For those Intel fans out there, read this little test http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-10442_16-6389077-1.html
It leaves no doubt about Intel’s lack of performance, does it?
AMD wins hands down just now. Butyou can bet that Intel wont take that lying down…
I tend to prefer AMD over Intel but would really like to see Intel get their act together soon, nothing advances the state of the art better than healthy competition.
Yep, it is well known that Intel are currently beaten hands down by AMD, but the new Conroe core coming out soon looks to be able to change all that…
Alex
Anyone seen the same for Xeons and Opterons?
I’ve also read that Opterons overclock well and a overclocked 144 will give you the performance of a AMD X2 at a fraction of the cost.
Has anyone experience of Xeon and Opterons?
I think both are pretty good. 
I’m not entirely sure about this, but I’ve heard that Opterons require ECC registered memory.
If so, then I imagine any saving you make by buying a cheap Opteron will be offset by having to purchase a mobo and suitable memory to run alongside it. :rolleyes:
Benchmarks aren’t always reliable and the differences they are noting in each test are sometimes of the order of 5-10 seconds. I can show that amount of difference between successive renders on the same machine.
Here’s another link that shows Intel in a better light:
The Core Duo is faster than the Pentium Extreme and cheaper.
If you can get one, at retail the Socket 939 models are basically constantly not available over here, guess why…
Depends on which Opterons you’re talking about, Socket 939 or Socket 940…
price-price benchmarks can we?
top speed is not worth anything in a benchmark IMO. the 840 from intel is way cheaper than the 4800+ X2’s from AMD (in my country).
Alltaken
Yeah, but a 4200+ X2 beats it for performance, and costs £50 less in my country…
Intel has always been expensive per performance, even when they were better chips. That’s why my last computers have been AMD 700 T-bird, AMD 2000+ XP, AMD 2500+ XP, and now AMD 4200+ X2. All were faster than equivalently priced Intels when I got them.
It’s what comes from having a near monopoly, Intel could afford to cost more. Now though the performance difference is so great that Intel are having to respond to AMD, or loose a large amount of their market share… their chips just aren’t fast enough.
Reference:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html
comprehensive testing of all the chips on many benchmarks, Intels don’t look so hot…
http://www.rlsupplies.co.uk/Products/Products.asp?type=dept&DepartmentID=34
My local (just down the road) computer supplier, pretty competitive prices. Note that only Intel that pull their weight, the X50 Pentium D s, cost ~£500 and the EE will be more. 4800 X2 costs less and trashes them for performance…
Alex
I’m about to purchase the 4400+ x2 :eek: with 2 gigs of ram
I have an AMD Opteron 165 which is a socket 939 and does not require ECC Ram. I’m running 2 gigs of Corsair XMS in an Asus A8n-sli mobo, and it is way faster than my boss’s computer which has dual 2.8ghz Xeon’s with 2 gigs of ram.
The Xeon is basically the same thing as a P4 but is designed to work with mulitple cpu’s (2 or more, and I don’t mean cores), but still has the same “issues” as the p4 such as severe bottlenecking. Also the Opteron does overclocks better than most of their other processors due to being made with AMD’s best material. Although from what I hear the 3800+ X2 is supposed to be a great overclocker to.