BF2S Forums A sure fire way to increase frame rate in BF2!!!

Yeah those are great test numbers.  You can own that pwnage for the price of a small country once it does finally make it to market.  Of course, like most of Intel's state of the art bleeding edge processors, you'll have an easier time finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow than finding one of these on a store shelf.  And then once you get your grubby little mitts on one and install it the socket will be obsolete in six months.

No thanks...I'll stick with AMD.  Power, value, portability, and consistency.

Last edited by sgt_mango333 (2006-03-08 05:16:25)

The thing that really impressed me was the fact that it outran AMD's dual-core solution.  While I'm not going to defend AMD outright, I do want to point out that it was mentioned we're "over six months away from the actual launch of Conroe".  Six months is a long time given that they have an actual chip there performing at that speed.  It's impressive to say the least but the timeframe gap between now and launch is fairly lengthy.

We're all waiting for the next best thing... at least in terms of overall performance.  AMD's M2 socket is about 3 months away or so... with Conroe being about 6.  We're practically waiting 'till Fall just to get a taste of its performance.

To comment on Conroe, I am partially happy for Intel for once since they finally have something that is worth looking into.  The AMD platform is great for what it can do and the on-die memory controller does make it perform fast as it should.  But no advantage comes without its drawbacks.  The fact that it's an on-die memory controller only means we're limited to the memory that they designed it to conform.  As to be expected, we get both a new socket and a new processor entirely just so we can use DDR2.  If Intel is able to keep the performance this high and stay ahead of AMD in all general aspects that they have won on, I know where my future upgrades will be.  Yet I cannot help but wonder about the fact that nVIDIA's nForce series won't come cheap on the Intel side.  I guess I'll have to wait and see how the market goes.  It's too bad, however.  I'll be staying with this ol' X2 3800+ for a while since I probably won't be able to afford jumping to Conroe come launch time (CPU + Motherboard + RAM).

i knew intel would come back. lets hope we get even better results when its release, but it will be expensive compared to a amd cpu.

dont forget that new way to make cpus with 45 nm  .

The real difficulty is gettin an unbiased test.    Hardware places like tomshardware and anandtech are completely biased in everything they test, you can read it in the way they write the reviews. 

If the test was hosted by intel, do you expect them to be slower? 

Intel will always be on top.  All AMD can do is cry "were better for games!" and continue to follow in intels footsteps. 

Seriously now...  slot 1? slot a? land grid array?    MMX, 3dnow?  AMD has always waited for intel to make a leap then duplicate with their own piss poor version of it.

Intel's always been on top.  I recall AMD attempted to gain a lead somewhere around the 400-1000mhz area, but couldnt keep the cpu's running long enough to sell.

Booo!

What a productive first post I made.

99Ram2500 wrote:

The real difficulty is gettin an unbiased test.    Hardware places like tomshardware and anandtech are completely biased in everything they test, you can read it in the way they write the reviews.

Then who do you trust for review?  I haven't seen any other places that is as thorough and complete as AnandTech.  I have long left Tom's Hardware behind after being fed up with the one-sided Intel-only things I've seen from there as well as the horrible navigation their site had/have.  If you got a site that you swear by as being unbiased, I'm all ears.  Otherwise, I doubt you can get the kind of thorough reviews from anywhere else.

99Ram2500 wrote:

If the test was hosted by intel, do you expect them to be slower?

Rhetorical.  Try asking yourself when was the last time Intel has a product that truly outperformed AMD on every given scenerio and consider the margin of victory.

99Ram2500 wrote:

Intel will always be on top.  All AMD can do is cry "were better for games!" and continue to follow in intels footsteps. 

Seriously now...  slot 1? slot a? land grid array?    MMX, 3dnow?  AMD has always waited for intel to make a leap then duplicate with their own piss poor version of it.

AMD's X2 series has yet to fall to Intel's Pentium-D.  Intel's Pentium EE 955 only did okay at best and outperformed AMD on a few tasks.  And how much does that sucker cost?

Try viewing the architectural difference between Intel's dual-core and AMD's dual-core.  Also view AMD's multi-processor design and Intel's multi-processor design.

Also look at what happened in the early days when 3dfx and nvidia were the only major 3D chipset companies around.  Back then, nobody would want to dispute against the Voodoo1 and Voodoo2 hardware.  Yet look at nVIDIA now.

Just because AMD tries their best to gain a good footing in the desktop market doesn't make them seemingly inferior as a whole.  Intel is considered a leader.  If Intel has something that is becoming widespread and possibly adopted, AMD has no choice but to follow through.  If AMD doesn't follow through and not include the feature into their next series of processor, they'll get left behind, lose sales, and resultingly die because of it.  Strategically, you have to follow through in order to stay competitive and to attract potential customers, all the while trying to find ways to improve upon the current product and to gain a better foothold in the processor market.  But sometimes it's best not to follow suit.  HyperThreading for instance has never been copied and implemented in AMD's series of processor.  Instead, AMD skipped well past that and decided multi-core is a better solution to gain additional performance.

99Ram2500 wrote:

Intel's always been on top.  I recall AMD attempted to gain a lead somewhere around the 400-1000mhz area, but couldnt keep the cpu's running long enough to sell.

Booo!

What a productive first post I made.

I seem to remember Intel releasing a processor that they had to recall... gee... I wonder why.  If you wish to be productive in posting, try stating your side of the argument without dragging fanboyism into the thread.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's unfair to bench 65nm vs 90nm processors. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the Conroe is single core while (I know this for a fact) the FX60 is dual core, which current apps, for the most part, do not take proper advantage of. Still, I'm suprised the Conroe didn't score a bit higher than the FX60 than this chart indicates. We'll see how Intel holds up against the 90nm AM2 (and the 65nm, once AMD gets to it).

It's rather difficult to set a standard bar for an even comparison.  The only thing we have going into this is how they benchmark and set the bar there.  And Conroe is definitely dual-core (ref: AnandTech article, page 1) just to let ya know.

The interest I have in this is how they compare to AMD's current offering.  Of course, we haven't seen how AMD's next set of processor will perform when their AM2-socketed processors are released.  But we need a standard bar to compare from.  We've seen for a while that AMD's S939 and S754 perform exceptionally well for games when compared with Intel's processors.  Past reviews and documented benchmarks proved that.  That's why we find Intel's Conroe to be so interesting, because it is impressive that Conroe would perform so well even at this stage.  Is the 65nm process a factor in its performance?  We cannot say nor can we ever find the answer to that.  But we'd like to believe that Conroe shows terrific promise despite that it's 6 months away.

sixshot wrote:

99Ram2500 wrote:

The real difficulty is gettin an unbiased test.    Hardware places like tomshardware and anandtech are completely biased in everything they test, you can read it in the way they write the reviews.

Then who do you trust for review?  I haven't seen any other places that is as thorough and complete as AnandTech.  I have long left Tom's Hardware behind after being fed up with the one-sided Intel-only things I've seen from there as well as the horrible navigation their site had/have.  If you got a site that you swear by as being unbiased, I'm all ears.  Otherwise, I doubt you can get the kind of thorough reviews from anywhere else.

99Ram2500 wrote:

If the test was hosted by intel, do you expect them to be slower?

Rhetorical.  Try asking yourself when was the last time Intel has a product that truly outperformed AMD on every given scenerio and consider the margin of victory.

99Ram2500 wrote:

Intel will always be on top.  All AMD can do is cry "were better for games!" and continue to follow in intels footsteps. 

Seriously now...  slot 1? slot a? land grid array?    MMX, 3dnow?  AMD has always waited for intel to make a leap then duplicate with their own piss poor version of it.

AMD's X2 series has yet to fall to Intel's Pentium-D.  Intel's Pentium EE 955 only did okay at best and outperformed AMD on a few tasks.  And how much does that sucker cost?

Try viewing the architectural difference between Intel's dual-core and AMD's dual-core.  Also view AMD's multi-processor design and Intel's multi-processor design.

Also look at what happened in the early days when 3dfx and nvidia were the only major 3D chipset companies around.  Back then, nobody would want to dispute against the Voodoo1 and Voodoo2 hardware.  Yet look at nVIDIA now.

Just because AMD tries their best to gain a good footing in the desktop market doesn't make them seemingly inferior as a whole.  Intel is considered a leader.  If Intel has something that is becoming widespread and possibly adopted, AMD has no choice but to follow through.  If AMD doesn't follow through and not include the feature into their next series of processor, they'll get left behind, lose sales, and resultingly die because of it.  Strategically, you have to follow through in order to stay competitive and to attract potential customers, all the while trying to find ways to improve upon the current product and to gain a better foothold in the processor market.  But sometimes it's best not to follow suit.  HyperThreading for instance has never been copied and implemented in AMD's series of processor.  Instead, AMD skipped well past that and decided multi-core is a better solution to gain additional performance.

99Ram2500 wrote:

Intel's always been on top.  I recall AMD attempted to gain a lead somewhere around the 400-1000mhz area, but couldnt keep the cpu's running long enough to sell.

Booo!

What a productive first post I made.

I seem to remember Intel releasing a processor that they had to recall... gee... I wonder why.  If you wish to be productive in posting, try stating your side of the argument without dragging fanboyism into the thread.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's unfair to bench 65nm vs 90nm processors. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the Conroe is single core while (I know this for a fact) the FX60 is dual core, which current apps, for the most part, do not take proper advantage of. Still, I'm suprised the Conroe didn't score a bit higher than the FX60 than this chart indicates. We'll see how Intel holds up against the 90nm AM2 (and the 65nm, once AMD gets to it).

It's rather difficult to set a standard bar for an even comparison.  The only thing we have going into this is how they benchmark and set the bar there.  And Conroe is definitely dual-core (ref: AnandTech article, page 1) just to let ya know.

The interest I have in this is how they compare to AMD's current offering.  Of course, we haven't seen how AMD's next set of processor will perform when their AM2-socketed processors are released.  But we need a standard bar to compare from.  We've seen for a while that AMD's S939 and S754 perform exceptionally well for games when compared with Intel's processors.  Past reviews and documented benchmarks proved that.  That's why we find Intel's Conroe to be so interesting, because it is impressive that Conroe would perform so well even at this stage.  Is the 65nm process a factor in its performance?  We cannot say nor can we ever find the answer to that.  But we'd like to believe that Conroe shows terrific promise despite that it's 6 months away.

LOL NUH UH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your comparing the new Intel, which is due out late Q3 early Q4, with what AMD has out now. That makes little to no sense what so ever. As of now AMD is still king, until Intel has more then just a piece of paper that says they are faster, and their CPU is on shelves, but when that happens you'll have new AMD's to go up against.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

btw nice find and wrong section, conroe looks likes its gonna pwn amd big time... and taiwan always gets the best pc stuff first

The current stuff yes but wait till AM2 can we say pwned ?

well this is only interesting because ive never seen a intel chip new or old beat  a top end amd chip, so yea. 
Also sixshot is like a tech god

pokerplaya wrote:

intel pwns,for a while at least:D

I assure you, AMD will release something better, they ALWAYS DO!

The intel Conroe will probably run very hot though... buy liquid cooling today