Author Topic: AMD FX60 trounced by Intel Conroe (Read 21932 times)

ZWarrior · « **Reply #50 on:** June 19, 2006, 10:10:32 AM »

I appreciate the updates, even if they are slanted towards Intel.

I will be planning an upgrade and will keep an eye on speeds and prices for CPU selection, since that will also drive the rest of my equipment choices.

Boomslang · « **Reply #51 on:** June 19, 2006, 04:23:46 PM »

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=cpu&id=451&pagenumber=9

Here is a review on AMD2. Not much to keep track of.

Boomslang · « **Reply #52 on:** June 25, 2006, 04:37:49 PM »

Could this be AMD's answer to Conroe?

AMD to Boost Single-Threading Performance on Multi-Core Chips, Say Sources.
AMD to Launch “Anti-Hyper-Threading” Shortly

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060622143710.html

Boomslang · « **Reply #53 on:** July 02, 2006, 07:42:11 AM »

Getting Ready to Meet Intel Core 2 Duo: Core Microarchitecture Unleashed
[ 06/29/06 | CPU]

Internet is full of Conroe processors previews, and today we decided to contribute to the overall excitement. Our article contains all the info on Core microarchitecture that will give you to understand why AMD is going to have really hard times.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-preview.html

Boomslang · « **Reply #54 on:** July 04, 2006, 03:32:56 PM »

http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-16/intel-core-2-duo-test.html

E6400 at $241 has a level of performances comparable to an Athlon 64 FX-62 at $1031,

Could this be the end foe AMD?

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Boomslang]

ZWarrior · « **Reply #55 on:** July 05, 2006, 04:17:38 PM »

I would bet that it's not the end, but it is a sign that things will be heating up soon.

Boomslang · « **Reply #56 on:** July 14, 2006, 08:41:00 AM »

Game Over? Core 2 Duo Knocks Out Athlon 64
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/

AND A MUST READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

The 2.4GHz E6600, which outperformed the FX-62 in most benchmarks at stock speed costs $316, and overclocked to 4Ghz with excellent air cooling. With that kind of performance, value, and overclocking the E6600 will likely become the preferred chip for serious overclockers - particularly those that are looking for champagne performance on a smaller budget.

DUDE! thats a $1200 AMD cpu. Oh what do you mean they just cut the price by $800 and it's not even out yet.

ZWarrior · « **Reply #57 on:** July 14, 2006, 03:53:09 PM »

Could somebody get Boom a Percoset, I think he's about to blow agasket with excitement. If this keeps up, I just may have to put Intel in my next system.

Yee Gods! What have I said?!? Not that, not stooping so low as to purchase the product manufacturered by the company that is backing the privacy intrusion standard that requires you to use licensed software on their hardware instead of GNU licensed.

yes, I am a sucker for a good price break, I am ashamed to admit it. Please, don't make me use the low budget mouse for this.

opiesilver · « **Reply #58 on:** July 14, 2006, 05:29:48 PM »

Like I've always said, I don't care what processor and mobo I have as long as I can play my games for as little money as possible.

opiesilver · « **Reply #59 on:** July 14, 2006, 11:31:59 PM »

Hey Boom,

Check this out.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/14/amd_really_will_drop_athlon64_prices/

Boomslang · « **Reply #60 on:** July 22, 2006, 12:10:09 AM »

Yes I've seen this. I think they will have to go lower. And will Intel counter?

Look at this Conroe 3.2

http://www.k-hardware.de/artikel.php?s=&artikel_id=5495

[Edited on 7-22-2006 by opiesilver]

opiesilver · « **Reply #61 on:** July 22, 2006, 12:26:53 PM »

Auf Duesh?

Boomslang · « **Reply #62 on:** July 22, 2006, 06:24:08 PM »

Look at the charts. ZW can read it to ya.

opiesilver · « **Reply #63 on:** July 22, 2006, 10:49:05 PM »

And I can read it back correctly to him.

Boomslang · « **Reply #64 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:10:29 AM »

If you can't beatem give them away

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html

[Edited on 7-24-2006 by opiesilver]

opiesilver · « **Reply #65 on:** July 27, 2006, 02:00:50 PM »

Attention all.

Exactly 30 minutes ago the car carrying AMD processors swerved off the road, hit a tree and burst into flames. Read more.....

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/27/official_intel_releases_core2duos/

ZWarrior · « **Reply #66 on:** July 27, 2006, 02:55:11 PM »

I wouldn't count them out yet. This game is old hat to these two. AMD started playing this 15 years ago. I am sure they have moves up their sleeve still. Although, the pricing still looks attractive for a move to Intel.

Boomslang · « **Reply #67 on:** July 27, 2006, 06:23:08 PM »

AMD does 64-bit better than Conroe

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit.html

Boomslang · « **Reply #68 on:** July 28, 2006, 09:28:00 AM »

Final Words
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=12

Boomslang · « **Reply #69 on:** August 02, 2006, 03:41:15 PM »

3.05GHz AMD faces off 3.68GHz Core Extreme

Hardware Roundup A testing time

By Désiré Athow: Wednesday 02 August 2006, 16:43

TOM'S HARDWARE pits the best from AMD and the best from Intel and overclocks both of them until the blood pours out. The Core2 Extreme goes up to 3.68GHz and the Athlon FX 64 up to 3.05GHz. That's bloody high. AMD's performance increased by just over 7% while the Core went all the way up by nearly 17%. What does that mean to Mr and Mrs Smithes? Well what about the Core2 Extreme compressing an entire 150 minute movie on DVD just under six minutes and a 120 minute movie into DiVX in 93 minutes, one hour faster than AMD's.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33437

Boomslang · « **Reply #70 on:** August 16, 2006, 06:01:50 PM »

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/page17.html

Conroe 6800 28.9% faster than fx2. Is it worth the 350 more for the conreo or do you get the 6600 = to the FX2 for $400 less then the FX2?

[Edited on 8-16-2006 by JollyRoger]

JollyRoger · « **Reply #71 on:** August 16, 2006, 06:08:33 PM »

Now if they can actually benchmark these thing with true dual core benchmarks, and not single core benchmarks we can then come out with the real gravy...

ZWarrior · « **Reply #72 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:08:15 PM »

I have been wondering why the stats are THAT wide apart. Maybe that's it? I find it hard to believe that AMD is so far behind performance wise.

Boomslang · « **Reply #73 on:** August 17, 2006, 06:43:27 PM »

Why would the conroe be any slower than the FX2 in dule mode? There will be a diference when the quad cores come out AMD will regain the crown. But how many things use 4 cps let alone 2.

JollyRoger · « **Reply #74 on:** August 17, 2006, 08:01:58 PM »

Why would ther be a difference? thats a good question, and that what I want to find out...
Hell we're over killing as it is but i want to see what a core duo can really do.

Its archuteture is rather intresting being that it can control the amount of l2 cach that is being used by each proc. and that it will turn off a proc. that is idle. let see what happens when it runs true duel core.

lets see if it will really out preform the FX60.

thats the goal.

News:

Recent Posts

Fiction

Permissions

Author Topic: AMD FX60 trounced by Intel Conroe (Read 21932 times)