Looks like Intel will regain the crown..

lemonlimelemonlime Canada Member
edited March 2006 in Hardware
I was not expecting these kinds of gains, but see for yourselves:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=1

I would have to agree that AM2 is not going to provide much (if any) benefit over 939, so this may spark AMD to accelerate it's next platforms. As a benefit, power consumption should be much lower too.

Comments

  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited March 2006
    A few points cross my mind about that article, lemonlime. First, Intel is comparing against the present day FX60, not AM2. The test I read on AM2 at Tom's admitted that their cpu was not representative of production silicon, but was an early engineering sample, so the performance could very well be quite a bit better for AM2 with production silicon. Second, the performance increase of the Conroe processors doesn't surprise me since it is based off the Pentium M design, which has shown itself to be quite competitive with A64 on a clock for clock comparison in quite a number of gaming benchmarks when the P-M is overclocked to a 200 fsb or higher (giving much improved memory bandwidth). Last, the machines were set up by Intel and running their demo's. According to Anandtech's article, they didn't catch any cheating that they could find, doesn't mean that Intel didn't figure some way to stack the deck a bit.

    BTW, you know that I'm not a fanboi of either company's products and I am looking forward to seeing what both are going to bring to the plate with their new products in the near future. But until we see some benchmarks from machines set up by non-biased websites on production silicon, we won't have a true idea of either company's new processor's performance.

    But looking at those numbers does get the blood flowing though. Just imagine how Conroe will do under your phase change, with no cold bug from an onboard memory controller to fight. :hair:
  • lemonlimelemonlime Canada Member
    edited March 2006
    muddocktor wrote:
    A few points cross my mind about that article, lemonlime. First, Intel is comparing against the present day FX60, not AM2. The test I read on AM2 at Tom's admitted that their cpu was not representative of production silicon, but was an early engineering sample, so the performance could very well be quite a bit better for AM2 with production silicon. Second, the performance increase of the Conroe processors doesn't surprise me since it is based off the Pentium M design, which has shown itself to be quite competitive with A64 on a clock for clock comparison in quite a number of gaming benchmarks when the P-M is overclocked to a 200 fsb or higher (giving much improved memory bandwidth). Last, the machines were set up by Intel and running their demo's. According to Anandtech's article, they didn't catch any cheating that they could find, doesn't mean that Intel didn't figure some way to stack the deck a bit.

    BTW, you know that I'm not a fanboi of either company's products and I am looking forward to seeing what both are going to bring to the plate with their new products in the near future. But until we see some benchmarks from machines set up by non-biased websites on production silicon, we won't have a true idea of either company's new processor's performance.

    But looking at those numbers does get the blood flowing though. Just imagine how Conroe will do under your phase change, with no cold bug from an onboard memory controller to fight. :hair:


    Those are some very good points mudd. I didn't realize it was setup by Intel, so that certainly leaves me feeling a little skeptical. It will be very interesting to see if AMD can improve M2's performance with DDR2-800 support, and hopefully some additional tweaks. I highly doubt AMD would release a new platform performing worse than 939. If those intel numbers are correct, they'll need to close a pretty large gap though :)

    I'm really not a fanboy either, so this is pretty exciting :). It will be interesting to no longer have the 'A64 is a no-brainer' mindset. It will be great to have some closer competition, and some choice. You read my mind in regards to the cold bug too.. The intel chips seem to do VERY well on phase, even the 65nm chips ;).. Although I am hoping that AMD will address this issue in M2. Hopefully the IMC will get a major revamp, and the issue will be either directly or indirectly addressed.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    I certainly don't speak for AMD, but I'm personally doubting that the cold bug is a high priority for them right now. It's not a significant percentage of the market that cools their CPU below ambient, and while AMD does have an ear to the wind for the performance crowd, I think the cold bug will only go away accidentally, as you stated above, if the IMC architecture change for DDR2 is not naturally susceptible to it.
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    As I recall the AM2 release is timed to allow use of DDR-1066.
    And then there is NF5 and 580 as moboo chipsets.
    (I can't find the damn AM2 list of speeds and power req)
    By release date I'll wager that the results are a mixed bag.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    AMD does have an ear to the wind for the performance crowd
    And that attention to the performance crowd - individual, tech-oriented consumers - is slowly being shifted. Watch for AMD to put much less emphasis on the desires of do-it-yourselfers like those who frequent this site and forums. AMD's production capacity is not large enough to maintain 50% of retail shelf PC sales, a dramatic increase in sales to server makers, and overtures to OEM manufacturers. Something's got to give. Guess where the money is? It ain't with us. I have no doubt that AMD would sacrifice us in order to make more inroads with the corporate market. They buy computers by the millions, and they are still 90% Intel. AMD wants that market share to change in AMD's favor. AMD will not completely abandon us, but don't expect good retail prices a few months down the road.
  • WingaWinga Mr South Africa Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    Leo I agree with you 100%. With the war between ATI and Nvidia and Intel and AMD it will always boil down to money. We can't blame them, after all they in business to make money. They not charity organizations.
    Where Intel push their chips by shoving non stop advertising down our throats AMD has done it by putting superior chips out there that has gone down very well with the tech community. It's not going to be too hard to take a reputation like that to the corporate market.
    Intel is just that much better at it than AMD as they have had a lot of experience at marketing their product. AMD will pull out all the stops to get a foothold in there. I watch this space with interest
  • jradminjradmin North Kackalaki
    edited March 2006
    Whats going to happen is that prices are going to get so high that PC enthusiasts arn't going to be able to afford to keep up at some point. Then, in come the console game manufacturers to rake up the profits when we can't afford to play the newest games because our PC is 1 year old.

    I see things very slowly start to go down this road. Companies like Dell and HP are going to be able to always give people the "low cost" alternative, because they won't be able to afford anything else. I don't understand why these technology companies have to put their products on a price level beyond reality or the cost of the R&D involved in making them.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    Where Intel push their chips by shoving non stop advertising down our throats AMD has done it by putting superior chips out there that has gone down very well with the tech community.
    I strongly disagree on this. Corporate purchasing agents can be likened to drones. For the most part, the focus on price per unit. The 'unit' merely has to meet a laundry list of basic specifications. The specifications for years have been based on the newest desktop (Dell Optiplex-like) offerings from the major OEMs. The only way AMD will successfully break in - and they eventually will, is when the corporate purchasing agents and their bosses clearly see a competitive advantage in purchasing systems with AMD parts. Right now, that competitive advantage is not the price of the systems, it the energy savings from low-power CPUs. But the business has not yet figured that out! Technology awareness and corporate PC purchasing protocol often have little to do with each other. Simplified view: big boss says to CTO, "We need PCs for the workers to stay competitive"; CTO says to CFO, "We need X number of new PCS for the workers, here are the minimum specifications (MHz, LAN ports, HDD capacity, case dimensions, MHz, memory quanity, MHz); CFO works with purchasing agents who almost automatically contact Dell or HP; they contract on a deal for 67,000 computers with close specifications to what the CTO gave; Boom, order is made. (Hmm, original specifications were probably formulated by Dell to begin with. Dell's specifications are ALWAYS Intel, regardless of the performance capability and energy consumption.)
  • GobblesGobbles Ventura California
    edited March 2006
    I use both amd and intel for desktops and the likes and both are fine with me either way. I honestly would like to see intels new processor succeed as a performance chip, competition is always good. I think we are on the cusp of another pc industry boom like we had back in the late 90's. I dont think this one will be as big but I think from a hardware stand point its gonna be good.

    I had my first opteron based server come through today, and honestly I have to say I was not impressed. I noticed many times the desktop bogged down to a crawl and mouse movement was like a slide show especially when I needed to reboot the machine. Ive never had this issue with xeon based servers. Now I am aware thats it is the ONLY amd machine to come across my workbench and I am not making my sole judgement from it but it was not an impressive start. Of course I can go the other way as well.

    I ran 3dmark 2001:

    Machine 1
    P4 3.0 northwood 533fsb
    1gig ddr266
    intel 845gbf
    radeon 9800xt
    Default drivers no optimization

    Machine 2:
    AMD 2500+ barton
    1.5gig ddr333 running at 2 2 2 6
    Abit NF7S ultra 400
    9800xt with 5.8 cats with overdrive on

    amd 15836
    Intel 14398

    Not a fair comparison but I have to say I expected more from the intel machine.
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh Member
    edited March 2006
    Actually, Conroe looks still to be 4-6 mos out and what you see here is the HIGH-end of that delivery. AMDs' answering salvo has really yet to be heard from, but at this point ....

    Intels' delay has cost it dearly and, unfortunately, us. Intel has lost precious market share in a series of blunders and the longer they hold off on any advantage, it will cost them more. This demo could also be viewed as another piece of pompous marketing sunshine except that Anandtech will generally ask the right questions and check a few things out. I also suspect that Intel has redone their architecture, needs to work it with third-party members, and can ill afford another blunder- especially in QC- hence the delay.

    It has cost US because AMD can get away with it. As of this date I can buy 2 3700+ San Diegos for the cost of one 4400+ Toledo and still have change left over for an HSF upgrade. As much as I admire the technical challenge AMD has given Intel, it is rapidly losing its market-share potential from people like me who just may sit this one out until Conroe goes to market ... or until AMD prices start falling into reality.

    No matter what the fallout, my thought is that we, the consumer, win when there is stiff competition. Intel is simply upping the ante and AMD will respond. AMD hasn't fed their tech people to the dogs and hasn't been buying up proprietary info to just say they spent the money- I think something is in the wind.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    AMD is at around 50% of retail, off the shelf PC sales. Their gains in the server market are exceptional. The server makers are fully awake and making big bucks selling AMD-based servers. (Sorry about yours, Gobbles. There are some problems with your machine. Sounds like driver conflicts to me. Old legacy stuff in the OS somewhere?). AMD wants to be a major corporate workspace icon, just like "Intel Inside" on/in the countless millions of boxes in countless millions of offices. It will be a long time before AMD gets for two reasons:

    1) lack of manufacturing capacity
    2) highly conservative corporate buyers who shy away from anything not familiar

    (As he writes this, Leo looks under the desk at his Dull Ocitipus Intel something-or-another Processor Super Slug Machine. :eek3: )
  • GobblesGobbles Ventura California
    edited March 2006
    bah worry not leo. It was supplied by a customer, I did my mods to it, rewired it and shipped it back out. If its slow and sucky thats their problem not mine. My software and hardware worked. I did recable the inside of the machine as well I can tell and IT guy built it not a professional builder like myself. Its not my best work because well it was their machine and I was doing this because their setup sucked.

    What I did:
    1. re-ran new sata cables, longer ones to allow for neat cabling.
    2. Consolidated all the hotswap trays to 1 side.
    3. Moved the dvd-ram drive to the other side to be closer to the ide port.
    4. cleaned up the power cables slightly.

    Sorry about the crappy pics, its a camera phone.
  • tmh88tmh88 Pittsburgh / Athens, OH
    edited March 2006
    good point muddocktor, but werent they testing against the x2 4800, not the fx60? Either way, its still hte older series that theyre comparing it with. When the am2's come out i doubt it will be a huge difference from the 939 for a while.

    This is a very sad day, intel finally beats AMD in gaming performance. :bawling:
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    Don't call it a sad day; just think of how many blunders Intel has been through to get to this point. Now that they're back on track, AMD doesn't have any room for slacking - it should be a win for the industry regardless of how strong AMD's response is. Overall competition in the segment will be strong for the next few years.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    Well said. I can only imagine what we as consumers would pay for high performance CPUs if either AMD or Intel had complete, unchallenged technological superiority over the other.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited March 2006
    Leonardo wrote:
    ...I can only imagine what we as consumers would pay for high performance CPUs if either AMD or Intel had complete, unchallenged technological superiority over the other.
    We'd pay $450 for a PIII-350, just like we did in 1999. :-/

    I hope it stays a close race. :)
  • tmh88tmh88 Pittsburgh / Athens, OH
    edited March 2006
    uh oh, i might have to change my avatar and sig to a green intel logo :rant:
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    tmh88 wrote:
    uh oh, i might have to change my avatar and sig to a green intel logo :rant:
    What, you're one of those guys who wets his finger, lifts it in the air, and follows the prevailing wind? :shakehead

    j/k
  • lemonlimelemonlime Canada Member
    edited March 2006
    Looks like Anandtech listened to the concerns of countless skeptics, and redid the testing. Although the results were not greatly improved, at least they are a little more clear on the testing configuration, bios settings and other control variables..

    http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=1
Sign In or Register to comment.