Brtnboarder495 said:
On average, Intel's Conroe EE, the X6800 beats the FX-62 by 10% in nearly all benchmarks, and game/graphical benchmarks by about 5-10% or less. Here the benchies:
One set of benchmarks run by one website (that only specilizes in hardware, not benchmarks) proves nothing. That is one benchmarks out of 100 that shows that kind of performance. There are numerous benchmarks that show a Conroe beating a Athlon 64 by 30% per clock when you calculate the performance at the same clockspeeds. That is the standard for measuring the performance, not what you got from HKEPC.
That said, it is true that the architecture is not scaling as well as expected. At lower clockspeeds, the performance is MUCH higher (per clock, mind you). A 2.13Ghz Conroe DOES match a FX-62 in performance. That is a 30% performance increase for the Conroe. But as you go higher, the 2.93Ghz conroe's performance lead (per clock) drops to 20%. Thats still a solid lead, and AMD isn't going to touch it anytime soon, but it is a significant drop from the 30% we see earlier. But Intel still has a month to see what they can do with it.
Brtnboarder495 said:
Not to mention that the FX-62 is planned to drop to about $999 and that's the starting price for the X6800. Not bad, seeing as a brand new core released by a company with nearly infinite amounts of funds can barely beat a much smaller company competing with a nearly ancient core. I personally think it's hilarious. No, I'm not saying AMD will be able to beat Intel performance wise, but possibly sales wise. AM2 3800+ for $110 = GG
Yes, the FX-62 is going to have to DROP to the STARTING PRICE of a processor that it is still inferior to (even with the minor lead the the X6800 has from those benchmarks, it still wins in every single benchmark). As for the AMD part, thats complete bullsh!t. AMD is hardly a small company, its a multi-billion dollar company. And the Athlon 64 has proven itself many many times, it doesn't have to do any more. But its about time Intel flexed their muscles a bit. I don't think its hilarious at all, since its the brain that beats the brawn. AMD's brain is really big, but it lacked in brawn. Thats why it could create a microprocessor that beat all others, but it couldn't take over the market. Now, Intel has produced a bigger brain than AMD, and since they have the brawn as well, they are about to rule all. The size of the brain has nothing to do with the size of a company (the performance of a processor has nothing to do with the size of AMD or Intel).
Brtnboarder495 said:
I'm not an AMD or Intel fanboy, I just love how this CPU war is playing out, great CPU's that will be extremely cheap for us 
My backside. Read your comment below and I dare you to say that again.
Brtnboarder495 said:
I also love how those who said "OMGZERZ THE C0NR03 iS G01NG 70 PWNZ AM2 BY 30%" are retreating into their little holes.
I wouldn't count on it, bub. They're just being silenced by those that don't wish their precious Athlon 64 to be bashed over and over until there is nothing left. That, and they're getting tired of arguing with people like you and would prefer to spend their time with peoples of a little bit higher intellectual capacity.
Ridlyn said:
Look at this.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2771&p=5
It clearly shows the x6800 taking a nice lead over the FX-62.
Yep. Now thats reliable.
The General said:
Flanker doesn't even register to post in them anymore, thats how worn out they are.
I love how my post is right below yours.
