AMD Dethrowned. Intel Steps up.

Quinton McLeod said:

First of all, you need to read the benchmarks... (Provide a link next time).

1) Intel was comparing the Conroe to a processor that didn't exist. There are people thinking that the processor is an overclocked X2 2.8 or a FX-62 (which doesn't exist)

2) The BIOS in the benchmark used is old. It dates year 2003 (For AMD if you notice). The AMD processor was seriously bottlenecked because of that.

3) Cool 'n Quiet was never disabled on the motherboard

4) The video drivers on the benchmarks were modified to (according to Intel), "recognized the new processor". How many of us think video drivers need to recognize a processor. The truth is, video drivers DO NOT need to recognize the processor. They never have.

5) The Conroe isn't due out until another 6 months. That's a very long time. Intel basically compared a non-existant and even old processor to a processor that won't be released for another 6 months.

The benchmark is a joke and it's completely bias. You should never use a benchmark created by the same people who make the product they're benchmarked for. It will always be skewed.

<Edited - If you want to advertise your link we havea specific area for it>
 
It's good to see that it's 40% faster, this means that Intel will have better products, I think they're seeing just how demanding the gaming market is. Not to mention how powerful a CPU some workstations need.

What will be very interesting to see if how their new server CPUs stack up against any new and up coming Opterons, or maybe even an entirly new server CPU?
 
I think the Woodcrest and next-gen Intel server processors are still under the Xeon line. Not too sure.
 
I can't recall the name of it, but when the Spring 2006 IDF was goign on, they displayed various processors, such would be the COnroe, Yonah, Memrom or hwoever you spell it and others, there was a processor that was HUGE, something in size to about a Slot 1 CPU. Does anyone recall what it was called?
 
Oh yeah, the Montecito core. It's for servers, probably a next-gen Itanium or it's successor.
 
I'll be looking forward to it in the work place. See how it handles out, since the Itanium was a bit of a failure.
 
The Itanium was a bit of a failure, hopefully we can see a much bigger improvement with this 'Montecito' processor. What strikes me the most in terms of curiousity, is the sheer size fo the CPU. It's equivalent to that of a Slot 1 processor. Intel isn't reviving the Slot 1 are they? Perhaps, Slot 2? 10? Who knows? :confused:
 
It's about the same size as the Itanium.

itanium2_large.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom