Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Core 2-Compatible Chipsets Compared

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the edification-for-the-afternoon dept.

145

theraindog writes "Intel's Core 2 Duo is clearly the most attractive processor on the market, but which motherboard chipset is it best paired with? The Tech Report has rounded up four of the most common Core 2-compatible chipsets on the market to find out. The chipsets' features are compared and their performance is tested in a wide range of application, peripheral, and even power consumption tests. One emerges as a lemon, two as solid options, and the other as a clear winner." From the article: "Some fanboys still stubbornly cling to their favorite underdog, but most enthusiasts have seen the light and are looking at Core 2 for their next upgrade or system build. The prospect of a Core 2 system build can seem a bit daunting for enthusiasts who have spent years focused solely on the Athlon 64. Core 2 processors need new motherboards for those switching from the Athlon 64, and that requires navigating a whole new world of core logic chipsets. Since the Core 2 processor relies on the chipset for its memory controller, one's chipset choice can also have a much more profound impact on performance. "

cancel ×

145 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No bias there... (3, Insightful)

Darlantan (130471) | about 8 years ago | (#16155479)

"Some fanboys still stubbornly cling to their favorite underdog..."

Gee, that doesn't sound like the author had an opinion up front. No sir.

Re:No bias there... (1)

Veetox (931340) | about 8 years ago | (#16155506)

I figure I fit into the author's stereotype. However, if you consider the sidebar, here ---, as an indicator, I'm thinking he represents a minority.

Re:No bias there... (4, Insightful)

Visaris (553352) | about 8 years ago | (#16155583)

Quite correct.

What ever happened to evauating the performance of a chip based on the actual application that is going to be run? I can honestly tell you right now that almost every application that is memory bandwidth limited is going to perform better on an AMD K8 chip than Core2/conroe. The K8's integrated memory controller supports much better memory throughput.

I suppose it is out of style to recognize the good and bad charictaristics of each offering. The current trend is to call one the all around "winner" and call everyone else a fanboy..

Re:No bias there... (3, Interesting)

Doctor Memory (6336) | about 8 years ago | (#16156593)

The K8's integrated memory controller supports much better memory throughput.
That's fine in theory, but that's not proven by the results in the test. As shown on this page [techreport.com] , memory access is pretty even across the board, with the exception of the 570 SLI, which showed remarkably higher latency (almost 50% higher). As they mention in the article, that could be an aberration with the particular board they used, but they also noted that the board was supplied by nVidia, so it should (hopefully) be one that showed good performance.

Re:No bias there... (1)

LordWoody (187919) | about 8 years ago | (#16157484)

All of those benchmarks where for Core 2 Duo processors (see http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2-chipset s/index.x?pg=3 [techreport.com] ). While the NVidia chipset implemented hypertransport between the chipset components, none of them showed an Opteron or Athlon64 using hypertransport as a linkage to the CPU (or between CPU cores).

Re:No bias there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16157315)

What ever happened to evauating the performance of a chip based on the actual application that is going to be run? I can honestly tell you right now that almost every application that is memory bandwidth limited is going to perform better on an AMD K8 chip than Core2/conroe. The K8's integrated memory controller supports much better memory throughput.


I suggest you look around the net for the 100s of reviews that have compared the Core 2 Duo parts against the AMD Athlon64/Opteron parts. There are very few cases where K8 beats Core 2 Duo regardless of memory bandwidth/latency requirements of the application. Your 'honest tell' is simply unsupported by fact.

Re:No bias there... (0)

rhs98 (513802) | about 8 years ago | (#16155609)

I'm not upgrading to Core 2 - I've just fitted 2 x Opteron 270's from eBay for ~300 pounds. Should be pretty nippy and is cheaper than a new board and new chip, and should be quicker :P

Core 2 isnt the only option, its just a good one.

Russ

Re:No bias there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16155657)

Indeed. I'm not about to go read an article like that and I'm certainly not taking the guy's opinion as anything serious.

I guess I'm a "fanboy" for sticking with affordable, well-performing and proven hardware rather than running out to buy all new stuff just because some yahoo on the internet called me a "fanboy".

Re:No bias there... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156784)

It's priceless reading you AMD fanboys squirm now that Intel has the better processor. Tragic how someone can get so riled up over something so trivial.

"opinion up front" (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | about 8 years ago | (#16155712)

I have my opinions in my Y-fronts.

Re:No bias there... (1)

gnaa323 (1001568) | about 8 years ago | (#16155860)

I'd wait at least half a year and then look again and see how good the Duo really is. Maybe AMD will have something better by then.

Re:No bias there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16155873)

Yeah, and unsurpringly, the winner is the Intel P965, "Really, it's an easy call to make", when in fact the nVidia nForce4 SLI X16 wins pretty much all the tests, except average HD write latency.

His argument seems to be that it's New! Shiny! With wizbang performance feature (that don't show in benchmarks)! and that it consumes less power (glad he discovered that concept recently).

Overall, the whole thing is a pretty pointless click generator: they're within 1% in, what, 50%, 75% of the tests? "one's chipset choice can also have a much more profound impact on performance", my arse!

Having said that, the Core 2 is indeed a superb processor. Next I'm getting :-)

and you have to be a fanboy to get it right? (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | about 8 years ago | (#16156463)

Since the Core 2 processor relies on the chipset for its memory controller, one's chipset choice can also have a much more profound impact on performance.

Since I'm not really a fanboy and don't have time to research memory controllers, I might end up with a dog system? Screw that. I'm not going to be playing chipset roulette, especially with a company that's infamous for not cooperating with the free software community outside of slower graphics chips. Hardware zealotry is almost as expensive as software folly, but I have a feeling that the two are linked.

I run Debian and have been thinking about moving to AMD 64. Prices on the AMD 64 one systems are very cheap. Yesterday I saw a mobo + processor for less than $200 and the mobo will use my crusty old DDR memory. I doubt core duo can touch that kind of price to performance ratio. I'm not really in a hurry because the five year old computer I have is still more than adequate. The biggest performance hit was disk latency, and I fixed that with an 80MB/s scsi drive mounted as /usr. I'll move when my current system dies. At that time, I'll look around to see where the bargain is.

Re:and you have to be a fanboy to get it right? (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | about 8 years ago | (#16156611)

The worst parts about these fights is that it's millions of words in thousands of forms and blogs over what amounts to a 2% performance difference. BFD.

Re:and you have to be a fanboy to get it right? (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | about 8 years ago | (#16156938)

I run Debian and have been thinking about moving to AMD 64.

What does you using Debian have to do with anything in the rest of your post? Were you just trying to name drop to look good?

Hardware TCP/IP acceleration (5, Informative)

Aardpig (622459) | about 8 years ago | (#16155495)

From the article:I can't understand why Nvidia would drop a unique feature like hardware TCP/IP acceleration.

Might I suggest it's because this acceleration has been found to cause serious data corruption on some NFORCE4-based AMD motherboards? I'm surprised the authors weren't aware of this problem.

Myself, I'm wary of NFORCE4 for other reasons. I've recently found that my quad-core Opteron box, built on a Tyan S2895 (K8WE) mobo with an NFORCE4 chipset, will undergo spontaneous data corruption under Linux when I transfer large (>GB) files. I'm not the only one who's had this problem; looks like there's a bug in the NFORCE4 SATA controller. Caveat Emptor.

Re:Hardware TCP/IP acceleration (3, Informative)

EconolineCrush (659729) | about 8 years ago | (#16155569)

Nvidia fixed ActiveArmor's data corruption issues a while back. They haven't dropped TCP/IP acceleration from their entire chipset line, either, just the 570 SLI for Intel. The 590 SLI, 570 SLI for AMD, nForce4 SLI X16 for AMD and Intel, and others still support hardware GigE acceleration.

Re:Hardware TCP/IP acceleration (2, Interesting)

adisakp (705706) | about 8 years ago | (#16155750)

FWIW, I bought an XPS600 from Dell with the "NForce for Intel" MB and I was getting write errors on my hard-drives until I disabled both hardware TCP/IP acceleration and SATA command queuing on the NVidia chipset. The computer doesn't run any noticeably slower (real world maybe 1-2%) but it's 100 times more stable. To me, stability is more important than minor speed bumps that corrupt my data anyday.

Re:Hardware TCP/IP acceleration (1)

XzQuala (950050) | about 8 years ago | (#16155955)

To me, stability is more important than minor speed bumps that corrupt my data anyday.

Honestly now... Why then did you buy an XPS? You are seriously confused.

Re:Hardware TCP/IP acceleration (2, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 8 years ago | (#16155942)

I can't understand why Nvidia would drop a unique feature like hardware TCP/IP acceleration.

Because unless you're running a server with gigabit Ethernet at high utilization, it won't noticeably help performance. For an "enthusiast PC" out on a DSL line, you'll never notice.

Re:Hardware TCP/IP acceleration (0)

Tweekster (949766) | about 8 years ago | (#16157002)

Dont let facts get in the way...

That hardware acceleration just makes everything feel snappier.

CONCLUSION (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16155496)

Thanks for the 21 pages...Concusion:
Conclusions
The landscape of Core 2-compatible chipsets is an interesting one. On one hand, you have tried and true chipsets like the 975X Express and nForce4 SLI X16 appearing on boards that have been updated to support Core 2 processors. These chipsets aren't new or particularly flashy, but they're proven designs that don't sacrifice performance when compared with the latest and greatest core logic.

Of course, the Core 2 chipset market isn't all retro refits. Nvidia's nForce 570 SLI is new, at least in name. Unfortunately, the chip's features make it look more like a minor update to the aging nForce4 SLI than a legitimate member of the nForce 500 series. The discrepancies between the chipset's features and those offered by the nForce 570 SLI for AMD processors are striking, and for the life of me, I can't understand why Nvidia would drop a unique feature like hardware TCP/IP acceleration. Extra features have long been a tenet of nForce chipsets, and on that front, the 570 SLI comes up well short.

Compounding the 570 SLI's disappointing feature set is comparatively high memory latency with two-DIMM configurations. This particular problem might be a quirk of the Asus P5NSLI motherboard we used for testing, but it's a retail board with a production BIOS--a board Nvidia itself provided for review.

Intel P965 Express
September, 2006

Unlike the nForce 570 SLI, which feels like little more than an uninspired retread, Intel's P965 Express still has that new chipset smell. It also has a number of new features, including Fast Memory Access optimizations and additional south bridge Serial ATA RAID ports. The P965 also has relatively low power consumption, competitive performance, more robust Matrix RAID options, and evolving CrossFire support that should be complete by the end of the year. No wonder this chipset has proven so popular with motherboard manufacturers, who are building everything from budget $100 wonders to high-end enthusiast boards based on it.

The Intel P965 Express chipset's mix of features, performance, and power consumption make it the perfect partner for Intel's new Core 2 processor and our Editor's Choice. Really, it's an easy call to make. The P965's upcoming CrossFire support kills the one reason we might have recommended the 975X. If SLI's your bag, the nForce4 SLI X16 is a solid--albeit power-hungry--option, but the more attractive nForce 590 SLI should be just around the corner. The nForce 570 SLI, meanwhile, doesn't even measure up to its own name, let alone to the P965

Conclusion (5, Insightful)

neonprimetime (528653) | about 8 years ago | (#16155501)

I'll save you the time of scrolling thru all 21 pages by skipping right to the conclusion...
The Intel P965 Express chipset's mix of features, performance, and power consumption make it the perfect partner for Intel's new Core 2 processor and our Editor's Choice. Really, it's an easy call to make.

Re:Conclusion (4, Funny)

Daverd (641119) | about 8 years ago | (#16155543)

Which is strange, because from most of the benchmarks I looked at, the nForce4 mobo did better than the P965.

Filled in:Conclusion (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 8 years ago | (#16155575)

The Intel P965 Express chipset's mix of features, performance, and power consumption make it the perfect partner for Intel's new Core 2 processor and our Editor's Choice. Really, it's an easy call to make. The P965's upcoming CrossFire support kills the one reason we might have recommended the 975X. If SLI's your bag, the nForce4 SLI X16 is a solid--albeit power-hungry--option, but the more attractive nForce 590 SLI should be just around the corner. The nForce 570 SLI, meanwhile, doesn't even measure up to its own name, let alone to the P965.


That should round out the Conclusion.

As for the bias, AMD's got a few tricks up their sleeves in the next 7 months, so it will be interesting: consumer level dual CPUs (4X4), integrated shared L3 cache, 65nm fab, and quad core vs Intel's Kentsfield 65nm.

I'm eagerly awaiting the next price drops!

4x4? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | about 8 years ago | (#16156342)

consumer level dual CPUs (4X4)

Wouldn't "4x4" imply four processors with four logical cores each, for a total 16-way system? Somehow I don't think that's what you meant. Or was it?

A dual-core per processor, dual-processor system would be, I would think, a 2x2, and if you had a processor with four cores, and then two of them, it would be a 2x4 or 4x2.

The only way I can think of to make a 4x4 would be with a specialized high-end mobo; I can't see anyone making a quad proc board for consumer use anytime soon. Most low-end tasks just aren't that parallelizable.

Re:4x4? (1)

DarkJC (810888) | about 8 years ago | (#16156441)

4x4 is the name AMD is marketing for this dual dual-core processor tech. I know, I can't make sense of it either, but hey, it's marketing.

Re:4x4? (1)

CthulhuDreamer (844223) | about 8 years ago | (#16156711)

4x4 is two dual-core processors, plus two dual-chip video cards (Quad SLI). Think of it not as an "X", but a diagonal "+".

Re:4x4? (2, Funny)

Surt (22457) | about 8 years ago | (#16156728)

4x4 is AMD's marketing platform for dual-processor, dual-core (4 CPU) systems with dual-board, dual-processor graphics (4 GPU).

Hence 4x4. But it's 8 processor cores, not 16. But heck, when you buy a 4x4 truck do you expect 16 wheels?

Re:4x4? (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | about 8 years ago | (#16157098)

when you buy a 4x4 truck do you expect 16 wheels?


I certainly don't expect 8.

Re:4x4? (1)

Surt (22457) | about 8 years ago | (#16157320)

Well, that was perhaps a slight abuse of the analogy on my part. More accurate might have been to suggest that you don't expect more than 4 of any one thing on a 4x4 truck, and that part of the analogy would hold up, since there are actually some significant differences between CPUs and GPUs (they really aren't quite the same thing).

Re:Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16155696)

Is there a similar comparison of AMD compatible chipsets available anywhere?
I'm interested in speed and heat issues, and not SLI.

micro-ops fusion - 32 bit only. DMA - lower 32bit (5, Informative)

hxnwix (652290) | about 8 years ago | (#16155504)

The core2 is fast in 32bit mode and certainly a step in the right direction for intel. Kudos to them, but fie on their 64 bit support. In deference to the Itanium, they think of it as existing to provide extended memory support, and only because AMD was flanking them. Two important factors drag down core2 64 bit performance: micro-ops fusion, which welds multiple trivial ops into a single macro op, works on 32 bit instructions only, and they support DMA on only memory addressable with a 32 bit pointer. The message from intel is clear: for 64 bit performance, buy an Itanium or an opteron.

Re:micro-ops fusion - 32 bit only. DMA - lower 32b (2, Insightful)

Aardpig (622459) | about 8 years ago | (#16155623)

and they support DMA on only memory addressable with a 32 bit pointer.

Indeed. Hence the software bounce buffer in Linux, to make up for the lack of an IOMMU. And while I'm extremely pleased with my recently-purchased E2700 Core 2 Duo box, I wonder how well the Core architecture will fare in quad/oct-core land, with it's memory access issues. The lack of both IOMMU and (more fundamentally) a per-core or per-die memory controller seriously hampers Core's ability to scale.

Re:micro-ops fusion - 32 bit only. DMA - lower 32b (1)

jelle (14827) | about 8 years ago | (#16156576)

"And while I'm extremely pleased with my recently-purchased E2700 Core 2 Duo box"

Sorry to break it to you, but...

I guess Intel's fog screen is working.

There is no E2700 "Core 2 Duo". You have a Yonah, not a Conroe, the "Core Duo E2700: 2.33 GHz, FSB 667" Yonah is not the same core as the Core 2...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_mi croprocessors [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_ microprocessors [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2 [wikipedia.org]

Re:micro-ops fusion - 32 bit only. DMA - lower 32b (1)

Kevin Stevens (227724) | about 8 years ago | (#16156665)

This should enlighten you a bit: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_ on_the_rampage/ [tomshardware.com]

My brief summary is this: For video and 3D rendering, quad core KICKS ASS. For more routine tasks, it's performance edge isn't a big deal and probably not worth it. Keep in mind though that these tests were done on "beta" chips, other performance areas and heat dissipation might improve .

I really wish sites would do benchmarks on things like compilation times (a bunch of sites used to do this based on compiling the source for the Linux Kernel) and web serving performance, which will help to better inform developers and small businesses of what they can get out of upgrading their hardware, as these two groups probably round out the consumers of high end hardware aside from the gamers, 3D guys and video guys.

And Because I can't stand the fact that Toms Hardware has become an ad whore, I give you their summary:


Compared with the already not-too-shabby Intel Core 2 Duo/Extreme, the Core 2 Quadro can give performance a mighty tweak - but only for specific applications. In the best-case scenario, performance can even be doubled. However, this depends on the particular program. Software makers have yet to initiate the needed optimizations for multiple physical CPU units. The table below lists a hodgepodge of applications that benefit from four cores right away.

The future belongs to HD content. If we take our benchmarks into consideration you can no longer get by without a quad-core processor. Test results with the software packages Main Concept with H.264 encoding and the WMV-HD conversion make this very clear. We noticed performance jumps of up to 80% when compared to the Core 2 Duo at the same clock speed (2.66 GHz). A Core 2 Quadro at 2.66 GHz and higher is the answer for HD video (editing and rendering) at full HD resolution (1920x1080).

Ambitious video geeks will want to have four cores or even more. But that's still a way off, even as the developers of both AMD and Intel are working on it.

Gaming fans, however, can confidently stick with the Core 2 Duo/Extreme or the legendary Pentium D 805. That's due to a lack of adaptations for four CPUs - in practice, only a maximum of two processors are used in games.

Overclocking fetishists can rest assured. Our test samples ran reliably at 3.33 GHz with no voltage increase - including a sound boost in performance.

With a maximum system power draw of 260 W, the power consumption of the Core 2 Quadro system levels out in the same league as a Pentium EE 965. In idle mode, the system required 167 W - this is the same amount of power that a Core 2 Extreme demands at full load. The reason for this likely lies with incomplete implementation of Intel's SpeedStep technology at this stage. In terms of computing performance, the Core 2 Quadro is worlds apart compared to the classic Pentium 4/D processors: It performs more than twice as fast than the Pentium EE 965, but requires less power input. A Core 2 Quadro does get hotter than a Core 2 Duo/Extreme, though.

Intel intends to offer the top-of-the-line version of the Core 2 Quadro for about $1,000. The customer will bring home a quad-core 2.66 GHz processor with 8 MB of L2 cache.
Topics Programs Performance
Core 2 Quadro vs. Core 2 Duo
3D rendering 3D Studio Max 8.0 100%
video editing Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 80%
HD video encoding Main Concept H.264 70%
video encoding Windows Media Encoder 9 63%
video encoding DivX 6.2 27%
image editing Adobe Photoshop CS2 24%
file compression WinRAR 3.6 10%
Editor's Opinion

For me, working with one of the first quad core systems was amazing. No matter how many applications you run at the same time, the system reacts to user commands quickly. Some applications require half the time to finish tasks. To me, it's like being catapulted a year into the future and is unlike the past few years when computing power increased only marginally. Intel pumped out 30% more performance with Core 2 Duo and will double that again with Core 2 Quadro soon.

You know it's funny (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 8 years ago | (#16156479)

I keep seeing this in relation to Intel processors "They aren't really 64-bit! Their 64-bit is t3h slow!" Ok fine but let me ask you two things then:

1) What's your source? Do you have some Intel technical docs that talk about how their chips are gimped in 64-bit? Remember: A post from some guy on some web forum isn't a legit source.

2) If that's the case, why do they perform well in 64-bit mode, in relation to 32-bit mode? You take things like, say, Prime95. Install XP 32-bit and XP-64-bit on the same system and do some benchmarks. You find that Prime95 gains a little bit of speed when both it and the OS are 64-bit compared to when both are 32-bit. So how's that happen? Isn't that counter-evidence to a poor 64-bit design?

I'm not claiming to have the answer here, just saying I see this "Pentium (and now Core2) sucks at t3h 64-bit, buy AMD!" trotted around a lot, but I see very little backing for it. So please, provide some relevant docs. What I'd like to see:

1) Intel tech docs describing the limitations of 64-bit support on the Core 2.

2) Benchmarks showing a non-trivial loss of speed in 64-bit. This means you take a 32-bit OS, 32-bit app, bench it, then a 64-bit OS and 64-bit app on the same system and rebench it.

3) Benchmarks showing the Core 2 vs Athlon on a 64-bit app, 64-bit OS.

If you haven't looked at things like that, you might want to reconsider the confidence with which you state your point of view. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that there appears to be counter evidence so you need to get some backing to try and straighten things out.

Re:You know it's funny (2, Informative)

HotBBQ (714130) | about 8 years ago | (#16156879)

You won't find (m)any benchmarks showing drastic speed improvements moving from Intel to Athlon 64-bit architecture. If you look purely at how fast does this program X run on these two systems you aren't going to see much. As has been suggested, though, is that AMD systems have a better 64-bit design. The Intel design lacks a true 64-bit IOMMU. This means it cannot use DMA on anything higher than 32-bit address space. Not a big deal unless you have a gigantic amount of memory. The Intel design is closer to 32-bit with 64-bit capabilities, where as the Athlon would be the reverse. Also, most benchmarks I've come across are for Windows apps, but Linux/Unix is where all the real 64-bit progress is being made. What is absent in the whole discussion is SunMicrosystems, which have been making 64-bit chips longer than Intel or Athlon.

PDF on AMD IOMMU

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/34434.pdf#search=%22IOMMU%22 [amd.com]

Re:You know it's funny (3, Interesting)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 8 years ago | (#16156889)

xbitlabs tested Core2 on 64 bit

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2 duo-64bit.html [xbitlabs.com]

Their conclusion


The average performance improvement we have seen from Athlon 64 FX-62 equaled 16%, while Core 2 Extreme X6800 demonstrated only 10% average performance boost. This way, there is a certain difference: AMD K8 turns out 6% mode efficient in 64-bit mode than Intel Core. However, this difference cannot compensate for the 20% performance advantage of the Intel Core 2 Duo over the Athlon 64 X2 working at the same clock speed, which we have pointed out in our previous articles. Therefore, we will not change our conclusions about the performance of the new Intel processors even keeping in mind the upcoming launch of 64-bit Windows Vista OS family.


I have an Athlon now and it's stable and fast, but the fans are loud. But initially I had more stability issues (problems with generic SDRAM, flaky firewire, overheating hard disks) on an Athlon/Nforce2 than I was used to on an Celeron/Intel 440BX. Even if Intel was a bit slower, I'd probably pick an Intel CPU and chipset over any other combination, since most stuff isn't very CPU bound these days.

Re:You know it's funny (2, Interesting)

hxnwix (652290) | about 8 years ago | (#16156919)

I keep seeing this in relation to processors: "There are technical drawbacks to this architecture! But according to my annecdotes, it seems pretty fastish! Why don't you go and do a bunch of research to disprove my annecdotes, which are by there nature not disprovable!" Well, I can at least attack the premise you are attempting to establish.

Read the other reply to my comment - 32bit-address-only DMA is a well known limitation of the EM64T ISA. This limitation, by requiring additional memory copies, reduces performance. If you could compare a core2 processor with this limitation to one without it, the difference would be quantifiable. It is harder to observe when comparing an opteron to a core2, seeing as how the underlying microarchectures are different even though their ISAs are generally compatible.

Why did Intel introduce this limitation? I think it's because they would prefer that you buy an Itanium. It almost seems that they'd rather have folks buy opterons. That's my opinion, and that's a fact.

Re:You know it's funny (2, Insightful)

Agripa (139780) | about 8 years ago | (#16157383)

The DMA 32 bit addressing limitations are mostly a function of the memory controller and various expansion devices including some poorly designed or tested PCI cards. Because of the K8's built in memory controller, AMD was in a position to ameliorate this problem to some extent through use of the GART as a limited IOMMU in a standardized way. Intel would have had to build this functionality into its north bridge memory controllers which would have made universal support very difficult never mind third party north bridge support.

Google "iommu AMD gart" or "iommu Intel gart" for more details.

"Cling" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16155512)

It can rather make sense to "cling" if you've invested in MB, memory and cooler already. Certainly it depends on where on the curve you're upgrading from.

Fanboys (3, Insightful)

colonslashslash (762464) | about 8 years ago | (#16155563)

"Some fanboys still stubbornly cling to their favorite underdog, but most enthusiasts have seen the light and are looking at Core 2 for their next upgrade or system build.


Yes, 'fanboys' ... or maybe alot of people on AMD64 systems at the moment don't *need* to upgrade, can't afford to upgrade, don't want to have to change motherboards and RAM as well as a CPU, sacrifice their nVidia SLI setups etc etc.

Just because I'm not rushing out to buy a Core 2 Duo system to replace or upgrade, and instead 'cling' to my AMD64 system, it doesn't make me an AMD fanboy. Core 2 Duo is looking like a fucking superb processor family, but I think I'lll get a bit more life out of my current system before diving into a complete upgrade / replacement of my current hardware thank you.

As a side note; does anyone have any info on what AMD are planning, if anything, to compete against the Core 2 Duo in the near future? I read something a while back about them switching to 65nm at a new fab, but I don't follow the processor market that closely anymore.

Context matters (4, Insightful)

EconolineCrush (659729) | about 8 years ago | (#16155639)

"Some fanboys still stubbornly cling to their favorite underdog, but most enthusiasts have seen the light and are looking at Core 2 for their next upgrade or system build." Nowhere does it say when that next upgrade or system build has to come, or that anyone needs to upgrade from AMD64.

Re:Context matters (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | about 8 years ago | (#16157405)

Indeed, and only a total idiot would base his decision on what to upgrade to a year from now based on what happens to be hot hardware right now...

Barcelona / K8L (5, Insightful)

Visaris (553352) | about 8 years ago | (#16155709)

As a side note; does anyone have any info on what AMD are planning, if anything, to compete against the Core 2 Duo in the near future? I read something a while back about them switching to 65nm at a new fab, but I don't follow the processor market that closely anymore.

AMD has a couple of interesting products comming out:

- First is 4x4, comming out in 4Q2006. This is essentially a dual-socket platform designed for the high-end desktop and low-end workstation/server market. This isn't a product for everyone, but it will make for a very price attractive dual-socket workstation. To start with, it will support two dual-core chips for a total of four cores. AMD has stated that later, when they release quad-core chips, 4x4 will support two of them for a total of eight cores. It's a niche market, but a neat idea.

- Second, AMD is releasing a new core in 2Q2007. This core has double the number of FP (floating point) pipelines, double the L1 cache bandwidth, larger reorder buffers, a L3 cache, and will come in dual and quad-core versions. This chip is going to be a beast, and will be supported in any current socket AM2 mother board. For more, read this: HardOCP [hardocp.com] , HardOCP [hardocp.com] . This new core is the direct answer to Core2/conroe, and I expect it to be a good one. It looks really good on paper, and after seeing AMD's delivery of K8, I expect the new core to live up to the hype.

Re:Fanboys (-1, Flamebait)

osmosium (1004338) | about 8 years ago | (#16155763)

I hope no one uses this as information to buy their motherboard for the new Intel Core 2 Duo if they want a tandem graphics solution. This "chipset" comparison is completely devoid of real-life issues. Like what happens if you want to build a tandem-graphics card rig. The e6700 CPU is a very desirable part right now and if you want SLI... Oops none of these chipsets support SLI... Ok, Im not partial, Ill buy an ATI solution. Only there isnt a real good one. Of the two fastest crossfire cards out now, one is slower than snot the other is a dual-slot! So if you want a good crossfire solution, youll have no PCI-X slots left... So the solution? The Asus P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe Motherboard. Why? It supports all Core 2 Duo parts at full speed. And even the memory controller handles the 1066Mhz speed better than the 965/975X motherboards! Doh! (See http://www.anandtech.com/ [anandtech.com] Yes, the P5N32 SE may not handle the new quad core parts, but I dont know it wont either. Tom's Hardware just built a $10,000 dollar rig and posted it on their website. Which motherboard did they use. Gee, I wonder... Ad a sidenote, all AMD has to do is get there 65nm process going, Vista will be out.. and Intel will have, by comparison, a very obviously poor solution, bucause there CPU's wont be any faster in XP and AMD's 64 bit capabilites will outshine Intel's when it comes to Vista.

Fanboys aren't all bad (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | about 8 years ago | (#16155782)

There's nothing wrong with being a fanboy. Fanboys are irrational zealots, and zealots often make things happen in the long term.

Consider Linux in the 0.x days, probably buggy as hell. Using Linux at that stage would have been irrational if you just chose what was best on the day. However, without those fanboys that believed in the long term dream and contributed, we'd never have got to where we are today.

Re:Fanboys aren't all bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156224)

still being ran primarily by "fanboys"?

trollish comment I know.. which is why I'm AC on this one.

Re:Fanboys (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156677)

Yes, 'fanboys' ... or maybe alot of people on P4 NetBurst systems at the moment don't *need* to upgrade, can't afford to upgrade, don't want to have to change motherboards and RAM as well as a CPU, sacrifice their Rambus RDRAM setups etc etc.

Just because I'm not rushing out to buy a AMD64 system to replace or upgrade, and instead 'cling' to my P4 NetBurst system, it doesn't make me an Intel fanboy. AMD64 is looking like it royally fucking owns my processor family, but I think I'lll get a bit more life out of my current system before diving into a complete upgrade / replacement of my current hardware thank you.

Come on, where's my mod points? Oh, it doesn't work that way? My bad.

Not much perf difference... (2, Insightful)

romrunning (963198) | about 8 years ago | (#16155568)

In virtually all MB reviews with the same chipset, they are usually all within 5-7% of each other in the benchmarks. This usually doesn't translate into meaningful "sitting in front of the keyboard" performance differences. It's like horsepower in cars - it's hard to tell 195hp from 205hp when you're behind the wheel. (and yes, I like to compare apples to oranges...)

Fanboyism at its hight (1, Insightful)

dnamaners (770001) | about 8 years ago | (#16155585)

"Intel's Core 2 Duo is clearly the most attractive processor on the market..." That quote sums it up, Its An Intel-Fanboy article.

That said, I still lean AMD. If Intel lowers the cost on these chips and AMD stays where they are Intel will really have a lead. They certainly have a good product now. However, Once you add the and chips and boards to the basket (by new egg prices) the Intel solution is easily $100-200 more expensive when comparing equivalent power (especially budget) processors. Its not much but in the under $1000 basic box range thats significant.

However, even if AMD gets $200 more expensive per set ill stay with it for my servers. They have treated me way too well to dump over chump change. Intel will have to be better, cheaper and keep the edge for quite some time before I jump ship.

Re:Fanboyism at its hight (4, Insightful)

Frobozz0 (247160) | about 8 years ago | (#16155675)

For gaming, which requires the most performance, AMD is soundly beaten. Period. That doesn't mean they won't come out with something to one-up Intel in the future, but right now only a fanboy would recommend AMD if performance is the number one criteria.

If you move away from performance as the only criteria, I think AMD competes well with the cost-to-dollar performance. HOWEVER, if you are willing to overclock, even the sub-$200 Core 2 Duo will outperform any desktop AMD chip you can buy-- at any price.

It's not a matter of fanboy-ism. It's a matter of numbers. Right now Intel wins on performance. That's just a fact. However, AMD could very well get back into the mix and make this argument mute in the near future.

Language tip of the day (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16155851)

Criteria's plural. You want criterion.

Re:Language tip of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156904)

meh, that's one of the cases in English where the common misuse is better than the correct way.

Irregularities like that deserve to wither and die...

Re:Language tip of the day (1)

dadragon (177695) | about 8 years ago | (#16157114)

There is nothing irrgular about it. It's a Greek word.

Re:Fanboyism at its hight (1)

dnamaners (770001) | about 8 years ago | (#16156262)

I make servers and work boxes, I do use 64 bits from time to time but most of the code on them will do 32 just fine so I am not even hung up on 64 bits. I just feel Opteron is where its at in my world, and will be for quite some time. Its good enough, cheap enough and can do 64 and 32 bits and is so close to the same performance that keeping a consistent closet (that means spare parts for all) has more value than the difference.

I don't game much so perhaps you are right on that front. However have one rule, never overclock if you want to keep your job. At home its fine I suppose, but in my closet its cool low power chips that perform well in stock form only (AMD with low memory latency is also very good here). I can't speak for the rest of you, just me.

Re:Fanboyism at its hight (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156330)

and make this argument mute in the near future

You don't make arguments (or points) mute. You make them moot.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot [wiktionary.org]

Re:Fanboyism at its hight (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 8 years ago | (#16156668)

You could tell the person making the argument to STFU NOOB [funfry.com] .

That would make them mute.

Image macros with cute animals end any argument on the internet, everyone knows that.

Re:Fanboyism at its hight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16155752)

Are you serious? Paying $100-$200 more for Intel is "significant", but paying $200 more for an AMD is "chump change"? Who's the fanboy here again?

Re:Fanboyism at its hight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156138)

My lowest cost server metal to date cost about $2500. At that price $200 is not a big issue. It is more important that it be easy to support and similar to gear curretnly in use.

Re:Fanboyism at its hight - Bad Logic (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 8 years ago | (#16156958)

Intel will have to be better, cheaper and keep the edge for quite some time before I jump ship.

If so, you deny yourself the benefits available now from Intel for months, or years.

This is the mistake that Dell has made by sticking with Intel while AMD was clearly superior, and only now that Intel is ahead again after years in second place, then going to AMD. And you wonder why Dell is in so much trouble.

My C2D Rig was my first custom built PC (-1, Offtopic)

Frobozz0 (247160) | about 8 years ago | (#16155600)

Well, my Core 2 Duo gaming rig was my first computer ever built from scratch. I'm actually a Mac fanatic, but I love games. I think any serious gamer should have a PC for such a reason, dispite Windows as the OS. *sigh* Anyway, I didn't run into any problems, really. Here is my rig:

Intel Core 2 Duo e6700 @ 3.095 GHz (2.66GHz stock)
Zalman CNPS9500 CPU Air Cooler
Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" Motherboard
Sapphire Radeon x1900xt in Crossfire Mode
ATI Crossfire x1900 Master Card
2 x 512mb Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 Memory (4-4-4-14)
2 x Seagate SATA2 320GB Perendicular recording HD's in RAID 1
LG DVD-ROM / CD-R/RW Optical Drive
Antec Performance I P180b Case (super quiet and runs very cool)
Antec TruPower II 550 Watt Power Supply (comes with appropriate cabling for Crossfire)
Windows XP Professional SP2 ... my 3DMark '06 scores are well over 10,000. I'm sure I could eek out more with some additional tweaking. It runs any game I throw at it smooth as butter. The BIOS is easy to use and Intel's software and support is excellent. Obviously, I've OC'd the graphics cards, memory, system bus, and processor. All of these were easy to do and test and although you could get slightly more performance by going with other mobo's, this is a solid setup that is hard to screw up for a newbie like myself. That's why I went with it.

My only caveats were that the case, while it runs VERY cool and is nice looking, fit the motherboard tightly against the bottom case section. This made certain connectors difficult to work with, such as the SATA. firewire, USB, and power. Also, if you're smart and looking to do Crossfire, consult ATI's website to get certified motherboards and power supplies.

Re:My C2D Rig was my first custom built PC (1)

hansamurai (907719) | about 8 years ago | (#16155714)

Just curious in how much that cost you? I haven't built a machine in almost five years now and I'm looking for an upgrade.

Re:My C2D Rig was my first custom built PC (1)

Sighe Seer (1004356) | about 8 years ago | (#16156612)

I just upgraded mine from an X3400 AMD, and I'm glad I did. The new system is almost literally twice as fast in ALL areas of use, even gaming. Used my existing 2 gigs of XMS 3200, my 6800XT AGP card, and put them into an Asrock 775DUAL VSTA board, with an e6400, and a new 250 gig SATA drive, all for $400. Couldn't be happier. Was the cheapest upgrade and the most noticeable speed increase I've ever done. What used to take over 3 minutes to render in Flash now takes 1 minute and 45 seconds. AND it overclocks very nicely, easily, and runs very cool. No need for fancy heatsinks anymore. You guys will find out when you do the switch, you'll see. Note: I used AMDcpus exclusively for over 7 years running, too ! I have no brand loyalty, I suppose, but I'm not on this planet to support some conglomerate, I'm here for the best bang for the buck. ;)

Re:My C2D Rig was my first custom built PC (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 8 years ago | (#16156735)

Why didn't the call it the "Bad Ass" motherboard? That's the sort of hip, ironic yet edgy brand image that Intel need to take back the gaming market from AMD.

They could publish "buttmark" synthetic benchmarks too.

Got to say for once, Intel have a superior product (if they're really lucky, it might be competive with the K8L [xbitlabs.com] , if not they have the resources for Core3) but their marketing sucks.

"Stubborn" eh? (1, Troll)

gentimjs (930934) | about 8 years ago | (#16155845)

Ok, so some of us are "stubbornly" clinging to AMD? Intel had what, 5 years to top K8 and 5%-10% better speeds (in SOME benchmarks!) was the best they could manage? I'll stick with AMD thanks, Intel totally underachieved on Core Duo despite what most casual observers may think .....

Re:"Stubborn" eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16155979)

AMD FANBOY: Why should I switch?
Reviewer: Because its faster.
AMD FANBOY: Ok, but whi should I switch?
Reviewer: Because its uses less power.
AMD FANBOY: Ok, Ok, but whi should I switch?
Reviewer: Look if you are too stuck up AMD's ass to even consider something else then your loss.
AMD FANBOY: I told you AMD was better.
Reviewer: You make my head hurt. I need some wiskey.
AMD FANBOY: Their processors suck too.
Reviewer: WHAT?! Do you even know what you are talking about? Just shut up before I have to shoot you.

Hardly (1)

gentimjs (930934) | about 8 years ago | (#16156098)

Hardly, Had intel's new stuff beat AMD by a significant margin I'd be far more inclined to get some. As it stands we (my company) have been using AMD almost exclusivly (except for some ultrasparc...) for the last 2 years. We see no reason to change ships over such a small edge, considering how long it took Intel to come out with anything that was really competitive with AMD's K8 systems. Totally unimpressed by thier results. I really hope some people at Intel got fired or sent to work on Itanic III instead. Until then, I'll let the Intel "fanboys" have fun in 32bit single-threaded land while our servers chug along doing thier fancy 64bit multithreaded work that intel seems to not think actually gets done out here in the "real world" ....

Re:Hardly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156254)

So what exactly does your company do that needs 64 bit. Few people really need 64 bit to do their work. Try to be specific because from you post "fancy 64bit multithreaded work" it apears that you are just buying into the hype of 64 bit. Multithreading is not fancy is done by every mondern OS on every processor.

Re:Hardly (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | about 8 years ago | (#16156275)

Re:Hardly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156345)

I can comment that the ogg vorbis times seems seriously out of whack, considering my X2 3800 @ 2.4GHz encodes at 60x realtime (using oggenc/lancer), meaning that if the soundtrack is one full CD, I can encode it in 80secs, meaning my CPU is in the top three of that list :-p

No, I cant comment..... (1)

gentimjs (930934) | about 8 years ago | (#16156714)

Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, images@tau5.pair.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Eh.. it depends. (4, Interesting)

Visaris (553352) | about 8 years ago | (#16156013)

Intel had what, 5 years to top K8 and 5%-10% better speeds was the best they could manage?

Well, it depends. Core 2 is really good at 32-bit single threaded tasks that fit inside a 4MB cache or have sequential memory access patters. On these workloads Core 2 will wipe the floor with AMD's K8, hands down. Just look at SuperPI scores for an example.

Here's the question though: What happens with heavily threaded 64-bit tasks that use much more than 4MB of memory in a random access pattern? AMD's K8 wipes the floor with Core 2, hands down.

There is a reason most gamers/encoders buy Core 2 for their desktops and many businesses and universities buy K8 Opterons for their servers and HPC centers.

Re:"Stubborn" eh? (1)

Syrrh (700452) | about 8 years ago | (#16156891)

It'd be interesting to find out what freakish benchmarks you're looking at where somehow AMD scored higher on any significant number of tests. I've never seen such numbers.

Anyway, the riot over Core2 isn't that it's faster, it's because Intel stole all the advantages AMD used to have. Intel is no longer making clumsy, high heat/power, and expensive processors by comparison, they're equal now. More than equal, since directly comparing prices puts Intel *way* ahead. That's the catch, Intel is now better on the cost/performace ratio for all but the outrageous high-end parts, which are very deservedly low in demand.

The fact that Intel also made every one of their old models look like absolute shit is just an interesting side effect of their catch-up.

Parallel ATA isn't dead (2, Insightful)

piggydoggy (804252) | about 8 years ago | (#16155897)

Why do the new Intel chipsets have just one P-ATA channel, if any at all? It is ridiculous. 95% of all optical drives are P-ATA, and P-ATA hard drives as of yet are just as fast, if not faster thanks to more mature drivers and technology, than their SATA counterparts. What do they expect people with 2+ perfectly fine last-generation PATA hard drives to do when upgrading to Core 2 Duo? Getting a separate PCI controller (as PCI-E x1 ones are still rare) to already expensive C2D motherboards with just 2 PCI slots, both of which a person could have a much better use for?

Re:Parallel ATA isn't dead (2, Insightful)

MojoStan (776183) | about 8 years ago | (#16157446)

Why do the new Intel chipsets have just one P-ATA channel, if any at all?
Probably because serial ATA does have performance/connection advantages over parallel ATA, and the new Intel chipsets (965 series) are the fourth generation of Intel chipsets to support SATA (865/875 chipsets were released in May 2003). Intel thinks it's about time, and I think they might be right.

It is ridiculous. 95% of all optical drives are P-ATA...
I think around 95% of all motherboards using the new Intel chipsets have at least one PATA channel.

...and P-ATA hard drives as of yet are just as fast, if not faster thanks to more mature drivers and technology, than their SATA counterparts.
Did you see/compare TFA's SATA [techreport.com] and PATA [techreport.com] benchmarks for single hard drive performance? This is a limited set of tests (HD Tach 8MB zone setting), but the best SATA performance (using NCQ) was significantly better than the best PATA performance in each test. They didn't compare RAID performance, but I think SATA would look even better with its higher bandwidth (which might actually be utilized with multi-drive RAID) and NCQ.

What do they expect people with 2+ perfectly fine last-generation PATA hard drives to do when upgrading to Core 2 Duo?
I could be wrong, but I think a very small percentage of Core 2 Duo buyers will want to move their old parallel ATA hard drives to their next PC (especially as a primary hard drive), but those that do can still use one on the single PATA channel (if they're not using two PATA optical drives). If your computer is three years old or less, you probably shouldn't have been buying large PATA hard drives. Since SATA arrived more than three years ago, I think we should have assumed that the primary hard drive in our late-2006 computers would be SATA. I'll probably use my current 120GB PATA primary hard drive as a secondary hard drive in my next system.

Even without the performance advantages, SATA connectors/cables are a heck of a lot more convenient. Modern motherboards have four to six little SATA ports with no master/slave nonsense. The cables/connectors (including power) are so much thinner, easier to work with, and less likely to get loose. Haven't you ever had a boot problem from a bad PATA or power connection to your hard drive (like I have)?

sneering works when facts fail you (1)

aminorex (141494) | about 8 years ago | (#16155900)

> Some fanboys still stubbornly cling to their favorite underdog

True. The rest of us get incredible SMP scaling up to 32 cores on one motherboard, using Opteron socket F CPUs.

Re:sneering works when facts fail you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156137)

First of all its not on one mother board its four quad processor boards syncronized with a horus chip. Secondly do you have the money for 16 dual core Operons. Comparing a single processors performace to an array of 16 processors is like me asking you to tackle an entire football team BY YOURSELF. You are just another fanboy desperate to prove he/her choice of products is the best at the cost of the truth.

atx vs btx (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | about 8 years ago | (#16155997)

Are (good) Core2 boards available for ATX or BTX?

You see, I have several nice ATX cases and like to switch hardware between them.

If I have to buy BTX, my next CPU is still still likely to be AM2, not Core2 Duo...

Re:atx vs btx (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 8 years ago | (#16156783)

Almost all motherboards are ATX. BTX never really got off the ground.

P965 Crossfire vs P975x Crossfire (1)

lendude (620139) | about 8 years ago | (#16156045)

I'm sure I read somewhere that the (now with Catalyst 6.9) Crossfire enabled P965 boards will be 1 x 16 lane enabled PCI-e 16 slot and 1 x 4 lane enabled PCI-e 16 slot (for those P965 boards with two slots) at most vs the P975x having 2 x 8 lane enabled PCI-e 16 slots: if so, how will this affect their Crossfire performance overall on the P965 boards?

budget solution (1)

GoatVomit (885506) | about 8 years ago | (#16156130)

Asrock the bastard son of Asus has couple interesting interim boards for core 2 duo and I ended up doing a budget upgrade with conroe865pe / e6300 combo. If you want to overclock better steer clear and save up more for a complete system overhaul but for stingy persons it will work Unfortunately there's no 'real' (16x) pci-e + agp combinations for intel procs like the nice dualsata board for s939 since the pci-e implementation on pt880 (pro/ultra) chipsets is only 4x. I opted for the 865pe one since I needed 4 dimm slots. Time to save up more for the pci-e / ddr2 jump I guess.

Article says to upgrade from Athlon 64? Why? (0)

zaqattack911 (532040) | about 8 years ago | (#16156351)

Only an individual with money to burn (and small brain) is going to upgrade from an Athlon 64 single core 3000, to an Intel Core 2 Duo.

I'm sorry but I could envision the same idiot upgrading from his 2500mhz cpu to a 2800mhz cpu as soon as it comes out.

I upgraded from my 700mhz (overclocked from 533mhz) celeron, to an athlon xp 2500 to play Halo (I also got a decent graphics card of course). So far.. even the so called state of the art games coming out run smooth on this same machine. Half life 2 ep 1 is a good example. Yes, sometimes I have to turn graphics settings down a little.

I'll likely hold off till quad core cpu's begin to mature, the Windows Vista upgrade dust begins to settle, and games start using some DirectX 10 features (games that are actually worth playing... I don't get why Prey got such good reviews, its the same rehashed crap, yes I know its not dx10. But while I'm at it.. I do recommend Company of Heroes, sure its the same RTS rehashed crap, but I am very addicted :) ).

Perhaps by then AMD will have the new fast chip that tramples on Intel by a whopping 2% speed increase, and the intel people will be called "fanboys"... sigh reviewers can be so removed from reality sometimes.

Re:Article says to upgrade from Athlon 64? Why? (1)

EconolineCrush (659729) | about 8 years ago | (#16156450)

"Article says to upgrade from Athlon 64? Why?"

Acutally, it doesnt' say that. Seriously, RTFA, with comprehension this time.

Also, upgrading from a single-core Athlon 64 3000+ to a dual-core Core 2 Duo is a huge leap over the move from 2.5 to 2.8GHz. There are plenty of SMP-aware apps that scale quite nicely, and even ATI and Nvidia's graphics drivers are making use of dual-core chips to improve in-game frame rates.

Re:Article says to upgrade from Athlon 64? Why? (1)

PIBM (588930) | about 8 years ago | (#16156526)

I went from a 3200+ which was running at ~2.3ghz to a core 2 duo 6600 .. I get about 3 times the performance of what I had before, so I don't call that a small change. I kept the same video card and the games that I play are much faster, and the time it takes when I use video editing software went down by a lot. I wasn't planning to change but I got an offer for my system, and it was totally worth it :)

Re:Article says to upgrade from Athlon 64? Why? (1)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | about 8 years ago | (#16156949)

i just upgraded from a 939 3500 and i am quite pleased. the overclockability of the 6x00 is phenomenal (almost 2.6ghz on stock cooling http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=1 [anandtech.com] )

not only that, but i decided it was time to get a dual-core because i've started doing multiple things now that i have a pc that's capable. in the past, converting video or extracting, compressing, etc meant leaving my machine to do it's business (or just surf the net). now, i can encode a dvd image for easy access on my file server and play a game. considering i only have the weekends (while in school) to really use my tower, i want to get the most out of it.

personally, i don't expect to be upgrading for a while, but that all depends on what sort of new toys amd/ati comes out with, i'm curious to see what sort of motherboard/cpu/gpu/something solutions show up in the market in 2007.

i don't maintain any loyalty to any one company, i go wherever i see the best deal. when i considered the price/performance as well as the power consumption (add up the extra electricity used in a month), i saw the core 2 as the winner by a great margin. although, i am slightly chagrinned to admit that the gpu i chose is the 1900xt (for the electricity), but i remember seeing a few reviews that pitted it against some of the other top'o the line gpu's in various video situations (dvd's, encoding), it mopped up.

G965 Reviews? (2, Informative)

HRbnjR (12398) | about 8 years ago | (#16156451)

I was dissapointed that this review didn't include any G965 reviews.

If you want the new Linux XGL/AIGLX/Compiz functionality to work out of the box with no binary drivers, a G965 board may very well be what you are looking for.

The G965 chipset includes the new GMA X3000 graphics core, which is the only DX10 feature level graphics solution with FLOSS Linux drivers: http://intellinuxgraphics.org/ [intellinuxgraphics.org]

The new C2 stepping is rumoured to solve many of the performance problems of the first stepping, and although probably still not suitable for FPS gaming under Linux, other less demanding games and desktop users needs could be well met.

According to the Inq... (1)

default luser (529332) | about 8 years ago | (#16157020)

The performance problems of the G part of the G965 aren't going to improve [theinquirer.net] , even with the C2 stepping.

I wouldn't hold your breath. It took Intel three tries to make a modern embedded chipset with "decent" low-end performance, with the GMA 900, and that wasn't even very advanced. With hardware shaders, this is an entirely new concept for Intel to tackle, so give them till next chipset to beat the performance of the GMA 950.

Of course, the Inq could be full of shit, but when it comes to Intel and graphics I'd be skeptical if OEMs DIDN'T call it crap.

Re:G965 Reviews? (1)

SigmoidCurve (188795) | about 8 years ago | (#16157237)

Thanks for this link. For those considering a pure open source linux box, there are scant few resources on new hardware. And it is all too easy to shoot yourself in the foot with a card that's "semi" supported or buying an overpriced card for which the open source drivers only support the basic features. The 965G is a sweet option, it's a leaner chipset which has made it easy to build into micro-atx boards... another convenience for those looking for a powerful system that doesn't crowd your desk.

Call me a fanboy if you must... (2, Interesting)

martinultima (832468) | about 8 years ago | (#16156461)

but I'm still sticking with my Athlon 64, thanks. Besides, I can't even tell which damn Intel processors are even 64-bit capable – at least AMD makes a clear naming distinction. (I may be wrong here, of course... disclaimer, I used to be an Intel guy myself, but I've since changed.)

Re:Call me a fanboy if you must... (1)

srk2040 (973509) | about 8 years ago | (#16156725)

Agreed, whats with all the freaking intel naming conventions on these new processors?

Re:Call me a fanboy if you must... (1)

EconolineCrush (659729) | about 8 years ago | (#16156791)

All Intel Core 2 Duo processors are 64-bit.

Re:Call me a fanboy if you must... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16156881)

You should REALLY take a look at the Core 2 Duo's- they are all 64 bit and they really do beat the pants off anything AMD has to offer, even from a price/performance or heat/power perspective. I was an AMD fan for years (and I am still rooting for them), but if I had to build a box today, the choice is clear, Intel is better by a large margin.

I will agree with you though, the naming conventions are a mess and probably designed to deliberately obfuscate whats under the hood, which is shady at best.

Re:Call me a fanboy if you must... (1)

ozzee (612196) | about 8 years ago | (#16157071)

You should REALLY take a look at the Core 2 Duo's- they are all 64 bit and they really do beat the pants off anything AMD has to offer...

This link (http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/ 30922105.pdf) [intel.com] points to the Core Duo data sheet. Where does it say it is 64 bit capable ? I can't see it.

I have been researching notebooks in the last few hours and the only ones I can definitly say are 64 bit capable are the AMD AM2 Turion's. Also, if you look at this link: AMD benchmark PDF [amd.com] , it's hard to imagine that the intel offering is at all interesting.

I need a fast AMD64/EMT64 capable notebook, I don't mind if it's Intel or AMD. I can't see a better offering from a value for money or even just outright value perspective than the AMD TL-60 based notebooks (if you look at CPU that is.)

If you can kindly point out how the Intel offerings are dramatically superior, I'm listening.

Playing Hopscotch (3, Interesting)

m.dillon (147925) | about 8 years ago | (#16156757)

It's fun seeing AMD and Intel playing hopscotch, but the days of a simple cpu upgrade causing the masses to replace their machines whoesale are long since over, and Intel was just a tad too late to the game for their Duo to be able to steal back all the market share they lost to AMD. I don't know about the rest of you but fan noise hasn't been an issue for me since I upgraded to an AMD64 X2 based MB with its hardware fan control and started using heatpipe technology. I have three shuttle XPC cubes on my desktop right now and the room is still very quiet. I have no desire to 'upgrade'.. my machines are already overpowered and mostly idle, what do I care if Internet Explorer takes 0.05 seconds less time to pop up?

Intel is likely to make some inroads in the server market except... well, except unfortunately Core Duo doesn't scale as well once you go to quad cpu setups due to the memory bottleneck. So their only real claim to fame is power use. Power is extremely important in the long term, but I don't see anyone rushing to replace all their AMD boxes with core duo just for that when they know AMD will come up with a power-competitive design in fairly short order.

The real problem Intel has is their inability to compete with Hypertransport. AMD is already pushing hard to make it a defacto standard for chip interconnect. Intel is working on their own solutions to the problem, but they are not hitting on all cylinders yet.

If anything is going to drive machine replacement in today's market, it is going to be the new ultra-fast PCI bus technologies. PCI has needed an upgrade for a long, long time. Nothing else will have much of an impact. GiGE is already faster then most hard drives so there isn't going to be much of a consumer push for 10GiGE. Cpu's are already fast enough and machines are already quiet enough. We are a far cry from the old days where every new advance doubled the performance of the previous year's boxes. In today's world magazines proclaim victory and tell people to trash their old machines for barely a 10% improvement, but unless there is a huge improvement in video technology even game players have no real reason to do so any more. The connection to the video card is the only thing left for which significant improvements can drive machine replacement.

-Matt

Re:Playing Hopscotch (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 8 years ago | (#16156967)

Amd is also trying to push Hypertransport in to add on cards and maybe even video cards I think buying ati is big step to that if that comes true then intel may be fored to use Hypertransport.

Power Consumption (1)

LordMyren (15499) | about 8 years ago | (#16157487)

Glad to see power consumption measured!

I hope ATI still releases an Intel RD580 chipset. They are pretty power efficient and acceptable performers. I'm just waiting for one to get used in a small form factor system.

-LM
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?