Intel CPUs really are as good as advertised.

[Andrew_McP]

I've been a big fan of AMD systems for many years now. Great value for money. But it turns out the Intel Conroe fanboys aren't fanboys... they're just right! :-)

 

System (1):

AMD x2 3800 overclocked to 2.4GHz, 2Gb DDR, Asrock dual SATA, 8800GTS

 

System (2):

Intel e6600 @ 2.4 GHz, 2Gb Crucial Ballistix (5300 but famous for working well beyond that at a bargain price), Gigabyte DS3, 8800GTS.

 

System (3): as system (2) but CPU overclocked to 3.15GHz (I haven't tried hard to push it any further yet, as I have a recent e6600 which needs higher voltage and is not quite as overclockable as earlier CPUs).

 

LOMAC test (a):

An F2 view from behind an Su-25 flying low over Sevastopol.

 

LOMAC test (b):

A short 25T mission involving a rocket attack (lots of smoke & explosions) on a base defended by anti-aircraft missiles etc.

 

Fraps is used to measure the average, highest, and lowest FPS in 60 second replays of tracks from missions (a) & (b). LOMAC was run at 1280x1024, x4fsaa, x8aniso, *high* visibility range, medium water, and everything else at maximum apart from shadows, due to 8800 shader problems.

 

______________(1)______(2)_______(3)

(a) AVERAGE___10.2______18_______23

___MIN FPS_____8_______15_______18

___MAX FPS____13_______23_______30

 

(b) AVERAGE___21.8______30.5_____37.4

___MIN_________3_______14_______12

___MAX________35_______46_______54

 

I could throw more numbers at you, but I think those LOMAC figures say it all. They're not scientific tests, averaged over many repetitions, and the minimum FPS can be very variable. But those results tie in very well with what I've seen in more "standardised" benchmarks like Aquamark3 and the various 3dmarks. And LOMAC really does look and feel smoother, especially during intense action, and over cities. I was expecting to be disappointed, to feel I'd wasted even *more* money chasing better LOMAC performance... but this upgrade was definitely worth the money, even though I've only had the x2 3800 a year and I usually make a processor last two years or more.

 

Hopefully these numbers will be useful to someone else trying to justify an upgrade.

 

Andrew McP

 

PS I did a quick Vegas (Movie Studio) render test. On my x2 3800 it took about 1 minute 30s to render a 9 second test clip with various effects added. On the e6600 setup @ 3.15GHz it takes 36 seconds. That 4Mb of dynamically shared on-chip cache really seems to make a huge difference compared to the 2x512k on my AMD. Of course owners of better (more cache/faster) AMD CPUs would see less of an improvement.

[TucksonSonny]

I've been a big fan of AMD systems for many years now. Great value for money. But it turns out the Intel Conroe fanboys aren't fanboys... they're just right! :-)

 

System (1):

AMD x2 3800 overclocked to 2.4GHz, 2Gb DDR, Asrock dual SATA, 8800GTS

 

System (2):

Intel e6600 @ 2.4 GHz, 2Gb Crucial Ballistix (5300 but famous for working well beyond that at a bargain price), Gigabyte DS3

 

System (3): as system (2) but CPU overclocked to 3.15GHz (I haven't tried hard to push it any further yet, as I have a recent e6600 which needs higher voltage and is not quite as overclockable as earlier CPUs).

 

LOMAC test (a):

An F2 view from behind an Su-25 flying low over Sevastopol.

 

LOMAC test (b):

A short 25T mission involving a rocket attack (lots of smoke & explosions) on a base defended by anti-aircraft missiles etc.

 

Fraps is used to measure the average, highest, and lowest FPS in 60 second replays of tracks from missions (a) & (b). LOMAC was run at 1280x1024, x4fsaa, x8aniso, *high* visibility range, medium water, and everything else at maximum apart from shadows, due to 8800 shader problems.

 

______________(1)______(2)_______(3)

(a) AVERAGE___10.2______18_______23

___MIN FPS_____8_______15_______18

___MAX FPS____13_______23_______30

 

(b) AVERAGE___21.8______30.5_____37.4

___MIN_________3_______14_______12

___MAX________35_______46_______54

 

I could throw more numbers at you, but I think those LOMAC figures say it all. They're not scientific tests, averaged over many repetitions, and the minimum FPS can be very variable. But those results tie in very well with what I've seen in more "standardised" benchmarks like Aquamark3 and the various 3dmarks. And LOMAC really does look and feel smoother, especially during intense action, and over cities. I was expecting to be disappointed, to feel I'd wasted even *more* money chasing better LOMAC performance... but this upgrade was definitely worth the money, even though I've only had the x2 3800 a year and I usually make a processor last two years or more.

 

Hopefully these numbers will be useful to someone else trying to justify an upgrade.

 

Andrew McP

 

PS I did a quick Vegas (Movie Studio) render test. On my x2 3800 it took about 1 minute 30s to render a 9 second test clip with various effects added. On the e6600 setup @ 3.15GHz it takes 36 seconds. That 4Mb of dynamically shared on-chip cache really seems to make a huge difference compared to the 2x512k on my AMD. Of course owners of better (more cache/faster) AMD CPUs would see less of an improvement.

 

It would be very stupid to buy AMD at the moment (unless your home needs some extra heating and you don’t care about Kyoto :D )

But anyway considering AMD price drops it would be better to compare with 6000+ or even FX-73/74.

[Pilotasso]

Its not a question if it performs as advertised, it probably doesnt, or like you expect it to be.

AMD is still great value, but Intel performs better at the top end, if thats the answer your looking for.

[Aeroscout]

I just got a 2.4GHz AMD processor for signifigantly less than an intell 2.13GHz...

 

just my two cents...

[bramski]

You can pick up an e4300 Intel CPU for 70 pounds and it will overclock to at LEAST 3ghz at the change of a setting in the bios, with a good motherboard and memory with a decent cooler you'll get it up to 3.4ghz no problems. That for me is the biggest reason to go with intel at the moment.

 

I just hope AMD come back with a massive right hook to Intel with a blisteringly fast and highly clockable chip soon because competition in the CPU and GPU game is vital.

[Pilotasso]

I just got a 2.4GHz AMD processor for signifigantly less than an intell 2.13GHz...

 

just my two cents...

 

Clock means litle these days. Dunno if you got the best performing CPU, probably you didnt but if it suited your budget the better. :)

[Prophet]

...and Intel is STILL more forgiving of build f-ups in the CPU/HSF interface. Intel CPUs shut down when they get too hot, AMD CPUs will run until the smoke rolls and they can't run anymore. Great for an assault rifle, but not so good for a CPU. :D

 

Thats not true. It was when that video was posted all over the internet, but AMD has had power stepping technology for a while now. FWIW I had a room mate a while ago. I was helping him solve a windows issue, he had a P4. It looked like it was overheating. Well he had the HSF off, and that baby cracked before it even finished posting. Not like in that video where it started to smoke a little..... smoke and crack. So, just realize where the propoganda is coming from on that one.

 

From what I hear also, the X2 6000 actually comes close in performance to the C2D 6400. But for me, I had an X2 4400, but not AM2. So I needed to get a new MoBo anyways. At that time, about 3 mo ago, it was clear to get a C2D.

 

And as for clock speed, yeah. Look at the NV 8xxx vs ATi 2xxx. ATi is much faster.

 

All in all though, these C2D perform very well and were actually very well priced from previous generations.

[Andrew_McP]

I just hope AMD come back with a massive right hook to Intel with a blisteringly fast and highly clockable chip soon because competition in the CPU and GPU game is vital.

 

Agreed, but at the moment I'm quite worried. The ATI DX10 card is getting fairly unimpressive reviews, sadly. And if that's a bit of a flop too AMD could soon be in trouble with their shareholders.

 

However I don't regret this move back to "the dark side" at all. The more I use the new setup, the more impressed I am. When I moved from Athlon to x2 3800 the results were nice, but not impressive except when using software which could really make use of the second core.

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=14757

 

But this time I really *feel* like I've spent money and have something to show for it. Of course it might just be because I have a fresh install of WinXP. :-)

 

Andrew McP

[Pilotasso]

And as for clock speed, yeah. Look at the NV 8xxx vs ATi 2xxx. ATi is much faster.

:huh:

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/05/16/r600_ati_radeon_hd_2900_xt/22

First off, the card is obviously late. Very late. And normally when you’re late, you have to do something special. Unfortunately for AMD, R600 just isn’t that special because not only is Nvidia’s performance crown still intact, the card AMD has chosen to attack – the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB – has come away with all but a few chinks in its armour.

 

I was unable to port those graphs over here ^^^^

Provided by anandtech:

YIKES!

Maybe that's a lot to digest, but the bottom line is that R600 is not perfect nor is it a failure. The HD 2900 XT competes well with the 640MB 8800 GTS, though the 8800 GTS 320MB does have a price/performance advantage over both in all but the highest resolutions and AA settings under most current games.

 

Take a special note on the following 2 charts:

Overall, HD2900XT is more forward looking than GeForce 8800 and it should be; it took an extra six months getting it to market. If you are leaning towards longevity of a card, R600 looks more attractive with a dedicated tessellator, programmable filters, high-clock speeds and crazy amounts of bandwidth. It is a hot and a little loud. It is hot enough that a warning label might soon accompany cards and systems. We can only hope that it will become more cool and quiet as more cards hit the market.

 

Results are mixed but I see no one say R600 beats 8800.

R600 provides better perfomance at the cost of toned down image quality( AA and AF off). What a shame. It used to be the other way arround.

 

R600 is louder, heats more and draws more power. The choice wich one is preferrable becomes even more difficult. I chose silence, perfomance consistency and image quality.

[Prophet]

Pilotasso, I think you miss read me :) I said clock speed.

 

R600 @ 750MHz.

8800 @ 575MHz.

 

Which is odd to me, considering AMD having lower clock speeds before compared to Intel but better performance. I think a VP or 3 should start getting the resume ready.

[Pilotasso]

OK :D

[TucksonSonny]

I just hope AMD come back with a massive right hook to Intel with a blisteringly fast and highly clockable chip soon because competition in the CPU and GPU game is vital.

 

First working Quad Barcelona in action (or better 8 cores: dual quad)

 

(Socket AM2+ resp. Socket 1207+ sockets)

Half 2008 45 nm process is also on schedule.

 

 

 

single AMD Phenom FX demosysteem:

[VMFA-Blaze]

It really does appear that AMD has lost it again to intel ... I used AMD exclusively for years.. But I really want a CPU to overclock as Lock On is CPU intensive .. the DC Duo will OC to 300 GHz in some cases.. and prices are relatively low taking that into consideration...

 

And with the newer intel chips just around the corner intel is putting some distance into their lead... Its not what brand is cool or what gimmick their using that matters. its performance that counts... If AMD was out performing intel I personally would go with it, but its not...

 

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35011

 

AMD LAID OUT a bit more about Barcelona today at MPF, focusing in on six areas. They talked about SSE128, enhanced IPC, efficient memory use, better caches, virtualization and power management.

In the macro sense of things, Intel is chasing AMD, but on the micro level, the opposite is true. The talk was given by Ben Sander of AMD, you can read it on his nametag if you don't believe me.

 

 

Read the whole article

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[Ven]

Does it really matter who's winning? Competition is a beautiful thing. More lead change the better.

[Andrew_McP]

Does it really matter who's winning? Competition is a beautiful thing. More lead change the better.

 

The problem now is that after swallowing ATI, AMD have all our competetive eggs in one basket. A poor year or two for processors *and* their DX10 cards (which need to sell well into the enthusiast market where the high margins can be made) could put the business in danger.

 

I'm sure they'll survive, but AMD don't have Intel's "war fund" to fall back on in lean times, and if they end up heavily indebted that's not going to do their development budget much good.

 

So while you're right that competition is good, when one team pulls too far ahead it can seriously damage the opposition, and that's not good for us at all.

 

Andrew McP

[Ramstein]

yOu also must take into account, the old 800 FSB vs the newer 1200 FSB (Front Side Bus) along with a CPU of 4MB Cache.

 

The 3DMark06 Test video card test isn't bad (on my Radeon X1950) , but the CPU test is very hard on my P4 3.2GHZ. It gets '0.5' FPS :cry:

======================

my LockOn FPS:

 

2007-05-21 16:22:41 - lockon

Frames: 67 - Time: 5518ms - Avg: 12.142 - Min: 6 - Max: 26

2007-05-21 16:22:56 - lockon

Frames: 140 - Time: 9823ms - Avg: 14.252 - Min: 7 - Max: 27

2007-05-21 16:33:21 - lockon

Frames: 6 - Time: 1141ms - Avg: 5.258 - Min: 5 - Max: 5

2007-05-21 16:35:52 - lockon

Frames: 19 - Time: 759ms - Avg: 25.032 - Min: 25 - Max: 25

2007-05-21 16:35:59 - lockon

Frames: 118 - Time: 10589ms - Avg: 11.143 - Min: 7 - Max: 17

2007-05-22 12:43:21 - lockon

Frames: 59 - Time: 2659ms - Avg: 22.188 - Min: 10 - Max: 30

2007-05-22 12:43:25 - lockon

Frames: 5 - Time: 705ms - Avg: 7.092 - Min: 7 - Max: 7

2007-05-22 12:43:30 - lockon

Frames: 11651 - Time: 152354ms - Avg: 76.473 - Min: 0 - Max: 164

[Ramstein]

More snapshots showing FPS in LockOn showing FPS :

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/retiredat44/ScreenShot_091.jpg

 

=============

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/retiredat44/ScreenShot_099.jpg

=============

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/retiredat44/ScreenShot_107.jpg

 

========

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/retiredat44/ScreenShot_112.jpg

 

==========

[TucksonSonny]

It really does appear that AMD has lost it again to intel ... I used AMD exclusively for years.. But I really want a CPU to overclock as Lock On is CPU intensive .. the DC Duo will OC to 300 MHz in some cases.. and prices are relatively low taking the that into consideration...

 

And with the newer intel chips just around the corner intel is putting some distance into their lead... Its not what brand is cool or what gimmick their using that matters. its performance that counts... If AMD was out performing intel I personally would go with it, but its not...

 

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35011

 

AMD LAID OUT a bit more about Barcelona today at MPF, focusing in on six areas. They talked about SSE128, enhanced IPC, efficient memory use, better caches, virtualization and power management.

In the macro sense of things, Intel is chasing AMD, but on the micro level, the opposite is true. The talk was given by Ben Sander of AMD, you can read it on his nametag if you don't believe me.

 

 

Read the whole article

 

~S~

 

Blaze

 

 

Anyway AMD has a major breakthrough with the cpu clock-cycle.

Barcelona will start with a 2.9Ghz model (before it was 2.6Ghz)

Info is coming from the AMD Dresden plant (People at Dresden think the release will be a complete walkover intel).

I think I am still a fanboi (I can’t help it, I give them another chance in 2008 with 45nm process)

I think I will get Barcelona 8core@45nm with 8800Ultra in 2008 or NOT :D

[VMFA-Blaze]

Anyway for me I'll have to see what happens in 1 1/2 years from now as I just built my system and it rocks....

 

But the time frame that I just mention is about the extent that a gaming system will last, anyway.. :music_whistling:

 

But what I'm actually going to do soon, is add another 8800 GTS in SLI.. the above GPU tests shows a distinct advantage in running this...

 

And actually this is the main reason why I just changed motherboards from a Commando to the Asus P5N32-E SLI.. The Commando has no official drivers to run SLI but is actually set up to run ATI Crossfire... I have a BFG 8800 gts 640 at present and I think that in performance as well as price, it was smarter to change the mb rather then the video card...

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[Ven]

The problem now is that after swallowing ATI, AMD have all our competetive eggs in one basket. A poor year or two for processors *and* their DX10 cards (which need to sell well into the enthusiast market where the high margins can be made) could put the business in danger.

 

I'm sure they'll survive, but AMD don't have Intel's "war fund" to fall back on in lean times, and if they end up heavily indebted that's not going to do their development budget much good.

 

So while you're right that competition is good, when one team pulls too far ahead it can seriously damage the opposition, and that's not good for us at all.

 

Andrew McP

 

When AMD was pretty much dominating with their Athlons, many believed that Intel could be in trouble. Kinda like what we're saying about AMD here. As it turns out, they were taking a step back to leap forward it seems. AMD will come back. They have came back... many times before. So did Intel. Healthy competition.

[Pilotasso]

But intel has billions to burn out plus they never lost other markets but the mainstream CPu's to AMD. AMD depends heavily on mainstream and only now it diversified its market by going GFX and MOBO's. And in bad timing, they merged with ATi when they were already introuble with R600 and the merge made it worse. But the worst was that AMD had trouble with CPU's at the same time and with much less money in the bank to absorb losses.

[VMFA-Blaze]

But intel has billions to burn out plus they never lost other markets but the mainstream CPu's to AMD. AMD depends heavily on mainstream and only now it diversified its market by going GFX and MOBO's. And in bad timing, they merged with ATi when they were already introuble with R600 and the merge made it worse. But the worst was that AMD had trouble with CPU's at the same time and with much less money in the bank to absorb losses.

 

I concur....

 

~S~

 

Blaze