Intel Conroe Preview
 

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/...spx?i=2713&p=2

this time intel better than AMD is looks more powerful.

Because, you know, comparing AMD's current generation to Intel's next-gen chips is SUCH a legitamite comparison.

I'd rather wait and see, especially on the AMD side of things, I lost faith in Intel a long time ago.

Yeah, the core is at least 6 months off, with no response from AMD yet. AM2 socket mobos should be coming around and until we get their quad-core solution in 2007, we won't see truly comparable benchmarks for quite some time.

I mentioned the quads, because when AM2 socket boards roll around, there will simply be slightly modified versions of 939 CPUs available for it (AM2 X2 4800+ for example) not one made from the ground up for it. Especially since they're focusing on the server market which is red hot for them at the moment.

You might want to read up on the AMD and Intel roadmaps. It is a legitimate comparison when looking at the release schedule for both companies.

I'm impressed with the almost unbelievable turn-around in Intel processor design, and I only wish they ran some 3D rendering benchmarks too, such as Cinebench. I invested in a rather expensive AMD solution about a year ago and even if I upgraded now i'd already be able to double the performance of my current system, so i'd rather upgrade at least once before throwing it out and building a new one from scratch, regardless of how great the new Intel CPUs turn out to be.

I still think that AMD is the more innovative company of the two and if anyone can pull themselves back into contention it's them. They've been making steady progress since the Athlon and I doubt they'd be so foolish as to lose the position they have fought so hard to gain.

Ultimately though it all boils down to price and performance. I like AMD but i'm not a "fanboy", and will go with whatever does the most for the least money. The P4-era is still fresh in my memory though. Regardless of how good Conroe is, i'd feel a little uncomfortable buying expensive products from a company that seems lately to have been rather incompetent.

EDIT: On second thoughts, I recall that even early Pentium Ms had a better IPC performance than Athlon 64. I can't remember what page that was on but it was there. So maybe the performance difference isn't so shocking.

Going off of about 15 years of history, if Intel chips are 20% more powerful than AMD's equivalent chips, that means that they'll also be 200% more expensive, or they'll have horrible chip yields, or they'll try to stuff RDRAM, bad chipsets, or some other horrible proprietary technology down everyone's throats. If Intel can resist pricing theirselves out of the market for once, I'll be more impressed.

we need new Cyrix chips, or something. :tpg:

I think Cyrix was absorbed by VIA, who just released a processor at 3W TDP >_<. And RDRAM isn't necessarily a bad thing, it was just a huge mistep for Intel to have selected their technology at the time they did. Note that RDRAM is going to be used in the next-generation consoles for a good reason.