Dual cores? what to do..

ugh.. Im iching to see the Opty dual core vs. the 9XX pressy's synthetic benchmark thread.. just to see if I want to go 920 for the mean time..
Any news on that thread starting anytime soon guys??
I would guess the 9XX's still need some tuning (they just got them last week.. LOL)

You may find this an interesting read.
http://geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Jan/bch20060123034350.htm

rseven said:

You may find this an interesting read.
http://geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Jan/bch20060123034350.htm

Click to expand...

that makes me sad, I was/am thinking about getting a yonah for my next lappy...

Every cpu has its bugs: A64 too, Pentium 4 too, X2 too, PD8xx/9xx too...
That is nothing new.
I will not base my purchase decision because of that, but because of features and price/performance, and i will surely not buy a cpu that dont suport 64-bit now...

It is true, there are always bugs. However, if you read some of the discussion on that page you find that this is a unusual number for a new release and that Intel has no plan's to rectify them. AMD does have a track record for fixing bugs after they are discovered. It's like the old Avis ad, when your number 2 you try harder.

the difference is AMD doesn't tell anyone what's going on. they would never issue a list of known bugs, let alone even aknowledge there are any bugs.

who knows if they fix bugs behind the scenes.

with the core duo, intel has a major head start in knowing what potential bugs are, as it is based heavily off of Dothan.

hUMANbEATbOX said:

the difference is AMD doesn't tell anyone what's going on. they would never issue a list of known bugs, let alone even aknowledge there are any bugs.

who knows if they fix bugs behind the scenes.

with the core duo, intel has a major head start in knowing what potential bugs are, as it is based heavily off of Dothan.

Click to expand...

Please don't shine some sort of false light on Intel...they are no better than AMD in this area...

Anyhow, it seems like there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread, especially from people who have tried one brand of processor but not both:

(1) To some extent, Intel's earliest dual cores were a rush attempt. Even the low-level X2's outperformed Intel's higher-binned offerings when you factored overall multi & single-threaded performance.

(2) Anyone who thinks that AMD dual cores were priced higher b/c of build quality is just plain wrong; on the contrary, AMD's initial target for dual cores was (and largely still is) the server market. AMD honestly believes that their vanilla A64 offerings are more than sufficient to hold over the desktop market for quite some time. Intel, on the other hand, wanted to push their dual cores into the mainstream. It is because of this reason why AMD's chips were priced higher - they targeted industrial sales while Intel looked toward the end-user.

(3) Believe it or not, I have nothing but praise for Intel's 9xx dual cores. Not only are they cheaper than AMD's offerings, but they have closed the once-large performance gap in many areas. Sure, Opterons and X2's will have the edge in some apps (gaming to this day), but the performance delta is marginal to some and a welcome tradeoff given the stability of Intel's chipsets and the fact that, in some cases, DDR2 is actually cheaper than DDR1 (note PQI's PC5400 2GB kit for $165). All things considered, Intel has actually come up with a dual core solution that is literally more bang for the buck than AMD's offering - something that has not happened in the long run.

In conclusion - no company is perfect, and no brand has the superior product here. Both the X2 and Core Duo have their merits, but many people are high on the 9xx chips (myself included) b/c of the price-to-performance that they offer. Personally, I am going to give Intel another stab (just for the hell of it), and this is coming from someone that had a Opteron 146 (single-core) running @ 3 GHZ 34/7 and an Opteron 165 @ 2.85 GHZ.

deception``

deception`` said:

Please don't shine some sort of false light on Intel...they are no better than AMD in this area...

Click to expand...

i'm not trying to say anything bad about AMD or shine a "false light" on Intel. i'm going by the editorials posted on the front page here (www.overclockers.com fyi) that have gone to great lengths to show that AMD is not very forthcoming with information.

you don't agree with me (or Ed Stroligo i guess), that doesn't mean i'm wrong.

Ed Stroligo said:

How you react to a problem can be as important as the problem itself, and this is where AMD falls down all the time. A little openness and honesty goes a long way. When Intel has supply problems, they do mention them, and say "things are going to be tight for a while." When Intel plans to pull a processor, they release a publicly available document saying, "Hey, we're going to pull the processor."

It's obviously hasn't hurt Intel too much over the years.

Why can't AMD do that? If nothing else, it will let customers know when they might be going on a wild goose chase and let them decide whether or not they want to do that with eyes wide open.

That's a lot better than wasting your customers' time.

Click to expand...

hUMANbEATbOX: Amd have in their page, list of errata of processors they sell, like Intel have. First inform yourself and then speak.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf

And yes they fixed many of them already.

ronaldo said:

hUMANbEATbOX: Amd have in their page, list of errata of processors they sell, like Intel have. First inform yourself and then speak.

Click to expand...

OK fair enough, you are right, i didn't know that. but that's what these forums are for, sharing information. no need to be rude to me with the "First inform yourself" comment.

hUMANbEATbOX said:

OK fair enough, you are right, i didn't know that. but that's what these forums are for, sharing information. no need to be rude to me with the "First inform yourself" comment.

Click to expand...

It's not rude, it's correct; prior to your post, there was plenty of information available for you to disprove your claim. The burden lies on the individual to perform his/her own research before they seek to make such accusations.

deception``

i never made any concrete accusations. you need to get off your high horse. i made a statement based off of the things I HAVE READ. do you seriously expect me to go and read every word on the entire internet before i comment on something? NO.

anyways, i'm backing out of this thread. its obvious it isn't going anywhere......toodles..

hUMANbEATbOX said:

i never made any concrete accusations. you need to get off your high horse. i made a statement based off of the things I HAVE READ. do you seriously expect me to go and read every word on the entire internet before i comment on something? NO.

anyways, i'm backing out of this thread. its obvious it isn't going anywhere......toodles..

Click to expand...

No high horse here....also no need to takes things so personally. Nobody meant to attack you here. However, the bottom line is that you made a blanket statement based on misinformation. I will say this and leave it at that: next time you decide to make such bold comparions, take the time to research your claims first. This applies not only to you, but to myself as well as everyone.

I can't really help that you take things to heart in such an egregious manner, but it appears as though you have a lot of work to do if you cannot accept a bit of constructive criticism.

deception``

deception`` said:

I can't really help that you take things to heart in such an egregious manner, but it appears as though you have a lot of work to do if you cannot accept a bit of constructive criticism.

Click to expand...

what did i say to make you think i took anything to heart in "such an egregious manner"? because i called a comment rude?

i've got a lot of work to do....do you care to elaborate? you aren't going to pretend you know who i am or what my problems are based off of the 3 posts i made are you?

perhaps we've both got a lot of work to do....

any further comments would be best directed to my pm's.

hUMANbEATbOX said:

what did i say to make you think i took anything to heart in "such an egregious manner"? because i called a comment rude?

i've got a lot of work to do....do you care to elaborate? you aren't going to pretend you know who i am or what my problems are based off of the 3 posts i made are you?

perhaps we've both got a lot of work to do....

any further comments would be best directed to my pm's.

Click to expand...

No thanks...you have taken this thread off topic enough.

Back to the original idea - both cores have their strengths and weaknesses.

deception``

Look guys, I honestly did not want to start a flame war here. I thought, and still do think, the information is relevant to choosing between the two CPU's. This is particularly true since they are pretty closely matched and it comes down to some smaller things in deciding one way or the other. Everybody, please chill. None of us are making or losing any money on this, so outside of our egos we have nothing at stake.

Nasgul said:

The high-end gaming is more depandable on the Video Card not mostly CPU as everyone (that doens't use an Intel CPU) belives

Click to expand...

But as this post shows, it is a very significant factor.

I have a 3 week old rig. Pentium D 830, running on a Intel D945Gnt M/B with 3gb Kingston 533 and have had no problems. Haven't tryed clocking; don't know how would like to learn.

Layback Bear said:

I have a 3 week old rig. Pentium D 830, running on a Intel D945Gnt M/B with 3gb Kingston 533 and have had no problems. Haven't tryed clocking; don't know how would like to learn.

Click to expand...

you are probably out of luck with that motherboard. intel's boards don't include options for overclocking.

*edit* btw welcome to the forums

i bought a 920d and intel mobo and returned it after 4 hours...besides the fact that it couldnt overclock, it just felt sluggish compared to the x2 3800+ that was running stock speeds.