What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by American Express
The Perfect Gift for the Impossible-to-buy For view!
americanexpress.com - Quit guessing and help them get what's on their secret wishlist--with an American Express Gift Card.
104 Comments
- sardonic, on 10/12/2007, -25/+63Wow... their newest product beats an older AMD holy crap! run for the hills.
- mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34@smartpatrol
Dude, at no point did it say that it was an FX-62. Stop making stuff up and rtfa. - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26The Athlon FX-62 is dual-core.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9488%5E9495,00.html - mc900ftjesus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29So, Intel was running this benchmark huh? I bet those are completely honest.
- smartpatrol, on 10/12/2007, -33/+50FX-62 is the newest and greatest from AMD. It's socket AM2, DDR2 and everything.
Regardless, no matter how old FX-62 is, it's the best AMD has at the moment (and will have in the near future), so you bet it's a fair comparison. Were you complaining when Athlon 64 came out and beat Intel's 2-year-old Pentium 4? - mgainor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23I'm probably buying Intel for my next chip, but who's stupid enough to believe anything about an Intel-controlled benchmark?
"Core 3 Duo"? Sloppy. - databyss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16They article says clockspeed of both platforms was 2.6GHz, so it can't be an FX-62. The FX-62 is clocked at 2.8Ghz.
The FX-60 is clocked at 2.6Ghz.
So yes, they compared it to an old chip. - alcimedes, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Mac users? (See: Steve Jobs and his RDF)
And yes, I'm typing this on a Mac. Doesn't mean I can't poke fun at them. - matt.rubin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23This is not correct
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/page5.html
It shows that they are neck and neck. But the AMD is slighty better when it comes to high quality games and i think know one would run it on barebones. So uhh no.
Next time make sure its from a neutral side - Neumahn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Did they mention what graphics processors they were using? Seems like that would be important.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Yeah, might have been nice if they had given exact part numbers. Saying "Athlon FX" is like saying "Pentium." Unless the specific processor is named, the comparison doesn't mean anything. Kudos to Intel if they've made this big a leap, though. And Kudos to AMD for pushing them to do so. Now let's see what AMD can counter with.
- blanski, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Why would you wonder that? Apple users aren't the type of people that would wonder such things.
They get what Apple gives them and that is the end of it. - dharm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Well they didnt actually show any specifications, or what exactly they tested, and in what environments, this is one half-assed review/benchmark/news article
anyways, it could be true, but i dont trust anything when a vendor does their own benchmarks, and release their findings with no backing... - implosion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12This is a tactic that Apple likes to use from time to time. Show one or two good bench marks against the competition then fill the rest of their slides with comparisons of their new stuff compared to their old stuff and not the competition.
I do agree that the Core Duo line of chips is a huge step in the right direction for Intel and that the Core 2 should prove to be a great line of chips.
There are a couple of things I want to see before I go out and buy one though. One, I want to see it benched by a 3rd party like Hard OCP or Toms. Two, I would like to see how it stacks up to soon to be released AMD chips. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14This isn't necessarily inaccurate, but the article doesn't say which AMD processor was used, other than it was an FX processor. The graph only compares the new Intel with an older Intel.
The only thing we know for sure is that Intel compared a dual core CPU that hasn't been released yet with an AMD that is already on the market. How will it compare to an AMD dual core CPU that will be released at the same time? - dime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14
This is an article? It's barely a blog..
Hell, it almost qualifies as a teenagers diary entry. - BrewedInTexas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Obviously they lied about them being identical systems.
The FX-60 would have an identical clock speed but would not be able to use DDR2.
The FX-62 would have a higher clock speed but would be able to use DDR2.
Either that or the played with overclocking/underclocking which immediately nullifies whatever results they came up with in my mind. - ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Is it twice as fast as the Athlon? More? Or is it again one of those things where in a game you'll see 145 FPS instead of 140 FPS?
The term "Blows Away" gets watered down more and more. When I hear "Blows Away" I'm thinking like 5 or 10 times faster than something else. Like a Porsche 911 "blows away" a go-cart. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@smartpatrol - Not true. The FX-55 and FX-57 were sold side-by-side for some time, and the coming of the FX-60 didn't retire the FX-57.
- Allanon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8How can you say it's incorrect? In the Tom's Hardware article they don't have benchmarks for Doom 3 and in the HardOCP article they only compare Doom 3 with AMD's chip. Maybe Intel's chip works great with Doom 3 as they stated and that is why they used that benchmark but only compared other games to their older chip because their new Core 2 Duo doesn't beat AMD. This type of testing is skewed but doesn't make the article incorrect.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Your article that you linked to isn't neutral either. They compared an overclocked 3.0 GHz AMD Athlon FX-62... compared to a stock Conroe E6700. What about pricing? The Conroe E6700 is middle of the road (not extreme edition), and will cost in the range of $500, not the $1K+ that the FX-62 costs... and nevermind Intel has the Core 2 Extreme coming too clocked in at 2.93 Ghz that these sites are not testing.
- BinaryJay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Digg loves Apple, but hates Intel...
You guys have an identity crisis. - RabbidSquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+920g + mats? I have [Silicon Waver][Gold Pins]
- jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22Which FX? The single core FX-57, the dual core FX-60, the new dual core AM2 FX-62...?
Reported as inaccurate. - thesauce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Kosterfield, you are an idiot. It's an SLI mobo, with an ATI card in it. ATI doesn't use SLI technology. How could they possibly have run SLI with an ATI X1900XTX card?
- ozziegt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12P4 is the best until you need an air conditioner just for your CPU.
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is exactly why I AVOID these kinds of articles. When I want benchmarks, I want realistic benches with apps I use. I want to see it for myself. I want to see all of the settings, and I want to see it done with hardware I'd actually use. In other words, regardless of CPU mfgr., x is the brand of RAM I like, y is the brand of video card I like, and z is the brand of motherboard I like. I'll bench it myself and be my own judge.
Pissing and moaning asside, I'm very excited about what Intel is bringing to the table this year. Intel has been my preferred brand for a long time, but I can't help but feel they've been lacking a bit in recent years. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on their newer processors and seeing just what it can do. - in4mation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I am no AMD lover or anything but:
1- I'd barely call this an article. Next time please post something more detailed.
2- This should be taken with a grain of salt.
3- I'm reporting this as inaccurate. - Massif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'll wait to see how the prices compare before making any snap judgements. I was planning on getting an X2 or an FX processor, but maybe I'll wait a while.
- pxa270, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Comparing the E6700 to the FX-62 on that page, the E6700 wins 6 benchmarks, ties 2 and loses 1. Now consider that the E6700 will cost $530 while the FX-62 goes for $1031...
- diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Reported as innacurate. Does not say which AMD Athlon FX processor was used in the bechmark.
- bluehouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6They did a PowerPoint presentation. It must be true!
- DataPath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Intel for the core 2 duo fixed a bus width problem in their SIMD unit, in addition to reducing the time for the SSE instructions to 1 cycle.
Both represent a serious boost to their SIMD/SSE performance compared to Core 1 and earlier.
AMD already has a full 128 bit datapath for their SIMD unit, but in their current-gen they don't have the 1 cycle SIMD instruction. That's slated for their new processors coming out in the last half of this year. At that point, AMD and intel should pretty much have full feature/performance parity in their SIMD units. For years, AMD has outperformed intel, and for half a generation, intel will outperform AMD (speculation - we'll see how much of a boost the 1cycle SIMD instructions actually give AMD).
No - I'm afraid it's not easy to say which company really produces better processors because they tend to release their "best" processor about half a generation off from each other. I remember the reactions when Intel slapped a few extra megabytes of on-die cache to a pentium 4 and released the "pentium 4 extreme edition" right before AMD announced a major new product, in order to steal a bit of AMD's thunder. There were more than a few disgruntled people because it was kind of a low blow (but hey, that's business), and because it was a pretty lame way to kick up performance a bit (especially for the cost). - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32.6 Ghz is the non-overclocked speed of the Core 2 Duo (conroe) E6700. So no. they did not overclock it.
- diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Reported as innacurate.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This shouldnt be surprising at this point - review sites across the board have been predicting that this round of desktop chips from Intel will beat the hell out of the new AMD products... Keep in mind that AMD has been a round for a while and has a mixed success from product to product in competing with Intel, and that Intel has owned the mobile (Centrino) and handheld (XScale) chip markets the entire time.
Just because AMD has had a hell of a run in the last 5 years in desktop and server performance doesnt mean they cant lose it for the next 5 if Intel comes out with better products. - fogbog293, on 02/10/2009, -1/+4the FX 62 is both of those things
- smartpatrol, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8AMD's next-gen K8L won't be here until at least Spring 2007. If you really want to wait until then, feel free. For anybody who isn't an AMD fanboy, this is awesome news. If K8L kicks the crap out of Conroe next spring, even better.
- LtCarter47, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I'm a mac user, and I wonder all I want. I just don't expect any of it to happen.
- BrewedInTexas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does anyone actually read comments before shooting their mouths off? I know I won't be able to convince everyone to read the article before they post, but dear lord is it that hard to read the comments first?
Summary so far...
It's a vendor run benchmark. Always take them with a grain of salt.
They don't list the specs of the processors running. You think they would make sure they listed this if the results were that impressive.
There's already been benchmarks run and they show very different results. - ilitirit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They article says clockspeed of both platforms was 2.6GHz, so it can't be an FX-62. The FX-62 (if I'm not mistaken) is clocked at 2.8Ghz
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Core 2 Duo was faster than the FX-62 anyway. But I'm more concerned with value for money than raw power. Whichever one of these CPU's gives me the best performance (and lowest power consumption) per $ is the winner IMO.
Here's another comparison I found:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692&page=3 - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So far every single conroe vs. fx-62 benchmark ever posted on digg was inaccurate in some shape or form.
- MeatFlaps, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sites with black backgrounds and white text oughta shampoo my crotch.
- Mag1KaL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If anyone is wondering why these new Core 2 chips are so much more powerful then the ones from last generation (Intel or AMD), it's because Intel dropped the flawed NetBurst architecture for which the Pentium 4 was based.
The NetBurst architecture had one goal in mind... Megahertz. For a time this strategy worked, but then they ran into the power wall that eventually caused Intel to drop NetBurst and create the new Core architecture based on the more efficient Pentium 3.
I have no doubt that when the Core 2 Duo chips are released, they will completely outperform the fastest AMD chips available. However I think AMD will be making a counter attack in the following months... we'll see... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8i wonder how a mac would perform if it had a AMD processor?
- Antz0rz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All credibility was blown away once intel said so.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think the processor that they tested (the E6700) costs about $530... compared to the FX's traditional cost of $1K+. I'd say that's pretty good bang for the buck.
- RoyalRabbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Intel spits.. Apple swallows.
- jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@smartpatrol
"Maybe you could actually read the article instead of crying about it?"
I read the article. I stand by my previous post. Your point is...?
"Also, FYI, AMD only has one "FX" processor at any given time. It represents the best AMD processor they can make at the time."
This statement is extremely ignorant. Please refer to my original post.
The article vaguely (whether purposefully or not) pronounces "Athlon FX" without details of which chip. It doesn't, by default, mean it's the newest one. Very poor writing. - Durinthal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I prefer the dark-background sites, actually. Not nearly as blindingly bright.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is