The benchmarks are out, and Intel is on top

[ctjoyce]

AMD for the past 5 years has ruled the gaming market. Boasting better memory latency, and faster 3D renders, gamers went for it. Now even the OEM market is going AMD. However Anandtech got their hands on a Conroe X6800 and a AM2 FX-62 and pitted them against each other. The results are sure proof that Intel is back, and possably here to stay. The only test where AMD was ontop was the Memory Latency and Bandwidth tests, however that was expected. All other tests the Conroe took hands down. Looks like Intel is no longer the general computing processer, but once again the industry standird for gaming.

Cheers
Cameron

[NicksFXHouse]

The competition is just beginning.... by the time we get around to the end of the year or beginning of next year, AMD will be doing just fine. The AMD processor they used to go against Intel in that review was a joke.

[PisTon]

The competition is just beginning.... by the time we get around to the end of the year or beginning of next year, AMD will be doing just fine. The AMD processor they used to go against Intel in that review was a joke.

A joke? It's the fastest AMD you can currently get, and the Conroe costs less than half as much as it and STILL wins! I'd like to see later versions of the Conroe.

IMO, K8L is a joke, it's going to be expensive.

[ctjoyce]

IMO, K8L is a joke, it's going to be expensive.

Amd so is Kentsfield. But then again when you cram 4 plysical cores into a processer your going to pay a pretty penny.

@Nick. According to AMD they are not releasiong any more processers than what they already said they would. They are focousing more on K8L, Torenzo, and 4x4.

Cheers
Cameron

[Brett_Henderson]

My favorite hardware is, whatever gives me the most performance for the dollar. I don't have any brand loyalty.

If I HAD to have a loyalty in this processor battle.. It would be to AMD. Simply because they've not only, for as long as I can remember, given us the best gaming CPU... they've done it at a reasonable price. A side bonus is that they've kept the whole CPU market competitve, speed AND price-wise.

To win my "brand loyalty", Intel is going to have to make faster/cheaper CPUs consistently, for years. Can you imagine what the computing world would be like, if Intel had been able to keep an M$-like hold on the CPU market ?

With that said (risking a forum brush-fire

[Scorpiоn]

I think all brand loyalty is silly.  Unless they pay me, I don't vouch for them. Never did understand how one became a fanboy.

[ctjoyce]

I became and Intel fan boy because of how well it does over all. Also because its the underdog in the gaming world. Say for instance my overclock, something like that you just get on a AMD.

For awhile though I did almost switch to AMD. I was looking into SLi (right after Crossfire failed and ATi lost me), and I thought about getting a 3700+, A8N32, and 2x 7900GTs, but then Conroe came along and blew the competition out of the water.

Yes their more expensive (however only by $50), but look at the numbers they just don't lie. Intel is going to be the better buy.

Cheers
Cameron

[Brett_Henderson]

As these two CPU giants jockey back and forth for few points advantage on some benchmark.. Is there ever really a difference between cutting edge Intel and cutting edge AMD ? For our purposes here... if we had the time and money to build the "latest and greatest" from each.. would there be a percieved difference running FS9 ? I doubt it  ::)

But there is and always has been a $$$ difference.

[legoalex2000]

As these two CPU giants jockey back and forth for few points advantage on some benchmark.. Is there ever really a difference between cutting edge Intel and cutting edge AMD ? For our purposes here... if we had the time and money to build the "latest and greatest" from each.. would there be a percieved difference running FS9 ? I doubt it  ::)

But there is and always has been a $$$ difference.

no joke, all this is being aroused because Cj wants 3 more FPS, to reach his 4 billion mark or whatever it is...

why would one want 300fps if our yes cant resolve above 50-60fps last i heard...

i consider it a waste of money also, i think 30-40fps does just fine thank you.

ramos

[ctjoyce]

Its not the FPS. Personally I'm fine with 60+, however its the media speeds. I wan't to be able to encode a 340MB AVI file in under 20 min.

Also in the future we are going to see single core processers being plased out due to the need for multi core.

Cheers
Cameron

[Woodlouse2002]

why would one want 300fps if our yes cant resolve above 50-60fps last i heard...

i consider it a waste of money also, i think 30-40fps does just fine thank you.

ramos

Your vision can only process around 20fps. I believe mose video and film is 24fps. So if you have a solid 30 fps in FS then you really can't complain.

[Scorpiоn]

Actually, the 24 fps works because it mimics human vision.  Only now are video games beginning to add features such as motion blur (the biggie) so that perhaps 24 fps is all you'll need.

[Brett_Henderson]

I wan't to be able to encode a 340MB AVI file in under 20 min.  

OK.. I'm being serious, because I truly want to know..

If I had two, state of the art computers in front of me. The best of the best.. no skimping on any of the hardware.. and the Intel based machine could process a given media file 20 in minutes.. How long would it take for the AMD based machine ? I know that's impossible to figure exactly.. But are we talking 1%, 2%,  5%, 10% ?

[ctjoyce]

If the Intel can do it in 20, then the AMD can do it in 25~28.

Cheers
Cameron

[Brett_Henderson]

So a top of the line Intel CPU is a full 40% faster than a top of the line AMD ?

That's a staggering difference !

Makes ya wonder how AMD will stay in business ...