Beijing (China) – Don’t pretend you haven’t been waiting for these numbers: Is Penryn really as good as Intel claims? As long as we have not reviewed the CPU in our labs, we can’t say for sure. But if the chip is as capable as the benchmark results provided by Intel indicate, then it is clear that Intel has no intentions of handing the performance crown over to AMD.

 

---

Impressions from IDF Spring 2006 (31 images) ...

---

 

Penryn is still under wraps in large parts and it isn’t even the next processor Intel will release. The company isn’t even under pressure to reveal performance numbers of its 2008 processors, as it still holds the performance crown with its Core processors and will roll out a FSB1333 speed upgrade in Q3 of this year to counter AMD’s Agena quad-cores and Kuma dual-cores. There is a lot of focus on 45 nm at IDF in Beijing and it is not surprising that the company reveals some performance numbers, but we are also noticing a certain and unusual confidence that drives Intel to showcase these new products.

The numbers were presented in a similar environment as the Conroe numbers at the Spring IDF last year. We had no influence on configuring the (pre-production) system, which means that the benchmark numbers should not only be taken with a grain of salt, but they also could change until the final product arrives in H1 of next year.

Up for comparison were two 45 nm Penryn processors, one 3.33 GHz dual-core (6 MB L2 cache) and one 3.33 GHz quad-core (12 MB L2 cache). To allow a comparison with today’s processors, Intel refrained from using an AMD product, but chose the firm’s currently fastest CPU instead - a quad-core, 2.93 GHz QX6800.

Perhaps most interestingly, the 45 nm quad-core achieved 4957 points in 3DMark06 (CPU), which represents a 22% improvement over the QX6800 (4070). The dual-core Penryn crossed the line at 3061 points or about 20% more than what an EX6800 reported in a benchmark previously conducted by Tom’s Hardware (2544).

While we cannot directly compare Intel’s benchmarks with any other tests Tom’s Hardware has done in the past, we were tempted to look back and see how AMD’s processors have done in the 3DMark06 CPU discipline. The fastest performing AMD system was a dual-socket, dual-core FX-74 machine that came in at 3764 points, or about 31% less than the Penryn quad-core. A single-system AMD FX-62 reported 2352 points - 30% less than the dual-core Penryn.

Here are the Intel benchmark numbers in detail (click the image to see the enlarged view):

 

 

drooooool

Apr 18, 2007 08:46     

12MB L2 cache... mmmm...
Matt report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

:O AMD pwned...

Apr 18, 2007 10:40     

:O AMD pwned
Matthias report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

AMD will rule!

Apr 18, 2007 11:23     

This is only *BS* from Intel! Barcelona is over 50% ahead Kentsfield! April 23th is the D-Day for Intel. Poor Penryn...
ra report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

DOESNT LOOK SO GOOD

Apr 18, 2007 11:36     

amd pwned dont think so matey thats hardly a good improvement over the core 2 plus its 45mn so i was expecting a better score when barcelona comes with direct connect it will be another clobbering for intel :), theres always clowns like you about amd will own intel again like it did with the 64bit and on an allrounder the 3 year old 64bit architecture is that far behind intel, thats 3 years so expect something ground breaking again from amd

moose report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Realistic numbers

Apr 18, 2007 11:39     

Those numbers seem fairly trustworthy. The 6mb Penryn doesn't do as well as the 8mb QX6800 in those cache dependent benches. It does take it in the HL2 bench though. Those are interesting and believable numbers IMHO. AMD has plenty of catching up to do and they've proved they can get it done in the past. Now they have a little extra weight to lug around with that graphics devision (ATI) to deal with so it may not happen. They have LATE products on both the CPU side of the business and the graphics side. AMD employees have to work hard for their pay this year!

Wingless report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

ETA on Apples-to-Apples comparison?

Apr 18, 2007 12:21     

Any guess on when we would be able to have a reallt good apples-to-apples comparison between the Intel and AMD next-gen CPUs?
Mad Dog Fargo report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

45nm too small for to little, uhmmm ?

Apr 18, 2007 12:28     

It seems that the effort to shrink the die to 45nm, pays too little (regardless of the 3.3GHz) to the increase of performance. A good comparison with the Core 2 Extreme would be testing the Hi-k processor at a lower frequency (say 2.93GHz).
Javier report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Windows Ultimate 32bit?

Apr 18, 2007 12:33     

why would you test on a 32bit system in a 64bit market? oh yeah cause amd owns 64bit :)
Kyle report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

64 bit market????

Apr 18, 2007 12:56     

What the heck are you talking about? A 64 bit market? Are you living in the desktop computing world of today? 64 bit OS's are questionable at best because of lack of driver support, thus they are not all that feasible for consumers. Therefore, IF all software and hardware operated at 64 bit, then AMD would be owning. But to say that is the case now is a farce. I own both AMD and Intel processors, and Intel is flat out beating AMD right now. Look at AMD's drop in market share just this past quarter.

64bit market??? report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Simple Kyle

Apr 18, 2007 13:01     

There is a simple reason for using a 32-bit operating system, because 90% of apps are written in, surprise surprise 32-Bit. Only a moron thinks that AMD used to have a performance lead cos they were64-bit processors. That means nothing in a 32-bit environment, it was all about operations per clock, AMD had more and now Intel have more. Dont talk about things you know nothing about...
Dee report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Not that impressed...

Apr 18, 2007 13:07     

A decent bit of the Penryn's advantage comes simply from its clock speed advantage. The Quad Penryn has a 13.7% higher clockspeed than the QX6800. -mcg
MrCommunistGen report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Brand Loyalty?

Apr 18, 2007 13:08     

Personally, I couldn’t care less about who is in the lead in the processor battle. All I care about is that these two companies (Intel & AMD) would fight as much as possible for the market. The more competition there is, the more companies push their technologies, the more the consumers will benefit. Prices will be driven lower, and new technologies will emerge more frequently. Those with brand loyalty who swear and bad mouth each other, in my opinion, are delusional about what actually matters in a competitive market. Unless you have some serious shares in any of these companies, to be so passionately attacking everyone who says Intel is better (or vice versa) is foolish.

Hugo report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

If Only

Apr 18, 2007 13:16     

If ONLY it was a 64 bit market, we'd see at least a 10% jump in many apps. Why don't enthusiasts just start buying 64 bit OS's? The driver support out there may not be fantastic, but let's dual boot and at least make a market for it. I run XP Pro x64 on two systems and it does perfectly fine most of the time.
JonnyDough report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Fanboys Everywhere

Apr 18, 2007 13:31     

Some of you folks really need to read up. AMD does -NOT- "own" 64-bit. Actually Intel's and AMD's processors have EXACTLY the same 64 bit extensions (Intel has licensed them from AMD and rebranded it EM64T). Barcelona will be interesting, as it is due to have single-cycle SSE (Just like Core 2 Duo) however to state that Barcelona is going to "pwn" intel is nothing but premature fanboyish speculation.

Johigglesvash report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Inconsistent

Apr 18, 2007 13:33     

The numbers seem a little inconsistent. It would seem that increase of cache has less and less of an effect on the performance. If thats the case, I wonder if intel as discovered another bottle neck? Regardless, it should push AMD to release it's fastest chips fairly quickly as well as keep them price competitive.
G report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

AMD pwned? hardly!

Apr 18, 2007 13:37     

AMD pwned? hardly! Pitting a K8 core against a core that is two generations ahead hardly qualifies as Intel pwning AMD. The current K8 core bested Intel's offerings up until the Core2 architecture, which is really a generation ahead of K8, so it's expected. Hold off until K10, then make the determination as to whether Intel has pwned AMD.
Deek report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

pffffft

Apr 18, 2007 13:48     

the reason why Intel doesn't advertise that it is 64bit is because the processor doesn't contain a 64bit instruction set. It's not that Intel has just disabled the 64bit abilities, it's because the processor doesn't know how to use both 32bit cores to handle 64bit Besides, if you want a 64bit processor, go with AMD. And compare the chip architectures. AMD has been making CONSUMER 64bit processors for a lot longer than Intel. Sounds like AMD has more experience with 64 bit than Intel. Last time i counted, Intel had less than 10 consumer 64bit processors, all of them extremely expensive, and ALL of them were dual core, not native 64 bit single cores. And AMD has more than 15 64bit consumer processors, many of which are natively 64bit single core processors intels 64bit is a botch job 2x32 strapped together not native so go with amd

moose report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

RE: pffffft

Apr 18, 2007 14:36     

moose, You're not very good w/ computers are you? Please read up on AMD64/EMT64. AMD had to license the instructionset back to Intel so pretty much everything since P4 Prescott has been functionally the same as AMD64. Same instruction set, AMD64 just had better instructions/cycle than P4. Bravo to AMD marketing though since many people share your misguided opinion. 64bit's performance only improves when reaching the 4GB barrier. 64 bit registers are a wash performancewise vs. 32 when working w/ most apps unless some crazy floating point work where the extra precision comes in handy. Until Photoshop bloats to a 5GB footprint, 64 bit OS's are overkill. Even then the Intel per cycle efficiency will likely continue the advantage over the next year of product releases. AMD's advantage comes as processors scale above 4-8 when hypertransport prevents the bottleneck Intel reaches on memory. AMD should focus on that and the lucrative server market and give up on their far more amateur 2X2 products. Gamers still account for a very small percentage of profits and AMD still can't match Intel on the notebook market.

softengineer report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel Does 64bit also...

Apr 18, 2007 14:40     

AMD doesn't own the 64bit space, for whatever reason Intel doesn't advertise 64bit but they pretty much copied AMD's 64bit extensions, I'm running vista 64bit on my Core2 E6700 and it's great. http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/ As far as performance gains, there are significant ones other than just the more address space schtick that most people talk about on either AMD or Intel's 64bit platform, mostly apparently having to do with the size and number of "registers" available.. I don't understand it, but from what I read it sounds like going fully 64-bit isn't that crazy of a jump, and could benefit alot of applications greatly, and EVERY new intel/amd computer sold today is capable...

Dave G report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re:pfffffft

Apr 18, 2007 15:45     

Seems like Moose just implied that Intel makes 64bit processors by combining 2 32bit cores!!!!!!!!
Atif report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

32bit vs 64bit

Apr 18, 2007 15:57     

let's face it, 64 bit is not really being tested. Intel is stillusing IA32. So AMD has th etechnology ahead of it's time. The questionis when will the PC world go fully 64 bit and how will Intel fit in. There are 64 bit cores from Intel but only in th eserver market. The bucks in the desktop cpus.
Chulangj report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

INTEL WAS AND STILL IS THE BEST

Apr 18, 2007 16:12     

HEHE poor AMD PWNed again :D :D :D
sdeivis report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

but h.264 encoding is SLOWER - care to explain toms?

Apr 18, 2007 16:44     

Did somebody make a typo or is the new dual core at 3.3ghz slower at H.264 encoding than the old 2.93ghz... maybe toms could inquire why this is
eagle report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Quad vs dual & dual vs single core?

Apr 18, 2007 17:11     

Who compares $ cores to 2 and then goes on to compare 2 cores to 1????? This is why Toms is losing so many loyal readers like myself... been reading since the sites inception... used to be daily... now it's monthly... and will probably stop soon if this idiocy continues! Toms was renowned for "level playing field" benchmarking and comments now they seem owned by advertisers & crappy irrelevant articles that belong on motoring sites! [Edited by editor]

Bernard report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

6mb cache

Apr 18, 2007 17:24     

why is the 4mb conroe faster then the 6mb penryn thats 13% faster then it?
Frank report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Time to calm down

Apr 18, 2007 17:41     

Guys, here’s the yellow card again. Calm down and respect the opinion of others without insulting each other. We really like to release every post, but if you are using words that cross a common sense comfort level, your post will simply be deleted. Bernard, Let me briefly respond to your post. I am not sure, if you are just frustrated anyway or if you just haven’t read the article. I believe that I know which article you are referring to (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31650/113/) and if you read through the article, there is actually a reason for comparing the price of a quad-core with a dual-core. I am not sure how this post belongs to this specific article here, as there are no prices mentioned at all. Personally, I am getting a bit tired of those general accusations that Tom’s (this is TG Daily, by the way) is influenced by advertising and therefore must be biased. Perhaps I am confused, but if you consider this article here crappy and irrelevant, you must be considering articles on other websites, where editors claim that they have generated these benchmark numbers (which were provided by Intel) by themselves more objective and more useful? If you are not happy with what we write, I am always open to criticism – and I am actually grateful for that. But please do that in a way you would expect us to talk to you. Wolfgang / TG Daily

WGruener report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re H.264

Apr 18, 2007 18:00     

I was originally perplexed by this as well... Until I realized that the older processor was a quad core.... I would probably attribute the difference to the Number of Cores. A single threaded app will run close to the same on a single,dual, or quad core processor. Depending on how the encoding is done, however, you may be able to work on 2 segments of data concurrently and theoretically cut the time in half. Long story short. this seemed pretty reasonable.. but should be taken with a grain of salt until an independant evaluation can be performed.

Nathan report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re: "Time to calm down" and "Quad vs dual & dual vs single core"

Apr 18, 2007 18:14     

Hey guys, I read this article and I'm happy that CPUs are making such great progress, no matter brand. Regarding the "Quad vs dual & dual vs single core" comment though; I think what he meant was, why you guys at TGDaily compare the dual-core FX-74 with the quad-core Penryn cpu and the single-core FX-62 with the dual-core Penryn cpu. Because comparing the FX-74 to the dual-core Penryn would make the AMD cpu the winner. I know you want to compare the best of each brand against eachother, I just think this is what he meant.. Thanks /Zoons

Zoonie report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

too preliminary

Apr 18, 2007 18:44     

The numbers and charts on here dont mean a dang thing, they are put out by the company, so they are most likely skewed tward intel. AMD has done a superb job battling Intel, and the other way around. Now its just time to sit and wait untill the real numbers for these unreleased processors is in till a winner is chosen. dont whore yourselves to a name brand, and if you do please keep it to yourself, we have enough war in this world without another one over who makes a better product... thatll be determined when the numbers are in :)

michael report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intal was the best? AMD pwned?

Apr 18, 2007 19:14     

ah... poor fanboys. AMD said K10 would be 50% faster then "old generation processors" then, they showed us a 50% faster then KENSTFIELD benchmark. 50% faster then Core is 75% faster then K8. Actually Penryn with 15% more clock, 5% more FSB, 33% more Cache L2. have 30% gain against K8 ? Fx-74 was 31% slower and FX-62(not the top) was 30% slower. so it kiks as much as 15% the Core. so... 50% barcelona againts Core ? or 15% penryn against Core ? Intel got owned for 7 years! Athlon was faster(and hotter) then Pentium 3, Atlhon XP the same with Pentium 4 Willamette and Northwood. Athlon 64 almost killed Pentium 4 Prescott. Athlon X2 gave RIP to Pentium D. Intel was better until 1999. then, it cames back now! 2006. and will get behind again in 2007. at this point, with THIS NUMBERS, actually, Barcelona will kill Penryn, as fast as i eat my breakfast. (and believe me, i do it really fast)

Denny report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

More fun!

Apr 18, 2007 19:51     

Only around 0.5% in IPC as expected. Huge scalability is what I smell. Maybe 4.4Ghz on air.
wusy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Conroe was a step forward! This looks more a speed ...

Apr 18, 2007 22:08     

Conroe was a step forward! This looks more a speed bump.......... Careful Intel, be very careful now..... Good job on the Conroes though~~~
Daniel Cheng report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Interesting Tactics....

Apr 18, 2007 22:56     

The tactics that intel is using seems to be an effective marketing strategy. Short "jab" releases seeming more like a .5 of an intended product keeping the public interested in what they're selling, it also seems to tantalize AMD fans into considering Intel purchases if only as a place holder til their next release. AMD, however, likes to deliver solid blows, releasing an amazing product and wow'ing the public then there is a long period between that and their next release. Out of the two I think Intel might have gathered the upper hand in the industry...for now, because this tactic keeps their name charged and in the air. In my opinion, AMD needs a new strategy not only to please customers but also to build investor confidence. However, AMD's recent investment into ATI could mean two things. 1. something exciting a foot or 2. they want me to think something exciting is a foot.

4RK3TYP3 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

only time...amd will come back and be a challenge

Apr 19, 2007 00:02     

amd will come back a nd be a challenge... there has been a history of leap frog with these two companies... id say if barcelona does good, expect the rest of k10 to be good. anyways the k8 architecture is old anyways....if amd kept on updating like how intel is planning right now(8 years ahead) then it COULD be a different story. but as usual, amd will come back...just wait and see some benchies. i dont want to be part of some bandwagons even tho i perfer amd since they're the underdog. everyone that is saying amd pwned!!! grow up guys. its just fair competition... and IF amd does comeback everyone is gonna say intel pwned!!! >_< geeze..... like i said just wait... these things always happen

Buc report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel Holds The performanace crown NOW and in the future !

Apr 19, 2007 01:10     

Its funny how all of you whine about Intel being on top and how Barcelona is this or Barcelona is that...Intel shows actual benchtested numbers AND they've shown it run 6 different configurations (Operating systems, laptops, servers and such.) What has AMD shown except empty slide shows that boast 40 % over clovertown. The only thing that Analysts also have to go by is Barcelona running Windows TASK MANAGER !!! You guys can wait while I enjoy my Q6800E ...NOW ! If Barcelona is what it says it is, I will get it when they release it late summer. I hold no loyalties. But for Now INTEL has the crown in my rig.

Darrell report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Wait for Nehalem

Apr 19, 2007 01:22     

You all right guys. You just forgot that Penryn is just a money maker for Intel - It's a new proces and smaller die size. Let's wait for Nehalem - that is the new architecture and should bring another jump up in perfomence. Any way, I think that Penryn numbers are preaty good and Intel has some GHz jokeres in hand to battle the new K10
DeepMan report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Great peryn!!! but only for max. 300 $ peryn...

Apr 19, 2007 02:08     

Great peryn!!! but only for max. 300 $ peryn
Looza report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Ur all missing the point - 64bit, etc...

Apr 19, 2007 03:20     

I am well impressed with the 20% increased results. 20% over the core 2 and quad systems is amazing since they were such powerful chips already. The performance increase represents as much power as many older generation chips had in total. So the progress is good. But I think it is unforgivable for a CPU manufacturer to still adhere to 32bit software and OS's when it launches its new products. Bad Intel. You are holding the future back with your conservatism. It is important for everybody to embrace 64bit. What would have happened if everybody said 16bit DOS is all we need way back in the day? Luckily 32bit Win95 became the standard. It took a while yes, but one would think we would have learned from that. 32bit to 64bit is going to rock the world. And a program being able to run in 32bit and 64bit is useless. It has to be native to 64bit and that is it or you wont see the performance that is possible. We have to kill 32bit people and we have to do it soon. Coz i'm sick of it. Those with 32bit windows can use their old software. Why the hell should we have to be held back by their old hardware and OS? So to be with-it you need: 1 x 64bit processor 1 x 64bit OS 1 x DX10 graphics card n x 64bit, DX10 applications and games 0 x 32bit software (or as little as possible at least)

Sq7 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re:Re: "Time to calm down" and "Quad vs dual & dual vs single core"

Apr 19, 2007 04:55     

Zoonie and Bernard, Before you go on a rant you should read the article more closely. If you do, you'll notice that they used a "dual-socket, dual-core FX-74 machine" vs. the quad-core Penryn, not a single dual-core. And to all the die-hard AMD fans out there, the numbers don't lie. Intel has the performance advantage. I've been an AMD fan ever since I bought my first K6 233 back in '97. I even run an AMD processor in my desktop now. But, Intel processors are better overall right now. Hopefully AMD will come back and take the lead. That will drive performance up and prices down. All this competition is good for us the consumers.

Tom report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Why wait for Nehalem?

Apr 19, 2007 05:49     

Sure Nehalem is new architecture, but there is much more to penryn then new process and smaller die size. You should read up more on what's going into Penryn. Also, with the use of High-K materials, there is a 20% faster Transistor switching speed. If it were merely a die shrink you would see the very small performance gain that AMD saw when they went to 65 nm. AMD, where is Barcelona Benchmarks ?

Darrell report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Seems to me...

Apr 19, 2007 06:17     

That intel is just going to stick with a similar design and ramp up clock speeds.... gee that sounds familiar (netburst *shudders*) I think they are just putting out SOMETHING to make headlines, they got the performance crown back and now they are jumping around like a pubescent teenager... Regardless hopefully this will make AMD step up their game a bit, i think they got lazy and now Intel is making them pay. But like everyone else has said, we should ALL be thankful for competition.

Brian report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Yet for now Penryn is well enough

Apr 19, 2007 07:16     

around 10% clock to clock (same FSB speed) according with Anandtech. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2972 Barcelona seems too little (2.5Ghz) and too late, poor Amd...
Gator report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

INTEL WILL ALWAYS RULE...

Apr 19, 2007 07:18     

INTEL WILL ALWAYS RULE
SMITHY report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

yes but

Apr 19, 2007 09:50     

You got to rember the AMD line of 64 bit is like 4 years old comparing it to the core 2 is like apples to oranges it jest doesn’t work. Yes, Intel had finally taken back the crown but now that mean a challenge to AMD and they will advance and then Intell will if you look at it is a good thing for us. The Optheron is still vary good at float point calculations making it ideal for collages and labs it also means that since AMD is competing with Intel its also cost effective solution. Intel has a quad core right now well more of a duel duel core its not working in tandem and the cores tend to fight for memory. AMD has fixed with their processors in the new quad core that has all the processors on one die making it the first true quad core. When comparing energy out put include Intel's external memory controller to AMD's internal there is less lanticiy in AMDs which allows them to run much faster than Intel's CPUs I’m jest putting it bluntly Intel jest brut forces higher performance AMD trys to find a way around it and it works really well. AMD’s processors now can work with ATI cards for higher calculations. My money is riding with AMD and ATI for now.

Robert Hollar report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

enough with geek-points...how about everyday points?

Apr 19, 2007 12:17     

Let's look at the comments more down-to-earth. I do not think the average consumer really cares if AMD is going to produce the first true quad-core (and actually, IBM and Sun hold this milestone). There are also some studies that suggest that if one does a layout of a CPU right, a 'true-quad core' does not perform that much better than a few dual or single cores (see Sun's Niagra arch). But back to consumers, the average consumer will probably care 'how many cores' once the Intel and AMD marketing machines ram core technology down people's throats. They will also care about availability of the product, reputation of the product, if it runs their batteries longer, and if it runs their games and programs faster. And guess what? AMD will have a very hard time meeting these points because they are still having a hard time ramping production of the new CPU with their 65nm tech. This means that even if AMD's new CPU will be the best thing since sliced bread, fact is hardly anyone will be able to buy it by the time Intel's Penryn and 45nm process comes out (which by then will close/surpass any gaps AMD's new CPU may have). And what do you think the price will be for this new AMD CPU? It will have to be more than what Intel charges for their products because of AMD's ramping problem or AMD will continue to bleed money. Also, AMD's CPU's have never been a good CPU for laptops compared to Intel's line, which laptops are the fastest growing computer segment in the world. Only a few universities and think tanks will care about awesome floating point which is a very small market (just ask Sun, IBM, and Silicon Graphics).

Jay Freyensee report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

The fall of AMD

Apr 19, 2007 12:36     

Intel is the future, and just like Rome AMD will fall. ;)
Ripley report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Stupid, If AMD falls we get screwed by intel

Apr 19, 2007 13:07     

Stupid, if AMD falls, intel will keep us all buying low end CPUs celerons), because the mainstream and high end would be soooo expensive... Don't be idiots , if AMD disappears intel will screw all the computer users with ridiculous high priced and low performance CPUs, like in the past(Before the athlon).
CDBulaR report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

ummm, when is this chip due?

Apr 19, 2007 19:22     

I think we're getting too far ahead here. These are preliminary benchmarks for a chip that is a year away. I do hope AMD puts a up a fight with their new chip, and if they do, Intel has a little more time to improve it's performance of the Penryn.
KingB report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Good luck getting yourself a Q6800E or do you actually mean QX6800?

Apr 19, 2007 19:28     

Do you not do your reading? The QX6800s are only being released to certain System Assemblers who can provide them with Watercooling solutions? Boy howdy that is one hell of a stock cooling unit for a processor. You fanboys are hillarious. Bunch of Idiots. My ford is better then your chevy, but my dodge will kicks your fords butt!! Grab a life weiners.
Rhinofart report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Im going to go out on a Limb here and point one tin...

Apr 19, 2007 21:25     

Im going to go out on a Limb here and point one tiny detail out, that everyone seems to have missed. The simple fact that it is a prototype processor, running on a prototype motherboard, with a prototype bios. Which means that nothing has been optimized yet. It would be like raceing an out of tune stock car, sure it can still go fast but it isnt running to its full potentional. So I say, lets wait till its in actual production and some third party tests are conducted upon it and its AMD built cousin, to pass judgement. View this article not so much as definative numbers but instead as a look at what might be comeing.

Catyrpelius report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel pushes AMD once more

Apr 19, 2007 23:17     

These benchmarks look promising. I am personally just holding out for a Core 2 QX6850 and even though Im not a personal fan of AMD since they bought ATI, The R600 aka HD 2900 XTX. But if I can when it comes out I will go with the Penryn. I'm not a fanboy but I belive that Intel has shown the most in advancement towards new technologies. Not just in processors but in other such as the next gen DDR3. I also respect Intel more than AMD in ways I'm not going to express. Also with the 64bit area the reason that they don't benchmark em in it since 90% of the software providers don't support it and nor do the drivers. And Intel has nothing to do with that nor AMD. They are both pushing 64bit hence why they have it as a feature and so is Windows. But I think it will take a bit till 64bit will become a majority. Besides what use is the enourmouse amount of memory it supports except in servers? I mean 2Gigs is still more than enough even for Vista. $Gigs is almost overkill. I run like 10 things at once on 2Gigs and my pc doesn't even hiccup. All I know is that Intel is pushing AMD to try harder and harder. ANd if AMD doesnt step it up with barcelona, which I think will not keep up, and with their losses in money they might go out. I hope not cuz they keep Intel pushing further and further.

JJ report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Yea But

Apr 19, 2007 23:23     

Oh I read an article that Intel also plans to incorporate an internal memory controller as well. SO after that we will see what happens. I just hope barcelona is as good as AMD freaks say it is.
JJ report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

What does it matter

Apr 20, 2007 02:36     

I meant I have a Q6700E, what does it matter and who are you calling people fanboys and telling lame ancient borrowed jokes. My point is that AMD has NOTHING on the table other then promises on Powerpoint. Wheres the Benchmarks?
Darrell report abuse vote down vote up Votes: