Intel is back on top!!!!!!!

conzy

Look like Intel finally realised how crap the P4 is so they built a great processer

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

It beats an FX-60 @2.8ghz by over 40% in FEAR:eek:

But its not due for 6 months,

AMD had better bring something to the Table other than AM2 and DDR2, or they are in big trouble

maidhc

You make it sound like it is a bad thing that a superior processor is about to be brought to the market?

Who cares who makes it!

Endurance Man

conzymaher wrote:

Look like Intel finally realised how crap the P4 is so they built a great processer

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

It beats an FX-60 @2.8ghz by over 40% in FEAR:eek:

But its not due for 6 months,

AMD had better bring something to the Table other than AM2 and DDR2, or they are in big trouble

I great new cpu hits the market and you get upset .

8T8

The benchmarks certainly show promise and it about time Intel got back in the game but till we see similar results independently verified with retail samples I would remain a bit skeptical.

AMD aren't going to be sitting still either but it will be nice to have a bit of competition & I hope Intel's new CPU's do deliver the goods.

Capt'n Midnight

It also depends on the price.

secret_squirrel

Well thats what happens if you poke an 800 pound gorilla with a sharp stick.

Lets see what happens when people get their hands on production versions.

christophicus

Yeah i hope that the compitition cause the prices to drop!!!!AMD have been letting thier prices get rediculouse in the last 2 years!!!

RuggieBear

It'll cost an arm and a leg....

christophicus

SO is this a whole new processor familly? IS this th cpu thta poeple were saying intel could make if they combined their Pentium M and P4/D Architecture??

Khannie

christophicus wrote:

AMD have been letting thier prices get rediculouse in the last 2 years!!!

It's more that they've been more focused on the mid-range and upper end of what people are willing to pay. Traditionally AMD had been the poor mans processor, then (with the A64) they became the sensible persons processor.

Judt

There's a real game on between AMD and Intel, and this can only end well for consumers as we see innovation and the potential of price wars in the consumer sector.

I'm actually more interested in AMD's server strategy - they have a venerable license to print money with the Opteron processor family, and it's Intel's response to that which I'm interested in.

secret_squirrel

Judt wrote:

There's a real game on between AMD and Intel, and this can only end well for consumers as we see innovation and the potential of price wars in the consumer sector.

I'm actually more interested in AMD's server strategy - they have a venerable license to print money with the Opteron processor family, and it's Intel's response to that which I'm interested in.

There's a 'Xeon-ised' version of the same architechture in the offing as well.

Stephen

What's the angry little red face in aid of?

conzy

conzymaher wrote:

Look like Intel finally realised how crap the P4 is so they built a great processer

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

It beats an FX-60 @2.8ghz by over 40% in FEAR:eek:

But its not due for 6 months,

AMD had better bring something to the Table other than AM2 and DDR2, or they are in big trouble

I said they "built a great processer" I am looking forward to it's relese and the Price wars and AMD processers that will follow,

Its good for consumers when there is competition, AMD have been domenating lately, and their prices have been steadily rising

If AMD cannot compete they will significantly lower prices.

Also how are they going to explain to the Intel/Dell flock that a 2.66ghz Conroe is faster than a 3ghz P4?

And i suppose the red face is because I am an AMD fan, and i didnt look at the news from a "non Fan perspective" when i posted first.

And this 2.66ghz Conroe is their mid-range CPU, they are rumoured to release a 3ghz chip and a 3.33ghz extreme edition with a 1066mhz fsb.

And unlike the last extreme edition, I think it will be Extreme

CyberGhost

wow that Israeli team came up with something very nice!

I wonder what AMD's response to this will be?

And Intel is faster than AMD per megahertz! :eek:

Has this ever happened before? I always recall Intel, even when they were in the lead, always losing per megahertz comparison

conzy

I am to young to remember the K6, but since the K7 days amd has always used a shorter pipeline (14 stages) compared to the Pentium 4s (31 stages)

This allowed AMD to send more IPC (instructions per clock) and therefore have equal performance at lower clocks and voltages.

It is rumoured that the conroe is a 12 stage pipeline......

And remember The Athlon64s all use the same execution unit that is in the K7 CPUs, What AMD needs is a nice new Execution unit.

And in other news, 7900 series launches today, ..................Maybe:rolleyes:

ShiverinEskimo

Here's an updated follow up to the article.

The BIOS on the amd was not up to date which made little or no difference - however the 41% performance advantage in FEAR was way off because they left the resolution on the AMD machine at 1280x960 instead of the default 1280x768. This reduced the advantage to 20%.

Full Details

8T8

Bit-tech also did a FEAR benchmark and compared it to their own in house references.

The slighty lower number for the Intel FX-60 vs Bit-techs FX-60 would correspond to the bios update that Anandtech did in the follow up article for the Intel FX-60 ATI motherboard were it got a small 4% increase which would bring it into line with Bit-techs FX-60.

christophicus

So is this bassically a better Pentium M with all of the P4/D extensions?

DemonOfTheFall

It's entirely new according to intel. It just uses more of the design philosophies of the pentium M.

Seems like Intel have got a bit of sense slapped into them and are back into making good chips.

Laguna

It's good to see Intel pulling their finger out and giving AMD a run for their money but don't believe for a second this new processor is going to come at a reasonable (i.e. affordable) price. For the moment, I'll see how things develop, I'm still a fan of AMD and would like to see their response to this, AMD chips always give more bang for your buck.

christophicus

It cant be more then $1000 can it?

The OP

maidhc wrote:

You make it sound like it is a bad thing that a superior processor is about to be brought to the market?

Who cares who makes it!

All nerds hate Microsoft and Intel - it's a known fact. They prefer using geeky operating systems like Linux and Unix.

conzy

It cant be more then $1000 can it?

If it beats a $1000 FX-60, Intel can charge what they like for it.

All nerds hate Microsoft and Intel - it's a known fact. They prefer using geeky operating systems like Linux and Unix.

AMD have better Price/performance and have had it since they began making processers. Next time I am upgrading, If Intel have a better price/performance processer than AMD, I will get Intel

Everyone hates Microsoft, and everyone like to shout for the little guy, And if linux is a geeky operating system why does almost every server in the World run it:rolleyes:

BadCharlie

With the new Intel chip do we also need to upgrade our PSU ?

Read somewhere that we will all need a new PSU to run these machines. Paid 160euros for the PSU i have now just a few months back. A bit of a waste if even my PSU will be out of date come the end of the year.

conzy

No, it has only a fraction of the power consumption needs of the P4;)

EOA_Mushy

maidhc wrote:

You make it sound like it is a bad thing that a superior processor is about to be brought to the market?

Who cares who makes it!

The only sence in any of these arguments!!!
Fully agreed.

rsynnott

At last! A sensible design from Intel! The P-M and derivatives have really been quite impressive.

Still, they really should have an onboard memory controller at this point. Everybody else does (AMD has the K8, Sun has the UltraSparc T1, IBM has the Power5(+) ).

riptide

How does Pressler rate against FX-60?

rsynnott

riptide wrote:

How does Pressler rate against FX-60?

Not well.

The OP

conzymaher wrote:

if linux is a geeky operating system why does almost every server in the World run it:rolleyes:

If Linux is for servers, why do nerds always run it on their home PCs?

Cuddlesworth

These proccessers may be better than Amds current offering, but its important to note that these benches were run on Intel-built and owned machines for both the Amd and Intel cpus. I refuse to believe any benchmarks that I see untill somebody independant reviews them. Lets not forget that Amd2 is close to being released as well, who knows how DDR2 will affect Cpus with a god integrated memory controller.

Also this has been pointed out on other sites, the Amd fx-60 @2.8 ran slower than the stock fx-60?

Praetorian

Finally the monster has been awoken. Can only be good for consumers!

SouperComputer

The OP wrote:

If Linux is for servers, why do nerds always run it on their home PCs?

christ, you just opened a can of worms there mate.

Energizer

First Off! Linux is not for only servers. The OS is so versatile that it can be used in nearly any environment. This makes it a better option than windows, and bloody cheaper too. Linux really only lacks in the gaming department.

Intel's new processor is not due out till late this year or early next year, this gives amd a good amount of time of catch up. Also for my knowledge there isn't a complete benchmark of the AM2 socket yet and also the new Opterons will be out soon.

If this new intel chip does beat them then that brilliant. A bit of real competition never hurt the consumer.

I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves with this hype!

The OP

SouperComputer wrote:

christ, you just opened a can of worms there mate.

Okay, Linux aside - aren't most computer nerds programmed to automatically hate Microsoft and their partners (like the OP, who scoffed at the thought of a faster processor coming on the market just because it was Intel), even though if it wasn't for Microsoft, most people probably wouldn't have home PC's in the vast quantities they do today? Microsoft have created (directly and indirectly) jobs worldwide, and made computers more user friendly IMO - especially for novice users and beginners.

Energizer

First off I don't hate microsoft. Bill gates is my type of business man.

Secondly, Microsoft stole there gui design off Apple. They did improve it and make it more accessible though. Microsoft have done a lot of good for the industry.

Its their monopolising and attempts to crush all other rivals that a lot of techies hate.

Truth be told if i was in bill gates position i'd probably do the same! Evil businessmen of the world unite!!:)

Stephen

The OP wrote:

Okay, Linux aside - aren't most computer nerds programmed to automatically hate Microsoft and their partners

Sweeping generalisation there, buddy. Most people are actually able to make up their own minds, not "programmed".

BTW, I don't hate Microsoft. I don't hate linux either, I dual boot Windows XP and Suse Linux. Also, my last few computers have been AMD based because they were just better value. I don't bear any pathetic fanboy allegiance to any company.

projectmayhem

nice to see intel getting up and reacting to amd (albeit a few years late)...

i'd be interested to see what amd do next

Energizer

I think intel realeased these benchmark figures way too early.

This just gives amd a target to hit.

Let the Games Begin!!!:D

SouperComputer

The OP wrote:

Okay, Linux aside - aren't most computer nerds programmed to automatically hate Microsoft and their partners (like the OP, who scoffed at the thought of a faster processor coming on the market just because it was Intel)

Intel and MS are not partners.

even though if it wasn't for Microsoft, most people probably wouldn't have home PC's in the vast quantities they do today? Microsoft have created (directly and indirectly) jobs worldwide, and made computers more user friendly IMO - especially for novice users and beginners.

Im surprised how many people believe this, MS were at the right place at the right time. Over the years there have been OS which have fallen to the wayside, but were no more difficult to use that MS's. Amiga, Gem , OS2 (Although a joint venture by MS, suqsequently developed by IBM) and BEOS come to mind, and of course Mac OS's. Granted they were'nt all x86 ready, but im sure they could have been recompiled given the right incentive. Any of these companies, given the opportunity could have equalled what MS has done IMO, possibly bettered, that that could be an endless discussion!

By virtue of what they are and what they can do, the success of computers it was inevitable, in retrospect of course. The fact that applications are there to help people do what they need to is more relevant to the success of the computer than MS's contribution.

The point im making is that there were plenty of OS's available, MS got the gig not because they had the best, or most user friendly OS, but because they were in the right place at the right time. They then used their position to maximise their stranglehold on the booming computer industry. Which I would expect any business to do. Bill gates is probably a better businessman than a "geek" and that's saying somthing.

MS's position is not a unique one, plenty of large companies have dominated markets with possibly second rate products, but were in the right place at the right time and used powerful marketing stratagies and aggressive contract tactics.



Anyyyyyyyyyyhooooooo............

Back OT

This looks like a good chip, but I would echo the sentiment that it will be very expensive. Anyway, competition is good, shame we dont have more companies vying for this.

Energizer

I think intel realeased these benchmark figures way too early.

This just gives amd a target to hit.

Let the Games Begin!!!:D

unkel

@conzymaher: I see you've hastily binned your previous sig?

rsynnott

The OP wrote:

If Linux is for servers, why do nerds always run it on their home PCs?

Er, who said it's just for servers?

By the way, I'm impartial here; I use MacOS X on a Motorola chip

I'm really looking forward to seeing how the new Itanium works, tho.

Dempsey

Those CPU's wont cost big bucks, but the extreme editions will :P

They are almost entirely different to Pentium M's. Its the 65nm process that gives most of the performance (heat and power consumption) gains. A few architecture changes on top of that (mre executions per cycle, cache management), makes it a mean CPU. Intel aren't taking AMD's small gain in the market lightly at all.

riptide

We'll have to see a retail sample. Wonder did they sort out the leakage current problem. If they have it really has taken Intel a while to come around.

maidhc

Dempsey wrote:

Those CPU's wont cost big bucks, but the extreme editions will :P

They will cost major money for the early adopters. By the time the rest of us move on from our 4year old P4s Dell will be selling them by the lorry load.

Dempsey

it will be relative to performance/euro ratio of any other CPU available when its released so you wont have to pay over the odds for it.

The OP

SouperComputer wrote:

Intel and MS are not partners.



Im surprised how many people believe this, MS were at the right place at the right time. Over the years there have been OS which have fallen to the wayside, but were no more difficult to use that MS's. Amiga, Gem , OS2 (Although a joint venture by MS, suqsequently developed by IBM) and BEOS come to mind, and of course Mac OS's. Granted they were'nt all x86 ready, but im sure they could have been recompiled given the right incentive. Any of these companies, given the opportunity could have equalled what MS has done IMO, possibly bettered, that that could be an endless discussion!

By virtue of what they are and what they can do, the success of computers it was inevitable, in retrospect of course. The fact that applications are there to help people do what they need to is more relevant to the success of the computer than MS's contribution.

The point im making is that there were plenty of OS's available, MS got the gig not because they had the best, or most user friendly OS, but because they were in the right place at the right time. They then used their position to maximise their stranglehold on the booming computer industry. Which I would expect any business to do. Bill gates is probably a better businessman than a "geek" and that's saying somthing.

MS's position is not a unique one, plenty of large companies have dominated markets with possibly second rate products, but were in the right place at the right time and used powerful marketing stratagies and aggressive contract tactics.



Anyyyyyyyyyyhooooooo............

Back OT

This looks like a good chip, but I would echo the sentiment that it will be very expensive. Anyway, competition is good, shame we dont have more companies vying for this.

Thanks for the explanaton. Much appreciated.

SouperComputer

The OP wrote:

Thanks for the explanaton. Much appreciated.

Interesting nick BTW! Could get confusing!

Matt Simis

The chip on review was the standard desktop variant. They specifically mentioned a more expensive Extreme Edition would also be available, and looking at current prices of EE chips thats your 1k+ chip.

The rest of the range will be similar if not identical to the current lineup pricewise. The performance improvement is impressive, but thats largely irrelevant to the likes of Dell. The prices points are well settled in this market, the Chip shown is basically going to be the ho-hum stock Intel offering within 12mths. It may look impressive to techies, but otherwise its just natural evolution, tho with Intels troubled lineup at the moment, it may look revolutionary.


Matt