Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › Intel "Penryn" Core 2 Duos Revealed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel "Penryn" Core 2 Duos Revealed - Page 3

post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFatBloke View Post
The only trouble is that this is overclock.net
Yes, which is less than 0.1% of their market. Most computer users could care less (or even know) about overclocking. They want a computer that does what they want for the cheapest price.
'Pooter
(15 items)
 
Server
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 830 x4 Gigabyte GA-880GM-D2H MSI GTX 460 Hawk 12 gigs (2x2 and 2x4) Corsair DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung  Samsung DVD-RW  Samsung DVD-RW  Cooler Master Hyper 212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 ASUS VH242H 23.6" Logitech MX 3200 Wireless Antec Neo Eco 620 
CaseMouseOther
Antec P-180 Mini Logitech MX 3200 Wireless Crucial m4 128  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon II X2 210e Gigiabyte MA785GMT-UDH2 ATI Radeon HD 4200 G.Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
OCZ SSD Seagate SSHD Corsair A50 WHS 2011 
PowerCase
Antec Neo Eco 400 Antec 300 
  hide details  
Reply
'Pooter
(15 items)
 
Server
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 830 x4 Gigabyte GA-880GM-D2H MSI GTX 460 Hawk 12 gigs (2x2 and 2x4) Corsair DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung  Samsung DVD-RW  Samsung DVD-RW  Cooler Master Hyper 212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 ASUS VH242H 23.6" Logitech MX 3200 Wireless Antec Neo Eco 620 
CaseMouseOther
Antec P-180 Mini Logitech MX 3200 Wireless Crucial m4 128  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon II X2 210e Gigiabyte MA785GMT-UDH2 ATI Radeon HD 4200 G.Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
OCZ SSD Seagate SSHD Corsair A50 WHS 2011 
PowerCase
Antec Neo Eco 400 Antec 300 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny1989 View Post
A nothere stupid post by a stupid person,how is 2005 not almost 3 years ago?in 2005 the 939 versons of the 4000+S come out on AM2 (4800+ beat out a e6300 in a benchmark or two)and the 6000+ is still there beat out the e6600 is some benchmarks,So i dont see how you think that intel made a big jump odds are that AMD will come back,you act like they have a big gap to fill?In the market (out side of overclocking) where stock clocks is what you get intel is not that fare ahead in the dual core market,Also if Intel mad a jump to the fornt what makes you thing that AMD cant? netburst got owned and intel jumped for that to Core (wich sucked)to Core 2 (wich is "good").
Wow, this is a massacre of the English language variety. I didn't exactly ace my last semester of college English, but that post brings a tear to my eyes.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2D T7100 1.8 ghz (undervolted) ummm... Dell Intel X3100 2 x 1gb 667mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Fujitsu 7200 RPM 120gb CD-RW/DVD dual boot Vista business 1440x900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2D T7100 1.8 ghz (undervolted) ummm... Dell Intel X3100 2 x 1gb 667mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Fujitsu 7200 RPM 120gb CD-RW/DVD dual boot Vista business 1440x900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 25
Well, since AMD has been using the same architecture since (what? 2002?) and they STILL havn't gotten a benchmark they didn't 'Fix'

Intel may be shady, but since they have taken the lead, they have been dominating and CONTINUING to improve on their processors. Not to mention that if they wanted to, they could run a stock FSB of 400 with their chips and just shut you fanboy's up about 'OMG, AMD's GONNA COME BACK!!11!!!!"

I'm still waiting for your precious AMD native quad-core to hit the market, but it seems as if they can't get a bacerlona dual-core to function.

/end rant
Boiled In Water
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AthII x4 630 @ 3.6/2.7ghz 1.4v Gigabyte 890GPA-UD3H rev1.0 Gigabyte GTX 550 ti 1gb 1000/2000/2400 G.Skill DDR3 1600mhz 2x2gb 1.5v 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x1TB RAID0 WDFALS+Seagate LG DVD+RW Lightscribe Windows 7 Ultimate x64 21.5" Asus 5ms 1080p 
PowerCase
Corsair CMPSU-850TX Antec 300 
  hide details  
Reply
Boiled In Water
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AthII x4 630 @ 3.6/2.7ghz 1.4v Gigabyte 890GPA-UD3H rev1.0 Gigabyte GTX 550 ti 1gb 1000/2000/2400 G.Skill DDR3 1600mhz 2x2gb 1.5v 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x1TB RAID0 WDFALS+Seagate LG DVD+RW Lightscribe Windows 7 Ultimate x64 21.5" Asus 5ms 1080p 
PowerCase
Corsair CMPSU-850TX Antec 300 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny1989 View Post
That is just a stupid thing to say sorry,AMD owned intel back then and look now C2D is a year old and Athlons are 2-3 year old CPUs that can still put up a fight,did you see the toms hardware CPU reviews?
The Core 2 CPU's are more efficient clock per clock than any K8 based CPU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny1989 View Post
the 5000+ and up where still beating the E6300,E6400,and the E6600 in some of the mutil media benchmarks
Althon X2 5000+ @ 2.6Ghz
Core 2 E6300 @ 1.86Ghz
Core 2 E6400 @ 2.13Ghz
Core 2 E6600 @ 2.4Ghz

I think I made my point, though there's no way an X2 5000+ would beat the E6600 in anything stock for stock. Only the 5600+ (2.8Ghz), 6000+ (3.0Ghz), FX-60 (2.6Ghz) and FX-62 (2.8Ghz) come close to the E6600.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny1989 View Post
the only real part that intel realy beat AMD bad in was the gaming and at most it was by 20-30 FPS,what do you think big companys use CPUs for? "multi media and number crunching" what are AMDs best at "muti media and number crunching"
I don't know where you're getting this informtaion from. As I said, Core 2 CPU's are more effiecient clock per clock no matter what application you're running. They also run cooler, have a lower TDP and generally put every K8 to shame on a clock per clock basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny1989 View Post
So go ahead and say AMD is to far behind or is dead or cant come out with anything but remeber that your comparing your C2D to a CPU that is more than twice its age and your isent even twice as fast.(in most cases)
It might not be twice as fast, but it's still better clock per clock.

To be fair, Intel had completely the wrong strategy with regards to its NetBurst architecture, but they realised this as they saw more and more market share go towards AMD. In the last quater of this year, all market share made by AMD has since been recovered by Intel, down to it's Core 2 line of CPU's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny1989 View Post
Have you ever done any muti media benchmarks on a intel and AMD system,my dad has a P4@3.0GHZ in his dell 8300 and my old sempron 3200+ beat the hell out of his in benchmarks and in video play back as well as DVD in coding and decoding.
Wait a minute, you're baseing your agument that AMD's K8 is better than Intel's current Core 2 purely on the fact that they used to kick the NetBurst architecture around?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny1989
A nothere stupid post by a stupid person,how is 2005 not almost 3 years ago?
I think that mactard was trying to tell you that "3 years ago" isn't the "old days". I'm old enough to remember when AMD was only manufactureing Intel's early 80826 CPU's just so Intel was able to get a contract from IBM to supply CPU's. This was because at the time, IBM wouldn't give contracts to a single company and seeing as Intel really wanted the contract they asked AMD to asist in the production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny1989
netburst got owned and intel jumped for that to Core (wich sucked)to Core 2 (wich is "good").
The Core CPU was able to dominate the laptop market. It was developed by a seperate team in Intel's mobile R&D section who thought that the power hungry NetBurst wasn't appropriate for notebooks. Once Intel realised the capabilities of the new Core architecure they then started developing a desktop successor, Core 2. Core never "sucked" and actually gave most of AMD's mobile CPU's of the time a good run for their money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mactard View Post
for the record, Intel traded SSE4 for AMD64
Just a minor error with this comment so I thought I'd correct it. Intel actually obtained AMD64 (EM64T) by swapping SSE2 and SSE3 for it. SSSE3 is currently exclusive to Core 2 CPU's and SSE4 will be released with the Penryn core.
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by t4ct1c47 View Post
Just a minor error with this comment so I thought I'd correct it. Intel actually obtained AMD64 (EM64T) by swapping SSE2 and SSE3 for it. SSSE3 is currently exclusive to Core 2 CPU's and SSE4 will be released with the Penryn core.
Yeah I noticed it too but had to go do something then forgot to edit it.

Oops.
Home System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium D 930 ASUS P5WD2 Premium Nvidia GeForce 7900GTX 2GB DDR2 800 (5-5-5-15) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
120GB WD Caviar Lite-On DVD-RW Mac OS X/Windows XP 24" Samsung (soon!) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Eclipse 500W Aspire Gross Logitech MX518 
Mouse Pad
reggular 
  hide details  
Reply
Home System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium D 930 ASUS P5WD2 Premium Nvidia GeForce 7900GTX 2GB DDR2 800 (5-5-5-15) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
120GB WD Caviar Lite-On DVD-RW Mac OS X/Windows XP 24" Samsung (soon!) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Eclipse 500W Aspire Gross Logitech MX518 
Mouse Pad
reggular 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › Intel "Penryn" Core 2 Duos Revealed