Intel's new processors

**LeftEyeNine** · 05-23-2006, 15:28

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.

**edyzmedieval** · 05-23-2006, 15:36

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.

**Lemur** · 05-23-2006, 15:44

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.

**edyzmedieval** · 05-23-2006, 15:49

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.

**Lemur** · 05-23-2006, 15:55

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.

**edyzmedieval** · 05-23-2006, 15:58

Any idea if the new generation of Intel chips will be available before July the 20th?

**Lemur** · 05-23-2006, 16:24

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.

**drone** · 05-23-2006, 16:30

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.