Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1032 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s May 19 - 06:07pm EDT 
Hardware Analysis
Forums Product Prices

  Latest Topics 

More >>


  You Are Here: 
/ Forums / Processors /

  [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors 
 Date Written 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2
Mike L. Feb 15, 2006, 03:52am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
"where would Intel be without AMD."

WTF!? Are you high? Isn't it more like, where would AMD be without Intel? I can't believe that you seriously had the audacity to post something like that. You've obviously just started using a computer yesterday, or you're seriously blinded by your own conformity. Secondly, neither AMD nor Intel have anything to do with the progression of eachothers products. Albeit that either side has "influenced" the other to take more of cautious approach when competion gets steep, but that's about it. They're two companies both in the semi-conductor business who've been feuding with eachother for the last 30 odd years. When is this fanboyism attitude ever going to stop? Seriously, it's disgusting, it's ridiculous and it seriously degrates all of you of your dignity. If you like whichever company, for whatever reason, then that's great. If you want to argue one companies positives over the other, then do it in a mature fashion. I can't stress that enough.. posting a childish remark like that and bashing Intel into the ground doesn't promote any sort of integrity on your part or prove any sort of 'fact' over Intel. I mean c'mon...

I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
Want to enjoy less advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
SuPeR Xp Feb 15, 2006, 08:27am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors

Custom AMD HAF 932 Red Dragon GAMING MOD!!!
Mike L. Feb 15, 2006, 01:33pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
Fair in terms of how? What are you a feminist or something, you'd actually disregard a company and buying it's products because they practice poor business ethics? You honestly think that AMD is as clean as a whistle? If a product works, buy it, regardless. There's no such thing as an honest business anyway. Those two words don't fit in the same sentence. Even if they are crooked, I could care less. You don't see people complaining when they buy fast food, when that stuff is very well made of out of old gym mats and rotting carcasses.

I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
G. G. Feb 15, 2006, 03:33pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
" Innovative ", " FACTS ", etc........ - SuperXp

Oh geezzzz here comes those loosely used terms again ;)

"Now the one thing which "I Do Not Like" is a company not playing a fair GAME, and this is one reason why I will never buy Intel products until they proof to me that they are fair & competitively fair too." - SuperXP

Mike L... ----- Oh you didnt realize that AMD is a god sent to the little guy ???? AMD always look out for the joe smooozzzz over profit or their own needs.... Unlike Intel's imperializism/capitalism ways....???????

"one reason why I will never buy Intel products" - SuperXP

"wow intel just copys and copys they p**s me off more than anyother pc company ever. I will never by there product." - Somba

Well.... lets put this way.... I will never buy a AMD product when you have the kind of thinking and bashing that goes on out of personal reasons that is forced upon others against Intel. You try a Intel product because you just want to..... Not because you or anyone may think or what Intel does as a business or company BUT as just because you want to and stop the Bashing ( Bashing = Non- Productive/Constructive )....... Then maybe I will give AMD a second chance. ( I personally wanted to try an AMD until I joined HWA over a year ago and finding out "is this the type of community that follows AMD ?" )......


A_Pickle Feb 16, 2006, 12:33am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
G. G. is entirely correct.

The people above haven't a single clue what the hell they're talking about. It's funny how you think AMD is still in the lead for innovation and technology -- when Intel has a CPU out which matches theirs in performance AND CONSUMES 33% THE POWER. Then there's the complete denial that the Pentium 4 outperformed ANY Athlon XP -- or Athlon 64 for that matter! The Pentium 4 at 3.0 GHz with an 800 MHz front side bus annihilated the Athlon XP 3200+ -- AND it was STILL competitive against the Athlon 64 3200+.


AMD Fanboy: "...Oh, but wait, I'm an AMD fanboy. I don't care about actually reading articles or basing my unnecessarily inflammatory and baseless statements off of any actual evidence or benchmarks. I am inexplicably driven to using smiley faces, dismal grammar, poor web-design skills and a complete lack of cognitive thought when I'm composing my posts. I also mindlessly belittle anything which Intel has had a hand in producing."

Me: "Well, Intel was responsible for the development and production of the microprocessor."

AMD Fanboy: "Are you attempting to utilize my own inanely flawed logic in a statement that would reduce my nonexistant argumentative foundation to nonexistant rubble? That is most unfortunate. Rather than maturely acknowledging the merits which Intel deserves, I will instead completely defy logic and type long words whose collective meanings escape me, but they sure look retarded when typed in all caps and stuck between some quotes and smileys."


To be truthful, I have nothing against AMD and their leadership is astoundingly good in some cases, and not so great in others. For example, I genuinely admire Hector Ruiz, being Latin American myself. That said, AMD's CTO, Phil Hester is... kind of an a**hole. The K8 is an excellent architecture, admittedly. I think Intel made a poor business decision by neglecting to integrate the memory controller on the die, and by not implementing a high-speed interconnect at least on it's high-end server and workstation chips. In addition, I feel that silicon-on-insulator technology would have helped their NetBurst architecture to higher and greater things.

That said, there are at least two cases in which I can say I disagree with AMD's corporate philosophy. They are unprofessional to a point of being obnoxious (not unlike their armies of fanboys). Ever heard of the "Prescott Survival Kit?" What about the "Top Ten Reasons Intel didn't participate in the Dual-Core Duel?" I'm sure you found both of these hilarious, and will continue to justify them, but the fact of the matter is they weren't something that a Fortune 500 company does. Both of these very public things were incredibly immature.

Perhaps, someday, when you fanboys base your statements off of credible evidence, proper grammer and perhaps some semblance of logic behind them, I'd take you with a degree of respect. As a final word, this entirely directed at fanboys, not AMD users. Fanboys probably don't know who they are -- they're rather misguided in thinking they have an objective opinion. That is immaterial, however, because the only people to whom this is directed, are non-fanboys -- and they know who they are. If there's confusion, please PM me.



>>>>>First superscalar RISC - K5
Nice Try.

>>>>>First to use "Flip-Chip" technology
Intel pioneered mass production of Land Grid Array.

>>>>>First on-chip L2 cache - K6-3
And the Intel Pentiums, the first chips with cache in the first place, still outperformed it. Go ahead, check.

>>>>>First use of copper interconnects - K-7
First multithreaded microarchitecture process, Intel -- Intel Xeon, 2001

>>>>>First fully pipelined, superscalar floating point unit - K-7
First floating point unit, Intel -- i80487SX

>>>>>First to extend x86 to 64-bits (AMD64) - K-8
Developed x86.

>>>>>First to sample Dual Core Technology - K-?
Nice try. For one, Intel beat AMD to dual-cores by a month. For second, IBM scored the first dual core, the Power4, in 2001.

>>>>>Where AMD leads, Intel follows!
>>>>>AMD has shown the way!
Haha. That's funny now, since you lied on most of those....and failed to give Intel due credit where it deserves. Unfortunately, the AMD fanboys of the world will credit you where you deserve to have little or no credibility.

Shadow_Ops_Airman1 Feb 16, 2006, 12:49am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
dont forget amd almost died few years back.

AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (133x14= 1867MHz) (209x11= 2299MHz)
DFI LP NF2 Ultra-B (Hellfire 3EG Rev2)
Antec SX800, Neo HE 500, 4 Antec 8CM Fans
Thermalright SI-97 1 Antec Tricool 12CM Fan
CL SB XFi Xtreme Music
2x Barracuda HDs (250/400)
2x Samsung Write
A_Pickle Feb 16, 2006, 12:06pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
And produced direct clones of Intel products for more than the first half of their lifetime.


Daniel Gibbon Feb 16, 2006, 01:37pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
agreed !!!! pentium 4 destroyed the xp yet all amd fanboys used the claims AMD IS STILL FASTER IN GAMING. Even though it had 10fps less on most games and the fact a 2.4ghz northwood with 800fsb could take on a 2800 - 3000 + says alot lol but dont forget games are faster on an xp!!!!!

AMD 3200+ 64 90nm @STOCK an proud
msi platinum neo 2 nforce 4
2gb 4x 512mb PC4000 Ballistix
sapphire x1900xt 512mb
4 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB
2 x 500gb hard drives
Koolance Exos cooling system with 265watt peltier
mx1000 laser mouse
SuPeR Xp Feb 16, 2006, 01:54pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
No offence but I don't agree. I don't like to support a company which was trying to make a Monopoly of themselves. Heck just call it my Pet Peeve, but when it comes down to recommending either AMD or Intel, that Pet Peeve of mine is locked up in a box.
I recommend AMD right now because they offer better bang for your buck. They currently have the faster product, but that is already old news.

And I did on several occasions recommend Intel's Pentium M & Core Duo, right?

Sorry G.G if some of my responses are also circulating my Pet Peeve. The Pet Peeve is personal & how I feel about a company. Heck, I won't even touch NVIDIA's graphics right now due to an experience I had, and there customer support just brushed me off. Hell, I still have the GeForce 4 I bought sitting in my drawer.

Wait a minute, I should just e-bay the freaking thing out of my drawer ;)

Custom AMD HAF 932 Red Dragon GAMING MOD!!!
SuPeR Xp Feb 16, 2006, 01:59pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
One more note I would like to make is that AMD does not only perform better in games. There Dual Core CPU's are now very competative all accross the board period.

I also hear that Intel's (Old News) new CPU's are all somewhat based on the Pentium 3 (Pentium M) design, but with some added extras. That is good news, they should compete way better now with AMD.

Oh, now there is talk that AMD's new FX line of CPU's supporting Socket AM2 (DDR-2) are going be 4MB of cache.

128k L1
2MB L2
4MB L4 ?? This only means that Intel's new line is going to be a kick ass style product right? I love it ;)

Custom AMD HAF 932 Red Dragon GAMING MOD!!!
Mike L. Feb 16, 2006, 04:05pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
Oh oh, AMD is going to be using 4MB of cache? Wasn't it rumored that Intel was going to use 4MB of cache for their Conroe chips FIRST.. Looks like AMD is copying Intel again!

I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
A_Pickle Feb 16, 2006, 04:48pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
AMD hasn't used 4 MB of cache. Irrespective of how you warp it -- AMD's dual cores have 2 MB cache per core. Conroe's total cache may be 8 MB of cache per core -- but it's more likely (pretty assuredly) to have 4 MB shared cache. If you can provide the link where Intel promises 4 MB of cache FIRST, then provide it, otherwise don't post that kind of baseless statement.

As for the Pentium 4, I'm sorry to see it go, but it was time about a year ago. That said, I'd still take a Pentium 4 660 over an Athlon 64 3800+. AMD's desktop dual-cores are unmatched in outright performance, but Intel's 2.0 GHz Core Duo can compete with an Athlon 64 X2 3800+, neck-and-neck, and while the Athlon chews 89 watts of power, the Core Duo sips 31 watts. Added to that is the Pentium M, which at 2.0 GHz matches or is slightly weaker than a 2.4 GHz Turion 64 or a 2.2 GHz Athlon 64. The crazy thing? The Pentium M beats the Turion 64 in gaming.


Supreet Virdi Feb 16, 2006, 05:02pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
"Looks like AMD is copying Intel again!"

Its called basic needs, learn to understand what's computing is about, then try to figure who's copying whom.

Mike L. Feb 16, 2006, 05:08pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: [New] Intel Dual Core Conroe 2.66 Ghz vs AMD Processors
It's called sarcasm jackass.

I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2



  Topic Tools 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates

  Related Articles 

A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.