Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 91 Posts
what kind of power do they draw? i heard that it was 80~watt
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by slikskye

AM2 is still 90nm, so is not next gen

i'm pretty sure that when athlon 64 was released, it was the same process technology as athlon xp (130nm). whether a chip changes in the manufacturing process or not doesn't make it "next gen." the venice 90nm cores of athlon 64s are not "next gen," nor is AM2 really. when they change the core completely, then it will be next-gen.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by RushJet1

i'm pretty sure that when athlon 64 was released, it was the same process technology as athlon xp (130nm). whether a chip changes in the manufacturing process or not doesn't make it "next gen." the venice 90nm cores of athlon 64s are not "next gen," nor is AM2 really. when they change the core completely, then it will be next-gen.

They are changing the core architecture for the AM2 & the conroe. Both still use the x86 'base' architecture. Personally I think the x86 architecture will be around for a while yet. The transition to another will be waay to bumpy.
 
Just because they use a similar manufacturing process doesn't mean it's not the next generation... it's a different socket, for crying out loud...
 
Here we go again.
So AGAIN I ask just how much AMD tech is in that Intel CPU?
You don't see Intel bragging about there aquiring it from AMD

There both good stuff, this is not a flame against Intel just an honest question!
 
If you will be using it for encoding, etc. get an Intel. If you will be using it for much gaming at all, need a low-power cpu or need a cooler cpu, go for AMD.

And as people have said, to compare a current-gen 90nm cpu whose technology has been out for over a year to a next-gen 65 cpu whose technology is still 6 months from release isn't fair.

If you need a computer now, get a AMD X2 4400 (1MB cache) or Opty 165 (again, 1MB cache). You can get a X2 3800 for cheaper but it only has a 512KB cache.
 
I really don't think Intel has anything up on AMD right now regarding video encoding. At least by any appreciable margin. Obviously I can't say anything about Intel's next chip, because not enough info is out on them yet. But I do know that I encoded a DVD last night using DVDShrink (converting from DVD-9 to DVD-5) in less than an hour using the highest quality settings.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Pinhead-227

I really don't think Intel has anything up on AMD right now regarding video encoding. At least by any appreciable margin..

I disagree. For video encoding the Intel still outperforms the AMD.



A 13.6% performance gain is appreciable.

Quote:


Originally Posted by Pinhead-227

Obviously I can't say anything about Intel's next chip, because not enough info is out on them yet.

Certainly there is now enough info out to extrapolate and you can be pretty sure that FX-60 will be even farther behind.

R
 
As of now......AMD is better for nearly every aspect of computing. I'm not trying to be a fanboy, its just the truth.


However, no one knows what the future holds.......and Conroe could be AMD's downfall....
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

I disagree. For video encoding the Intel still outperforms the AMD.



A 13.6% performance gain is appreciable.

Look at 10 encoding/decoding benchmarks though, not just picking one where Intel wins. If you're going to be fair, link us to the entire review, not just 1 graph. Where did that come from and what about the other encoding measurements between the processors.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Fatal05

AMD is better for nearly every aspect of computing. I'm not trying to be a fanboy, its just the truth.

Another :withstupi

Quote:


Originally Posted by rcantec

AMD is the best.

to go with :withstupi

There is no such thing as a clear total winner on either AMD or Intel at the moment although AMD wins more benchmarks than Intel. AMD does not win them all so the statement that AMD is the best is fantasy. Just as the statement Intel is best is fantasy. And AMD is not better in "Nearly Every Aspect". Many, yes. Nearly every? Clearly no.

Canned synthetic benchmarks do not show real life productivity and use.

I prefer to look at each processors merits and I have both machines. I have had dual machines since the release of the A64 which is clearly a better processor for gaming at the moment. The Intel is better at multi-tasking. Yes, even the X2 Athlon while taking many benchmarks does not have the snappiness of the Intel on multi-tasking environments in real time work, not benchmarks. My wife runs Dreamweaver/Adobe PhotoShop/Illustrator and moves between them. Now this is why my wife will not go to the X2. She says she does not like the "Shudder" as she calls it on the X2 platform when moving from one function to the other and she has worked on X2 4400. She would rather have the HT machine because she is task-switching, not multi-tasking and the Intel exceeds AMD at this mode.

There is no clear winner holistically.

R
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by rcantec

did you just call me stupid?

Of course not. I said that I thought the statement you made was though. I stand to that. I think that any statemtent that claims total superiority of AMD vs Intel in the chip market today is stupid. Any statement that claims a total Intel vs AMD superiority is stupid as well.

Never the actor but the act. Never the character but the characteristic.

R
 
21 - 40 of 91 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top