EPTAMD vs Intel - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
eNoq
Netherlands502 Posts
| ||
|
Spartan
United States2030 Posts
| ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On October 11 2009 00:10 furymonkey wrote: So is the next Intel series "Clarkdale" won't have qaud cores phsyically? That aside, will it outperform the current i7 series? Sorry i'm not very good with hardwares. It's going to be a dual core based on the same architecture as current i7 and i5, but with hyperthreading. It should be roughly as powerful as a 3-core from AMD at similar clocks in multithreaded apps, but should be significantly faster in single threaded apps due to turbo. In other words it's a dual core that potentially encroaches on all the triple cores market with performance and wins outright with power consumption. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On October 10 2009 15:27 zgl wrote: Who says it has to go inside the computer :p Its this DAC http://www.msbtech.com/products/gold4.php We don't call it a card at that point, we call it a DAC -.- On October 10 2009 17:12 Aerox wrote: This is actually in response to the current AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition which can be unlocked into 4 cores. The core speed is 3.2GHz and can be overclocked to 3.6GHz. It is CURRENTLY being sold for about USD100 comparing to Clarkdale's i5 at the same speed costing USD176 which will launch next year... which is still a long while. AMD can win if more consumers are intelligently informed IMO. Therefore, AMD just needs to do more marketing as well as capitalize their limited eehan timing window to capture the consumers' hearts right now until the end of this year. If we want to go into the "can" category, i5s have seen overclocking up to 4ghz afaik. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17756 Posts
Dawn of War II Mirror's Edge Crysis Just to name a few. And DX 11 doesn't mean anything to me as just like I believe majority of Windows users I'm still on XP so DX 9 is as far as I look. | ||
|
Aerox
Malaysia1213 Posts
On October 11 2009 01:46 Ecael wrote: If we want to go into the "can" category, i5s have seen overclocking up to 4ghz afaik. Yup, but with almost double the price, I'd expect at least 50% to 100% increase in performance rather than only about 12% increase. This is why I mentioned that more consumers need to be informed of AMD's advantages and not just write them off simply with Intel's branding. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On October 11 2009 02:32 Aerox wrote: Yup, but with almost double the price, I'd expect at least 50% to 100% increase in performance rather than only about 12% increase. This is why I mentioned that more consumers need to be informed of AMD's advantages and not just write them off simply with Intel's branding. Seldom do we see performance increases of that scale, no? At that, if I recall correctly, not all 550 BE can be unlocked up to 4 cores without seeing functionality issues. In this case we have a good amount of those floating around though, so I suppose it isn't too huge of an issue. However, of those people can be convinced to put up with the trouble of building, there are even fewer that'd want to tinker with such modifications. AMD can't exactly march out and tell mainstream makers to start modding their machine for them, at this point it isn't even that consumers need to be informed, it is that you are using the wrong standard to judge. People will choose a 975 over a 920 just because the latter can do 4ghz easier than the latter, even though the latter is just as capable of it. Why won't they pay a mere 100% more from $100 for a reliable quad core with high performance? | ||
|
Saddened Izzy
United States198 Posts
On October 10 2009 17:12 Aerox wrote: This is actually in response to the current AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition which can be unlocked into 4 cores. The core speed is 3.2GHz and can be overclocked to 3.6GHz. It is CURRENTLY being sold for about USD100 comparing to Clarkdale's i5 at the same speed costing USD176 which will launch next year... which is still a long while. AMD can win if more consumers are intelligently informed IMO. Therefore, AMD just needs to do more marketing as well as capitalize their limited eehan timing window to capture the consumers' hearts right now until the end of this year. You know that's a horrible argument. The x2 550 is a borken ass quad core i forget which one ionno amd has too many cpus on the market it's one cluttered fuck But those 2 other cores are disabled for a reason unlocking them leads to guaranteed instability in your system. And possibly worse things besides mis-calculations from your cpu. Anyways a E6500 from intel (it's not your mamas 6500 it's a new wolfdale 1066 fsb)can oc well into 3.6-3.8ghz and crush the 550 it's also cheaper and if you oc you might as well just get the 6300 for even cheaper AMD gained better cpus at stock in the sub 150 range but intels cpu have a much higher capacity to oc. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
| ||
|
zeroimagination
18 Posts
On October 11 2009 02:32 Aerox wrote: Yup, but with almost double the price, I'd expect at least 50% to 100% increase in performance rather than only about 12% increase. This is why I mentioned that more consumers need to be informed of AMD's advantages and not just write them off simply with Intel's branding. The problem with this is that the i5/i7 architecture is achieving 12% performance at stock clock (though this isn't true in apps that don't use 4 threads due to turbo) while the AMD is running at a significantly faster clock speed. If we are talking about overclocking to 4GHz that performance gap will only widen. Take a look at the performance of the i5 870 or i7 975. Sure, they aren't in the same price range as a Phenom II 955, but you will achieve similar performance gains since they are in essence the same processor as the i5 750 / i7 920. The reason why I would put the most mid-high quads in the professional segment is this: for the average person how much does a quad core increase productivity? The answer is subjective but is it enough to warrant spending 2x more for a quad when a dual core can fit 90% of your needs? Probably not. If, however, you fall under the category of those who use quads regularly to, let's say, render videos the 12% increase (at stock clock remember!) will be significant; and if we take into account overclocking it just blows anything AMD has out of the water. | ||
|
kiykiy
233 Posts
ie. using winRaR because I assume everyone uses it. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/WinRAR-3.9-x64-Beta1,1399.html Changing charts to Photoshop or AVG (more common used programs) would give similar results. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On October 09 2009 13:31 xmShake wrote: There's a couple proposed routes, the one that I can remember the best is quantum computing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing I also believe there's another proposed processor that uses lasers somehow.. I'm fuzzy on this one. Edit: This is probably it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_computer There are tech articles that come up on this subject every couple of months. yea I even remember something about biological computing which would operate off of bacteria and such. pretty crazy stuff. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On October 10 2009 14:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I'm going to have to agree with Bryce and Anna. Intel is quite possibly the Gandhi of modern times. Giving us such wondrous products while being so kind and supportive. Thanks Intel. I love you. wasn't intel just recently fined a shit load of money for trying to do some illegal monopoly shit in europe? | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
FragKrag
United States11565 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On October 11 2009 08:48 FragKrag wrote: yea that was a long ass time ago cm :p jan 2009 | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11565 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
On October 11 2009 08:13 CharlieMurphy wrote: wasn't intel just recently fined a shit load of money for trying to do some illegal monopoly shit in europe? They were fined for abusing their relationships with major PC manufacturers in order to force them not to sell AMD based systems (threatening cutting relations with them if they introduced AMD PCs/laptops), therefor not allowing AMD to capitalize on a (then) crushing performance advantage in their CPU offerings. That aside: Intel have the superior products. Their performance/watt ratio is amazing, their overclocking and undervolting potentials are amazing, and they will further push their lead up to (maybe) the Bulldozer core, which will compete with Sandy/Ivy Bridge (Intel's next steps after westmere, and supposedly as big/bigger a jump as i7 was from core2). At the moment it makes no sense for Intel to introduce a 32nm quad-core - AMD cannot compete with current Intel offerings in that segment. They could probably lower the costs and put AMD out of business, but then they'd risk being treated as a monopoly - so they're just keeping profits high instead. The dual-core clarkdales should outperform the venerable Q8200 in nearly every non-synthetic benchmark, putting the hurt on AMDs lower end quad core, all triple core and all dual core offerings. The integrated graphics is a boon for non-gamers - an entire fully functional system could be pushed into a mini-ITX form-factor, use under 120W at full load for all components, and run fast enough for most needs - under $500. Of course, SC2 would probably suck on such a machine. | ||
|
Saddened Izzy
United States198 Posts
On October 11 2009 07:25 kiykiy wrote: Even if you are just a casual user I think the significant amount of time you save (i7-920 vs nearest amd processor) is enough to justify the difference of $60-$90. Really, for something you would likely use for 4-7 years, its not that much. ie. using winRaR because I assume everyone uses it. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/WinRAR-3.9-x64-Beta1,1399.html Changing charts to Photoshop or AVG (more common used programs) would give similar results. winrar is for pirates and those who don't know anybetter 7zip is the free open source alt ilke peazip that uses lmza compression which beats winrar's best compression just about in all cases excluding wav files and bmp type files. and 7z is compatible with winrar. I'm waiting for nanozip to move out of alpha builds. There are much better compression tools but most of them are only cmd line interface with no shell extensions so they aren't popular.  That's one of the virtues of AMD's design is that it doesn't have a tendency of failure in sub zero temperatures there is no problems. But it doesn't make it a better consumer level oc as most OC is done on air or water. On October 11 2009 09:13 Kazius wrote: They were fined for abusing their relationships with major PC manufacturers in order to force them not to sell AMD based systems (threatening cutting relations with them if they introduced AMD PCs/laptops), therefor not allowing AMD to capitalize on a (then) crushing performance advantage in their CPU offerings. That aside: Intel have the superior products. Their performance/watt ratio is amazing, their overclocking and undervolting potentials are amazing, and they will further push their lead up to (maybe) the Bulldozer core, which will compete with Sandy/Ivy Bridge (Intel's next steps after westmere, and supposedly as big/bigger a jump as i7 was from core2). At the moment it makes no sense for Intel to introduce a 32nm quad-core - AMD cannot compete with current Intel offerings in that segment. They could probably lower the costs and put AMD out of business, but then they'd risk being treated as a monopoly - so they're just keeping profits high instead. The dual-core clarkdales should outperform the venerable Q8200 in nearly every non-synthetic benchmark, putting the hurt on AMDs lower end quad core, all triple core and all dual core offerings. The integrated graphics is a boon for non-gamers - an entire fully functional system could be pushed into a mini-ITX form-factor, use under 120W at full load for all components, and run fast enough for most needs - under $500. Of course, SC2 would probably suck on such a machine. They were fined by the idiot EU the same people harassing Microsoft about unfair for them to put their own browser on their own OS which they developed from the ground up. The same people are forcing Microsoft to bundle win 7 for the EU with other browsers on the install. The same people bitching how it is unfair the way the ballot system is working. The same people who don't see browser market trends and IE dropping off in use. The same people who said it's not good enough to have the ability to remove IE competently from your windows install. The same people who first filed the lawsuit because you couldn't remove IE completely from the computer. Oh yeah and it took them nearly 10 years to do this lawsuit too, that's right it was filled 10 years ago see how good the EU is at judgments considering the EU had a N? edition of XP with no browsers on it at all that didn't sell well. The people running the tribunals for the EU are tech idiots. Also the fine is they are could be hurting the EU citizens buying from those manufactures. They had no definite proof that they are hurting anyone besides AMD. And they did not fine the manufactures for agreeing with Intel's unsung exclusivity contracts with them. And they collect the money not AMD frankly a large portion of tech forms claimed the EU was pulling money grabs against the tech industry as most of it is Asia and US based. let me rage some more!fjasdl;kga | ||
| ||
