and this looks like a intel fanboy trying for a counter-offensive. :P

intel no doubt has THE BEST performing processors right now, but combined with good cheaper platforms AMD does still have a pretty good appeal. Good intel platform boards are quite a bit costlier compared to similar specced AMD platform ones.

psycho_mccrazy - please read point #3 regarding power consumption in my reply to Kaz...that would answer your price concern.

Kaz, you're clearly an AMD fanboy.
Even though, lets try this...

1. Memory Controller - Thanks currently AMD's ONLY real technology advantage over Intel.
Apart from a built-in memory controller, which shows its advantage mainly in muti CPU situations, where Intel's onboard mem controller does become a bottle neck and is much less scalable than the Opteron's built-in controller which is built into every core, and thus more scalable. BUT, keep in mind that Intel's next gen CPUs (based on the 45nm process) are going to include a build-in memory controller!

2. 45nm Process - A clear technology advantage
XBitlabs has just posted that Intel is going to release its 45nm desktop CPUs in Q4 2007, while they also posted that AMD is probably the company that is going to be the one to order the 45nm CPU manufacturing from TSMC. They are clearly not able to follow this process race. Intel's 65nm process is SO mature by now, while most of AMD's CPUs are still based on the ancient 90nm process.

3. Power Consumption - Since the release of the Core Duo family
Apart from specific low voltage CPUs, Intel is leaving AMD in the dust in this field.
Lets look at YOUR numbers. Someone that would buy a 120€ platform from AMD is probably not flooded with money, and thus will probably stay with this solution for at least 2-3 years. Now the difference from this platform to Intel's close one (according to you) is 90€. How much do you think the difference in electricity bills would account for during these 3 years??????? Open your mind............

4. "outdated CPU designs" have you heard of the Core Duo family by Intel? When was the last time AMD has renovated its CPU design in such a way??? AMD's design is the outdated one. Only with the release of Barcelona they will have a new design, but till then this comment of your's is just completely wrong. The Performance leap compared to the older CPUs (the 8xx and 9xx families) totally prove that this is a new design (they practically threw away their Pentium 4 Net Burst architecture in favor of the clearly superior Pentium M).

5. AMD making a joke of itself with the 4x4 platform
Do you have a power plant in your back yard? Do you like to be laughed at by people with a single Quad Core CPU? What a pathetic try to offer a quad CPU desktop design.

6. Performance - Intel in a CLEAR advantage (yeah yeah yeah, AMD rUleeeszzzZZzzzzZZZzzz so lame being a blind fanboy)

7. Overclockability - making the comparison between a 120€ AMD platform and a 210€ or a 240€ Intel platform a none valid one. The difference between these computers would be like there're 2-3 years of advancement between them.

Please try to open your eyes and let my words sink in.

I did hear you.

1. The advantage is none to inexistent.
AMD uses the transistors space for IMC, Intel uses it for more cache.

2. Well if penryn is a native quad core design then the 45nm advantage is clear. Wait it isn’t, still gluing CPUs. Dang.

3. Not much if the AMD 90nm and 65nm CPUs still consume less.
Maybe you have to replace the comparing CPUs, try Conroe VS Netburst they are all from Intel.

4. Compared to Netburst was a quantum leap; the problem is that K8 was already a quantum leap VS Netburst. Remember Core 2 only now bring 64 bits and native dual core, AMD has this since 2003...

5. That is a special mobo/platform in case you didn’t notice. Show me one Intel 300€ that can do all that.

6. Also very clear advantage in price. Overall costing more 100€ than AMD for doing the same.

7. Didn’t understand. Your point was AMD CPUs don’t OC and Intel does?!

Are you sure I’m the blind fanboy? Because you have proven yourself.

1. I still give that to AMD that in multi CPU environments (4p, 8p Opterons), many processes are more scalable with the built-in memory controller than the extra cache.

2. Even though gluing CPU dies together is less efficient, it still gives Intel a performance advantage when compared to a 4 core solution from AMD (the 7x platform). So for the time being they chose not to invest in making their quad CPUs native, and only "glue" the two dual dies together. It could be that they would have to change that in response to Barcelona when it is released (umm, only Q4 2007?!?!, well, hopefully that will be final).

3. Of course I am comparing the Conroe vs either the X2 or the FX series. Every power test I've seen shows a clear advantage for the Conroe over the similar clocked X2 or FX. Aren't we comparing current models??? (for me NetBurst is history. In fact I advised people to get an AMD platform when the only thing Intel could offer in the desktop segment was the NetBurst P4s).

4. Actually Intel offered 64bit (yes, copied from AMD) since the 6xx P4s, which is the 64bit version of the Prescot (still single core). But they had it also in the 8xx and 9xx models. So the Core 2 Duo is actually their forth series that offers 64bit.
But, you only need to compare the power consumption and performance of equally clocked Conroe vs X2 or FX to get a proof of who currently offers the outdated CPU...

5. While checking in pricegrabber about the FX 74 price, it seems that the $300 price is only for a single FX 74 processor and not a pair. Now lets look at the 4x4 mobo cost. The Asus L1N64-SLI WS for example cost at a single seller starts at $355 ouch! And why was it difficult to find a seller for this board? Because it doesn't make sense to pay that much for a ridiculous solution. And don't forget to add to that a stronger PSU and a better case (for ventilation and space requirements). You can plug a Core 2 Quad into almost every P965 modo. Including microATX if you really wish to. OK, lets compare similar performance quad solutions: 2 x FX 74 (3.0GHz) = $550 (I assume a pair costs a little less than two separate processors) + ~$350 for mobo = $900
1 x Q6700 (2.66GHz) = $550 + $110 for an Asus P5B or $180 for an Asus P5B Deluxe = much much less than $900.
Comparisons:
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-997-view-athlon-64-FX-74-( 3.0-GHz)-vs-core-2-Extreme-QX6700-benchmark-review.html
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMyw1LCxo ZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
BTW: "We have heard many times how Intel’s Front Side Bus design is antiquated and inefficient, but let’s face it, it still works damn well." and "And talking about power, this Quad FX system with the installed FX-74 processors is a POWER HOG. We are breaking the 500 watt mark on system power consumption without the single video card being loaded. Once you install two 8800 GTX video cards into the Quad FX, as I suspect many of these boxes will have, you have a system that will be able to pull consistent wattage loads of over 700 watts when the system if fully utilized."
That's what I'd call "AMD being ridiculous". And again, what about the electricity bills? Unless you have your own private power plant in your back yard...

6. Looks like the electricity bills and higher priced (better ventilated and with a stronger PSU) cases, didn't sink in for you after all. You conveniently ignore this issue.

7. Nope, I'm not saying that AMD CPUs are not overclockable, but they are less convinient to overclock than Core 2 Duo CPUs. I haven't heard of a single E6600 that can't reach 3.2GHz with a reasonable mobo like the basic P5B. So many people take their 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo beyond 3GHz. All I'm saying that cheap Core 2 Duo solution performance can't be compared to a similar priced, or closely priced AMD solution when you bring overclocking in. It separates the two solutions by a whole class.

BTW, I'll be happy to know which models you want to compare, which Sempron to which Conroe?

1. No comments.

2. August. Let’s see how many months/years will take Intel to make one native quad core. And they choose not to invest. I thought they where the best of all. The best can’t do it first? The best 80% market share company can’t do it sooner than the second 20% market share company, strange.

3. Every power test you have seen, maybe you never go to Toms or Anand they can show you what even one 6000+ doesn’t consume 130W.
Aren't we comparing current models??? Yes we are, I go to a computer shop I see one AMD processor PC, one Conroe based PC, and 8 (eight) Pentium4 or PentiumD PCs. Dell, HP, ... It seams Intel still sells and manufactures them, go figure!!!

4. Gee I have already told you AMD consumes less even at 90 nm and 65nm. Can’t you read?
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3039
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/11/energy-efficiency-in tel-left-out-in-the-cold/

5. But the real question you didn’t answer, where is one Intel motherboard that can do all that and cost only 300$, where is it. The motherboards you talk are a complete joke compared to that one.

6. What electricity bills?! AMD consumes less. Read my words AMD CONSUME LESS!!!
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/25/green_machine/

7. Less convenient?!?!?! Never heard that before. Just Increase the HT speed and you’re done. Intel the FSB. Maybe you never saw one AMD system....
3600+ easily 3.0Ghz. 3800+ easily 3.1Ghz. And with 70$ motherboards. I doubt you can take Core 2 Duo 1.86 to 3.0Ghz without much effort ($$$ mobo). Not just an all class also an all price. Intel good overclocking mobo + CPU 300$. AMD 150$ and you are done.

Sempron VS celeron you are wasting time there.

2. August??? Are you claiming to be more knowledgeable in this than the analysts???
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070612143452.ht ml
"...many now expect AMD’s new chips to become massively available only in Q4 2007."
Oh, but AMD our god denies these claims, so lets forget about that. It wasn't really there, those are just evil rumors that Intel is spreading.
Oh, and while AMD is delaying, Intel is actually pulling their 45nm desktop CPU release from 2008 to Q4 2007. And I suspect they are good for that, as they have proven in countless earlier releases since the initial release of the Core 2 Duo.

We still haven't seen any real Barcelona vs Penryn benchmark, so who could say that gluing dies is still a bad
thing? Once hands-on comparisons show an advantage to AMD's quad core solution, then I'd clearly see Barcelona as the
better solution, as simple as that. Till then this argument is theoretical and open to too much estimations.

Why can't a company that has a 80% market share make a CPU perfect? Why should they??? Isn't "better" a good enough goal to reach at a lower development cost compared to the more costy "perfect" goal? It's a business, not a Japanese tea ceremony. The goal is making the more attractive products with the largest profit margin. If that doesn't make sense because it doesn't supply the rulezzzz ZZZ zzz ZZZ zzz (this lame term always makes my brain go numb) effect, then I can't help you in this. Then it's only a matter of being a fanboy…

3. True, the 6000+ consumes 120W and not 130W, but it's NOT a quad core CPU. The QX6700 consumes 127W, but it IS a
quad core CPU. Where is the comparison here? 2 apples vs 4 apples?
Well, the fact that NetBurst systems are still in stock doesn't mean that these are current models. I pity a person who buys a P4 system on a whim (like one would buy a bag of tomatoes) instead of doing a thorough market research before investing his money in a computer. At least ask someone credible for a recommendation. There are many respected and tech sites forum mods who would be glad to recommend a setup for a budget. I'm sure none of them would utter the word P4 out of their keyboard.

4. Your first link is about the server segment, and I admit that AMD does have some strong points there. The fact that it's capable of maintaining some of its market share in this segment shows that quite clearly.
Now lets analyze your second link results:
Semprons do win the efficiency test, but can you really compare them to the E6300??? The 4x00 models that are of a direct competition to the Semprons are missing from this test. Now lets find a nice pair to compare, how about the E6700 vs the 6000+? As the 33% and 66% load charts show the E6700 gets more points, and that's even without comparing the "worth" of the performance difference between these models. The situation is even worse in the 100% chart, as AMD's only strength in the power field comes from an efficient idle power save. Or in other words, AMD CPUs are best at doing nothing!!! When the CPU is under load the true inefficiency of the current AMD CPUs is shown. Now, the real interesting charts in this article are the Cost Per Year ones. Though, there's a problem here. The 1st chart shows the cost in idle, while the 2nd charts shows the cost in 100% load. There are no cost calculations for the more realistic 33% and 66% loads. The idle chart does show an AMD advantage, while the 100% the advantage goes to Intel.
BUT, fortunately, the excellent article you've pointed us to does offer some clear cut charts with the charming title "Best Processor":
Calculated at 33% Price + 33% Performance + 33% Energy Efficiency, and split to categories:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/11/energy-efficiency-in tel-left-out-in-the-cold/page15.html
Check out which processors win most first places...

Now the overall winners:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/11/energy-efficiency-in tel-left-out-in-the-cold/page16.html
Ummm, all 3 first places to Core 2 Duo CPUs???

5. An Intel motherboard that can do all that? Well, I'd say a nvidia 680i SLI based motherboard offers all the features to answer the needs of at least 98%-99% of all home users. Such a motherboard (for example from the excellent eVGA can be bought at around $200). How does that compare to the $350 4x4 motherboard? Now lets compare availability of 680i SLI motherboard vs 4x4 motherboards??? Oh wait, that would a tad too weird. And availability is not only how easy it is to buy it, but also the size of the install base, and thus how quickly bugs are founds and get addressed.

6. AMD consumes less??? Did you pay attention only to the idle chart? Did you compare Semprons to E6300 :) ? Why not try to understand the full meanings of the Overall Best Processor chart???
And regarding AMD's Green Machine - well, that was a truly nice initiative, and Intel was late to join in, but here's their answer:
http://hardware.silicon.com/servers/0,39024647,39166032,00.h tm

7. OK, this is subject is too wide, as I haven't recently seen any clear cut article dedicated to finding the more overclockable (similarly priced) system (with the stock cooler, with a better air cooler, with water cooling, phase, etc...).

nice fanboi flame war
and me here sittin without popcorn

Agreed. Need a more confortable chair too.