Core 2 (Conroe) vs Athlon FX-62 Benchmarks

Has anyone seen the Anandtech article on the overclocked E6300 and E6400? Amazing I tell you! An overclocked E6400 can match, or even out perform the X6800! Amazing!

Intel really did live up to what it said about how when you overclock a Core 2 Duo that the performance would be much much greater then Netburst! Definetly an overclcoker's dream CPU! :D
 
Core 2 Duo clearly superior to AMD:

zoom


Intel is back and dominating AMD in processor war. However, don't count AMD out just yet. They have plans. Core 2 Duo give Intel a clear performance advantage over AMD for the first time in years. AMD introduced aggressive price cuts while mainstreaming chips like the Athlon X2's to riduculous low pricing. Later this year, AMD will launch 4x4 which enables systems to use a pair of high end dual core chips. This will be expensive though. Further in the future, AMD will open it's HyperTransport bus to allow other companies to design specialized co-processors and accelerators to be used with it's high speed HyperTransport bus.

AMD's true answer to Intel's Core 2 Duo will come next year (2007), when they expect to launch it's next generation K8L architecture, including single quad core CPUs.

However, Intel has also something up it's sleeves as they claim to have discovered a way to reduce or eliminate electron leak in modern day CPUs which will in turn, significantly boost performance. Read here for more info about this. Pretty interesting stuff:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4351
 
TRDCorolla said:
AMD's true answer to Intel's Core 2 Duo will come next year (2007), when they expect to launch it's next generation K8L architecture, including single quad core CPUs.

However, Intel is already ahead of AMD in releasing a single quad core cpu. They already have working ES's that will do almost 5Ghz. :D
 
ownage said:
However, Intel is already ahead of AMD in releasing a single quad core cpu. They already have working ES's that will do almost 5Ghz. :D


Done properly, you could probably OC the X6800 to 5Ghz. :p
 
TRDCorolla said:
Core 2 Duo clearly superior to AMD:

zoom


Intel is back and dominating AMD in processor war. However, don't count AMD out just yet. They have plans. Core 2 Duo give Intel a clear performance advantage over AMD for the first time in years. AMD introduced aggressive price cuts while mainstreaming chips like the Athlon X2's to riduculous low pricing. Later this year, AMD will launch 4x4 which enables systems to use a pair of high end dual core chips. This will be expensive though. Further in the future, AMD will open it's HyperTransport bus to allow other companies to design specialized co-processors and accelerators to be used with it's high speed HyperTransport bus.

AMD's true answer to Intel's Core 2 Duo will come next year (2007), when they expect to launch it's next generation K8L architecture, including single quad core CPUs.

However, Intel has also something up it's sleeves as they claim to have discovered a way to reduce or eliminate electron leak in modern day CPUs which will in turn, significantly boost performance. Read here for more info about this. Pretty interesting stuff:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4351


AMD's 4x4 initiative is a joke. Imagine the price of getting all those parts. I laugh in their face for even thinking of such dumb things. It's just as dumb as Sony thinking people would "work more" just to get the PS3 for $599. :rolleyes:
 
not on air or water. You will need phase change. I think the fastest X6800 is at 5.5Ghz.
 
The X6800 seems like an amazing processor. I've read a review stating its the best out, and for good reason. The specs look great, with the high overclocking potential etc, and 2 true physcial cores.

I do have a question though. Is this new Pentium processor working in the same region AMD does, with the fact that at its default 2.93 (the first one for the X6800), its really working faster than stated?
 
well kage really it's not a pentium. it's just a core 2 duo *shrugs* i think the pentuim line is comming 2 an end basically.

i don't really get what u mean by faster than stated. but it does take 128-bit executions as a whole in comparison to AMDs and netburst's 64-bit execution. so instead of breaking a 128-bit into two 64-bits it just takes it as a whole, saving time :), or a whole clock cycle(hope clock cycle is the right term) i beleve....
 
Back
Top Bottom