mjczub
Pwnz0r
join:2001-10-19
Hixson, TN
clubs:  | reply to N10Cities
Re: Core 2 Duo: Intel Goes for the Jugular
You can still overclock the chip by upping the FSB. Anand managed to clock the E6600 from 2.4GHz to 4GHz on air. |
|
fegul
Premium
join:2004-08-23
united state
| reply to Anonymous_
the file has to have some form of DRM on it. It doesnt mean that people that download music illegally will instantly be shut out
--
|My Blog|Fegul.com| |
|
Martinus
Premium
join:2001-08-06
EU
| reply to CylonRed
said by CylonRed  :It took Intel 5 YEARS to get back the performance crown... You want AMD to take it back in less than a year it seems... Agree.
But we also have to agree that Conroe is the way to go for system builders the next, say, half year.
In 5 years time we'll probably have quantum processors or CPUs floating in liquid nitrogen, but that's a hell of a long time to wait.
--
From the GSV "Ethics Gradient" |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| said by Martinus :said by CylonRed :It took Intel 5 YEARS to get back the performance crown... You want AMD to take it back in less than a year it seems... Agree. But we also have to agree that Conroe is the way to go for system builders the next, say, half year. In 5 years time we'll probably have quantum processors or CPUs floating in liquid nitrogen, but that's a hell of a long time to wait. I think system builders will know that for the VAST majority of the folks - BOTH companies have more than what is needed speed/processing wise - even for gamers.
--
Brian
|
|
Martinus
Premium
join:2001-08-06
EU
| said by CylonRed :...BOTH companies have more than what is needed speed/processing wise - even for gamers. Hell no.
I'd really love to cut my DVD recoding time in half, or my BF2 levels load in 1/3 or my RARing of a whole directory in 1/4.
Of course, if all you do is write emails or use Notepad it makes no sense to put more power in your box, but if you use resource intensive apps in a regular basis, you'll really appreciate those optimized features of newer CPUs.
--
From the GSV "Ethics Gradient" |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to Anonymous_
said by Anonymous_ :if u want to see if it has DRM buy the New motherborad and the cpu download vista download a music file from torrent or something try to play it see if plays Oh, okay. I'm on it now. Will report back shortly with details.  |
|
Martinus
Premium
join:2001-08-06
EU
| said by AB :said by Anonymous_ :if u want to see if it has DRM buy the New motherborad and the cpu download vista download a music file from torrent or something try to play it see if plays Oh, okay. I'm on it now. Will report back shortly with details. LOL
Especially, try to download a music file from "something" - not torrent -, that'd be the ultimate test.
--
From the GSV "Ethics Gradient" |
|
unsub
join:2000-06-21
Newton Upper Falls, MA
| reply to BA
I have no idea why people are arguing over this stuff. I have no love for Intel or AMD. I buy what gives me the best speed for the money, and I always have. Satan could put out a processor and I'd buy it if it was fast and cheap.
I've used AMD for about 4 years now. Anyone who built their own system was foolish not to.
When I build my new system in January I'll be using a Core 2 Duo |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
1 edit | reply to Martinus
Lets - see - I said the majority and not all and I never mentioned dvd recording.... I have no idea what "hell no" refers to...
--
Brian
|
|
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| reply to Vamp
quote:
As I said before, AMD is screwed!!
Not really. History has shown that few consumers buy the best performing stuff. If this were the case, Intel would have closed up shop by now. Celeron, P4, and in many cases P3, Xeon, etc are all inferior to Duron, Athlon, and Opteron. Yet Intel continued to sell butloads of very subpar performing chips for the past 5 or 6 years now. |
|
Mrq5
The Fab Four
join:1999-08-21
Warren, MI
1 edit | reply to CylonRed
said by CylonRed :said by unsub :BTW - no matter what - BOTH companies make CPU's that are far faster than 95% of the home users need and probably close to 85% of the business desktops need. I can still build a PC for my use and make it last for 3-5 years with a current AMD CPU. Just becuase Intel has the "crown" - does not mean no one will buy them... I agree with this position. P3's are good enough for my family and friends, especially when just used for email, browsing and homework. Unless hardcore gaming todays CPU's aren't fully taxed by current apps. Im excited about the upcoming changes 'cause I now can buy last years top performers for a bargain and know it will last me a good while. |
|
x____
join:2003-02-13
____
clubs:
| reply to BA
AMD got smoked in the benchmarks.
»www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/···e12.html
I almost bought an AM2 motherboard and CPU recently.
I'm glad I held out. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to itguy05
said by itguy05 : quote:
As I said before, AMD is screwed!!
Not really. History has shown that few consumers buy the best performing stuff. If this were the case, Intel would have closed up shop by now. Celeron, P4, and in many cases P3, Xeon, etc are all inferior to Duron, Athlon, and Opteron. Yet Intel continued to sell butloads of very subpar performing chips for the past 5 or 6 years now. Not sure I agree with the analysis even though the facts are correct. History shows that people will still buy *Intel* chips, even if they're inferior. I'm not sure AMD has the umm, fan base, for lack of a better term, that Intel does to carry them through this. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
RJ |
|
Wily_One
Premium
join:2002-11-24
San Jose, CA
| reply to unsub
said by unsub :I have no idea why people are arguing over this stuff. I have no love for Intel or AMD. I buy what gives me the best speed for the money, and I always have. And we have a winner!  |
|
Swat85
join:2002-11-16
Harwood Heights, IL
clubs: | reply to BA
Does this chip run as cool as the AMD ones????? So far AMD is far more cheaper to run then Intel, just wait until you see your electric bill! lol. AMD is still crown in my eyes. |
|
Xzar
join:2003-02-16
Yaphank, NY | The new core chips use less power and run cooler then AM2. and much cooler then p4's. "The X6800 system peaked at 242W, nearly 19% less than the FX-62" - extremetech (The Core 2: Intel Goes for the Jugular) |
|
ccallana
Huh?
Premium,VIP
join:2000-08-03
Folsom, CA
| reply to BA
The Conroe runs something like 30% or more cooler, while giving greater performance than anything AMD has to offer. This processor rocks. Performance per watt is better than any desktop processor out there (probably since it started life as a mobile part!)
--
Who is more irrational, the man who believes in a God he can't see, or the man who is offended by the God he doesn't believe in? - Brad Stine |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| reply to BA
AMD is already working on something to counter it. I read in a magazine that AMD is Working on Quad-core CPU. Not sure on the specs yet. The article I skimmed over didn't really go into much detail as the chips are still in planning.
--
BTK is guilty!!!! |
|
adgtrunklid
Premium
join:2002-06-28
Bonney Lake, WA
| reply to BA
Intel has been better then amd for a long time; just lacking the press. With amd you can only use DDR one at 400 were Intel supports DDR 2 667. The cache size on the amd chip is much smaller and you get a lot of cache misses. The Core Duo has 2 x 1 MB in the laptop and 2 x 2 MB cache in the desktop. The Core DUO supports cache sharing between cores of the 2MB, as I am sure the new Core 2 DUO will probably do as well.
It is nice to see the press is finally crawling out from under the rock and giving credit were credit is duo.
ADG Trunklid
--
»home.comcast.net/~adgtrunklid/ |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| The differences in latency in DDR2 is the reason AMD did not go to it till now and even with the newer lower latency DDR2 the only way to get any extra performance is to use DDR2 800 - so DDR/DDR2 is not that big of a deal and even with DDR2 Intel lacked behind AMD in perfomance till now. So no - Intel has not been netter - the use of DDR2 does not make it a better CPU.
As for the L2 cache - again - until Conroe - Intel still had CPU's that performed worse than the AMD CPU's - with AMD CPU's 512 cache and their line of CPU's that had 1 meg per core.
Meanwhile AMD was running CPU's that used a lot voltage meaning that for the last 5 years the AMD CPU's were far COOLER than the Intel CPU's - something you want on a laptop - both for battery life and comfort on the lap.
--
Brian
|
|
