And thus places can start posting their full benchmarks...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

Enjoy.

Its times like this I wish I understood anything that that article mentions besides $999.

I predict flames.

Let's see what AMD's response is.

Cut prices and roll out their new multiprocessor dual-core platform (4x4 or whatever they call it). That's all they can do as they don't have a new architecture near ready yet.

Well, here's a nice quote from the HEXUS review: Yeah.

But, like they said at HardOCP, if you're looking only at gaming performance, there won't likely be any noticeable difference in performance between something like an FX-62 and a Core 2 X6800. Of course, you should still have more processing power for other things with the Core 2, but the graphics hardware is still the limiting factor for most newer games right now. In fact, I think I read that, as far as games are concerned, you probably stop getting any noticeable performance increase after the level of something like an Athlon 64 3800+. There's still no way I'd spend anywhere near $1000 for a CPU either way.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Let's see what AMD's response is.[/QUOTE]

Slowly die as they've never had the R&D that Intel has.

did anyone else think that the thread was going to be about a sequel to that god-awful movie with the pathetic physics "the core"?

I did.

They've kept up so far... The K8L should be out Q1 07. And who cares, you don't need much of a CPU not to be bottle necked in games. Buy cheap and spend the extra money on a GPU.

I'm midly amused at how fanboys need to constantly "justify" why AMD is still a better choice even after Intel comes out with a superior product. It's like they can't stand being on the "losing" side or something. Is it really that hard to not be completely irrationally tied to a company and just buy a product based on its quality?

Yeah, they don't have the R&D that Intel has. If they did they would've died out long ago

Seriously, AMD has continually come up with fresh ways to keep their processors ahead of Intel's. They're not in a bad position at all.

And I've seen the way Intel does business...when they dominate the market, prices go up, when they don't, prices go down. That's the main downside I see to Intel "winning" this round.

But I don't care, I'm sticking with AMD as Intel boards are still too expensive. At least unless the Conroe's boards' prices drop before I buy.

Some of the conclusions drawn at the end of the HardOCP article were laughably stupid.



This was of course in reference to the Core 2 X6800. Which is ironic, considering that they compared it to the FX-62, which costs about the same, and doesn't perform as well. Gaming wise, they're close enough, but for computing power the X6800 wins. Also, according to that same article, the E6700 is about equal (as far as gaming performance goes), for about $400 less. It also smokes the FX-62 in encoding applications et al, though by not as much as the X6800. Intel definately wins in the bang-for-your buck department in this round.

While I agree with [H] in that the X6800 really isn't worth the extra $400 over the E6700, the E6700 beats the FX-62 pretty soundly.



Looking at newegg's pricing for the two boards used in the [H] article:
[Intel]ASUS P5B Deluxe/WiFi-AP Socket T (LGA 775) Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail $268.99
[AMD] ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe Wireless Edition Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI MCP ATX AMD Motherboard - OEM - $181.99

Disregarding the fact that one is retail and one is open box OEM, that's less than $100 difference, a number which is more than easily made up in the price difference between the E6700 and the FX-62. Also, when you have the money to be looking at the top of the line processors and boards, $100 isn't going to make much difference to you. Not to mention the fact that there are some very capable boards (both Intel and AMD) with more reasonable costs. Your argument is moot.

Note: I'm not in any way an Intel or AMD fanboy. Hell, I have 2 computers running CPUs from both companies (P4 2.4ghz and AthlonXP 2800+). Just judging by the numbers I'm seeing right now, Intel looks like the winner until AMD brings something new (that's not their stupid marketing ploy of the 4x4 system. Not bashing AMD particularly, but the ploy is stupid).

The E6600 is looking particularly attractive for my next comp, seeing the price point it's at, and the performance delivered. I'll wait until I'm ready to build though, as things may change.

I'm not looking at a high dollar system, so no, my argument ISN'T moot. I'm looking at a 3700+ or so with a 7900GTX or better when I upgrade, probably actually the nV DX10 card (mainly because I think ATI still has catching up to do tech wise, so I don't think their DX10 solution will be all that). I'm talking low-end to mid-range motherboard, at best. My argument WOULD be moot if I had 1000 dollars to drop on just the processor, but 1000 dollars is gonna be closer to the cost of the system.

I still don't see what difference it makes. So you get a mid-range board. The difference between an Intel mid-range and an AMD mid-range board is probably no more than $30. If $30 between motherboards is enough to make up you mind between the two processor brands (assuming the Core Duo 2 processor you would look at is at a comporable price/performance [though from the looks of it the Core 2 Duo would offer better performance for the same price] to the 3700+), then I really don't know what to say.

There's no way Core 2 could offer the same price/performance ratio with AMD's recent HUMONGOUS price slashings, plus the rumored price drops on the way which are supposed to be bigger than the last. And it's all the little things that add up.

Also, the difference in price was 50-100 dollars last I checked.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]mainly because I think ATI still has catching up to do tech wise, so I don't think their DX10 solution will be all that)[/QUOTE]

What? Have you read anything about ATI's upcoming DX10 chips? Think what is in the 360 with unified shaders, but way more powerful. If anything, Nv needs to catch up. Unless they have something up their sleve.

Heres a extremely well written article about what ATI has planned for their next GPU:

http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=69&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=0

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]There's no way Core 2 could offer the same price/performance ratio with AMD's recent HUMONGOUS price slashings, plus the rumored price drops on the way which are supposed to be bigger than the last. And it's all the little things that add up.

Also, the difference in price was 50-100 dollars last I checked.[/QUOTE]
Umm, it seems pretty easy for them to do so considering the lowest end Core 2 chip that's gonna cost $180ish is beating the higher end X2 chips in some situations and staying pretty close with them in others... Intel can easily win a price war when they have an advantage. They have much greater resources as their disposal.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]mainly because I think ATI still has catching up to do tech wise, so I don't think their DX10 solution will be all that)[/QUOTE]

What? Have you read anything about ATI's upcoming DX10 chips? Think what is in the 360 with unified shaders, but way more powerful. If anything, Nv needs to catch up. Unless they have something up their sleve.

Heres a extremely well written article about what ATI has planned for their next GPU:

http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=69&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=0

That was kind of their whole point. Read the artical a bit better.

Actually, the point of the [H] article was that the X6800 wasn't worth the upgrade if you already have an FX-62, because they're both close to the same price. What I'm saying is that I agree the X6800 isn't worth $1000, but the E6700 is definately worth $599 or however much.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Disregarding ATI's upcoming GPU, I was talking about their so far incomplete DirectX 9.0c/SM3.0 implementation.


Some situations that don't affect me. I game, not encode video (often), or whatever else it is they're testing. The lowest end Core 2 chip is ~ to the 3700+ I thought, and the 3700+ is at 210 right now, then if the price cut rumors are true that'll drop it to about 170-180, which would make it a moot point, most likely. Maybe even lower.

And Intel COULD win a price war, yeah, but they're not known for lowering their prices unless they're in a bad situation, and they're not right now.

Then just look at their gaming benchmarks and ignore the rest, it still holds true. It's still coming between the 4600+ and 5000+ or between the 4200+ and 4600+ depending on the games, except 2 exceptions: Quake 4 where it falls between the 3800+ and 4200+ and Battlefield 2 where it falls between 5000+ and the FX-62. I'd hardly call that close to a 3800+ (there is no 3700+).

Several people's posts have already summed up my point of view, so I won't bother repeating it all.

My point wasn't to try to say "Buy an AMD! It's still better than buying from the evil empire of Intel!" But, I do agree with the guy at HardOCP that, if you already have a fairly recent and decent AMD system, and you plan to mostly just play games, then it's probably pointless to buy a new processor.

I'm not a fanboy of any companies, I just look for what's currently the best deal. Right now, it's looking like the Core 2 line is that. I'm also not planning to game only. So, personally, I'd rather pay a little more for a motherboard and get a faster processor for less.

Oh yeah, and there is actually an A64 3700+, for Socket 939 at least. They have it on sale around here for about $280 CDN.

It's not dual-core though, as all of the processors in question are.

so, noone else thought this was about a movie sequel.

I dont know wether this is a good thing or a bad thing for me.

1) I saw the gaming benches, and compared to the 3800+ X2, yeah, it's quite a bit better. But I'm talking about a 3700+ single core, overclocked like mad (San Diego core ftw). That's another reason I won't buy into the Intel line yet--there's been some reports of good overclocking, but I don't know if that's situational or across the line so far.

2) There IS a 3700+. I wasn't talking about dual core X2's. But there IS a 3700+ X2 on the way, regardless.

This is true.

Still, there doesn't seem to be much difference in gaming performance between the 3700+ and something like the X2 4800+. It seems like you stop getting a noticeable performance increase for games after a certain point.

[edit]Still, how much is the price of the 3700+ supposed to be cut? If it ends up at the same price as something like the E6300, I'd think that the Core 2 would just be a better deal since you get more overall performance.[/edit]

I'm talking about gaming performance, not gaming performance among Dual Cores. The higher end single cores seem to fare better in games, from what I can tell, albeit not by a humongous margin, enough for me to justify sticking with single core if the price demands it.

I never said there were noticeable performance increases in gaming. I don't even play video games all that much. I use my processors for a lot more. I know processors mean very little in games, but so many people threw the gaming argument against Intel when it was "behind" in gaming, but now that AMD is "behind" in gaming, it suddenly doesn't matter so much. Convenient, eh?

Emon's post way up there basically summed up how I feel about the topic.

On topic question:

why are all the minor technical details so important to you all? All i care about is,

1) is it powerful enough to run the games i have, and some of the games i plan to get in the future?

2) does it have any special features that make it cost extra that i will never use? (if so, i will buy a different one)

3) has the company that makes it been involved with any shadey advertising of their products? ( Using infomecial style claims in the infomation on their product )

4) will it cause compatibility issues with my current personal software preferences?

So basicly, i wouldnt buy something just because it is new and powerful enough to run the new games even years from now at great speeds, if most of the game would still run with my current one. And if there was a game in the future that needed me to upgrade, i would wait till my computer is reasonably out of date with prossessing power before bothering to upgrade because by then, the prossessor would have gotten cheaper.

[edit] you may now flame me with your computer nerdish flames [/edit]

Well, there was a time when Intel was way, way behind, when processors really did matter a lot more in games. AMD offered a cheaper solution that was better and fairly reliable, and it kept improving. Now it doesn't matter so much in gaming, there's a difference--processors "back in the day" DID matter in games, now they don't so much.

AMD is still fairly cheap and still very reliable, so people stick with brand-name out of pure allegiance to the company, it's true. But if you're buying a gaming computer it's not like it matters anyways.

It's not "convenient", it's convenient, sans quotation marks.


That's like asking a mathematician why it matters to show your work, or asking a scientist why you need to come up with a hypothesis instead of just doing an experiment. It sounds silly to you, because you're ignorant. People who actually know about the subject and want to get their moneys' worth don't make such stupid comments or ask such stupid questions about the hardware--it's performance and price that matter to them mainly. Not "is it fast enough" or "will it be incompatible".

Actually, Yoshi has a point. If DailyTech is right, AMD's price cuts are going to more than compete with Intel's Core 2 Duo chips, at least until the promotions end.

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/1779_large_full_pricing.png

Full Article:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2800

Still, after the limited-time promotions, AMD looks like it will be in a tough spot vs. the Core 2 Duo counterparts.

Also, reviews across the board: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=104147

Something tells me after the limited-time promotions you're going to see the new architecture come out, and it'll probably be fairly competitive.

dude, I was just saying that I personaly dont care if it is %10 fster than anything else on the market, if it isnt going to be of any real use to me, i will not bother to even think about getting it.

One thing I'll definately be interested in is seeing rendering benchmarks in 3DSMax, Maya, Blender, Lightwave etc. If the Core 2 Duo comes out significantly ahead, that could be the clincher for me.

Then why did you even post in this thread? This was obviously aimed at enthusiasts, or those who actually care about their PCs instead of buying the 300 dollar wal-mart brand version.

I was actualy asking why people are so enthusiastic about spending money on something as soon as it comes out that provides little benifit to them, instead of waiting till it will be a benifit to upgrade as the games require more prossessing power. and with PPUs comeing out, it will take a lot longer for many games to ge to a stage when the only choice is to get a new CPU instead of upgrading other things.

And this, my friends, is a perfect example of how computer illiteracy can cause idiocy.

But seriously, if it doesn't impact in gaming (which, to you you want to see a 50fps increase along WITH everything getting set at highest, right?) all that much, then you're still going to see its effects elsewhere. I agree that Core 2 is an excellent choice for people who have more than just gaming in mind. But if they're just gaming, it doesn't matter, go with what you like.

And PPUs are ****, and will probably end up another dead technology. So you're wrong on that department, if nothing else.

Was this directed at me? If so, I never tried to imply that you said otherwise. I was just stating what I'm seeing.

If all someone uses their computer for is games, then there doesn't seem to be much difference between a 3700+ and a 4400+ or an E6300 or an FX-60 or an X6800 or whatever if you have a high-end video card. But, it seems to me that, right now, if I compare an AMD processor and a Core 2 processor that are around the same price, the Core 2 processor looks like the better deal for overall performance, not just games.

That's pretty much my stance as well. I don't really have loyalty to any one company. I basically just try to look for the best deal at the time.

Bah. I need sleep.

Exactly. AMD's re-pricing most of it's line so it's will be competing with Intel's last gen.