AMD or Intel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
AMD is marketed to the average people amongst us. While Intel is for the deranged lunatics. It only makes sense that the fan boys take after their favorite companies.

I disagree. Currently Intel is marketed to people who care about performance while aMD is marketed to people who care more about the name on the chip that how it performs. It makes a whole lot more sense to buy a C2Q because it is fast than a phenom because it is made by AMD.

I have owned systems from both sides and will get whichever is better.
 
You accuse apok of misleading/unproven information and you spit out that "deneb wont out run yorkfield" kinda makes you a hyppocrit.
 
You accuse apok of misleading/unproven information and you spit out that "deneb wont out run yorkfield" kinda makes you a hyppocrit.

At this point the is absolutely no proof that dened will outrun Yorkfield so assuming it will is providing unproven information.
 
Hardly. Deneb is essentially a die shrink. That doesn't guarantee a huge performance boost. Die shrinks are normally done for heat and price issues not for performance issues. It makes perfect sense to expect a die shrink cpu to perform very close to what its predecessor did if there are few or no other changes. This is a "historical" fact. Drawing from my recent research into p4's for the uber OC project. The Cedar Mill has the exact same performance per clock as a prescott 2m. The Cedar mill is just a 65nm die shrink of the prescott. it isnt any bit faster, it only runs a tad cooler and cost a bit less to produce. This is true for any die shrink.
 
I never said they were bad. I simply said right now unless you are upgrading an AM2 based system there isn't much of a reason to go amd. Unless of course you are a fanboy who wouldn't buy Intel anyway.
cheaper and the socket will last.
but dont go recommending sup par stuff to new users.
That's begging the question.
That is a statement only a fanboy could make.
Not necessarily.
I hear a lot of talk about future proof this, future proof that. You know what, there is a fair chance that Deneb wont out run Yorkfield.
Even the first Deneb's should be at least about as fast. And probably cheaper.
Then, when they switch over to SiGe transistors and high-k metal gates, we should see a different story.
Hardly. Deneb is essentially a die shrink.
Then why do even the ES chips have a significant IPC advantage over Agena?
 
We "should" see. But we also were supposed to see huge pwnage by the phenom first time around. True quad, higher IPC etc etc. I can go dig up the threads and list all the technical reasons why Phenom should be faster, but I would only be wasting everyone's time. AMD has a lot to prove to me with this architecture.
 
We "should" see. But we also were supposed to see huge pwnage by the phenom first time around.
There were plenty of people spreading misinformation (just because they could)
But this time, the evidence surrounding Deneb is far more credible.

The evidence is that we are seeing 65nm Agena consistently reach 3.5GHZ with SB750's, we already know that Agena is very close to C2Q in IPC, and we know that Deneb has an IPC advantage over Agena, and we know (yes, know) that Phenom is a very complex die to be using on the 65nm process, and we know that Intel doubted that a monolithic quad could be done properly on 65nm.
 
Even the first Deneb's should be at least about as fast. And probably cheaper.
Then, when they switch over to SiGe transistors and high-k metal gates, we should see a different story.
Then why do even the ES chips have a significant IPC advantage over Agena?

Yorkfield has many of the same advantages over Kentsfield that Deneb does over agena and it tends to 5-10% faster. I would expect to see a similar increase from Deneb vs agena which would put them behind Yorkfield not to mention Bloomfield.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom