chavvdarrr said:Yes, running AMD system with old BIOS which can't run FX60 or better CPU with 2-2-2-5 1T timings is crippling , no ?
Anyway, I'd expect someone here to get a FX-60 system with decent MB, update the bios , then to run few becnhmarks with 2 x X1900 ... that should be quite decisive no?
PS btw I don't think that 20% on average, as claimed by Intel is too much.
Suppose AMD can get 10% from going DDR2-800 and add 5-10% from doubling the cache (the test was comparing Conroe EE with 4MB shared cache vs FX with 2MB total L2)
Although I prefer AMD to lower the prices for X2 3800+
intel is mammoth. you're really underestimating the gains conroe technology is showing. We're talking about a very noticable boost to CPU/GPU intensive situations (not some UT benchmark at 800x600 junk), at a slower speed then AMDs top end chip. I'm sorry to inform you of this but AMD really has very little plan to change their chip technology in terms of work per clock this year, but a 10% boost across the board from going to DDR2 800 would be amazing. Memory timings also play a very little part with AMD chips because latency is so low due to onchip memory controllers. Many people have run tests showing that you can run timings tight or loose and the gaming performance difference is practically zero. Intel has always been more problematic with having to keep timings as tight as possible. And cache gains in AMD chips wont do too much to single threaded program performance unfortunetly. But multi-tasking should be a bit more snappier.
AMD is still the king, but conroe is showing a very serious reason to upgrade. Even 15% would be nothing to snicker at. Lets not forget that this is 15% over AMD's best, compared to their own Prescott and yonah chips, this is a HUGE leap for intel. However, we must not forget AMD still hasnt gone to 65nm which conroe is, so AMD can very well continue to dominate in power areas.
Last edited by a moderator: