53 PM]

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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 01:11:48 AM]
- collapse thread

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.

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 03:39:32 AM]
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.

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 06:27:41 AM]
"i'm saying that this suck because" = i'm not saying that this CPU sucks(...)

I should sleep more...
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 06:28:53 AM]
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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 06:35:57 AM]
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?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 07:28:42 AM]
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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 10:32:34 AM]
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?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 02:46:12 PM]

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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 05:39:39 AM]
- collapse thread

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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 07:18:52 AM]
Picky: the problem with ScienceMark is not that is a scientific benchmark, but that it is written by a AMD Employee.
So the results are biased.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 09:50:36 AM]
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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 02:42:46 PM]
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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 04:28:20 PM]
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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 11:12:22 PM]
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. 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 :-)
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 03/25/07 03:19:08 PM]

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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 09:19:36 AM]

What CPU do you have in Home Man???
The 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..!!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 12:21:57 PM]

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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/20/07 10:41:14 PM]

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
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/27/07 06:26:07 AM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment