AMD fanboys: LOOK

[bunnymanboy]

The OC'd Intel got 155 seconds in the benchmark
The runner up AMD got 182.

I think if the Intel was at stock speeds it would of still won. But not by much.But just face it. IT STILL WON! Intel is not as bad as some of people make it out to look. Most of these people who hate intel are cheap bast@rds who can't afford an Intel Cpu.

Just my 2 cents.

Even if Intel wins in one benchmark... Its a HUGE corporation, just making money off of dell and that shiat, but look at AMD, the competitor, if you ask someone on the street what AMD is they dont really know, but Intel is well known. Intel has all sorts of resources to put into making chips, and they still suck. Look at AMD, better almost everywhere with less to spend.

 

[Nubius]

It won off of being OC'd.....that's the only way it can win.....do you know of any huge corporations who'd use this chip and overclock it!? None of them do!

The only way for Intel to win is to overclock their processor against a stock AMD....otherwise AMD would have won it hands down. Even in some competitions AMD won against the Intel even while it WAS OC'd.

A mere OC on the AMD would prove it to be victorious in every benchmarking.

It doesn't matter if it 'STILL WON' because it had to be overclocked to do so...we all know AMD's can overclock and a 100MHz on an AMD will equal out to 200 and even 300MHz OC on an Intel.

 

[Chankama]

Yeah comparisons should only be made between "2 stock" or "2 overclocked" units. Overclocking one and keeping the other stock doesn't make any sense :-\.. Unless it's to show that the stock one is still better. lol

 

[Nubius]

It's all the same as that Intel CPU that had to be liquid nitrogen cooled and OC'd to 5.2GHz to beat out the FX-55...."IT STILL WON' yeaaaaah, and it only had to be OC'd to a point where 99% of people will never get it to....not to mention even then it still lost benchmarks.

Like I said, the only reason they show the overclocked CPU is to show you what it takes to beat out the stock AMD.

No corporation whos going to use those dual core processors are going to overclock them, so thats not a real world win.

As the article even said:

a system from AMD using the X2 4800+ bested an Intel-submitted PC with the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (PEE 840) on every one of CNET Labs' dual-core benchmarks

That sums it up nicely right there

 

[Elbatrop1]

Maybe it is possible that the 2 processors arent on par with each other at all. Maybe its like comparing a 64 4000+ with a P4 2.0.

 

[FadingTheory]

Thats ridiculous. It would be simply stupid for intel to hold back on its brand new chip if they KNEW it was going to be compared with AMDs newcomer.

The fact is, both companies gave it all they had, and AMD won. Buh-yah Intel!

 

[VIII]

not to sound too fannish. but whats the point of comparing AMDS new processors with intels old ones??? Intel was lucky to beat amd in 1 of the tests, and AMD should be in shame that they still havent got their multi-tasking issues worked out.

 

[FadingTheory]

not to sound too fannish. but whats the point of comparing AMDS new processors with intels old ones???

Their comparing dual cores, both of which are new. And dual cores should help with multitasking.

 

[emeraldice]

Intel Dual cores aren't that old; they're only like 20 days old (which isn't very long at all in the cooperate world).

 

[DJ-CHRIS]

Maybe it is possible that the 2 processors arent on par with each other at all. Maybe its like comparing a 64 4000+ with a P4 2.0.

Your right, their not equal, but it's AMD's best vs Intel's best