OT: Latest Tom's Hardware tests-Intel vs AMD

soaringrocks wrote on 7/14/2006, 8:27 AM

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/14/core_2_duo_benchmark_results/

Take a look... Tom's Hardware ran no less than 37 different benchmarks and the new Intel Core 2 Duo smokes (and I mean really smokes) AMD in 35 of 37 benchmark tests.

I LOVE this competition. This is game we all win (just as long as you're not hung up on who's silicon you have to buy).

Comments

Coursedesign wrote on 7/14/2006, 8:40 AM

Great!

For anybody who is dependent on expensive hardware such as Decklink cards, be sure to wait until the new mobos and systems are on BMD's approved list.

I have used my Decklink Extreme for years now with no glitches, while seeing many, many others complaining bitterly in the forums that they weren't able to make their BMD cards work, even though their systems were "nearly the same as what's on the approved list, so how come it's not working?"

I recently bought an ASUS A8N32-SLI motherboard and Socket 939 CPU instead of getting an AM2 board with a 940 CPU that could potentially have offered 10% more CPU performance at the high end (4800+).

Why did I buy this "obsolete" board? Because it's been on BMD's approved list for nearly a year, and many people have confirmed that it's rock solid.

I love boring stuff that just works (especially during a week when I'm dealing with major gremlins on my office network...!).

Jayster wrote on 7/14/2006, 8:58 AM

Coursedesign:
I would hardly call your mobo and CPU combination "boring." I have the same and it rocks. Maybe it isn't a new Conroe, but I didn't have to spend big bucks for it and I won't be spending the next month surfing forums and newsgroups to find solutions to buggy bios and driver problems.

I would imagine the price of this new hardware is quite high, including the new memory. But it'll go down with time and the drivers and bios will stabilize, so yeah it's quite exciting.

Sometime around the beginning of next year Intel is supposed to come out with some quad-core Xeon type chips. That'll be exciting too (at a high cost, to be sure).

I'm not on either side of the religious war (AMD vs. Intel), I just like it when we have great products to use!

Gotta love it!

Coursedesign wrote on 7/14/2006, 9:25 AM

Sometime around the beginning of next year Intel is supposed to come out with some quad-core Xeon type chips.

Those will be two dual cores in one socket, so slow communication between the pairs of dual-cores.

AMD at that time will be coming out with a true quad core CPU with a very efficient architecture (same architecture as today with major highways between all four cores).

The current Core 2 Duo benchmarks are really excellent, even subtracting the overclocked CPUs (the comparison CPUs were never overclocked).

Anybody know why the overclocked CPUs suffered so much in a few of the benchmarks (COD for example) where the performance seemed inversely proportional to the clock rate (on the same CPU)?

So the AMD 4800+ CPUs will drop to $430 or so later this month. Fortunately I got mine for $530 (factory sealed) so I won't be crying too much...

TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/14/2006, 10:45 AM

normally game related benchmarks are more influenced by the video card & are much more realiant on the gpu/hd/memory speeds then what we do. Honestly though, what we have will be great for all non hd stuff so I'm not worried. When X2's for 939's drop to a "cheap" price I'll be grabbing one of those. :D

but a new system may be intel oriented. Of course I'll wait to see what AMD does. It took Intel 6/7 years of shoveing an inferior product down our throats before they did something worthwhile so I'm expecting if AMD comes out with a radical new, faster chip then intel will once again be using their marketing division to keep sales up, not their r&d division. :)

DrLumen wrote on 7/15/2006, 10:15 AM

I see that one of the benchmarks was using pinnacle. I'm surprised they were able to get pinnacle to run long enough to complete the benchmarks. ;-)

Edward wrote on 7/15/2006, 10:55 PM

Thanks Coursedesign for that tidbit of mobo info. We're puttin' together a new system here, and it helps when you have direction.

jaydeeee wrote on 7/16/2006, 3:27 AM

Who didn't know the core2, this newest release, was going to be good?

TomsH is so gay, what a bunch a' dorks. I stopped reading their crap many years back (favoring hardocp, anandtech, so many others). Look at their headlines - "Game Over?" LOL.
Jesus, I'm convicned they reuse old phrases like this since the inception of the site.

Does ANYBODY really care about the intel/amd "battle"? TomsH still does.
Every poll I've read points to price/performance. So this latest and greatest of anything won't mean squat until the prices fall (as usual with the game).
If I were a frugal buyer getting into core 2, i'd wait for that.

I've been an Intel user forever (except a 1st time amd 4400+ purchase not long ago) and this "game" never changes - it never will. There's always a faster product (from either). As it should, this is system tech we're talking about. Where is all this shock coming from?

The only ones who "win" are intel and amd. Trust me - they both can afford to drop prices further than you think.

what I'd like to see is a solid 3rd of 4rth proc choice emerge.
Then you'll see some real consumer gains.
But we know that prob won't ever happen.

DrLumen wrote on 7/16/2006, 5:59 AM

There are other processor makers, ie IBM & Transmeta, not counting all the embedded CPU makers. And of course there was the, now defunct, Cyrix. IMO, the problem with the smaller makers is they can't compete so it really doesn't help the market any. To use a cliche', anyone can make mouse traps but new makers have a hard time making better moustraps.

Not to mention the invariable cross platform compatibilities - intel licensing, etc... It will be a while before there is another potential CPU maker for the standard PC. It will have to be absolutely stellar for a new chip to get any market share and make a difference in the intel/amd battle. Even now, with apple starting to use intel chips, that hurts (read almost eliminates) IBMs' chances of competing in the PC market. They have a slim chance if their Cell processor can be adapted for PC's AND developers back it by producing software for a Cell based PC.

Until someone comes along that can start getting market share, we are pawns in the intel vs amd chess game. One in which there is no end in sight.

seanfl wrote on 7/17/2006, 7:54 PM

<Does ANYBODY really care about the intel/amd "battle"? TomsH still does.>

count me in. The thought of getting 30-40% performance improvement with less heat...now that's an improvement!

It's good to see Intel leapfrog AMD. And it'll be good to see the opposite happen. We've been sitting still for a bit too long IMO. Getting a couple of these in one machine would make editing HD much easier.

Sean

DGates wrote on 7/18/2006, 12:47 AM

Back in the day, Intel didn't want AMD to succeed, and subsequently tried to keep the little man down, while kicking sand in it's face. AMD goes home, starts lifting weights, and comes back to kick Intel's ass.

Intel got humiliated, went home and lifted weights, and now looks to be back in the game.