Wonderfully funny Inquirer Intel FUD presentation

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:02:44 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

Ed wrote:

I did percentages for hexus's and 40% seems a bit of a stretch, maybe
Intel is including synthetic benchmarks in that 40% figure?

Aren't all games synthetic benchmarks? ;-)

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
AMD Athlon FX-60 @ 2.8GHz vs. Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz

iTunes 6.0.1.3, Intel wins by 14.71%.
Windows Media Video 9, Intel Wins by 12%.
XMPEG, Intel Wins by 12%.

- FPS - Games @ 1024*768 / Medium settings.
Unreal Tourn 04 Bot Patch, Intel Wins by 17.11%.
Quake 4, Intel Wins by 22.84%.
Half Life Source, Intel Wins by 24.27%.
FEAR (CPU Max, Graphics – Medium), Intel Wins by 45.60%.

Whats AMD going to get out of DDR2, 5% tops?

The interesting thing is that the CoreDuo benchmarks show a big jump in
FP performance, that seems to be good for some games used as benchmarks.

Where have you seen FP performance benchmarks? For the game tests run on
Intel's supplied systems, I think there's far too much other stuff going on
to conclude that the "40%" is mainly due to FP gains... though one would
expect *some* FP gain from a single-cycle SSE execution unit.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:02:44 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

Ed wrote:

I did percentages for hexus's and 40% seems a bit of a stretch, maybe
Intel is including synthetic benchmarks in that 40% figure?
Aren't all games synthetic benchmarks? ;-)
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
AMD Athlon FX-60 @ 2.8GHz vs. Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz

iTunes 6.0.1.3, Intel wins by 14.71%.
Windows Media Video 9, Intel Wins by 12%.
XMPEG, Intel Wins by 12%.

- FPS - Games @ 1024*768 / Medium settings.
Unreal Tourn 04 Bot Patch, Intel Wins by 17.11%.
Quake 4, Intel Wins by 22.84%.
Half Life Source, Intel Wins by 24.27%.
FEAR (CPU Max, Graphics – Medium), Intel Wins by 45.60%.

Whats AMD going to get out of DDR2, 5% tops?

The interesting thing is that the CoreDuo benchmarks show a big jump in
FP performance, that seems to be good for some games used as benchmarks.

Where have you seen FP performance benchmarks? For the game tests run on
Intel's supplied systems, I think there's far too much other stuff going on
to conclude that the "40%" is mainly due to FP gains... though one would
expect *some* FP gain from a single-cycle SSE execution unit.

Get them at the SPEC site, I followed a link here, didn't benchmark it.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:59:02 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:02:44 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

Ed wrote:

I did percentages for hexus's and 40% seems a bit of a stretch, maybe
Intel is including synthetic benchmarks in that 40% figure?
Aren't all games synthetic benchmarks? ;-)
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
AMD Athlon FX-60 @ 2.8GHz vs. Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz

iTunes 6.0.1.3, Intel wins by 14.71%.
Windows Media Video 9, Intel Wins by 12%.
XMPEG, Intel Wins by 12%.

- FPS - Games @ 1024*768 / Medium settings.
Unreal Tourn 04 Bot Patch, Intel Wins by 17.11%.
Quake 4, Intel Wins by 22.84%.
Half Life Source, Intel Wins by 24.27%.
FEAR (CPU Max, Graphics – Medium), Intel Wins by 45.60%.

Whats AMD going to get out of DDR2, 5% tops?

The interesting thing is that the CoreDuo benchmarks show a big jump in
FP performance, that seems to be good for some games used as benchmarks.

Where have you seen FP performance benchmarks? For the game tests run on
Intel's supplied systems, I think there's far too much other stuff going on
to conclude that the "40%" is mainly due to FP gains... though one would
expect *some* FP gain from a single-cycle SSE execution unit.

Get them at the SPEC site, I followed a link here, didn't benchmark it.

Sorry, I don't see anything there which seems to correspond to Conroe -
you'll have to be more specific.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

"Isaac W." wrote in message
oups.com...
I hate to break it to you, But.. Unless you build the computer out of
stock parts yourself and run and install it all yourself, I would have
to disqualify that test as invalid.


Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60
overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the
other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz (1067MHz FSB) on an Intel
975X motherboard.
----
The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings, while
the Intel system used 1GB of DDR2-667 running at 4-4-4. Both systems
had a pair of Radeon X1900 XTs running in CrossFire and as far as we
could tell, the drivers and the rest of the system setup was identical



On top of ddr competeing with ddr2. So their performace gains could
singly be attributed to a memory advantage.

Toss that test out the window, Its no good and compromised.


AMD has the controller on the chip and with less latency with DDR, there's
no real advantage to going with DDR2 until you get to high bandwidths
(800+). The Conroe is really that fast and possibly faster once they get it
hitting the ground with high end parts. AMD will counter for sure, but it
may not be until early 2007 that they come up with a competing product.
Conroe could also push the 4 GHz barrier also. 2007 will be a great year
for computers. Lots of new competitive products all around.

Intel should not do slanted tests.

However I wouldn't be suprised if conroe was superior to its AMD
counterpart. I want to point out that until it comes out, saying its
better really doesn't mean anything. Until we can verify that this
information from a random sampling of a production chips its futile to
speculate who is the best.

Theres also price/peformance ratio that seems to carry through on the
AMD side that intel can't seem to beat.

Should be interesting to say the least. That is, if the bird flu
doesn't kill us all

:P

"Isaac W." wrote in message
ups.com...
Intel should not do slanted tests.

However I wouldn't be suprised if conroe was superior to its AMD
counterpart. I want to point out that until it comes out, saying its
better really doesn't mean anything. Until we can verify that this
information from a random sampling of a production chips its futile
to
speculate who is the best.

Theres also price/peformance ratio that seems to carry through on
the
AMD side that intel can't seem to beat.

Intel is going to have to prevent a stampede from their hot hot
desktop chips to Conroe the instant they release the Conroe. They
will accomplish this by initially pricing Conroe very high, and
gradually drop the price as their Conroe production ramps up. I don't
see price-competitive Conroes until mid-2007. You got a better guess?
;-)

George Macdonald wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:59:02 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:02:44 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

Ed wrote:

I did percentages for hexus's and 40% seems a bit of a stretch, maybe
Intel is including synthetic benchmarks in that 40% figure?
Aren't all games synthetic benchmarks? ;-)
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
AMD Athlon FX-60 @ 2.8GHz vs. Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz

iTunes 6.0.1.3, Intel wins by 14.71%.
Windows Media Video 9, Intel Wins by 12%.
XMPEG, Intel Wins by 12%.

- FPS - Games @ 1024*768 / Medium settings.
Unreal Tourn 04 Bot Patch, Intel Wins by 17.11%.
Quake 4, Intel Wins by 22.84%.
Half Life Source, Intel Wins by 24.27%.
FEAR (CPU Max, Graphics – Medium), Intel Wins by 45.60%.

Whats AMD going to get out of DDR2, 5% tops?

The interesting thing is that the CoreDuo benchmarks show a big jumpin
FP performance, that seems to be good for some games used as benchmarks.
Where have you seen FP performance benchmarks? For the game tests run on
Intel's supplied systems, I think there's far too much other stuff going on
to conclude that the "40%" is mainly due to FP gains... though one would
expect *some* FP gain from a single-cycle SSE execution unit.

Get them at the SPEC site, I followed a link here, didn't benchmark it.

Sorry, I don't see anything there which seems to correspond to Conroe -
you'll have to be more specific.

Sorry, I missed this post somehow, question and all. The SPEC results I
was mentioning were for core-duo, compared to similarly clocked P4.
Apologies for the slow clarification.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:58:37 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:59:02 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:02:44 GMT, Bill Davidsen
wrote:

Ed wrote:

I did percentages for hexus's and 40% seems a bit of a stretch, maybe
Intel is including synthetic benchmarks in that 40% figure?
Aren't all games synthetic benchmarks? ;-)
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
AMD Athlon FX-60 @ 2.8GHz vs. Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz

iTunes 6.0.1.3, Intel wins by 14.71%.
Windows Media Video 9, Intel Wins by 12%.
XMPEG, Intel Wins by 12%.

- FPS - Games @ 1024*768 / Medium settings.
Unreal Tourn 04 Bot Patch, Intel Wins by 17.11%.
Quake 4, Intel Wins by 22.84%.
Half Life Source, Intel Wins by 24.27%.
FEAR (CPU Max, Graphics – Medium), Intel Wins by 45.60%.

Whats AMD going to get out of DDR2, 5% tops?

The interesting thing is that the CoreDuo benchmarks show a big jump in
FP performance, that seems to be good for some games used as benchmarks.
Where have you seen FP performance benchmarks? For the game tests run on
Intel's supplied systems, I think there's far too much other stuff going on
to conclude that the "40%" is mainly due to FP gains... though one would
expect *some* FP gain from a single-cycle SSE execution unit.

Get them at the SPEC site, I followed a link here, didn't benchmark it.

Sorry, I don't see anything there which seems to correspond to Conroe -
you'll have to be more specific.

Sorry, I missed this post somehow, question and all. The SPEC results I
was mentioning were for core-duo, compared to similarly clocked P4.
Apologies for the slow clarification.

What clarification?:-) If you meant the Lenovo Thinkpad T60, you could
have said so... or given a URL. If not, what and where?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:46:52 -0700, Isaac W. wrote:

I would guess that time line would be far sooner being that AMD chips
are less expensive. That being said, I would say early 2007 or 2006
chrismas for all those geeks who want upgrades. I hope the conroe chip
lives up to my expectations. Im likely going to wait for an upgrade
then.

So sit on the sidelines as you have been for a halfa decade.

AMD might make a really decent chip but it seems to me that AMD
is still not as stable motherboard wise. *shrug*

....and who the **** are you?!! What a maroon! *shrug* indeed.

One thing is for sure, its going to be interesting how this all turns
out.

I find now interesting, not promises of sex to come. Though perhaps
you're a kid and can't deal with reality yet.

--
Keith

I was specifically referring to the mass amounts of junk that alot of
the motherboard manufacturers push. They come DOA, Have crap for
customer service, Ect. Ect.

If you want to criticize, put your money where your mouth is and prove
me wrong.