(Mac related) Intel processors leap above AMD in performance

I don't see how you could "yawn" at the blatant fact that the new Intel+Mac setups are going to kill PC's for a few years at the LEAST before they even begin to catch up.

But I don't want to start any Mac vs. PC wars. Then again, how can I when the facts are already on the table, undesputable. :p

~006
 
I'm sure no more wars will be started (hopfully). I'm a devoted PC user and have used a MAC on more than a few occasions. A Mac has never really tempted me so I stick with my PC. It does what I want it to do efficently and quick. Just built my mom a Dual Core PC (don't ask me why she needed a Dual Core, but she wanted one) and it runs fine and dandy. I guess if I ever start doing full time recording of bands, I'll just upgrade my PC. Those facts are interesting though. :headbang:
 
Well the initial benchmarks were run with Windows, so these speed benefits will affect users of both platforms (potentially.) I'm not trying to start a nuclear war at the gay bar or something.

So far it seems Apple has been more keen on adopting the newer Intel chips than the PC makers though.
 
I got first dibs on using "Nuclear war at the gay bar" as a song title. That sentence alone is the inspiration Ive been needing to do some grindcore. Thanks Kazrog :headbang:
 
Not the Electric Six. They are the bane of my exsistance. Guess I'll use "Bukkake Birthday" instead. :Smug:
 
i would just do a grindcore cover of that stupid song. . . but then again if you use it as a grindcore song title.. who the fuck is gonna care? besides, its easy to come up with random song titles, just namedrop an 80's celeb and mix it with three other random words. . .
 
Hang on - they take an AMD chip which is about 6 months old and based on year old technology and a 90 micron wafer, and using a socket that AMD aren't developing any further, and compare it to their new generation processor which is 65nm and barely out of the labs - AND they run the AMD with DDR and their chip with DDR2. Am I the only one that can see the problem there? It's like comparing a Gibson to a Stagg and being impressed that the Gibson is better.

Even with the blatant difference in specs, the Intel didn't perform as well on pure processing terms. That whole article stinks actually. It says it's unlikely AMD will make up that gap in performance with their new chips - well why not? Intel have just made a great leap in their processors, but AMD can't do the same - despite the fact they've done it several times before? Hmm.

To be honest I don't really care - if I was interested in pure processing power I'd build myself a little farm with mid-range CPUs and couple of gig's of RAM per node and smoke everything on the market. But then my PC runs everything fine as it is, so what's the point? I'm secure enough about the size of my dick that I don't need to run Doom 7 at 300 frames per second - in fact I'm even secure enough that I could even buy a Mac and feel like a man... well, maybe that's pushing it a bit... :p

Steve
 
First off, they comparing to old technology. This processor isn't due out until at least July and AMD has a new processor coming out as well. The AM2.

Secondly, look at the bios settings for the AMD they compared it to. Notice anything odd? AMD Processor Unknown? Any current computer should be able to recognise a current AMD chip right?

And not only that, from what I've read the Motherboard they used for the AMD, the bios is dated 10/11/2005 Revision 1. According to their website an FX-60 processor won't operate correctly without a bios update.

Was Cool and Quiet disabled on the AMD? Doubt it.

Sounds like a fair test to me...

And if you look at old hardware reviews like stuff at Tom's Hardware (which is independent), they've tested older AMD models with older graphics cards and gotten higher scores than what Intel showed that AMD getting. Even single core AMD's getting slightly higher than that with the same exact settings.

So something just sounds fishy to me...

The new Intel chips look to be the first chips that might present a worthy challenge to AMD though. Intel is finally catching up.
I expect this year to be the beginning of the speed race, "I'm faster!", "Not anymore, we're faster", "Not Anymore", etc.
 
SPLASTiK said:
First off, they comparing to old technology. This processor isn't due out until at least July and AMD has a new processor coming out as well. The AM2.
Click to expand...

Moa, only thing new on the AM2 is DDR2 support, and so far the initial tests are dissapointing (DDR400 is equal/faster than DDR2@667). The Conroe in the Anand test ran at 2.66 Ghz and outran an AMD @ 2.8 Ghz, an overclocked 2.6Ghz FXsomething. Intel will also make an 3.0 Ghz Xtreme Edition. So AMD has a bit of a problem right now.

Secondly, look at the bios settings for the AMD they compared it to. Notice anything odd? AMD Processor Unknown? Any current computer should be able to recognise a current AMD chip right?-snip-
Click to expand...

There's still a big problem with the AMDchips: The nForce4 chipsets suck for audio. Compared to the nForce3 they have a serious problem with low-latency PCIthroughput, making it impossible to play a softsynth without delay. The 975 intelchipset doesn't have this shortcoming.

And those who believe Apple will prove superior over Windows in this story: I acknowledge every man's right to their own religion, but since these new Conroes clock like hell and the Apple computers won't have a BIOS, I guess I'll stick to the platform that allows me to put a different heatsink on my CPU and tweak it 40-50% upwards. Loads of SSL comps/EQ's... ;)

Anyway, since both companies will use exactly the same hardware now it's only down to the OS. We'll see what people prefer, OSX or Vista.

BTW, did you guys see what the next directx 10 engine can do? :Smokin:
 
Mulder said:
Moa, only thing new on the AM2 is DDR2 support, and so far the initial tests are dissapointing (DDR400 is equal/faster than DDR2@667).
Click to expand...
Yeah, AMD is in the hot seat to improve right now, but I imagine they have something planned.

Rumour has it the AM2 is going to support DDR2 clocked up to 1066 which might prove interesting, not sure if the Conroe is going past 800...
 
SPLASTiK said:
Yeah, AMD is in the hot seat to improve right now, but I imagine they have something planned.

Rumour has it the AM2 is going to support DDR2 clocked up to 1066 which might prove interesting, not sure if the Conroe is going past 800...
Click to expand...

Yep, extreme edition will be 1066.. But Conroes will suffer less from lower memorylatencies than AM2's I've read. Anyway, as long as there's no decent AM2 chipset for us audioguys Conroe is the best mainstreamchoice, or you should go workstation with an Opteron and the nForce 2200/2050.
 
Mulder said:
Yep, extreme edition will be 1066.. But Conroes will suffer less from lower memorylatencies than AM2's I've read. Anyway, as long as there's no decent AM2 chipset for us audioguys Conroe is the best mainstreamchoice, or you should go workstation with an Opteron and the nForce 2200/2050.
Click to expand...

Its all friggin cock stroking .....

Im the proud user of a PIII 700 with 512 of SDRAM ... i dont need to be running a giant nuclear reactor to be able to record some tunes in my bedroom .....

All this is boring to 90% of us in the forum ... lol

Who cares if AMD smokes intel or if Intel smoked moneky pole ....

All you ever do is look at porn anyway .. and i can do that on my Pentium 233 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BLUElightCory
The new Mac Pro is NUTS.
Replies
87
Views
7K
Backline
arvoitus
A
MaxPrdctns
The Year in Review: 2008 (pretty long)
Replies
8
Views
563
Chicago Powerfest
wildfyr
W
X
All my reviews for 2011 in one place
Replies
4
Views
2K
Your Reviews
Xfn
X
MEGALOUD
ROCKLAHOMA in the words of DAVID PRATER -Producer /Dream Theater / Firehouse ...
Replies
1
Views
6K
Nightmare Records
MEGALOUD
M
Timmy the Viking
VIKING GAME HNEFATAFL
Replies
3
Views
2K
Amon Amarth
Ghaldez
G
Top Bottom
Back