RJ needs some advice!

[Saist]

Conroe and Memron do not "trounce" Athlon64 processors.

Well, SOMEONE hasn't been looking at official tests. Or heck, testing the better processors against each other.

unfortunantly for you Aridas. I have. I also linked to a published test from a reputable site that is typically extremely Pro-AMD (HardOCP) that ran several different tests outside of static benchmarks.

I stated this early on:

Problem is with sites like Anandtech, testers went out of their way to use motherboards with known issues reguarding memory performance, or used loose memory timings

In one of the officially sanctioned Intel tests, Intel used a Dual-Socket Motherboard with only one memory bank for the AMD processor. That resulted in having an effective Single channel of memory for each processor. Motherboards that use dual memory banks (that means more than one bank) for 2-processor systems can allow each processor it's own local memory access.  In a Single Bank setup one of the processors must rely on the other to access local memory. This means that one of the Coherent Hypertransport links and one of the memory channels on a Dual-Channel memory processor is doing nothing but feeing the Second processor. In a dual bank setup, each processor can use it's own Dual-Channel memory controller on each memory bank, allowing for 4 total channels to be used at one time.  That put the AMD board at a severe disadvantage to the Dual Processor Core2 in use.

In another test, specifically speaking of Anandtech, Anandtech used Gentoo and MySql. Enter bug $15815 : http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=15815
Yes, Anandtech's test pitted a known code issue on the Athlon64 against the Core2 (Woodcrest), and then reported the performance as fact.

That doesn't fly.

In other Intel Sanctioned tests (Tom's HG, i'm looking at you) the AMD processor was ran with DDR2 timings of 5-5-5-15.  Timings generally don't make a lick of difference on an Intel system because the Memory Controller is external to the processor. The advantage to the AMD Design is that having the memory controller on the processor drastically reduces latency (the time it takes to access the ram).  Reguarding Socket AM2, Memory Clocked at timings of 3-3-3-8 gives an averaged 15% performance boost compared to memories at 5-5-5-15. 

Basically Aridas, if you've been listening to Intel spout on and on about Core2, you've been listening to the wrong crowd. Fact is, Core2 does not trounce AM2 by any stretch of the immagination.

Now, it is faster, and again, as far as I have personally tested, the E6300 is about 5% faster all things being equal (memory timings, identical chipset, identical system setup) than an equivelent AMD processor of similar speed. But, it is by no means $50 (US) worth faster than the nearest competitor.

[Aridas]

I didn't get my info from Intel or any other processor people. In fact, the people I got this info were AMD whores too. And as far as I know, they've never fabricated tests, ever. You're not comparing the processors I saw being tested in the magazine I read. I don't see mention of the processor I saw getting compared.

[Saist]

I didn't get my info from Intel or any other processor people. In fact, the people I got this info were AMD whores too. And as far as I know, they've never fabricated tests, ever. You're not comparing the processors I saw being tested in the magazine I read. I don't see mention of the processor I saw getting compared.

Aridas. You are confusing me. You stated this earlier:

Well, SOMEONE hasn't been looking at official tests. Or heck, testing the better processors against each other.

Then you state that you did not get your info from Intel or any other processor people.

Okay. If this second statement is true, then your first statement about official tests has to be false. If you first statement about official tests is true, then your second statement must be false.

You also state that they were "AMD-Whores too."  I must admit I am confused by this statement. If you were speaking with AMD, then the tests are not Official Tests, but your wording does not indicate that you were speaking with AMD. Speaking directly to AMD you'll find that their information also finds in line with my own discoveries and the discovers of HardOCP. Core2 does not trounce AM2 at all. If you take time to get the right parts and optimize for both systems, they are about dead equal.

Then you state that I'm not comparing the processors you saw tested.

I'm finding this line equally hard to swallow. There are only 4 Core2 processors available in retail, the 6300, the 6400, the 6600 and the 6700. I personally have the 6300 unit in testing, which is the low end.

*edit for clarification*
HardOCP has the 6700 and the x6800  (Core 2 Extreme) for testing. THat only leaves only two units to test, the mid 6400 and 6600. If you were reading a reputable Magazine, they probably would not have had either 6400 or the 6600. I find it difficult to believe that any reputable magazine would only test the 2 mid-range processors and not the ultra-high end or the "budget" processor.

Basically Aridas, from your posts I can only conclude that you are lying, or have been caught in a lie. If you are not lying, then you do not know what you are talking about and you do not have any reason taking part in this thread.

The fact remains. Core2 is not all that. It brings Intel performance up to par with AMD Socket AM2. Now, if you are willing to shell out $1,149.99 (US) for the out of stock x6800 Core2. Fine. You go do that.

I'm going to go with the $829.00 AthlonFX 62 which is in stock.

Intel Newegg link : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115001
AMD Newegg link : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103861

[xHaZxMaTx]

*Points and yells* Thread Hi-Jackage!

[Saist]

*Points and yells* Thread Hi-Jackage!

* je.saist pleads guilty

[Aridas]

I do mean official as in, you know... Honest ones, and not biased. Besides, we'll know soon enough if they made a mistake, because the readers are allowed to correct them. But still. the Core2 Extreme is teh gooder.

Speaking of which, to settle this, i'd like to see the benchmarks. Then I can find where I packed away my magazine and put those down too.

[Azlan]

Darn I was hoping to goade a processor battle discussion, without posting the expected "which is better thread".  Now kiddies, unless RJ minds let's take it somewhere else? 

I was hoping that somewhere out there a dedicated Intel person was looming, a high technical guy.

All my testing, and its too bad I have to return eval hardware, was straight out-of-the-box processors, common motherboards, mid-range and performance Corsair ram, average single video cards (nvidia 7600 GTs actually), Maxtor SATAII drives, integrated sound, NIC and generic Sony DVD-ROMS.  Patched, but not optimized installs of windows, common security suites and back-office applications.

The kitten is right, properly timed RAM, ideal motherboards and properly tuned AM2s perform well and are not trounced.  However in my stock, generic user testing, the Core2 destroys the AM2 X2 5000+ and X2 4800+.  I did not receive any Memrons to test, so I can't say anything on them.

But, peace kitten... peace.  I am a dedicated AMD type foxie.

[Leafar]

join the club Azlan!!!!!!!!
AMD all the way!!!!!!!!!!
intel can btw kiss my behind!!!!!!!! lol
btw: we need a dancing banana emo!!!!!! :p

[Aridas]

join the club Azlan!!!!!!!!
AMD all the way!!!!!!!!!!
intel can btw kiss my behind!!!!!!!! lol
btw: we need a dancing banana emo!!!!!! :p

Thanks for helping me decide to abandon AMD.

[Saist]

join the club Azlan!!!!!!!!
AMD all the way!!!!!!!!!!
intel can btw kiss my behind!!!!!!!! lol
btw: we need a dancing banana emo!!!!!! :p

LART. LART. LART.

[RJ]

...noooooo! *brain asplodes from the tech jargon*

[Aridas]

Nooooo! *goes on a quest to collect the brain fragments, which conveniently find their way into the middle of some dungeon, in a room just behind some big monster*

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

RJ: Surely you can merely pass the jargon onwards to your Dad, and watch *his* brain asplode?


... isn't that much more fun? :-)

[vulpesweasel]

urr, I'd reccommend Grisoft/AVG for virus protection. We had a different virus protection (can't remember the name) that said we were virus free, and we switched to avg and we had 256 trojans>.< so yea. And it's the AVG free version.