BennyV04988 said:
HEY! look who finally believes in reverse multithreads...once its INTEL of course!
Oh really? You apparently haven't read the other thread, have you? I never said anything about not believing in RHT. I simply said that it was not likely for another 2 years or so. And many people agreed with me, including Gaara. When I saw the article in The Inq. I had nothing but praise for RHT. And during my RHT research, I found that Intel had Core Multiplexing. So yay, Conroe still kick's everything else's arse. Good for me. But you can't say that I was bashing RHT.
BennyV04988 said:
I'm probably gonna go conroe. I jsut don't want to have my build price skyrocket thats all. Conroe requires some expensive stuff. No hard feelings info
Its like AMD is saying they've got a car that MIGHT run on water....but they're not sure yet.
And Intel's all like "our new car can get 100 miles to the gallon!"
And I'm like hey this regular car is still pretty sweet
So then intel goes "oh right right...Our car run on water too.. (Right?! ) "
What is it with you and the crappiest analogies?
Don't talk about cars and water.
AMD had a processor that was very good. Lets put it's performance at 1.0, ok? Then Intel brought out a processor that had a performance of 1.3, ok? Then AMD said that, in single-threaded apps, their processor would be able to perform at 1.6. Then Intel said, "Well, we can do the same thing," and their processors can perform at 1.8. Either way, Conroe is still on top, single or multi threads.
Tox1cThreat said:
Well, from what Ive been reading on this thread and the older one , it seems that no matter what, you cant go wrong with either one, Conroe or AM2.
Why? I'm not flaming or anything. I only wish for you to elaborate on your opinion that AM2 is just as good an option as Conroe?
Lets review a little, eh? Conroe dominates, and I don't use that term lightly, it literally dominates all K8 (AM2) processors. Lets not even focus on K8L right now, we're talking about the very near future. Conroe is massively better than anything AM2 has. The $183 1.86Ghz Conroe is better than the X2 4800+, and the $224 2.13Ghz Conroe matches AMD's best of the best FX-62. AM2 runs out of options at that point.
If you meant that both of them have RHT, then read my previous paragraph. Since BOTH of them have RHT, the Conroe is still a better buy.
Please explain to me why someone would pick a Socket AM2 AMD processor over a Core 2 Duo "Conroe" processor?
Like I said before, if people still buy AM2 processors, there is no hope for those of you. Intel has done everything that they can, including having AMD's rumoured megatechnology. I love AMD, but they don't stand a chance this time around.
Tox1cThreat said:
All this talk of how there are no or very few multi-threaded apps so it doesnt matter, and how some single thread apps wont see any or much increase in performance and I realized something, alot of people have a 64bit proc (hopefully me too soon), and guess what... there are very few programs that take full advantage of 64 bit.
Thats a technicality. We don't HAVE to have 64-bit processors. But the fact is that all new mainstream processors are 64-bit. There is no more avaliability of 32-bit processors. Even the budget Semprons have turned into Sempron 64s. 64-bit is something you get automatically, not like Dual Core, which you get to pick. Plus, who says that RHT won't make a difference? It will make a helluva difference.