http://www.amdassets.com/comparison/ lol this is the Biggest BS thing ive seen AMD do yet. Im very dissapointed...very. Comparing integrated graphics is one thing, but I quote.. "Watch how AMD stacks up agianst Intel" LMAO........oh man AMD good one...cuz integrated chipsets is all you have right now. What really gets me is none of the chipsets BELONG to AMD. ATI does now since AMD bought em out but before they were sitting with Intel. Before people think im a fanboy look at my PC specs plz. :bigsmile: My point being in the end....AMD has really become full of themselves. Put a Conroe 680i chipset in with a high end Nvidia GPU AMD is toast.... Looks like AMD is trying for the Gullible market now XD.
nooo it cant be possible ........ you are saying Intel is better than AMD common dude it cant be posible .... AMD is AMD in Intel is well crap no offense.... well there could be drawbacks with AMD getting ATI and stuff it will take time but AMD is AMD man you know it all of us know it .... let it work for a couple of years or mayb soon it is goona make a breakthrough in this also....
were they comparing the integrated graphics that comes with the motherboards? haha, cause that's what everyone plays games on right...
OH please. Everybody knows that AMD is getting their ass kicked, and 4x4 is a week ass excuse for something new. All 4x4 is telling me is that you need 2 AMD processors to beat one Core 2 Duo! So Lame! Plus, of course Intels Extreme Graphics is going to lose to ATi or NVIDIA Integrated graphics, all they are doing is comparing integrated graphics NOT the actual processing power. They do know that neither of those graphics chips they can take credit for right? What a pathetic comparison! The only reason I havn't switched from AMD to Intel yet is because I don't have the money on me.
I'm actually quite content with my system right now. There isn't a game out there that I can't play at high settings and resolution. I don't think that there is a reason to upgrade at this point. At least until until Crysis is released. Then I will go nuts on some new hardware. I want to see how AMD's K8L is going to stack up against Intel's quad-core offering at that point in time. Plus, it will give some time for Vista and all the related drivers to mature.
I gotta say, at the moment, currently : intel > amd (for desktops, just plain faster) nvidia > ati (just plain faster) right now both amd and ati(amd...) have the short end of the stick. Amd still is king in high performance computing because of their interconnect letting you make 1000s of cpu machines. example : http://www.cray.com/products/xt4/index.html -scheherazade
nice thing with 4x4, is that you have the two sockets. So you can later on put 2 quad-cores into it, or later 2 oct-cores. By then, amd might have cought up just because of die shrinks->mhz bumps. -scheherazade
Ewwwww i dont want a motherboard with two sockets, i want a single cpu with 4 cores or more, is it that hard to make? once again its all about profits, so basically AMD arent bringing real quad core to the table, oh well Kentsfield it is then, i know Kentsfield isnt a true quad core but its better than having two big hot heatsinks in your case and having to buy 2 cpus.
I doubt any of us will fall for it...but dont let anybody else fall for this craptastic excuse for advertising by AMD. I really like AMD...and this makes me sad.
yipes. im an AMD fan, but this is gettin pretty ridiculous. Seems like AMD is almost getting desperate at this point
Hehe, they're hitting Intel for their crappy Graphics Media Accelerator chipsets The GeForce 6150 isn't much better either though. Runs at about the same pace as a GeForce2 GTS (5k in 3DMark01SE) but with DX9 support
Its not just integrated comparison...they are trying to shoot down Intel period by covering for the fact that all AMD has as an advantage is ATI with integrated graphics. To even bring Nvidia into the mix is pretty self centered on AMD's part. I agree with the idea that AMD is desperate. You see the systems they are comparing? Stick a video card in those almost any mid- high range Nvidia OR Ati, and AMD would get trampled. Very very sloppy imo....
You all don't see what is really happening. In the past Intel was faster than AMD, then AMD was faster than Intel, now Intel is faster than AMD. When AMD releases there quad core (which is an actual quad core, not this 2 dual cores on a single chip crap), they will be ahead of Intel again. Later down the road Intel will release something new and beat out AMD again. Its a cycle (just like how Nvidia and ATI fluctuate). Plus if you are pissed at AMD, be pissed at Intel for saying they released a quad core when they didn't. That is stupid. AMD is releasing a true quad core, 4 cores on a single die, unlike intels half a$$ attempt. Since AMD is still technologically superior when it comes to processors ( hypertransport), Intel still has to make up for it by putting on massive amounts of cache to make up for their in-superiority. Just think, AMD is not much behind Intel and they are still developing in 90nm. Wait until AMD releases their stuff in 65nm. AMD is just taking their time to develope their technology and make it the best it can. Intel is rushing too fast and there will be slip ups. AMD is taking each technology to its limits before they move on, instead of sucking half of it dry and moving on, leaving the rest behind to be left undeveloped. Really, right now, do people need 4 proc cores in a machine, no. Its a want, thats all it is. Granted some business would benefit from the computing power, and rendering farms would benefit too, but for the average consumer/enthusiast they don't need it. AMD sees that, and it may hinder their rep for the 1% of "megataskers" right now, but we will soon see what happens in the future.
