Preorder your Core duo 2 now!

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 15 Jul 2006, 11:28

I'm picking up an Asus laptop that will have roughly twice the processing power and ram of my current Spring box, in addition to four times the dedicated video memory on a newer graphics card.

I think I'm set.

AF · Post by AF » 15 Jul 2006, 16:09

hmm any benchmarks or stuff on the new AMD quad core cpu?

Drone_Fragger · Post by **Drone_Fragger** » 16 Jul 2006, 23:58

Vassago wrote:http://www.gamespot.com/features/6153900/p-2.html

Look at those performance numbers. And I'm NOT talking about the crappy 1024x768 tests. Look at the high resolution 1600x1200 tests. The Intel chip barely holds it's own (by anywhere from 10-30fps). And they aren't even comparing it to the AMD FX-62. Intel's Conroe is defineatly better. But I think you guys are going to extreme by saying it's stomping the crap out of AMD. That statement couldn't be farther from the truth.

Perhaps Intel's Conroe smacks down AMD when it comes to stuff like video encoding, code compiling and application stuff - BIG WHOOPIE.

So, You are saying that it barely holds its own, Even though it costs 500$ dollars less than the FX-60? heh, Well if you have the moeny to buy endless proccessors, then sure, it does barely hold it own. But for all intents and purposes, it kicks the crap out of the FX-60, rolls it up in a carpet, puches it down the stairs, and then proceeds to drag it behind a car on a cobblestone road for 20 kilometres.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 17 Jul 2006, 04:38

Drone_Fragger wrote:
Vassago wrote:http://www.gamespot.com/features/6153900/p-2.html

Look at those performance numbers. And I'm NOT talking about the crappy 1024x768 tests. Look at the high resolution 1600x1200 tests. The Intel chip barely holds it's own (by anywhere from 10-30fps). And they aren't even comparing it to the AMD FX-62. Intel's Conroe is defineatly better. But I think you guys are going to extreme by saying it's stomping the crap out of AMD. That statement couldn't be farther from the truth.

Perhaps Intel's Conroe smacks down AMD when it comes to stuff like video encoding, code compiling and application stuff - BIG WHOOPIE.
So, You are saying that it barely holds its own, Even though it costs 500$ dollars less than the FX-60? heh, Well if you have the moeny to buy endless proccessors, then sure, it does barely hold it own. But for all intents and purposes, it kicks the crap out of the FX-60, rolls it up in a carpet, puches it down the stairs, and then proceeds to drag it behind a car on a cobblestone road for 20 kilometres.

It's an overclocked FX-60 as well. You can overclock your $1000 processor, but the intel equivallent for half the price will still beat it.

AF · Post by AF » 17 Jul 2006, 04:39

AMD say they're planning drastic price cuts to keep the performance per dollar competitive with the new intel cpus

.MJJNL. · Post by **.MJJNL.** » 17 Jul 2006, 12:34

btw the intel conroe really pwnz when you overclock it:

OMG 5 GHZ!

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 17 Jul 2006, 14:13

holey

Vassago · Post by **Vassago** » 17 Jul 2006, 16:27

Price? Price was never being discussed. I'm talking about the performance numbers. Period. The price/performance ratio is hands down in Intel's court, but sheer performance of the Conroe doesn't smack down the FX line. You CANNOT argue it. That article wasn't even using the better FX-62 chip.
No doubt, Intel has taken the market lead. It's Conroe chipset is hot. It's price-per-chip is even hotter. But make no mistake, it's performance numbers aren't mopping the floor with AMD. While better, it doesn't win in every category. And the ones it does win at, aren't signifigantly higher. Conroe's saving grace is it's ppc ratio. It has similar performance for a much cheaper cost.

I'll more than likely be putting together a Conroe system myself, actually. Seeing as how AMD has already stated that their new flagship CPU won't be out until 2008

My system is running a Athlon64 3500+ right now. While it can run most everything I toss at it, there are times where it certainly dies. Games like Prey or BF2 can't run @ 60fps with everything maxed, and I'd certainly like it to :)

Drone_Fragger · Post by **Drone_Fragger** » 17 Jul 2006, 17:38

heh, Quake four barely runs at 150 FPS with max settings and 16X AA on my PC. Basically, I need a conroe to have so much FPS that my screen explodes.

Actually thats all crap. I can just about run Quake 4 with medium settings at 1024 X 800.

Comp1337 · Post by **Comp1337** » 17 Jul 2006, 18:22

Drone_Fragger wrote:heh, Quake four barely runs at 150 FPS with max settings and 16X AA on my PC. Basically, I need a conroe to have so much FPS that my screen explodes.

Actually thats all crap. I can just about run Quake 4 with medium settings at 1024 X 800.

First i was like OMG DRONE UR RIG PWNZ
Then i was like meh, pwnt

FuzionMonkey · Post by **FuzionMonkey** » 17 Jul 2006, 18:26

Vassago wrote:Price? Price was never being discussed. I'm talking about the performance numbers. Period. The price/performance ratio is hands down in Intel's court, but sheer performance of the Conroe doesn't smack down the FX line. You CANNOT argue it. That article wasn't even using the better FX-62 chip.
No doubt, Intel has taken the market lead. It's Conroe chipset is hot. It's price-per-chip is even hotter. But make no mistake, it's performance numbers aren't mopping the floor with AMD. While better, it doesn't win in every category. And the ones it does win at, aren't signifigantly higher. Conroe's saving grace is it's ppc ratio. It has similar performance for a much cheaper cost.

I'll more than likely be putting together a Conroe system myself, actually. Seeing as how AMD has already stated that their new flagship CPU won't be out until 2008
My system is running a Athlon64 3500+ right now. While it can run most everything I toss at it, there are times where it certainly dies. Games like Prey or BF2 can't run @ 60fps with everything maxed, and I'd certainly like it to :)

WTF? Conroe (higher end ones) doesn't lose a single benchmark except sciencemark, but thats just theoretical. In real life its never that fast.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=2795

@ The poll: pffft. AMD fanboys.

AF · Post by AF » 17 Jul 2006, 18:51

Conroe beats AMD FX-60 35 out of 37 in benchmarks according to one source

Drone_Fragger · Post by **Drone_Fragger** » 17 Jul 2006, 19:21

Frohowned. The Age of AMD is over. All you AMDers better think twice before saying "LOL INTEL SUCKS LOL I HOPE YOU DIE OF AIDS", Becuase conroe will force AMD to commit suicide. \o/

Also, AMD gives people Aids. Its not proven, but I bet its true.

Vassago · Post by **Vassago** » 17 Jul 2006, 20:04

Fuzion and AF - that was the only benchmark I've seen that had the lower-grade Intel core duos. The only ones I've seen have been the flagship chip comparisons. Which, are pretty close in cost/performance.

That $315 dollar E6600 is jaw-dropping, though. $700 cheaper than the FX-62, yet outperforms it. I never even heard of that chip until I read that Anandtech page. Intel has defineatly spanked AMD with that chip. Glad to see it. I can't wait to see what AMD comes back with :)

DeathHawk · Post by **DeathHawk** » 20 Jul 2006, 09:53

The Conroe Core Duo 2 are suposively good but still not as good - nor as cheap as the new AM2 series that are comming out.

early models of the AM2 are already out but are, not supporting the new archechture as of yet, the currents are the same cpu dual core, except with ddr2 ram. the more models due after the intel release have a different updated cpu cores and cache abilities.

i will wait for the new AM2 in about 6 months time

Comp1337 · Post by **Comp1337** » 20 Jul 2006, 09:55

DeathHawk wrote:The Conroe Core Duo 2 are suposively good but still not as good - nor as cheap as the new AM2 series that are comming out.

early models of the AM2 are already out but are, not supporting the new archechture as of yet, the currents are the same cpu dual core, except with ddr2 ram. the more models due after the intel release have a different updated cpu cores and cache abilities.

so yeah i will wait for the new AM2 in about 6 months time

When that comes out there will probably be something even better out.
Itll be the same situation.

DeathHawk · Post by **DeathHawk** » 20 Jul 2006, 09:56

yup thats true so in about 6 months time Things will get very interesting indeed but my support will go towards AM2

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 20 Jul 2006, 11:49

Comp1337 wrote:
DeathHawk wrote:The Conroe Core Duo 2 are suposively good but still not as good - nor as cheap as the new AM2 series that are comming out.

early models of the AM2 are already out but are, not supporting the new archechture as of yet, the currents are the same cpu dual core, except with ddr2 ram. the more models due after the intel release have a different updated cpu cores and cache abilities.

so yeah i will wait for the new AM2 in about 6 months time
When that comes out there will probably be something even better out.
Itll be the same situation.

This may be true, but the fact of the matter is that this will be the first time in forever that even that has happened. You used to just be completely safe and comfortable buying an AMD processor because there was really no valid argument as a gamer to make them worse in any way. This was the case for nearly 6 or so years now. The fact that Intel has actually released a processor that SPANKS AMD red in the same price range is unheard of. What used to very literally be an AMD monopoly is now Intel dominated for the time being. AMD has a big mountain to climb now that they haven't seen the likes of in a long long time. Good for Intel, they really sparked the next wave of competitive processing here.

Spring RTS Engine

Preorder your Core duo 2 now!

Does core duo roxxor my soxxers?