hothardware.com — AMD officially launched their next speed bump in the Athlon 64 product line, in the form of a new 90nm-based 3GHz part, branded the Athlon 64 6000+ with 1MB of on-chip cache per core. Unfortunately, in all the benchmarks seen here, it was still unable to catch Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700 chip at 2.66GHz.
Feb 20, 2007 View in Crawl 4
vuke69Feb 20, 2007
Because besides memory addressability, and a couple of percent performance that can be picked up in a select few applications, 64bit is all marketing hype.
rtiniFeb 20, 2007
Yep, AMD will eventually come out with something faster than today's Core 2 Duo... like in a year or so...
Closed AccountFeb 20, 2007
Abandoning socket939 for the dubious AM2 was a strategic mistake. All for DDR2 which has yet to impress. Consider joining the Socket939 Alliance!<a class="user" href="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=922913">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=922913</a>
rtiniFeb 20, 2007
Actually this new 3Ghz AMD chip uses 33% more power under load than the faster 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo does, when you measure system power consumption:<a class="user" href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=9">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=9</a>
evi1Feb 21, 2007
We call them "fanboys" here.
kronix2Feb 21, 2007
"I'd still want to buy AMD though, if they can price their chips right."Why? Intel has a clear lead with regards to performance, value and overclocking ability. An E6300 (1.86Ghz) effortlessly overclocks to 3Ghz out of the box, and easily outperforms the E6700 at stock speed. The E6300 retails for ?115 while the E6700 goes for ?352 - three times as much. Crank it up to 3.5Ghz (with a quality motherboard, PC2-6400 ram and aftermarket air cooling) and performance rivals the Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800 which is priced at ?657 - almost six times as expensive. There's not even a debate going on. Core 2 Duos are the enthusiasts' choice, because nothing AMD has to offer can compete.I've only ever bought AMD (Athlon XP 1700+, Athlon 64 3200+) but my new system will be based on a Core 2 Duo. I see no reason why anybody would hold out for AMD chips unless they're building an ultra-budget computer. Give enthusiasts a choice over vastly superior performance and clinging to a brand name, and they'll take the superior performance.
thegurustudFeb 21, 2007
You're a tool or very uninformed. AMD's power ratings are the absolute theoretical max. Intel's are "typical", almost like an avg. Intel lies through their ass (no big surprise). AMD @ 90nm is about the same as Intel at 65 nm, hmmmmm :) Plus, AMD has the added power of the memory controller, so for a direct comparison that should be subtracted.
digitapFeb 21, 2007
I'm an AMD fanboy. I've only owned amd mostly, i think i owned an old pent1 some years back;The reason i'm their fanboy doesn't have to do with my stock investments; smaller companies with such a size difference never succeed in toppling the giant; the giant can simply pin the competitor with too many resources, driving them out of business, rather than driving progress, forward. If i was gonna buy stock, it'd be intel. But the reason im an amd fanboy is because they came around, and made intel's sorry ass, throw some product out; Believe me guys, if it weren't for AMD you wouldn't be seeing s**t, from intel.Personally i think intel is always going to trump AMD..... in the 'long haul' whatever that means. However i sincerely feel like, Intel is a classic, heavyweight champion: it thinks it shouldn't have to work out; shouldn't have to defend its title, and it sits around, until AMD comes out and kicks their asses.Then shamed, they go back to camp, stop living on ham sandwiches, and work out; produce a moderately effective show for folks, then back to the ham sandwich routine.For this reason, i buy AMD in order to simply spread the competition for the dollars, around.AMD has given the world a lot of nice products. They are THE REASON computing is where it is today, and if it weren't for them, there would be a lot of 133mhz computing going on today, because intel is a business machines manufacturer: face it, Lloyds of London doesnt give a s**t if their data takes 2 seconds, or 2.5 to deliver across the globe to a bank somewhere. They want efficiency, but more than anything, they want stability, reliability, and ease of servicing. Stalwart and dependable computing products provide that. It's so far over doing everything by snailmail and by hand, that that extra .5 seconds, really wouldn't mean that much -IF IT WERENT FOR THE COMPETITION MAKING THAT .5 SECOND DIFFERENCE MATTER.I'm an AMD fanboy but i'm one for the sake of the market. Not for the sake of absolute specs at a given moment. I look for ANY reason to abandon a big, bloated company, for a hungrier, leaner one, and right now that's AMD.No real point to make, just 'GO market competition'.It's the only thing saving you from trying to run BF2 on a 133mHz Pent1.I know it's a vast oversimplification, but i have to say: AMD has kicked a LOT of Intel ass; if it werent for that.......... you do the math