AMD64 3500+ Venice , x2 3800+ dual core and INTEL 830 dual core help plss

[lots]

The Asus Nforce4 SLI Premium board
Athlon64 X2 3800


Forget the Intel.

[capitanul]

ARE U SURE ? ...i dont want to cry for the money :banghead: ....

did u have a link with amd x2 3800+ ...

thx a lot....

[capitanul]

nobody dont want to help me...??

read full review look here :
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3524426__3

amd x2 3800+ dual core it cost a lot of money and in the performance it is like amd64 3500 in some aplication or like intel 820... i think it is too much money for nothing or i MAKE A MISTAKE ???

[Coliba]

You don't say what it is you want to do with these processors.....do you render a lot? Do you use several applications at once? If yes, then a dualcore is much more efficient.

Lots of details in this review:

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=1

[MadMax]

Hello

i want to buy a sistem but i dont know what procesor to buy ?!!
AMD64 3500+ VENICE Core
AMD64 X2 3800+ dual core
INTEL 830 ..DUAL CORE at 3GHZ


First off drop the Intel 830 Dual core from your list. You are concerned about making a mistake? this processor is a HUGE mistake. It's not even a true dual core processor, it is a very poorly implemented hack.

One thing you have to understand is that not all software is multithreaded. That being the case, you will not always see a benefit using dual core or dual processors.

This does not take into account multi tasking, that dual core will help with even with single threaded applications. Assign tasks to one core while others run on the second core.

As for Multi threaded apps go, X2 is hands down the best processor money can buy. The 500.00 model is faster than Intel's almost 1000.00 model.

You most efinitely will not be making any kind of mistake buying an X2.

[Sp1ice]

Definitely get the X2 if you go dual core.. especially if you render a lot. If you just do 2D or model get the 939 version of an AMD single core so you can always upgrade to the dual core later (if you have the cash though just get the dual core) I have the 4200+ x2 and it is great and renders very fast (about 2.5 times faster than my 3500+ single core I use at work)

[Raizler]

3DS Max prefers Intel cpus.

[MadMax]

3DS Max prefers Intel cpus.



uh, nope. Not true. Might want to check RECENT benchmarks. X2 is dominating in virtually everything except a couple of irrelevant synthetic benchmarks.

[Raizler]

This page should clear up some of the confusion surrounding 3ds Max's
performance on an intel vs. that on an amd:


tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-11.html

[ash18march]

i would not refer to tomshardware it tends to be bias at time i prefer tech report much better site for reviws for more information on bench marks for x2 vs intel d read this article it has been already mentioned but i will give the link again
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=1
x2 rocks intel it self has claimed that pentium d is half baked product and is no match aginst x2

[MadMax]

This page should clear up some of the confusion surrounding 3ds Max's
performance on an intel vs. that on an amd:


tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-11.html

LOL!! you say 3DS Max prefers Intel, then direct us to a benchmark where Intel gets beat by an X2????

Ok, thanks for the heads up.

[Raizler]

All price qoutes from newegg.com
Intel Pentium D 840-$539
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+-$884

Price/performance ratio wise, I'd say Intel wins out.
Oh, and not to mention, Intel boards support DDR2 Ram (667 MHz)
which also affects render time. Since mastersoft is also concerned with
price, either one would be a good pick.

[MadMax]

All price qoutes from newegg.com
Intel Pentium D 840-$539
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+-$884

Price/performance ratio wise, I'd say Intel wins out.
Oh, and not to mention, Intel boards support DDR2 Ram (667 MHz)
which also affects render time. Since mastersoft is also concerned with
price, either one would be a good pick.

Unfortunately your post is more than a bit misleading here. True, the 840D is only 500.00 However, the 4800+ still beats even the Intel P4 840D EE (Extreme Edition) and that processor is 995.00. Over 100.00 more than the 4800+.

Also, there is the issue of cache. Intel sees more of a benefit to additional cache than AMD does. In fact, although many say that the benchmarks prove that 1mb vs. 512k cache doesn;t make a difference for AMD processors, that isn't quite true. The 4600 and 4800 are the same processor, different cache. In theory, they are virtually identical in benchmarks, however the difference is not enough to tell without a benchmark to prove the difference. 1:29 seconds vs. 1:30 seconds.

The 4600+ is only 688.00, and still beats both the 840D and 840D EE. Now we are talking just over 100.00 more than one, and more than 300.00 less than the other.

Suddenly the price vs. performance numbers are not so huge as you imply.

Is it worth an extra 100.00 for a better implementation of technolgy? Many would say yes, it is. I sure would. Especially since I know hardware more than well enough to be very concerned with the poor implementation of 64 bit in the Intel processors, and the hack job they did to create a pseudo dual core.

As it is, Prescott is a blast furnace compared to the nice, cool running AMD processors. To have to deal with 2 prescott cores sharing the same CPU is not something I would want to have to deal with.


Not to mention the AMD will multitask MUCH better and smoother than that Intel will.

Yeah, the 100.00 difference is worth every penny.

[Raizler]

Unfortunately your post is more than a bit misleading here. True, the 840D is only 500.00 However, the 4800+ still beats even the Intel P4 840D EE (Extreme Edition) and that processor is 995.00. Over 100.00 more than the 4800+.

Also, there is the issue of cache. Intel sees more of a benefit to additional cache than AMD does. In fact, although many say that the benchmarks prove that 1mb vs. 512k cache doesn;t make a difference for AMD processors, that isn't quite true. The 4600 and 4800 are the same processor, different cache. In theory, they are virtually identical in benchmarks, however the difference is not enough to tell without a benchmark to prove the difference. 1:29 seconds vs. 1:30 seconds.

The 4600+ is only 688.00, and still beats both the 840D and 840D EE. Now we are talking just over 100.00 more than one, and more than 300.00 less than the other.

Suddenly the price vs. performance numbers are not so huge as you imply.

Is it worth an extra 100.00 for a better implementation of technolgy? Many would say yes, it is. I sure would. Especially since I know hardware more than well enough to be very concerned with the poor implementation of 64 bit in the Intel processors, and the hack job they did to create a pseudo dual core.

As it is, Prescott is a blast furnace compared to the nice, cool running AMD processors. To have to deal with 2 prescott cores sharing the same CPU is not something I would want to have to deal with.


Not to mention the AMD will multitask MUCH better and smoother than that Intel will.

Yeah, the 100.00 difference is worth every penny.

And what about the implementation of DDR2?

[MadMax]

Oh, and not to mention, Intel boards support DDR2 Ram (667 MHz)
which also affects render time. Since mastersoft is also concerned with
price, either one would be a good pick.



Forgot this.....

DDR2 has not proven to help Intel very much in this regard since it has lost the speed crown in every major app, including the applications which had been their biggest wins, 3DS Max and Cinema 4D, as well as video/audio encoding which AMD squarely dominates now.

DDR2 is unfortunately held back by Intel's reliance on outdated FSB technology that is more than 20 years old.

Most bang for the buck isn't always only about what is faster/cheaper.

For such a minimal price difference, I would dumpster dive and collect bottles and cans if you are that tight on a budget, or skip a couple of beer and pizza parties to save the extra bucks.

[lots]

DDR2 ram is often slower than DDR ram of similar clock. On the AMD platform this matters alot. DDR2 was designed to get high MHz (much like the Pentium 4's Netburst Architecture). But the cost is higher latencies, and an overall slower performance at the same clock speeds as an older DDR memory. Until DDR2 is operating on motherboards that support 1GHz and up, I doubt very much that you will see a benifit to DDR2.

Back to the AMD platform. Because of the design nature of the Athlon64/Opteron and other K8 based CPUs, the RAM timings matter much more than the MHz they can bring to the table. If you look at any K8 CPU going up against the Intel chips with DDR2, they hands down obliterate Intel in memory performance. Not to mention DDR2 still has very high latencies, so this would not help AMD's chip at all. AMD's design choice to use DDR while Intel moved to DDR2 was a smart one. The K8 would not have been as much a performance success if it had DDR2.

Now that DDR2 is FINALLY getting some higher speeds, and better latencies, we see AMD moving to DDR2 capable K8s. By the time DDR2 matters, AMD will be ready. But right now DDR is going to be able to carry AMD's chip onwards.

Also, if you are going to compare the two top end dual core chips from both AMD and Intel, in price, compare the two TOP end chips.

In this case the Pentium D Extreme Edition vs the Athlon64 X2 4800+
Pentium D EE: $999
X2 4800: $884

And the X2 still wins in performance in most cases.

[capitanul]

soo..what to buy...x2 3800+ or intel 830...im confuse ..i realy dont know what to buy :banghead:

[lots]

Read my first post.

[MadMax]

soo..what to buy...x2 3800+ or intel 830...im confuse ..i realy dont know what to buy :banghead:


Do yourself a favor and get the 3800+, You will not regret it for a second. the price/performance ratio is most definitely in AMD's favor here.

[mlmiller1983]

Go with the AMD X2 3800+. Nuff said!!

[Spin99]

Intel processors are supposedly like blast furnaces as mentioned above.
This means that to cool it properly you'll have to put up with a lot of fan noise.
That's IF you manage to cool it properly.

Some people stay away from building those machines altogether.
The risk is a melted motherboard or processor or whatever else.
Anything could happen.

So if you don't want to melt your money, buy AMD.
Plus it's a lot more environment friendly.
You won't be contributing to global warming.

I think new marchitectures from Intel are becoming long due :D

[Donovan Kretsman]

To set your mind at ease mastersoft, I TOO am buying the 3800 X2 64 cpu on a sweet Asus SLI - deluxe or premium mobo.

For only $600 you get a Cpu that really CAN! render and a rock solid motherboard with all the features you could need.

Sure Intel CPu's have their spots at which they beat AMD (like encoding and ripping), but AMD has it where it matters, RENDERING & GAMING - enough said!

If you think choosing a CPU is bad try choosing a TOP OF THE LINE GPU, my 6800 GT Golden Sample is now packing, i need more - like 7800GTX more, but i first wanna see ati's r520 in action, which for gods sakes should have been on the market by now!

DIE ATI DIE!!!

I'm sure they wont handle polygons as well as GeForce cards, that because they only have good Polygon processing on the Fireglide cards, NVidia has it on standard gaming cards aswell - so (mesh and high poly scene wise) Nvidia is the ONLY choice for 3D artists.

mmmm, thats $1250 in the bin, and i still need drives, DVD roms, a funky and cool case, 3 Gigs of ram and lets see a 500+ PSU - oh and a keyboard and mouse, BIG 21" CRT screen and 7.1 surround.

Sweet bejesus, who pops $2000 on a PC when they desperately need a car! ME :-)

[ExKArt]

It all depends on what you want and what will happen in the future.

First ddr2 memory is getting alot better.

AMD is owning Intel all around the board right now, mostly. Intel chips are actually rushed and still delivers a little competition. Intel's D's run cooler, but take up more power, they also cost less.

If you are not worried about price get the AMD, however keep in mind if you are completely upgrading your system, the dual core cpu's require a new motherboard with ddr2, if you don't already have a X2 supporting AMD motherboard, you will have to get a new AMD one. Now what to remember is that Intel will probably catch up (dominate at its usually spots, except gaming) next year and the current motherboards will be able to support them. AMD motherboards are due for an upgrade soon with new processors that will come out, so if you do not upgrade now you will later. It's all your choice. The clear winner for Dual Core right now is AMD and if the price isn't an issue then go with it, if you want to. If you want to stick with Intel go cheap Intel now and upgrade to a better cpu later.

[rebo]

Get the 3800 X2.

[MadMax]

Sure Intel CPu's have their spots at which they beat AMD (like encoding and ripping)


check again.

Intel isn't even winning at ripping and encoding anymore.

[DaForce]

Another reason to steer clear of Intel in general :-)
http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2005/07/12/
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155593&cid=13042922
http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html

Along side the fact that they are BADLY made.. slow... power hungry...did I mention how badly made they are.
And big whoop they use DDR2, show me a significant performance increase related to DDR2 in everyday use and even then it would not be anywhere near enough to negate what I have said above.

Get the X2, it is THE best CPU out there currently for digital work (besides the dual core Opteron's but they are uber $$$)

[Valkyrien]

LOL this thread cracks me up.


FYI though, "plss," "u," and "r" are NOT words. I'm only going to make fun of you if you use them :surprised

[lots]

Intel's D's run cooler, but take up more power, they also cost less.

Explain to me how a CPU that consumes nearly TWICE the power, is very inefficient (alot of resistance = more heat), and is made of TWO of the hottest (temperature) cores on the market, can be COOLER than the X2, which is made of two of the COOLEST running cores on the desktop market?

I fail to see your logic here.

[MadMax]

Intel's D's run cooler, but take up more power, they also cost less.


You really need to do your research before posting misinformation across multiple threads. Intel D's are almost a fire hazard. 2 super hot cores stuck together under a single heatspreader is not a cooler running CPU.

AMD's X2's will run comfortably at 35c using the crappy stock HSF supplied with the CPU.


If you are not worried about price get the AMD, however keep in mind if you are completely upgrading your system, the dual core cpu's require a new motherboard with ddr2, if you don't already have a X2 supporting AMD motherboard, you will have to get a new AMD one.


This is a very misleading remark to make. Fact is any socket 939 board will support X2 with a bios upgrade. Unlike Intel where you are pretty much guaranteed that you must buy a new motherboard and ram with eveyr upgrade.


Now what to remember is that Intel will probably catch up (dominate at its usually spots, except gaming) next year and the current motherboards will be able to support them.


That's not likely to happen, apparently you don;t look at product roadmaps before you spout off in forums. Intel gave up on the speed issue, nd is focusing on performance and efficiency for the near future. Adding onboard memory controllers, high speed interconnects etc. Basically copying what AMD has ben doing for several years now. But these cahnges are not going to happen for a good 2 years yet.

Intel is also going for lower power consumption, reducing heat and shorter pipelines. Long pipleines is where they got their speed from. Bottom line AMD systems are a quite solid purchase for the foreseeable future.

[daraeill]

This is a very misleading remark to make. Fact is any socket 939 board will support X2 with a bios upgrade. Unlike Intel where you are pretty much guaranteed that you must buy a new motherboard and ram with eveyr upgrade.





i would have to agree with everything else you said, save for the update part...i would only add that you need to check with the manufacturer first to see if they did/are releasing that bios update...some may not though i haven't heard of any of the big names NOT doing it...after all...it IS in their own best interests...but you never know

[MadMax]

i would have to agree with everything else you said, save for the update part


That is straight from AMD.

hardware wise, it's compatible, it is as you said though, up to the individual manufacturer to support it and provide the proper bios update.

[DaForce]

Well said MadMax!!
Totally agree with ya on those points.

He sounds like a restrained Intel fanboy :D

[novadude]

Intel's D's run cooler, but take up more power, they also cost less.

The extra power required to run just the Intel CPU itself will make up for the added cost of the superior AMD chip within the first 1.5 years, not to mention the added costs of cooling the CPU. Also, there isn't an AMD chip available that will run on DDR2 yet, nor will any new Intel technology run on existing motherboards.

[ExKArt]

First by Intel catching up I did not mean speed, and I dont think I said that. Catching up in the matter with coming out with better processors that use less power etc. Also if I am correct Intel will be coming out with 65nano before AMD and in the near future. I've seen reports saying that they will begin volume manufacturing late 2005. Smaller faster transistor mean faster processors. Intel is focusing on power alot more etc. etc. but they are also going to get faster.

Second, I am not trying to mislead anyone. Socket 939 motherboards support X2 you just need a bios upgrade. I said "if you don't already have a X2 supporting AMD motherboard, you will have to get a new AMD one." If you have a 939 then it supports X2 with a bios upgrade. In addition to this by what I mean is that the 939 don't support DDR2 but AMD is currently making motherboard that will do this in 2006, i think it might be called socket M, but that's just a guess.
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20050513/socket_939-01.html
So if you want DDR2 you will have to upgrade the motherboard.

Lastly, I am so sorry I don't know what I was smoking that day but I confused cpu case temp. with the temp rise in a cpu. However most Intel's pre- Prescott processors were cool. And my experiences with AMD's processors they all ran hot. LOL more power means less heat, good catch.

Wish I could use quote gotta learn that.

[lots]

I dont doubt Intel will make a turn around. Intel still has a distinct advantage over AMD when it comes to R&D budgets and what have you. Potentially Intel could make a rather well made CPU. Though in the short term, I suspect AMD will gain more ground for at least another year. AMD sales topped Intel's recently at something like 54% or some thing if I recall. So things are looking up for AMD. I just hope they have the strength to keep the ball rolling once Intel refreshes its CPU lines, because in a year or so, Intel will probably have caught up to where the K8 is now.

I refuse to think that AMD is sitting around twiddling its thumbs while Intel does an about face. This is probably the best time for AMD to strike at Intel (while it's weak).

AMD's new socket is around the corner, mainly featuring the DDR2 controller, so we'll see how that changes things. AMD also plans to release an instruction set geared towards 3D rendering. Though what I read wasn't exactly clear. I couldnt tell if this meant CG or video games, or both. So maybe we'll see more on this later..

[ExKArt]

yeah probably, but we dont know yet. Intel has been looking into 65nano for a while now since 90 gave them a heap of problems, and will be getting them out before AMD. (will they be better? time will say) Of course AMD isn't sitting around idly so we'll probably see something probably even next year from AMD. And I highly doubt Intel will dominate in gaming, but by next year they will return with a vengence and at the least take back the usual things Intel is good at. Dunno about it only catching up to K8 I think they would surpass that, not too sure about that.
It's all left-back, catch-up, left-back, catch-up with any major rivaling companies . If AMD releases instructions set for 3d rendering, Intel better start packing.

[MadMax]

yeah probably, but we dont know yet. Intel has been looking into 65nano for a while now since 90 gave them a heap of problems, and will be getting them out before AMD.


Intel had an awful time going to 90nm. a die shrink presents more issues that it magically solves, and Intel hasn;t shown a great track record. Thinking they are going to magically solve their issues with a die shrink is more than a bit of wishful thinking.


but by next year they will return with a vengence and at the least take back the usual things Intel is good at. Dunno about it only catching up to K8 I think they would surpass that, not too sure about that.


Not going to happen. Bottom line here is that Intel was better at somethings strictly basd on soecific optimizations for their CPU's AND clock speed. It's a fct that the items Intel USED to be better at have slid for no other reason that AMD continuing to ramp up speeds on their well designed procesors. As they came close in speed, Intel's dominance of encoding apps and such melted away.

We already know that Intel has hit a major speed wall at 90mph, and there is no indication they are going to break it anytime soon. Thier roadmaps don't even imply it.

The ONLY thing you are going to see is Intel and AMD being comparable across the board. Expecting more than that is just unrealistic.

[ExKArt]

Yeah Intel has hit some sort of wall but...
It's not the die shrink but the better stuff they put in the processor and base it on. See below:
ftp://download.intel.com/technology/silicon/IDF_Aug_05_65nm_logic.pdf

Tom Hardware got a sneak peek how they are going
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051007/
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/02/intel_65nm_p4_power/

And it also looks like the 65nano Cedar Mills will be available for LGA 775 Socket so no new motherboard
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2526

AMD even says they are a little behind in getting out 65nm but that doesn't mean when their's come out that it will suck it may be better, however Intel's is coming out earlier, I'm sure they will do good compared to the current AMD solutions, until AMD's come out. AMD is even using the same procedure to make the 65nm, so Intel must be doing something good.

[MadMax]

Yeah Intel has hit some sort of wall but...
It's not the die shrink but the better stuff they put in the processor and base it on. See below:
ftp://download.intel.com/technology/silicon/IDF_Aug_05_65nm_logic.pdf


Tom Hardware got a sneak peek how they are going
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051007/


Yeah, I recall an article at Tom's Hardware a couple years back when they were lucky enough to get advance engineering samples of the then unreleased Intel 3.06ghz. processor. Once someone realized their engineering sample photo had been photoshop retouched, the entire article changed overnight and THG denied they ever said they had any advance samples.

Not a place I would trust for news. They have a well known reputation for outright fraud.

However....... even yor link contradicts what you are saying, and I quote:

First things first: Cedar Mill does not perform better than Prescott since it basically is a shrunk Netburst design without major architectural modifications (details below).

What you will notice though, is the heat dissipation, which has decreased considerably.

Which like I said, you are only going to see parity with AMD since they are basically using AMD's playbook now.

And another intereting tidbit:

Intel keeps using its strained silicon technology rather than SOI (silicon on insulator) which is known to suffer less from current leakage.


AMD uses the BETTER SOI technology. Although Intel claims to have improved the process, SOI is still considered the better technology.

Basically, nothing AMD doesn't aleady have and Intel is copying. Nothing more than just playing catchup and nothing to indicate they are going to be getting faster as well. In fact, your links indicate just the opposite point of view:


While performance gains are expected to be limited for the aging Pentium (http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/02/intel_65nm_p4_power/#) 4 architecture, Intel apparently has made significant progress in reducing the power consumption of the processor. Sources showed Tom's Hardware Guide a qualification sample of a 65 nm Pentium 4 653 chip - a processor that recently had been removed from Intel's official roadmap - which consumes about 10 percent less power than its preceding chip generation.


AMD even says they are a little behind in getting out 65nm but that doesn't mean when their's come out that it will suck


Actually AMD has said no such thing, and even recently contradicted said "news" posted by a questionable at best news site, the inquirer, and stated they were right on schedule.


it may be better, however Intel's is coming out earlier, I'm sure they will do good compared to the current AMD solutions, until AMD's come out.


Again more unfounded wishful thinking with no basis in fct or support for this. Hisotrically speaking, we have seen that AMD definitely has the better engineers. I suspect Intel's release, like most of their releases, will be a paper launch done months ahead of actual availability.


Fab 36 was designed to be a 65nm fb from the start. They said they were going to start out by running some 90nm to work the kinks out. Even if Intel does come out first, it doesnt really mean much. They launched dual core before AMD, although it was more an act of desperation than an actual product launch, and frankly, they suck.

In a way I am finding this thread extremely humorous with you posting links to all this wonderful stuff Intel is doing, which AMD has had for a couple of years now, and specualting that Intel is going to take back their place from AMD, all presuming that AMD is just twiddling thier thumbs doing nothing.

AMD clearly has a superior process and design. 2.2 and 2.4ghz processors from AMD are mopping the floor with Intels clocked at 3.2-3.8 ghz. AMD has released 2.6 and 2.8ghz parts and just announced 3ghz coming in a couple of months which is only going to increase AMD's already solid lead.

Sorry but the evidence just doesn't indicate Intel has much of anything up their sleeve, and they most certainly will not be taking back any benchmarks anytime soon.

[lots]

Well I wouldnt say AMD has better engineers. I know a few ppl that work for Intel :P But I bet that politics (within the company) and money plays a bigger role in Intel's design choices (the dual core Pentium4 for example). Where as AMD seems to focus more on innovation and good design these days (the X2).

It will be a while still before Intel makes a turn around and brings some good competition (which, in the end is good for us :)). But we're talking a good year at least, maybe more, before Intel is competative again, and who knows, AMD might be able to keep the ball rolling and out do Intel at every corner (not to sound like wishful thinking here :P). Though I'd have to agree with MadMax, in a year or so, I would expect things to be pretty even between the two at best. Though this is all speculation of cource, and only time will tell...

[ExKArt]

Wow I spent a good amount of time typing and I lost my post somehow therefore the abridged version:

Not a place I would trust for news. They have a well known reputation for outright fraud.

I guess that's your opinion, I highly doubt they would try that again at such a high profile thing and blantantly, and you even link to it below.

However....... even yor link contradicts what you are saying, and I quote:
First things first: Cedar Mill does not perform better than Prescott since it basically is a shrunk Netburst design without major architectural modifications (details below).

What you will notice though, is the heat dissipation, which has decreased considerably.
Which like I said, you are only going to see parity with AMD since they are basically using AMD's playbook now.
a die shrink presents more issues that it magically solves, and Intel hasn;t shown a great track record. Thinking they are going to magically solve their issues with a die shrink is more than a bit of wishful thinking.

What is contradictory? This proves Intel is working on heat problems and have decreased the amount of power dissipated on 65nm.
On the issue of being even I said: It's not the die shrink but the better stuff they put in the processor and base it on
AMD has been doing this. I dont remember saying AMD and Intel will not be even. Unless you are confusing this
but by next year they will return with a vengence and at the least take back the usual things Intel is good at. Dunno about it only catching up to K8 I think they would surpass that, not too sure about that.[/exkart]

Simply put (current processors= cp, future processors= fp) AMD K8> Intel cp, Next year AMDfp> AMD K8, AMD fp=Intel fp>AMD K8 meaning they may be even.


[quote=madmax]AMD uses the BETTER SOI technology. Although Intel claims to have improved the process, SOI is still considered the better technology.

Umm... http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YZJXOCEFFM3BYQSNDBCSKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=44300010&_requestid=291079
It says basically what we have been saying about Intel and their hot processors and how AMD is owning them and lagging a little (for some reason). but look at the bottom:
Late 2004 article
On the manufacturing side, AMD also is beginning to gain parity with Intel, said Brookwood. Intel got on the board in the first quarter, while AMD ramped up its 90-nm process only recently. "That is roughly a 28-week gap, which by my reckoning is the briefest lag ever. AMD used to lag Intel by a year or even a year and a half," he said......

AMD and IBM are expected to introduce some form of uniaxial strained silicon at the 65-nm node.
exactly what I've been saying.
a newer article though on SOI
http://www.fabtech.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=765
The JDP, if successful could open the door for AMD to use the enhancements at the 45nm node. Sources strongly indicated to Semiconductor Fabtech recently, that AMD had originally wanted to use the sSOI wafers for its 65nm process that would start production in 2006 at its new 300mm fab in Dresden. However, defect levels and consistent manufacturing quality assurance levels could not then be guaranteed.
AMD, we are told, was advised to stick with the standard SOI technology for its first ramp of 300mm wafers at Fab 36. With Intel adopting its "second generation" strained silicon process for 65nm production, AMD could well be seeking a renewed advantage with sSOI at the 45nm node

Basically, nothing AMD doesn't aleady have and Intel is copying. Nothing more than just playing catchup and nothing to indicate they are going to be getting faster as well.

see above article.

Actually AMD has said no such thing, and even recently contradicted said "news" posted by a questionable at best news site, the inquirer, and stated they were right on schedule.

I think you looking too much in to that. I saidthey are a little behind in getting out 65nm but that doesn't mean when their's come out that it will suck

By being behind, this means time. Intel's will most likely come out before AMD, therefore if something happens after another that means it is behind.


They launched dual core before AMD, although it was more an act of desperation than an actual product launch, and frankly, they suck.

I've said this too.

all presuming that AMD is just twiddling their thumbs doing nothing.

Dont totally understand that. And I dont think I've said that but, AMD and Intel are both working at 65 nano. If Intels 65nano processors come out before AMD it is highly unlikely that they will be worse than or equal to K8's, therefore benchmarks against these at this time Intel will at least get back in shape.

AMD clearly has a superior process and design. 2.2 and 2.4ghz processors from AMD are mopping the floor with Intels clocked at 3.2-3.8 ghz.
I've said this too.

and they most certainly will not be taking back any benchmarks anytime soon.

hmmm if you say Intel and AMD will be even, then if Intel right now is getting owned on all accounts they would have to take back something in order to be even with AMD. If Intel never won anymore benchmarks I doubt that they would be even with AMD.

[daraeill]

oh boy:rolleyes: i'm going to just skip that quote-fest...sheesh

[lots]

Judging from the 65nm samples that anandtech has a review on (They were samples running at retail speeds), the last netburst core will be on Intel's initial 65nm process. From the looks of it, they didnt give any performance numbers, we're looking at CPUs that will be roughly comparable to what Intel has out now, but slightly cooler (AMD still wins this category), and slightly cheaper to make, along with a more efficient "dual core" manufacturing process (higher yields basically)

According to Anandtech, the new 65nm dual cores from Intel are simply two Cedar Mill cores stuck onto one package. They are physically separated from eachother. This allows Intel to achieve higher yields, and thus lower prices. But still there's no question. AMD bests Intel on performance and power consumption even when Intel is going to be 65nm in the beginning of 06 and AMD later in the year. The K8 has nothing to fear from Intel's last Netburst core.

Though, since we've seen no numbers it's hard to tell. My bet would be that performance will only increase slightly due to the doubling of the L2 cache on Intel's 65nm chips.

[SatoriGFX]

You know what I think? It's useless arguing about the future and who's cpu's will be faster/better at any point in time. Truth is, none of us know what the landscape will be like months from now (frankly, neither do Intel or AMD when it comes down to it). I say buy the best you can now, live with it, enjoy it and worry about what happens later, later. The only thing that is certain is that not so many months from now there will be systems available that will be noticably faster than whatever you buy today. That's the way computer purchases work.

Anyhow, the point is that, "right now", AMD is making the generally better product. The vast majority of sources agree. It isn't an anti-Intel thing, it's reality. If you choose to the Intel route instead, no big deal. The system will still be fast. But if you are asking which is generally better, an 830 or an X2 3800+, it's the latter.

The X2 3800+ is cheap (relatively speaking), fast, and cool and costs only $20 more (in Canada anyhow) than the 830. You can even overclock the AMD on stock cooling and it will still run cooler and use less power than the 830.

Adam.

[ExKArt]

According to Anandtech, the new 65nm dual cores from Intel are simply two Cedar Mill cores stuck onto one package. They are physically separated from eachother. This allows Intel to achieve higher yields, and thus lower prices. But still there's no question. AMD bests Intel on performance and power consumption even when Intel is going to be 65nm in the beginning of 06 and AMD later in the year. The K8 has nothing to fear from Intel's last Netburst core.


guess time will tell
as you've said everything is speculation, and most products now are not finalized.

You know what I think? It's useless arguing about the future and who's cpu's will be faster/better at any point in time. Truth is, none of us know what the landscape will be like months from now (frankly, neither do Intel or AMD when it comes down to it). I say buy the best you can now, live with it, enjoy it and worry about what happens later, later. The only thing that is certain is that not so many months from now there will be systems available that will be noticably faster than whatever you buy today. That's the way computer purchases work.

Anyhow, the point is that, "right now", AMD is making the generally better product. The vast majority of sources agree. It isn't an anti-Intel thing, it's reality. If you choose to the Intel route instead, no big deal. The system will still be fast. But if you are asking which is generally better, an 830 or an X2 3800+, it's the latter.

The X2 3800+ is cheap (relatively speaking), fast, and cool and costs only $20 more (in Canada anyhow) than the 830. You can even overclock the AMD on stock cooling and it will still run cooler and use less power than the 830.

you're absolutely right, time will tell. I was just trying to say you can't say something is going to happen for sure. You can speculate, that's it.


Oh yeah sorry for the quote fest.

[lots]

I'm hardly arguing about anything, just spitting out information :P

Though about the anandtech article. Sure, things may change, thats what the future does :P but, when you know intel is focusing on improving its power consumption, and this sample is very close to the final product (press samples :P) I would tend to think anand was right, and the CPU will just mostly be an improvement on power usage, and manufacturing yields. Which are not bad things, it just means that AMD's CPUs are still the better buy in terms of performance.

Jumping from 90 to 65nm does not equate to magically becoming 200% faster ;P

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.