Printable View
Martyr told me about some new processors from Intel, which are due to appear very soon, and will be a double powerhouse. :balloon2:
Any info please?
I consider buying them from the moment they appear. My new computer must have the best and most powerful components. :book:
edyz, tell me you have hacked into the accounst of Raomanian governement's treasury.
On topic, if you'll get a new PC, your first preference should be dual core CPUs of course.
I'm trying, I'm trying.... :chain:
On topic, I hope they won't cost a fortune. It's gonna kill me if they do. :cry:
Quick answer:
- The new Intel Core Duo chips are derived from the Pentium M.
- They're supposed to spank every chip known to man when running 32-bit software. (See this article.)
- Cost is still unkown.
Big article going over the spec.
Much more powerful that the Intel Pentium IV processors?
IYHO, which is the most powerful chip of both Intel and AMD? At the moment.
And the best from these 2.
EzyMed, the order of power goes something like this:
Pentium IV < AMD64 < Intel Core Duo
As for which chip is best, at the moment the best chip available is the AMD FX60. But that will change very, very soon.
Any idea if the new generation of Intel chips will be available before July the 20th? :balloon2:
Forgive me Edzy, I gave bad info. The super-duper Intel desktop processor is not the Intel Core Duo, but rather the Intel chip codenamed "conroe." Here's the ship date info on it:
The company announced that it will begin shipment for the three new processors a couple of months earlier than the previous release dates: Woodcrest will come out in June (most likely on the 7th, the second day of Computex, or even earlier), Conroe in July and Merom in August.
I'm still skeptical, especially after the last Intel "we pwn AMD" review that turned out to be fixed. It will be nice if Intel can compete again (everybody wins) though. Any word on power consumption, is Conroe going to double as an effective space heater like Intel's previous chips?
The setup for those benchmarks seems a little strange. Why would they run such different configs for these tests? 2Gbytes memory on the FX-62 system, 1 Gbyte on the others. 300 GByte HDD on the Intel setups, 160 on the AMDs. Different monitors and resolutions? From a scientific standpoint, not a very good job of reducing the variables here.
Edit-> talking about the Hexus review, got my threads mixed up here.
YEEESS!!! Near my birthday!!!! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
~:cheers:
Intel PWNS AMD!
Weeeellll, there are two things I would consider before jumping on the Conroe bandwagon.
(1) Conroe does not support 64 bit extensions. Not a big deal now, but in a couple of years it might be.
(2) Nobody has done a real-world test of AM2 versus Conroe. So let's reserve our geek lust until we know it's as spankin' as they say it is ...
why on earth would you want to pay a few hundred dollars extra for the newest thing, top-of-the-line thingamajig ? Waste of money, imho. Could wait a few months (half a year, or maybe a bit more), and pay considerably less.
Top-of-the-line products are always more expensive than they "should" be, simply because they are that: top-of-the-line.
Never be the earlier adopter of the first generation of a new chipset.
You will be paying through the nose for the vaunted position of being a glorified beta tester with little to no software that can make the best use of your chip.
Wait to see what the industry has to say about the chips and buy them when they have a bit more maturity... undocumented features that have been fixed.
So you guys suggest getting a chipset from this generation?
AMD64/Pentium IV?!
No, I suggest you not throwing away your money on top-of-the-line stuff :bow:
It's not worth it, you might not benefit from all its "features", and you might get the same visible performance from a cheaper thingie.
As a rule of thumb, it usually doesn't pay to be in the first wave that adopts any new tech.
Especially in computer-related stuff, where things get cheaper quite fast.
Actually, if I were building a computer and I wanted it to be stable and great for gaming for, say, the next year, I would buy an AMD64 system. And not one of the new, fancy AM2 rigs, but rather the 939 pin version. Prices will be dropping, performance is only a couple of percentage points off the new platform, etc. And I certainly wouldn't wait for Conroe, which will need to get through its birthing pains before I would want to approach it.
So yeah. If you're building a rig soonish, I'd say go with AMD64. And for Pete's sake, don't buy the FX60. Grab an Opteron with one meg per core and overclock that sucker.
Oh yes it does.Quote:
Conroe does not support 64 bit extensions.
Thanks for the suggestions. Looking now.... :book:
1. Wrong. Conroe has full 64-bit support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
2. The AM2 has already been benchmarked and an AM2 with ddr2-800 is only marginally faster than a socket 939 with pc3200, non FX/X2 AM2 will probably actually be a slight slower because they are only equipped with ddr2-667. AM2 is definitely not a generational upgrade in terms of performance. The sole purpose for AM2 is for a unified socket. The Conroe is alot faster than AM2.
Link to your source, please. As of yesterday the only benchmarking between Conroe and AMD64 that I was aware of was from a site that was not able to create identical configurations. So, for the edification of all, linky please.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Obviously the configuration cannot be identical. The AMD64 uses ddr while the Conroe uses ddr2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
http://www.hothardware.com/viewartic...leid=794&cid=1
...
Lemur, what is your problem? You made an erroneous statement that the Conroe had no 64-bit support and I corrected it without any rancour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If you get irritated so easily, verify your information before pressing the submit button.
Gentlemen,
Peaceful and friendly please. :shakehands: