Maximum PC

As much as I like these apples

You completely missed my point.

You will buy a more powerful processor which costs money.
Then you will load it with Vista, which (albeit, its still beta) is more of a resource hog then XP. Thereby negating the gain in Conroe.

The rush to Conroe (or whatever the latest and greatest chip is at the time) allows MS to create more bloatware.

If consumers were more demanding of their OS (as they currently are of their hardware), MS would respond with a more efficient OS.

Lets use the car analogy again:
A)
You have someone that currently has a 1996 911 Twin Turbo using regular gas. It can go 0-60 in 4.5secs. Now if the owner switches to a gas derivative that is CHEAPER and now his car will go 0-60 in 3 secs.

B) You have someone that currently has a 1996 911 Twin Turbo using regular gas. To go faster, he instead buys a new 2007 911 Twin Turbo and starts using sub-standard gas (Vista) and now his car goes 0-60 in 4.0 secs

Which one makes sense to you?

Thats what I was getting at: The average consumer only demands better performance out of their hardware, not their software.

You should realize there is a difference between whining and commenting on something.

And yes I am quite content with my OS. I only use Windoze for the odd video game when i have free time.

Not at all. I can smell your point from here.



Seeing as how neither analogy fits the actual software/hardware relationship, I can't answer your question.

This aside, you make a LOT of assumptions about both OS variants (Linux v Windows). This alone discredits your entire arguement because you can't honestly back them up with facts.

Face it-- you use Linux because it works for you. Fine.

I use Windows because it works for me. Hell, I have to use Linux (COMMAND LINE, bitches!!) at work because I need to... but, I prefer Windows.

What are the 'a lot of assumptions' about OS's I am making?
I did make an assumption about Vista, but if you noticed I included the caveat that we were testing the beta version.

I run a research lab that specializes in finite element modeling. We benchmark quite a bit of off the shelf modeling software, in addition we benchmark various FORTRAN/C/C++ compilers and the resulting code.

All of it is benched on a 4x4x2 matrix of opteron//xeon/32bit/64bit/Windows/2.6 Kernel.

This is done to increase our ROI for server & workstation purchases.

I can PM you the link to our results if you want. On average there is a 20% differential between Windows and Linux. This is common knowledge in the High Performance Computing (HPC) field. So I don’t understand why you think I am making this up.

Please don’t take it so personal. It’s a discussion about OS’s and hardware after all.

Im not putting anyone down for using Windows. What I am putting down is the fact that the average consumer is demanding of their hardware, but not demanding of their software. We can argue that point all day long, but I feel it’s a valid assumption.

When Intel integrated a broadcasted serial # on their Pent III, the consumer was outraged and Intel quickly disabled it and phased it out. When MS implemented online activation and monitoring of your system, yes there was outrage, but the consumer readily accepted it. If you want to transfer your OS to another computer, once again, you must either use online activation or phone call.
Can you imagine the uproar if this were the case for hard drives/CPUS/video cards etc? That they would stop working if you transferred them to another system and to ‘activate’ the hardware you had to call a 1-800?
Consumers wouldn’t tolerate that.

I loved this.



Folks still wondering why AMD is adding L3? Conroe already shares L2:)

so you only respond favorably to people supporting Intel... and refering to a forum site that raves and praises Intel left and right but does nothing but complain about AMDs... I looked through a large number of threads there and every chance possible there were comments about how Intel is gonna or does own AMD and similar comments. They seem to release the information to everyone there yet fail to provide proper comparison or give AMD due respect.
That site is one big Intel fanboy forum... oh wait thats why you like it so much and are always refering to it, false or limited information for the purpose of pushing the Intel agenda.. damn politicians

and while I am here, how about some more AMD news about some Conroe and Kentsfield Killers:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2971
"in 2007, quadcore Opterons should be available for Socket F"
"Intel says that the power consumption of these new processors is to be extremely low — average use energy consumption is to be in the 1-2 watt range in ultra low voltage variants, with Thermal Design Points (TDPs) of 65 watts for Conroe and most Woodcrests, 80 watts for the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest, and 40 watts for the low-voltage Woodcrest. However, this is subject to change. In comparison, an AMD Opteron 875HE processor consumes 55 watts."

Once the chips are available, we will see what REAL performance we can get from them from REAL sources such as MaxPC, not some off the wall fanboy forums.

Funny how sites without a green tint on the chin are AMD Fansites LOL! I support my, YES MY damned wallet, NOT AMD's or Intel's, that's for Fans to do. Intel does good I point it out, if they suck, I point that out as well. Sorry I don't agree with your thinking AMD's poo don't stick LOL! Intel and AMD have been the Good the Bad and the Suxers!

We had a Forum Called the Intel Collective. Superguy25 and I started the forum and even tried to get some AMD folks to join. The funny thing is, both of us use AMD based systems as our main Rigs, how about that?

Let's see, what has Donnie27 bitched about when it comes to Intel;

Frackin' Core 2 Duo E that's not an Extreme model being sold as one. C2D-E was supposed to carry the E8xxx model numbers and come stock with a 1333MHz FSB. E6800 and E6900 are NOT frackin' XE's LOL! I bitched about this to the point to Two Intel employees I use to converse with doesn't speak to me anymore. Sorry, I'm use to speaking up or OUT when something stinks, that's goes for Intel and or AMD=P

Same negative one against Intel killing off the i985 that was the Hardcore Enthusiast board with up to 48 PCI-E lanes.

I don't like how they didn't support Pentium-M with Desktop boards, that's why I bought a 3500+. Add to that, lack of Desktop support for Dothan and Yonah.

Honestly, I wished they and AMD kill the collective FX/EE/XE BS as a whole.

Then they sucked for holding back i815/E, pulled BS with i850, kill of Tualatin too soon, Not shrink Northwood to 90nm before moving to PresHott! I know about Germans testing aprocessors that I thought was a Prescott that was left on Intel's cuttingroom floor. This would be a long assed post if I posted everything I disagree with Intel on.

A very Few of the Guys (and a Girl) on this forum have known me for years and saw me get in to it with folks I liked because I disagreed with them.

That's just for starters, this would be along assed post. If I could said everything Intel has done to pissed me off.

If I could say something to AMD, I'd tell them and you that, you have to F*&$#!@ give respect to get it. AMD acts like Di@#s every chance they get and Disrespects Intel every chance they're given, why in the hell should Intel give them any respect at all? Please link me to something AMD said that was nice or even the least little bit respectful to Intel, PLEASE?

The very year AMD Demoed the Hammer, Intel was had nice things to say about them at Winter IDF while they continued to talk shit about Intel. I'm I missing something here? Why in the hell should Intel be nice* to AMD when Henry Richard is as FOS as they come, please explain that to me.

AMD will have to out clock Intel and do it by about 400 to 700MHz depending on the app. That renders all of they lower chips 2nd rate and back to bargain basement to sell.

Oh and they have to talk power because they're been getting their assets kick performance wise.

Conroe 2 vs anything AMD has on the shelf right now is a no win. Its as bad as comparing ATI's last generation videocard to NVIDIA right around the corner flagship videocard. Intel decided to start playing AMD's ballgame by releasing processors that are more efficient instead of OMG MHZ 4TEH WIN.

and always remember never to compare AMD to Intel simply by MHz and ask yourself why the new Intel chip is so much faster(a perfect example of this mistake is the name of this thread). Conroe 2 can beat an equally clocked AMD cpu because its IPC(instructions per clock) is higher, not because OMGWTFBBQ AMD SUXORS INTEL4LIF3. If im not mistaken conroe two runs a 4 IPC core and the athlon 64's run 3 IPC cores. all amd has to do is make way faster clocked cpu's(doubtful) or higher IPC cpu's or a little of both to beat Intel.

That's not right first of all. This thread was about a E6600 vs. Opty 165 both overclocked to 3GHz=P These were tested processors, not unlaunched or soon to be yada yada! I didn't say OMG any-frackin'-thing and wish you guys would stop using it as well.

Looks like Intel is going to have something that will pimp slap AMD this round and more than like AMD come up with something that will spank Intel's assets. Even if you're the biggest AMD Fantool in the world, you should be glad Intel has something worthwhile, you can now afford the use to be expensive faster AMD processors. That is unless you love AMD so much that you want to not only give them extra money but also want others to overpay as well.

The thread is about 3GHz vs 3GHz more than Intel vs. AMD. When I wanted a rig for mainly Gaming I went with a 3500+ and now I want to replace two older computers with one. Some kind of delay, motherboards becoming too expensive, then my Conroe upgrade becomes a missed chance. I'll go whatever is similarly priced from AMD LOL! You guys can stick that Fan Crap where the sun doesn't shine

learn to compare by something other then MHz

I did, LOL! The same result is arrived at, AMD gets spanked:) Opty 165 costs more than the Pre-Orders for Core 2 Duo E6600.

Opteron 165 (being the bottom of the Opteron barrel) compared to a new technology high end proc.....
lets compare it to something like a 5000+ or similar not-yet-released technology instead of 2 generations ago technology and call it "Intel kicking AMDs ass"

[quote="screwballl"]Opteron 165 (being the bottom of the Opteron barrel) compared to a new technology high end proc.....
lets compare it to something like a 5000+ or similar not-yet-released technology instead of 2 generations ago technology and call it "Intel kicking AMDs ass"[/quote]

Then you need to stop bitching about Generations. It's what they guys had on hand. What are you missing here? The 5000+ would have gotten its ass stompped as well. I never said it was released but it damned sure was in these guys hands and tested. It wouldn't matter if it were a FX-60 and in many cases an FX-62 AM2, it still gets spanked by the Pre-Order $339 6600 and get crushed by the $569 E6700.

Now you are the one who sound like a Fan, an AMD Hardcore fan desparately reaching for something to make an excuse with.


Not an Intel controlled test! And there are about Six more like it.

[bad url edited out by Six]

As I have stated before, I am far from a fanboy but AMD gives you the best bang for the buck currently and will continue to. Intel has its niche market that is shrinking day by day and for a reason. These Conroes and Core2 procs are all hype. It will take less than 3 months for AMD to release something that will shut up you Intel fanboys (if its not released before Intel). This is the way the market goes. There is no public production cpus available so stop praising it as if it were. Once we see a finished product on the market for real world testing will we see what it can really do. I can care less about some pre-production numbers that can and will change before it is released.
Thats like saying based on Vista's beta, it will stomp XP in performance or whatever else. Stop sounding off with the fanboy tones please.

and next time try to post a proper link:
404 Not Found
The requested URL /articles2...e-2-13-ghz.html was not found on this server.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/Intel-conroe-2-13-ghz.html



Not having the cash to upgrade or just all out love for AMD is the only reason to not buy Conroe over anything made by AMD IMHO. Conroe is Cheaper, Faster, uses less power, gives off less heat and etc.............. AMD doesn't have any frackin' bang-for-the-buck crown and hasn't since the expensive assed X2's launched. Sorry but your AthlonXP sucks ass IMHO! My 3500+ is great for Games but gets its ass handed to it with many multi-media apps by even my old 2.6C with a slower HDD and half as much RAM.

No you please take your Fanboy crap and stick it where the sun don't shine;) So Fantool last but not least this.



So please EMail him and call him Fanboi for showing your beloved AMD getting its ass stompped? Yup, he must have rigged the tests uh?

So? they are still comparing apples to oranges... comparing what is available now on the AMD side which is still 90nm versus a pre-production Intel version that is 65nm.. by thte time it is released officially, AMD should have their 65nm out and able to release true unbiased comparisons. In many of those tests though it still shows none to very little benefit using the E6700 over current AMD technology and the E6400 gets stomped by current technology in most cases. you still have to provide a valid point outside of fanboy comments. Yes it will be faster in certain apps but these tests also prove that there is little to no benefit spending twice the money for no extra benefit, as has been the case with Intel for at least 2 years now.
2.6C stomping on a XP3500+??? that is the very defnition of fanboy comments, there is not a damn thing the 2.6 would be able to compete with the 3500+, MaxPC has already ran these tests over and over again.
A simple newegg search shows X2s at $300-700, and Intel dual cores at $115-1048
Intel 965 EE Presler at $1,048 (as shown in your own test link) getting stomped by the FX-60 for $814... 3 of the 30 something tests does the 965 even equal the FX-60.. so which is the better deal and more worth the money? The one that is cheaper AND better...

You said either cash or fanboy is the reaosn for not upgrading... no most of us are waiting to see what Intel killers WILL be out when the Conroe is released or shortly after. AMd has ruled the roost for long enough now that they have something up their sleeve but due to their secrecy, they are giving you Intel fanboys a chance to bark up a tree that will just end up falling on you.
If it does end up better than AMD can do for a year or so, good for them, the fact still remains, in order for people to step up to the E7100, they will have to spend alot more money as a mobo replacement will be in order due to Intels crappy "need a new chipset/mobo with every minor cpu upgrade". Want to upgrade that FX62? Just swap out cpus, no mobo replacement needed. Sorry but most people see in reality it is not worth spending that extra $500 (new Intel cpu+mobo) just to get 6 more fps on Doom4

Thread fixed, and then closed, courtesy of your friendly Admin.