What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
98 Comments
- bleonard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44@mandarin
there are always fanboys. - mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+40Are there any Intel fanboys?
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29I think this is pretty irrelevant... what matters to the average consumer is bang per buck, not how much they can get if they spend $500 on a processor. A companies flagship processor is irrelevant for pretty much everything but bragging rights - what matters is how fast their mid to low range chips are.
- thetaco82, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26You're right, quad core chips aren't for everyone. For anyone that DOES have a legitimate need, Intel currently has a huge advantage.
- XTX7X, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Look, it's not like anybody expected the AMD chips to beat Intel's. I'm an AMD fan, and I know the K8 architecture is slower than Intel's Core 2. If the Core2 Duo is going to beat the Athlon X2, then you're going to see the same results with doubling the cores. The reason that there are two sockets for four CPUs is because AMD is still using a 90 nm process while Intel has moved down to 65, making the dies smaller with less heat.
This should not be looked at as AMD's comeback to Intel. They just wanted to have an affordable quad-processor solution. AMD's real comback will be with the launch of K8L, which is native quad core. This will include four processors that are all integrated the same way a dual core is, not two dual cores stapled together. The result should be a far more efficient architecture. I've heard K8L is sometime in Q1 or Q2 of 2007. I'm not going to upgrade until i get some of its benchmarks. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23People don't seem to understand when they jump to conclusions about this: multi-core chips only have one advantage: extensively parallel operations. In extensively parallel operations, the more cores the better, For just about everything else that operates sequentially, multiple cores don't confer any advantage because the operations still have to happen one after another.
- fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Umm, except the performance crown doesn't matter to anyone except the biggest computer geeks and intel/amd execs. And that's only a tiny portion of the market. What matters a lot more is mid-range price/performance, ease of deployment, etc.
- MrStylz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24This Digg has benchmarks
http://www.digg.com/hardware/AMD_Athlon_64_FX_74_Quad_FX_Platform_Review
It shows it DOESN'T "trounce" it. It directly compares the FX74 with the QX6700 and the X6800. It ends up showing the 74 > 6700 by about 4%, nothing great. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Things are not looking good for AMD right now. On top of having supply problems, it's lost the performance crown to Intel, and won't regain it for the foreseeable future. By the time AMD transitions to 65nm, Intel will be on 45nm. Things are not looking good.
- Assassinator23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Well that happens in life, ***** occurs, Intel and AMD on the seesaw again.
- FFpixel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Wouldn't it be a Single CPU with 4 cores? Or would you want to argue further that it's two 2-core processors on a single chip?
Semantic Police anyone? - FlakPyro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10single cpu, not single core
- bleonard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Is the 1000W Power Supply comment for real???
- davidwho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7digger makes an ass of himself by not reading TFA?
AMAZING. - Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I read that the QuadFX's NUMA implementation (or, rather, the chipset's implementation) isn't handled well by Windows XP. I'm sure that had something to do with the the benchmarks. I hear that Vista does a better job, and I'm pretty sure that Linux does, too. On the bright side, doesn't the socket support upgrades to the quad core CPU?
It sure seems like the motherboard is overburdened by hardware, too. Two complete Nvidia chipsets? I realize that QuadFX is just a filler until the quad core CPU is released, but it does kind of smack of a jury-rigged solution. - Axim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+781v3d07g0d you must be retarded i use illustrator and photoshop on a regular basis on my 2.4g p4c w 512 ram and it's more than usable. i do entire sites on there with tons of layered effects and vectors etc and it's still fast enough that i wouldn't complain.
so either you are just full of ***** or have no idea how to manage your system because a 3000+ and higher along with 1gig+ ram is more than enough - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"What matters a lot more is mid-range price/performance"
Well, Intel is doing pretty darn well there too with their budget range Core 2 Duo's. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"In all seriousness, the Intel chips should be ONE HELL OF A LOT BETTER than they currently are given the huge cash intel throw at their R&D section!"
No offense, but are you a process architecture designer to even have a say in this? AMD has less profit margins, but it sure still isn't an easy job building processors. Both manufacturers are quite close to each other, and both are in the frontline when it comes to making technologies available in prices reasonable for the consumer market. - MemeWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Had you even bothered to click the link you would know the title was the actual name of the article on Engadget.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But Intel's mid-range is also beating AMD's mid-range as well...and don't think I'm an Intel fanboy: look at my username.
Got AMD? - KJSatz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Intel QX6700 is also quad-core. The title of the Digg article was badly worded. "by single quad-core Intel CPU" may have been better.
- gnomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's not a single core CPU.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7'Dual' posts, right?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I use a 750W PSU, didn't cost all that much either. If I was running a quad core with quad SLi that would be the minimum I'd go with.
- SteveMax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5when was amd behind intel for a very long time?
In the 5x86/K5/K6 versus Pentium times, for example. AMD 486s were faster than the Intel ones, but after the Pentium Intel took a large lead. The Pentium 2 stepped over the K6-II (which was faster than the original Pentium), and the Pentium 3 versus Athlon was the first real performance fight.
So yes, AMD was behind Intel for a very long time. - renegadeafk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@81v3d07g0d
I can run ps and illustrator fine with an old socket 478 p4 3.0ghz, and 1 gb of corsair valuram.... - EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@zybch, just remember, wattage doesn't mean much anymore.
I would take a good 400 over some POS 750 any day(I am pointing at you Aspire and all you others!). Fortron Source FTW! - XTX7X, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not only about the video card. In fact, it's been tested that if you have an 8800GTX, you can double your 3D processing potential by upgrading from a 4200+ to a Core2 Extreme.
- OnoTadaki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I love how they link Tom's Hardware. Yeah... Tom's Hardware isn't biased or ANYTHING... /sarcasm.
Still, this article is OBVIOUS. (From Tom's Hardware - http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/page8.html )
The benchmarks are run on things like gaming performance in 5 different games, performance in a graphical benchmark application, etc... All of which the four core model slugs behind in (which I could have told you it would last year). If you take any multi-cored processor on the market and put it on a task that's not configured for threading between multiple cores, you will obviously get lower scores. This processor is designed for people who use applications configured for multi-cores, and not some benchmark junky who hacks up a poor benchmark running both processors on the same settings.
I can guarantee that if you took a multi-cored intel processor and stacked it versus a single cored AMD processor and biased these tests the same way, you'd get exactly the same readings.
Yes, AMD is having a hard time right now. That's pretty common knowledge, but these tests are by no means accurate, or conclusive. - MrSparky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I've always been a big fan of AMD, and would never even bother looking at the Intel offerings when purchasing customers components...
However, my choice isn't dictated by fanaticism, it is dictated by VALUE FOR MONEY. I go with what I personally feel I get better performance for the money from, and until recently that has always been AMD. If Intel take a lead on the 'value-for-money' then I will happily purchase their chips instead.
Does it really matter if it's AMD or Intel powering your rig?! No!
Get over it. - Taikun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Each core counts as a CPU"
Not according to the Microsoft Licensing Structure...
XP Home runs on a dual core single CPU system, but not a dual CPU system. You need Pro for that. - lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"And that is supposed to mean what? AMD was behind Intel in performance for a very long time."
NetBurst sucked donkey balls and you know it. Core 2 systems are crazy fast now but back then, AMD wiped its ass with NetBurst schematics. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The biggest selling processor on the planet is ARM core. When did they ever finish top in any performance testing. Their dirt cheap and solid, that's where the money is.
- DarknessGP, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10single intel cpu? marked as inaccurate. If you look at the benchmarks that the blog links to, the fx-74 is being beat out by the Core 2 QX6700 a quad core, not a single core.
- farrellj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not only that, but XP and programs written for it are sort of brain-dead when dealing with multiple CPUs. XP doesn't have any real processor affinity capabilities, which also will cause problems. If they had used Vista and/or Linux, and gotten the same results, it would be a clear win for Intel, but the fact that the results are so close simply shows the problems with XP.
ttyl - ThWorks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3the amount of watts the amd platform uses compared to the intel one is startling.
- pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It may be the last article that was front page about this topic (hard op?) said that the AMD setup used 100% more power than the Intel they tested. I'm not sure but it would seem they ran similar setups. Now whether or not this has to do with your question im not sure.
- jeebus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Windows XP's NUMA implementation is terrible, period. So I really wouldn't blame AMD for that.
- breaks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2obviously you've never heard of the pentium D 805
- tmcdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let the next round of price cut$ begin (early, this time!)
Personally, I can't believe how much the cpu slot, graphics slot, and memory standards have changed, but with the goal of not boosting performance necessarily.. but forcing YOU the consumer to upgrade all your computer components every couple of years.
Really why did they need a cpu slot with just "ONE MORE PIN"? Why couldn't agp bus architecture have lasted another couple of years? Why is ddr-2 memory such high latency, and so expensive? Why, why why?
It's a scam to keep people paying more for computer components, but not leave any one company/sector of the industry vulnerable to price fixing/collusion charges! This is why I demand that you people stop upgrading these 3 components like it's going out of style!
CPU/MOTHERBOARD/GRAPHICS_CARD/MEMORY (for starters) then, just maybe the innovation will get back on track to where it was in the 1980's/90s. - sn0w, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's like comparing apples and oranges.
- Kickboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I feel the article is misleading. AMD hasn't released any new chips, they simply released a new motherboard that uses nVidia's new nForce 680a chip. This article says AMD made new Quad FX "chips", and there is no such thing. Quad FX is a system built into the motherboard that allows for 2xAMD64's, which when run with AMD64 x2 CPU's provides a virtual 4-core platform. AMD has not released an actual Quad-Core chip yet; you'll have to wait until this spring for that.
- reason78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Regarding this AMD is 10% the size of Intel... People who quote this act as if the only thing Intel makes is CPUs, which isnt taking into account all the other products that intel is involved with. AMD only makes CPUs and Flash. Intel does tons of CPUs (desktop, server, mobile handhelds,etc), MCHs, ICHs, Flash, Comm. chips, devices for medical industry and designs its own internal GFX. Also releases alot of software. Up until AMD's acquisition of ATI, they only did cpu & flash.
Yes, I imagine AMD's CPU design team is smaller than Intel's, but not by this 10x factor that you're quoting.
-----------------------------------------------------
"Also, take into account that AMD is what, 10% the size of Intel??
Its amazing that they keep producing chips as good as they are with only a tiny smigeon the funding that Intel has.
In all seriousness, the Intel chips should be ONE HELL OF A LOT BETTER than they currently are given the huge cash intel throw at their R&D section!" - grachi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will be irrelevant in a few months.
Ever since AMD started to become a serious competitor against Intel, magazines and websites and whatever else have been back and forth for years on which current chip was better. It all means diddly-squat because both companies develop and improve their chips before most people even know the last one was out on the market. Chances are, the next generation of chips AMD will be out on top, then Intel, then AMD again... The lifespan is too short to really make much of a difference. - dd240sx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what happened to AMD this year is similar what happened to SONY PS3 thing this year they came in late to the game. last 2 years AMD cpus where prime choice for gaming they used to crush all Intel CPUs with ease, but Intel caught up with Core2 and now they are back in the game. 2 years ago Prime gaming console was PS2 Xbox was good but not as good not many games and PS2 had year head start now xbox 360 Rules. I think is all about who can bring the best product to the game faster and as of right now that is Intel and Microsoft.
I am currently running AMD Athlon™ 64 3000 and i am thinking to upgrade now to Core2 Duo pretty soon. I was big fan Of AMD and told everybody that was buying hardware that they should go with AMD Cpu's but as of now is Intel. I am hoping that AMD is working on something crazy right now because of the whole ATI purchase but i think we wont see anything crazy for while form AMD. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The QuadFX is two chips. The QX6700 is four cores on one chip. It's equivalent technology. I think the bigger story is the ridiculous power consumption of the QuadFX, not the fact that its four cores are split across two dies.
- igutekunst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Give AMD a while and they'll make a breakthrough as well.
- Brandoskey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2they tossed out what? you realise cpu's take longer than a couple weeks to design and test right? do you think amd can just make a new cpu in a matter of weeks or months? cpu makers are always a year or more ahead, just look at the road maps, they're working on stuff that they plan to release 2 years from now.
really, you need to do a little research before you come out with some uninformed comment like that. - breaks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you're a meathead.
amd vs intel is nothing like ps2 vs xbox.
not even a little. -
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is