First let me state this post is meant to be provocative - I hope it stimulates some spirited debate!

Please no more posts asking "should get amd or intel" - the answers is aways (I) and never (A) :x . This should be the final post until AMD releases its new chips in the fall 07. Intel wins at every level.

Well if you read any of my posts slamming amd you see that I am often criticized but rarely wrong. AMD is a second rate chip that only had its 18 months of glory. Anyone who thought 64 bit compute-ring was near in 2005 is stuck with a slow dog chip that still has not enough driver support for a complete system.

As THG states: net-burst wins the $300 throw down! THG wrote: "Ironically 8O , Intel won this shootout with a product that is based on its often criticized Net-Burst architecture. Such is life."

If you guys at THG would read my posts you would not say this is Ironic but to be expected - as I have claimed about the continual AMTI bias in the articles.


Lets add:

Intel wins the dual core throw down! E6300 vs fx-60 a no brainer! 8)

Intel wins the quad core throw down! 8) Some do claim that 4x4 wins - sure!

Wow intel just wins - As I stated last month net burst is not dead if material innovation could fix the leakage issue - guess what! Not only did net burst win the $300 el cheapo but as I predicted the leakage issue is also being solved: http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/8989/53/

"To overcome the problem of current leakage across super thin layer of silicon, Intel is using new materials to build the insulating walls and switching gates of its 45nm transistors. Intel says the new technology will dramatically reduce leakage and allow double the amount of transistors to be placed on the same sized chips."


Conclusion: While net burst did have a fast death and did not make 10 ghz Intel responded by 1) core 2 architecture beating amd 2) combining the 800 series dual core disaster with core 2 to make the first quad core 3) the first to make 45nm chips, putting amd on the chopping block the stock as fallen by 60%+, 4) Intel now sas extended the net burst architecture with new material breakthroughs and lower cost production.

I predict Intel will have better true quad core about the same time as AMTI! Long live net burst!

OK true AMTI lovers time slam me again!

Ok.

You seem like a tool.

I'll believe this if you can convince these people of the AMD bias.

Hmmmmmmmmm... with due respect to this site and ALL of it's contributors, let me say that of all the STUPID PRO-INTEL articles I have seen on this site, this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] index.html
stands above all; NOT a gaming benchmark, NOT a computational benchmark, NOT a rendering, NO multitasking, NOTHING but all what the Celeron was able to beat the Sempron at; media streaming (finely subdivided into a dozen of different software and ever-idiot synthetic benchmarks to fill a whooping 3 pages); SHAME ON WHO WROTE IT.
When it has been proven and overproven that (especially on stock) the sempron is a cheaper and better performer than the CeleronD, BLAH.

Its unanimous!

That article is getting reamed by just about everyone in the discussion.

Hi,

Your post sucks. Thanks,

-mpjesse

Well its a good way to flush out all the amti noobs?

lets add another stick in the amti back:


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/har [...] 23998.html


the addition of hyperthreading to core 2 + 800 series technology along with improved materials? wow whats that swooshing sound... could it be the sound of AMD stock falling?

you amd diehards buttons are fun to push! My complete ban will come be for amd has a good chip!

I use as almost as many amd chips as intel its just fun to mess with you amti guys!

I wish we could flush you out, you Intel Noob.

No, because anyone who knows anything knows that it's a bunch of crap, regardless of AMD bias.

No, but it's a good way to be considered an impudent fool.

wow that's personal - i bet you paid full price for fx-60 that cant get over 3.2ghz my e6300 beats it every time!

...


Are you seriously here, doing this?

I like how they didn't want to spend $10 more on the Athlon64 3200+ over the Sempron, even though it would have granted quite a bit better performance in the terms of scale they used.

If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.

Intel was getting their ass handed to them by AMD for the past 3 years until the launch of C2D.

Yes, Athlon 64's are slower than C2D. But calling them "slow dog chips" is pure stupidity. And not enough driver support? Are you on meth?

You are comparing a brand new architechture to a 3 year old one. The new one sure as hell better win.

It was a 1.8ghz, 256kb cache, 90nm processor vs. a 3.2ghz, 65nm, 512kb cache processor. Id say the sempron did pretty damn well considering the spec difference. Spend a little more money to buy say, an A64 3700+ and the celeron doesnt stand a chance.


I dont see your reasoning for posting this topic, other than to make a complete ass of yourself.