Should AMD be worried???

[Keith75]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03...enchmark_fear/

I suspect in the real world things may not be so rosey since the overclocked AMD was slower than the standard one which tells me something was fishy. Regardless this isn't a surprise. Intel is huge and they aren't going to let AMD pass them up for long. Do you think AMD has something up their sleeve that will make sure they stay in the top spot this year?

Keith

[PcManiac]

I don't think AMD has too much to worry about with that test, maybe someone will run a better benchmark setup with all the specs listed.

and that OCed FX-60 was kinda strange....


Now I am gunna have to research these Conroes, lol.

[NeoGen]

Seems the Conroe was carrying much faster RAM, which can be crucial for performance in two identical (GHz-wise) machines.

[Steve Lux]

Something I noticed:


388 83 17 516 47 Craig Renwick 1 3,535 4,339 3,535 4,177 1,928 3,535 4,339 271,870 3,398.13 -

This guy is running a single XEON processor at 2.8 Ghz and is getting about 10 times my score from my AMD dual core 64 3800+. He has the highest production single chip/single node system listed by Boinc.

I'm a strong believer in: if you want to win, do what the winners do. Then do it better.

Any comments?

Never mind about this. I checked into this guy's system, it's a 16 CPU server - dunno why I missed that the first time. Basically I've been hunting around to find the best processor for crunching. If he's getting 10 times my capacity with just 16 processors then my AMD dual core is still slower on a per-processor basis.

[AMD-USR_JL]

Intel severely crippled the AMD 64 FX-60. It was running a six month old bios/mobo. It has had 1 major revision since then. One of the major bug fixes in the mobo was "support for AMD 64 FX-60 processor." Cool n Quiet could have been enabled which might have stolen some Hz.

They also gave it a 6 month old video card too. Where they showed it having a 160fps on UT2004, a 57 FX running at 2.8Ghz had a 183 fps. So you can pretty much guess that the FX 60 would have at least matched the conroe or have been better.

I am also wondering where Bit-tech got their info. On AnandTech's website they have the conroe rendering@189fps and the crippled FX 60 rendering@158. The two sources numbers are way off from each other.
EDIT: Now i see, Bit-tech used a different screen resoultion, a smaaler one, than anandtech.

Conroe Vs FX 60 is also comparing new to old. AMD has their new line up coming up in 666 (June 6, 2006), as long as there is no apocalypse (unlikely it will happen) we will get to see who is best.

[NeoGen]

AMD has their new line up coming up in 666 (June 6, 2006), as long as there is no apocalypse (unlikely it will happen) we will get to see who is best.

The beast (some new colossal AMD cpu) will rise!!! :twisted: