What is Digg?45 Comments
- tnwake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Just when I thought maybe we could have 1 computer related article without a reference to crApple.. you throw in this completely unrelated link to your own article. Truly pathetic.
- itsallgeektome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21And just think in 2008 they'll have these things in quad core... People will be playing solitaire and word processing faster than ever!
- robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11HOT: This guy is a self-site spammer
http://digg.com/users/NerdKing/submitted - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No, in fact, it often loses to the FX-60 dual core with vanilla DDR memory.
Disappointing, to say the least. - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Who cares? It's good if Intel kicks it up a notch. It will keep AMD on their toes, and hopefully keep the pricing competitive. If Intel's stuff is faster, I'll buy Intel. If AMD's is faster, I'll buy AMD. Usually, I take both speed and price into consideration, and AMD has won each time in the last five years or so. If Intel can do the same, we all win.
- klbclem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Talking about conroe is like talking about a Pentium D before AMDs socket 939 was released, it's just dumb. Your comparing a product that is already (as of today) on the market to one that will not be released for some while now. You can't expect current amd (or any other brand) to be better than the best of what comes out in six months, that's not the way it works. By the time conroe comes out AMD will prolly be saying that it has some uber proc. that's better than everyone elses and it will defeat the conroe and everyone will be saying how intel can't beat AMDs future technology, and I will still be saying the same thing just in intels defense.
- ReaperUnreal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Isn't this the second review? I thought that [H] Enthusiast did a review of all the new Socket AM2 chips?
- phpCypher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5premature review, no digg.
it's buses are not tuned ! I'd wait to see a review on a bus-tuned BIOS with EQUAL memory..
"One of the problems we have already explained. Even though Athlon 64 X2 5000+ supports DDR2-800, its memory bus works at 742 MHz, not 800 MHz. Even then its maximum bandwidth would be 11,872 MB/s. Our Athlon 64 X2 5000+ used only 61.56% of this, achieving a performance as if the memories were DDR456 in dual channel configuration.
The DDR2 memories on our review were configured as DDR2-800 on the motherboard setup with timings lower than the default memory configuration (5-5-5-14 x 4-4-4-12), as recommended by AMD.
Our review isn’t final, however, since we had 1 GB DDR2 memory installed on AM2 platform but 2 GB DDR on socket 939 platform. We will redo all the benchmarks as soon as we get two 1 GB DDR2 memory modules and we will publish here the results with our comments" - shucklak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+62008?
Try 2007.
Hey, maybe if we're really lucky one might pop out by the end of this year. - nodnarb24, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5pabster: You also need to note that the 5000+ used only 1GB of memory while the others used 2GB. They said they'll redo the testing once they get two 1GB DDR2 memory modules.
- smartpatrol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Your comparing a product that is already (as of today) on the market to one that will not be released for some while now. You can't expect current amd (or any other brand) to be better than the best of what comes out in six months, that's not the way it works."
Conroe comes out in JULY. That's just over 1 month away. We sure as hell can compare the two. We have the numbers today, right now. Sorry that it doesn't work out the way you wanted it to, AMD fanboy. Intel will soon have the crown for raw performance, performance per watt, and performance per dollar. All signs are that it will stay that way until at least 2007, when K8L comes out.
Check out the article "Intel's Conroe spanks AMD FX-62's botty - for real!!" on Hexus http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692
Conroe beats the $1000+ FX-62 at everything except a couple synthetic benchmarks, including a 39 percent advantage in Far Cry. From the intro: "Pesky NDAs stop us from spilling the beans on just what makes the Conroe tick internally. What we can tell you is that the processors were clocked-in significantly below the 2.8GHz-rated Athlon 64 FX-62. We can also confirm that the E6700 will ship with a 65W TDP (half that of Presler 965 and practically half FX-62's)" In other words, these are likely sub-$500 Conroe processors.
Also from the conclusion:
"There's no real need for a summary. The benchmarks tell all. Intel's Conroe simply outmuscles every currently available CPU. Would you buy an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 now? AMD must be thinking that K8-L can't come soon enough.
A little bird also tells us that the Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition may well debut with a 3GHz clockspeed. Just imagine that. Gentlemen and ladies, start your salivating" - muller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This was not a fair benchmark comparison. Here's some comments from Slashdot that I thought were important to note:
"They actually tested the 939 rigs with 2 gigs of memory, and the new rig with 1 gig of memory. They said they didn't have 2 sticks of DDR2 for the AM2 rig, but then they should have only used 1 stick in the 939 rig.
When benchmarking, you should try to keep all test systems as comparable as possible. I really am disappointed by what I consider a glaring oversight.
Seriously, for shame."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The thing that really got me was the conclusion page. For many people, that is all they read. In said conclusion they said the DDR2 support wasn't necessary that great because the FX-60 beat out the 5000 in several test.
In all the CPU specific test, the 5000 came out on top. In tests that benchmarked total system power, the FX-60 rig with 2 gigs running in dual channel mode came out on top.
If these guys don't know how to put together proper testing rigs, let alone extrapolate results, then AMD shouldn't be wasting test equipment on them. They can send processors to me, and I'll put up some serious benchmarks, including detailed overclocking, burn-in testing, temperature readings, etc." - Kdog22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Its 10 pages long and really doesn't say anything... definitely not HOT..
- kefs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*SPAM*
Oh yes.. Yes you are a spammer...
The only stories dugg are your own.. http://digg.com/users/NerdKing
The only stories submitted are your own.. http://digg.com/users/NerdKing/profile - skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So get two 512 MB DDR DIMM's. That would cost like, 30$ these days?
- rvalles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They suffer from a problem which is sadly too common in the "comparing x86-compatible CPUs" world. They aren't really comparing the performance of those CPUs, which, the closest we might get to that is building some benchmark-able code with gcc against the CPU and then benchmarking it. What they are comparing is the performance running PRIVATIVE and CLOSED software with is COMPILED to be run in a wide range of CPU models.
I wonder when will we begin to see serious CPU benchmarking in CPU comparison articles. - AeroSquid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm pretty sure [H]ard OCP had the first review.
- noof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, this just shows that AMD did the right thing when they delayed the introduction of DDR2 until the prices had dropped. But I really feel bad for those that bought an Intel-mobo and almost didn't have any other choice than to buy DDR2 when they were new. And btw, the conclusions-page contains like 3 sentences about the processor and the rest is about DDR vs DDR2.
- vintechsys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For the record I am an AMD fanboy, but I hope Intel kicks the ***** of out AMD. Just so AMD can re-group and do what Intel is doing now and kick butt. Of course we still don't know what suprises they have for the year. *Evil Laugh*
- klbclem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1read my above post...NOTHING is futureproof. You can't expect current AMD tech to be better than what will come out in the future.
- NerdKing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hi, just to let you know that I've corrected today this problem. I re-ran all benchmarks using 2 GB RAM and updated all graphs and text.
Cheers. - wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, way to multiply your ad space...
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What's the big deal... up the multiplier to 14 and run a memory divider of 7. That can get you 800 mhz RAM. I don't see that as a problem at all. Surely it's not going to kill your new AM2 to run at 2.6 ghz instead of 2.4.
- itzac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a poorly written article about a poorly designed benchmark test. I stopped after the first page.
What I think a lot of people miss is that DDR2, with existing memory chips, isn't actually any faster than DDR*. If you convert the clock rates and latencies into actual amounts of time (t = n/f, where n is the CAS/RAS/etc-latency) you end up with very similar numbers.
*I don't actually have any benchmarks to back this up; I'm too lazy to try and find one. - NerdKing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hey. You are right. But everybody runs this kind of application - like Windows XP and MS Office! Nowadays a x86 CPU outside a PC is pretty useless, don't you think?
- foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2okay, i think we can all agree that amd is never going to be able to compete with intel's yonah line. however, i'm starting to think that amd isn't going to be able to compete with intel's conroe line as well. :\
i guess we'll just have to wait and see. - pcgammerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i would like to point out that there is never a good reason to try comparing a CPU that isn't out yet to the first gens of what is out now. you can expect that AMD will come out with second gens of those chips that fix up a few things with them. the last i heard the cornroe wouldn't be out till the end of the year, but i might be wrogn about that. either way the only testing that has been done on that chip (as far as i've heard) has been done by intel using the best of the best for their chip and not so optimised stuff for the AMD chip.
with that said i will say that i am a big AMD fan, but if intel can make a chip that does better for a simliar price then i'll look at them closer, but as of yet there are simply not any out right now. if you look at the prices of intel chips to AMD chips the comparable chips for the lower price is usually going to go to AMD (that was last i really looked closly, but now they went to their stupid coding for their chips instead of the simple one that everyone understood). the other thing to look at is that the "speed" doesn't matter that much its what the CPU can do in the speed that it has, that is where proformance is. that is just a reminder for those that might have forgot.
now to this story: it is important that the test systems are as close as humanly possible, this wasn't so much. and because of this i will not be giving a digg for it as far as comparing this to the upcoming intl chips, i will wait till someone that is imparial to do the tests and compare the two side by side. also the main point of this chip's release wasn't to be the cornroe killer, but rather to get a foot into DDR2. they are smart and know that DDR2 is where the future will be going toward so they made the intgrated DDR2 controller. they also know that the controller is where the profomance is going come through in for the future. - quentinp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually HOT could be quite apt, what kind of cooling do these suckers need?
- foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sure, i love latency! :D
- Rhaegal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, not as much as socket 939 cpu's because their maximum wattage specs are lower.
- NerdKing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No they didn't. Here is what is written there: "Even though AMD is today launching a new processor, we are actually not getting a new processor at all. [H] Enthusiast gives the information you need to know about the AMD's new socket AM2 CPUs." So, they just published an article, not a review.
- NerdKing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Putting one module only would make the system to run at single channel instead of dual channel...
- NerdKing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1[H] Enthusiast didn't make a review but a "preview" article. As stated on their article "we didn't get a CPU for reviewing".
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@nodnarb24
And having personally done numerous tests of my own with 1GB, 2GB, and 4GB, I can tell you the extra GB will make no significant difference in performance. It is typically less than 3% across the board. Because of the DDR2 timing it will likely be even less. - retral, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9I don't know if/when amd will be able to live up to Core Duo's, they (the core duo's) have impressed me thoroughly.
- vintechsys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0One word for the future. HT3
- Lyanto, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13Nice but, unfortunately, it doesn't look like a Conroe killer.
- diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2(sarcasm)yes, because we all know that processor speed has nothing to do with web browsing or multimedia viewing - that is all related to your internet connection..
most people do more than solitaire these days while idle at work. - NerdKing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Oh yes, I am. LOL.
- cebbs, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Wow this new design blows core duos out of the water
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2LINK IS DOWN. DIGG IF YOU AGREE
- cerisaac, on 10/12/2007, -28/+3Dude you are killing me. That's funny as hell!
- cerisaac, on 10/12/2007, -47/+1Talk about hot! Check this out;
http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Nike_(Wireless_in_your_shoes_to_your_Nano)
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is