Good-ish Conroe News - Page 3 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-25-2006, 07:32 PM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ridlyn
No the P4-Athlon 64 difference is bigger. Conroes are only like 1.33times more efficient then the athlon 64's.
Don't you think I know that? I'm the one who created that ratio, buddy.

But you could get a 2.0Ghz Athlon 64 and a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 for the same price. The Price/Performance ratio was roughly the same. Its not the same with the Conroe.

A 1.86Ghz Conroe costs $183 while a comparable A64 X2 4800+ costs $620+.

See my point? If you get a $620+ Conroe, it will rape the X2 4800+ like all 'heck'.

Quote:
Originally posted by BennyV04988
lol...3%. It will still rape it when its OC'd by like...75%.
1.33 times better means 33% better, not 3%.
__________________

Infomatic is offline  
Old 06-25-2006, 09:40 PM   #22 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Ridlyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,920
Default

I was talking about Ghz and not price ratio.

But ur right in this case it's a huge difference but with the price cuts it's gonna be much smaller.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylus View Post
Could have been worse, you could have been raped by a clown.
Ridlyn is offline  
Old 06-25-2006, 09:42 PM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Default

I'm talking about GHz, and not price ratio also.

And when a $183 Conroe beats out a $350 X2 4800+ (after the price drop), or when a $224 Conroe beats out a $1031 FX-62 (FX series price isn't going to drop); Thats hardly a small difference.
Infomatic is offline  
Old 06-25-2006, 09:48 PM   #24 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Ridlyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,920
Default

$183 conroe doesnt beat out x2 4800+ it's mearly equivilent according to ur ratio.

1.83 * 1.33 = 2.4339Ghz if you consider that beating it out i guess it does. But .0339Ghz will make the smallest of difference.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylus View Post
Could have been worse, you could have been raped by a clown.
Ridlyn is offline  
Old 06-25-2006, 09:52 PM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Default

Its actually 1.3, not 1.33.

2.43GHz > 2.4Ghz, IMO

And benchmarks have showed it to be true.

A 2.13Ghz Conroe also matches a FX-62.

2.13 * 1.3 = 2.769.

2.769 < 2.8, but the Conroe still matches the FX-62.
Infomatic is offline  
Old 06-25-2006, 10:05 PM   #26 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
BennyV04988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Infomatic




1.33 times better means 33% better, not 3%.
He said the spread is larger this time.

Conroe vs amd = 30%

P4 vs 64 = 33%

3% difference between the two shoot-outs. I did take physics, thank you!
__________________
3DMARK VANTAGE: 11,500
GPU: MSI GTX 260 @ 650MHz/1175MHz
CPU: Intel E6750 @ 3.4GHz/1.33v/60c
HSF: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
MOBO: MSI P6N SLI-FI 650i
RAM: G.SKILL 3x1GB DDR2 800
SND: Creative Audigy 4
SPK:Logtech X-540s
MOS: Logitech MX600 Wireless Laser
LCD: HANNS-G 28" Widescreen
BennyV04988 is offline  
Old 06-25-2006, 10:10 PM   #27 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Default

P4 vs. A64 was 1.6 dude, not 1.33 (2.0Ghz A64 = 3.2Ghz P4). But the thing was, you could buy Athlon 64 and Pentium 4 processors of the same performance for roughly the same price. Not the same with the Conroe.
Infomatic is offline  
Old 06-26-2006, 08:17 AM   #28 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 201
Send a message via AIM to Orayn
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Infomatic
P4 vs. A64 was 1.6 dude, not 1.33 (2.0Ghz A64 = 3.2Ghz P4). But the thing was, you could buy Athlon 64 and Pentium 4 processors of the same performance for roughly the same price. Not the same with the Conroe.
Yeah. With Conroe and AM64, the gap in price to performance ratios is quite a bit bigger, seeing as even the lower end Conroes can out-muscle AMDs that cost up to three times as much. Don't forget the fact that some of them can get 90% overclocks, too.
Orayn is offline  
Old 06-26-2006, 02:56 PM   #29 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,306
Send a message via AIM to Brtnboarder495
Default

God people are stupid, the megahurtz wars are over and have been ever since the Athlon 64 and even a little before then. Trying to guesstimate how the Conroe's will perform compared to AM2 is beyound stupid, just wait until they are released.

The ONLY thing you should be comparing is the priceerformance ratio.
Brtnboarder495 is offline  
Old 06-26-2006, 04:14 PM   #30 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Brtnboarder495
God people are stupid, the megahurtz wars are over and have been ever since the Athlon 64 and even a little before then. Trying to guesstimate how the Conroe's will perform compared to AM2 is beyound stupid, just wait until they are released.

The ONLY thing you should be comparing is the priceerformance ratio.
You're calling US stupid? Why don't you try to explain to us how to compare processors then?

Yea, the MegaHertz (MegaHurtz has become a lame cliche now) wars are over, but you still need to compare the freakin processor speeds to measure their performance. First, learn why the megahertz wars ended. It was NOT before the Athlon 64s came in. It was NOT because the Athlon 64s were clocked so much lower than their Pentium 4 counterparts. It was because of the introduction of Dual Cores into the market, and the enormous amount of faith that people invested in them (scaling sideways instead of upwards). Comparing the clockspeeds of Single Core and Dual Core processors didn't work anymore. But times change, and today, with most processors moving to Dual Cores, the wars are back, as bad as ever. You had Dual Cores on the market, and you had to start scaling "upwards" again. Clockspeeds of different architectures are used to compare performance. When comparing 2 Dual Core processors, there is no other way.

And incase you didn't know, the wars are coming back. AMD is pushing to get their processors to MUCH higher clockspeeds. I'm talking 3.4 to 3.6Ghz Athlon 64 processors. I'm not going to tell you to get informed, but don't try to pretend you know everything about computers inside and out. To be the best, you need to put in an exceptional amount of effort, more than your rivals.
__________________

Infomatic is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.