http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Conroe

The CPU has been released for beta and benchmark testing. Reviews are saying that it's taken Intel into a better postion as for as gaming CPUs go. It also include similar features to previous AMD chips including:

Intel® Wide Dynamic Execution
Intel® Intelligent Power Capability
Intel® Advanced Smart Cache
Intel® Smart Memory Access
Intel® Advanced Digital Media Boost

So do you think this is a problem for AMD? Or do you think AMD can make an equvielent architecture for the same price?

This thread will not end well.

I refuse to reply to this thread further based on this.

Businesses compete, it is what they do. Give it a few months and you can reverse the two names in the topic title.

AMD will then release something to compete with the new Intel chip and the process will continue. Personally I like AMD chips because they are priced so much better then Intel chips. You can get an AMD chip with performance to a similar Intel chip for a lot less money.

Let the debate begin (again... and again... and again... and again...)

I used to think like Rogue Leader, but I've since become an Intel buttboy because I seem to have more stability with my Intel chip than with my previous 2 AMD chips.

AMD hasn't released a new chip yet, so no one is in any position to say much. Is Intel's next gen chip going to be better than the current gen AMD chip? It better be. However, AMD doesn't have to win the performance battle if they can keep their prices less than half of Intel's.

Yeah but lately intel's CPUs have taking a a steep drop in pricing. Last I checked their low budget dual-core CPU was less than AMDs version of it. I personally like AMD myself (and so does LucasFilm, and other graphic design type comapanies). But Intel is really slashing their prices. I think maybe Intel might get another jump on AMD, but as always AMD has something up their sleeve.

That's because they have something new coming out. That happens all the time. Again, it's too early to say one way or the other.

i always shop based on price. with intels new take on processors (low clock speed again) i may consider going back to intel after 10 years.

First: Old Newz!

Second, this is Intel's next generation. It's the Equivalent of Pentium 5 if they still number them that way. The first good architecture they've had since the PIII. AMD's next gen won't be out until the end/beginning of next year with the K8L.

Meh, I've never had any problems with any of my AMD chips and I've been using AMD for six or seven years now.

pentium d 805 oc'ed ftw

Games are GPU-limited so it doesn't matter which processor you choose. You should instead select a processor and chipset based on reliability.

Your move, KR2000.

Beware, Jon`C still has all his chess pieces, and you're down to your pawn and King.

Your move, KR2000.

I read that as "Intel Comdom"
......

Do you even know what a condom is?

Duh i took health class...

macs have dual processors so theyh are better than everything

i read it on their website

With spelling like yours, its hard to tell you were even in school, babybuns :p

don;t care which is better whoever has the best bang for the buck mid range chip is all i care about.

You needed Health Class to know what a condom was? K then. I don't have health class, and know more than I probably should.

I will care, when I buy my new computer.

AMD are slashing their prices, some by up to 50% when Intel releases Conroe. Check this out:

That's not really true. As games have progressed they've relied more and more on the GPU, however there are still important processes in games that run on the CPU. If you were building a good gaming rig you might as well use an old P3 and have a 7900 gtx to run the game. No. The better the CPU the more you'll see you GPU reach it's full potential.

Generally the architecture for the Intel chipsets have been made to hande a large number of appliactions open, while AMD has focused on using their technology for enhanced gaming.

To prove this benchmarkers took the Intel and AMD equivelents and ran them in the same games. It was found that the AMD expericened much better stabilbilty higher frame rates, and was able to stay fast more consistanly, than the Intel chips, an example is this major test:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854788,00.asp

Actually you find that GPUs are the ones that are limited, as they need high-end CPUs to reach their full potential.

Guru did a great story on this.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/content/136/

However now Intel's next generation archtectire is focusing on both fronts, and now gaming could be anyone's domain...for now at least.

I've personally always liked AMD better than Intel, but that's just a long-time grudge. I don't even know why, either.

In fact, I doubt there's really that much of a difference... whichever is cheaper is better, despite specifications. Money is the real problem with me, not speed.

You have one thing right, and one thing only--Intel is good at multitasking and AMD is good at gaming. But it wasn't INTENTIONAL on either company's parts. They just took different routes of making the same base (read x86) processor. The end result was AMD went after more actions per clock cycle and Intel went after more clock cycles, as well as doing Hyperthreading eventually. This means that AMD's end result was faster gaming speed, for the most part, while Intel's was better utilization of 3D modelling software, better at encoding/decoding, etc etc. Better for everything but gaming, really.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Rendering is an asynchronous operation.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Have you ever heard of a little Intel-born technology called SIMD? It was designed to increase single application performance by allowing a single operation to act on multiple sets of data.

I don't think you understand how to read this article. Ergo, you have no clue what you're talking about.

If the games were CPU-limited (rather than GPU-limited) changing the resolution would have almost no impact on framerate.

Beyond that, rendering is an asynchronous operation. DirectX 9 cards already do almost everything in graphics hardware. DirectX 10 will have even more stuff done in hardware, so the CPU will have less and less of an effect.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

First of all, that benchmark didn't test stability. Do you even know what "stability" means? It did measure consistency in framerate, but it didn't have a graph of how often your nforce4 causes your graphics card to have a stroke.

Secondly... well, here are some highlights from that article:
"Though the overall performance of the Athlon 64 is quite a bit better than the Pentium 4, we shouldn't put too much faith in these averages. Both systems spend nearly the same amount of time beneath the threshold frame rate of 30fps, with the AMD rig performing only slightly better. In terms of how each system feels when you play, it's a dead heat."

If games are GPU-limited, then what's the difference for gaming between an Intel and AMD? I'm not trying to spark an arguement, I just want a nice answer.

AMD's about 100% cheaper overall (motherboard and processor) than Intel. Other than that, currently they're about the same.

Intel also has better system stability.

So..aside from Intel being more expensive, why is everyone "Anti-intel! AMD 4 lyfe!" if they're practically the same in gaming, and Intel (from what I gathered) is better for non-gaming (even though you just said AMD is about the same as Intel in gaming)?

Unless I got that last bit about Intel being better for non-gaming frmo KR2000, I can't remember which post exactly.

Well, not much, but to get an Intel CPU that is of equivalent speed to and AMD CPU you'll spend more one the Intel. eg. You'll usually need a mid to high end Intel to compete with a low end AMD. You don't need a real fast CPU to make the GPU the bottleneck, but that doesnt mean that the CPU just twiddles it's thumbs either.



Maybe during the Athlon Xp era... Stability really isn't an issue anymore.

No, KR2000 thinks his Pentium 3 Celeron is a kickin' gaming rig.

AMD processors are much cheaper for the kind of performance you get. They're also more future-proofed and feature-rich. They're also the "underdog", which makes a lot of people want to embrace their products even when they aren't the single best choice in every situation.

Thank you, Jon`C that's what I wanted and I understood your answer.

i was a fan of AMD as well, and was about to buy an AMD processor for my new compy when I stumbled upon this, AMAZING, overclock: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/

With the pentium d 805 oc'ed to 4.1 gHz, I'm pretty sure Intel as of right now gives the best bang for buck deal... as the article says, "with a simple modification, however, this CPU can outperform every top-of-the-line processor around." (as of May 2006)

Yoshi will have your head for posting a Tom's Hardware link :p

Because AMD used to be so much better than Intel (read Athlon XP era) for a LOT less. 100 dollar AMD chips used to beat 300-350 dollar Intel chips, and people started to realize AMD had something better than their Athlon line (thunderbird grillz ftw).

AMD is still better for gaming, and the dual core solutions are (so far) less expensive than Intel's solutions and offer better multitasking ALONG WITH good gaming performance. Intel cannot say the same with their Pentium D line, but Conroe will change that temporarily. However, intensive non-gaming applications still run better off Intel chips.


AMD was very, very stable back then. The only problem they had was the Palominos were crap, and that was low-end chips as it was. Even their budget line (the durons) spanked Intel's. Anymore, the AMD side of things is more unstable because the nForce chipset is a far cry from what it was in the nForce2 days.

And actually, back then, other than Pentium C's (northwoods), Intel's entire processor line was crap. Pentium A's were reputedly HORRIBLE, yet still sold because they had the wintel thing going on.

Tomshardware Tomshardware LOL

But seriously, even with the 805 overclocked to 4.1ghz (which is a very isolated incident, let me assure you--I've heard most people can only get it to 3.5-3.8 range) you'll still see better gaming performance with a more cost-effective 3500+ and Asus motherboard.

It costs the same, in fact LESS, and yet you can overclock it further as it's already got a huge advantage. Don't believe me? Here's the prices:

AMD64 3500+ Venice Core
Asus Motherboard

Pentium D 805
Asus Motherboard

As you can see, you spend 20 dollars less on the AMD combo, and get a better basic performance, not to mention the great overclockability of the Venice core (500 MHz isn't uncommon on air, which would put it somewhere in the neighborhood of a 4200-4400+ or so.) and the superior performance as is.

Seriously, that little bit about the Pentium D 805 is so overblown it's not even funny.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]The only problem they had was the Palominos were crap, and that was low-end chips as it was.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they were. Mine was pretty stable I guess, but I could never overclock the FSB past 5-10 MHz.