X-bit labs

Started by: Aziz | Date 06/25/07

Comments: 32 | Last Comment:  02/27/08

[1-20 | 21-23]

1. Not fair! Should put AMD FX70 - FX74 to make comparison because high end should match with high-end product..Don't too much bias to Intel..

Yes it is fair, as were comparing Dual Cores not Quad systems, Athlon 64x2 6000+ is the best AMD has to offer, for Dual Core's, if you want FX-74 then we need results from the Core 2 Extreme QX6800 as well.

2. The products are now shipped with some buzz words, you must do a serious research to be able to identify a specific CPU. Not to mention the software for Windows, all is full of things like "virtual", "paralel", "super speed", etc.

I don't want this hardware anymore, I'm back to my old desktop and that's it, i will buy it for $1 later.

3. Intel is in to hype, not performance and they manipulate the media to get favorable reviews, even if the product has little merit.

From what I see and hear, few people have any interest in the latest Intel products and that sems to be confirmed by a drop in PC sales worldwide.

AMD's new products offer a tangible performance increase, lower power consumption and better value.

"AMD's new products offer a tangible performance increase, lower power consumption and better value."

Any proof or links? Come on, prove your statement.

"AMD's new products offer a tangible performance increase, lower power consumption and better value."

Jesus H. Christ, are you fucking serious? Can we say fanboy, or what!? You're either in some serious denial here, or haven't had access to the internet in the last year.

What a fucking moron

4. Near 0% improvement.

Good OC but to get that I have to spend just 200$ on the motherboard.

I pass. I will wait for what Penny or AMD are going to do.

5. My question is if Intel is indeed capable of releasing higher speed CPUs why they don’t?

-AMD doesn’t keep up so no need to.
-They doesn’t want dual core CPUs faster than quad core.
-They have wasted all the model number, leaving only the 6900 free, maybe the 69 doesn’t sound good ;)
-They weren’t expecting that Core 2 Duo would lead to this result, since it’s derivate from a mobile CPU where low clock with low power consuming was the primary point.

From the points listed it's probably the leaving of the Dual no faster then Quad's the and QX6850 is going to be coming in soon, so they can't push it any higher.

Not to mention trying to stay in a 65W TDP envelope is really impeding scaling potential.

6. So does this mean they will discontinue the other Core2 chips????

7. Nothing new, but I guess the megahertz myth is still alive. BTW, the Anandtech guys did some similar benchmarks a year ago, so the results are not a surprise to me. It's a purely marketing move - hey we have a 1333 MHz bus. So what?

8. Nice article in general.

However, I'm disappointed and concerned to see your selection of scientific benchmarks ever-decreasing. For example, in this particular test, it would have been informative to use at the very least the BLAS benchmarks offered in ScienceMark; you also used to use MathematicaMark 5.2, but you've stopped using this as well. Primordia pretty obviously doesn't scale at all with memory bandwidth, but there are plenty of other applications that you could have tried that do--in short, of all the available options for scientific benchmarks, you seem unfortunately to have picked the worst.

Please, please start using a wider range of applications again, and if possible, also start using MathematicaMark 6, MATLAB 2007a, and Multiphysics as well. These modern applications are much more capable of taking advantage of the performance of current processors, and hence much better as benchmarks, than the ancient ScienceMark Primordia test. In particular, all of them (with sufficiently large datasets) have strong dependence on memory performance.

9. Yup, that's right..Intel manipulate media to promote their products eventhough those products is not showing significant performance over AMD. Another is that FX74 is a dual core processor, so it is not fair to compare it with quad core Intel's processor. Those quad core processor must be compared with upcoming quad core AMD's processor, Phenom or Agena FX. Quad compared with dual, is it fair..The logic also is not there.

You guys can review this link to read any benchmark between those giant company that is not bias to another company.

www.tomshardware.com

FX-74 needs to be compared to Core 2 Quad's and Core 2 Extreme QX6xxx because they are designed to be run in sets of 2, so the logic is there indeed.

The best right now you can compare is Athlon 64x2 6000+ to the Core 2 Duo E6xxx and if you want to compare Quad FX, Quad Core systems then you need to compare to the Intel Quad Core's processors which also make Quad Core systems.

There is no manipulating of the media going on, more like your inability to understand.

10. Almost 0 percent increasing in performance..Bad work, just want to get media attention - i have 1333MHz FSB..so what? AMD has less power consumption but good performance even still in 90nm technology. But Intel has moved to 60nm, even to 45nm, and it is still power hungry, very bad..AMD clock is not comparable with Intel clock since they has Hypertransport technology and Intel is going to fake it up..So, how bad Intel it is..1.6GHz Barcelona is not comparable with 1.6 Intel.

what are we in denial? Where does it show AMD has less power consumption, Brisbane are at best equal give or take in power consumption compared to a equivalently clocked Intel Core 2, so Intel's wins perf/watt.

Also Intel has not moved to 45nm yet, that is still coming down the road.

You got it completely wrong, AMD has LESS performance and MORE power consumption using 90nm technology, which isn't surprising. Once you switch to 65nm technology, you have equal power consumption but still less performance for AMD.

IPC of the Barcelona Quad Core is still up in the air, but from the leaked Cinebench scores it seems to be at parity to Core 2, so a 1.6GHZ Barcelona is indeed comparable to a 1.6GHZ Clovertown/Tigerton.

Bear in mind that, AMD 90nm SOI technology consumes 65W of power MAX, means that average power is less than that. However, Intel's 65nm technology consumes 65W of power AVERAGE. Means that the max power is more than that for Intel. And now, AMD produces 45W processor by using 65nm technology but the performance is not so bad, lagging just several second behind will not affects normal users that we can get with a lower price.

NOW, you DON'T judge Barcelona performance too early, it is still in work and can beat C2D easily.New news mention that Barcelona performance is much faster than C2D clock-to-clock. Review this link:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1632&Itemid=1

As we know, Intel's tactic also very dirty. They play around with media.

Oh STFU already, dumb fanboy

11. Read this out. Intel's tactic VERY dirty!


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7818

12. Damn AMD fanboys are stupid. This Aziz dude claiming an FX-74 is dual core... well, technically it is, but it's designed to work in pairs to compete with a QUAD core product, ie. Q6600/Q6700. On it's own it's nothing more than an X2 6000+, and one that needs a freaking $400 mobo just to work.

As for DontFakes, don't get your hopes up buddy, Barcelona is only launching at 2GHz... woopty doo... don't count your chickens before they hatch. ;)

13. E6850, Here I come.

14. AMD seems to be very poor as compaired to INTEL In all things but before the c2d come The AMD always win BUT todey the time of INTEL 's Favor so Benchmark indicates already the result

15. Hay, look at page 10, test result of Supreme Commander, Is it right? what the value mean?

16. the primary goal of multi-cores cpu is the ability to run a few DIFFERENT tasts simultaneously! For example game&encoding, chess&culculation etc. Unfortunately I see no such a benchmarks around.

17. What was the BIOS version number on that P5K Deluxe (used for benchmarking)? Did it (P5K) support the G0 stepping out of the box?

18. What type of RAM and how much was used in the overclocking described on page 11 of the article?

19. I've obtained a CPU score of 7528 pcmark points with the intel x6800, however your results were 98 points below mine. I would advice you to check you results one more time(7528 mine,7430 yours). If you have any questions here is my email: nosholly2000@yahoo.com (I can send you a photo with the pcmark score if you want to)

20. Thank A lot for ur review
It's Help me 2 buy E6850

[1-20 | 21-23]