Intel Vs AMD

Status
Not open for further replies.
stock...meh.
overclocked c2d all the way.
exactly. At stock, the 6000+ actually does beat the E6600 in a lot of benchmarks. Overall, the E6600 is faster, but not by a lot.

When you overclock, the E6600 will usually take a significant lead.

Although, I have made some real progress with my 6000+, managing over 10,200 in 3dmark06 at 3.5GHZ, with a single 8800 GTS 320MB. Not very far off people with 3.3GHZ+ C2D's with the same card.
In the areas where C2D excels, I really don't use much if at all, anyway.
Hense the $750+ comment. AMD will not be on top. You're only on top when people actually buy your **** products. If AMD comes out with a killer true 4-core cpu, and it totally omg ubber ownz intel, it will still run SOOO hot, be a total power hog, and cost WAAAAAAAY too much.
Actually, K10 is supposed to be very low on power usage, heat output, and overall very efficient.
If I remember correctly, they're supposed to have a 120W envelope for their top model quad core, when all four cores are running at 100% load.

How much have you read about AMD's power management in K10? They are making some interesting progress.

Now, to get something out of the way:
Yes, I am an AMD fan.
No, I don't care if your C2D is faster than my 6000+.
In fact, I am going to recommend he should get the E6600, over the 6000+
But I am going to say that the difference is not nearly as big as people often make it out to be.
 
Hey, I'm a power:weight ratio kind of guy, you know what I mean? I'm no fanboy, I buy what's best for the least $. I'm not biased, I simply paid attention in history class when we covered "capitalism and industry". Intel has the financial MIGHT to underprice AMD, and we have seen that with the repeated price cuts. They make offers we can't refuse. Honestly, I don't care how "good" AMD's new chip is. I don't need it, and neither do most gamers. Intel's cheapo processors can OC to 3GHz, which is more than enough for us, unless you own SLI'd GTX's or something. So even if AMD's K10 spanks the C2D, they will need to sell it for still relatively cheap to beat Intel. "On top" in my book means becoming the gaming standard. Who cares if it beats Intel if you need DDR3/1K psu/and a semester of college worth of gfx cards to use it. AMD will need to bite the bullet.... HARD... if they want to make themselves a viable choice for mid-end gamers. That's all I'm saying.

that is not a true comment, what hapend when c2d came out???
way over priced
amd cut prices
people still bought the over priced c2d wich had a performence increase over the amdx2
no one cares about price im sorry you can all claim you do but i bet 2thirds of the people here jumped on the c2d wagon before the first price drop wich came like 6 months laterif the amd chips truely are more powerfull people will buy them
 
My only point is that AMD needs to make sure they have more than just horsepower. They need to be affordable, in order to become the mainstream gamer standard. C2D's are still being seeped into for the first time by many gamers, as they are just now becoming affordable and ddr2 prices are dropping etc. I don't care too look to deeply into the K10 because I know that when it comes out, I can grab a cheaper C2D that will give my system some leg room. We're not idiots, we play the market, not the chip.

EDIT: If money is not a problem for you, then you're either a sucessful individual, or your parents spoil you rotten. I just truely think AMD's fate rides on the price wars, even if it stalls them just long enough for Intel to come out with their new chip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom