A64 FX-62 versus Core 2 Extreme, both OCed

[Camarade_Tux]

Just a link : http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/

And my comment; on many benchmarks you can see that the slow Core2 Duo E6600 is faster than an overclocked A64 FX-62 while being much less expensive and it is also cooler.

It seems Intel is faster again.

[puntoMX]

- So, what do we put against the Sempron64?

- What about server processors?

- And what about 64bit apps?

Still all these thing are unclear to me .

We know that the 6xxx series from iNTEL perform well but it’s for mainstream computers...

[kartel]

there was only 3 hits in that battle......

Intel hits AMD

AMD hits the ground, hard

Ambulance hits 80 on the way to the drawing-board

[Camarade_Tux]

- So, what do we put against the Sempron64?

[....]

We know that the 6xxx series from iNTEL perform well but it’s for mainstream computers...

Core 2 Duo are not so expensive : E6300 is etwa 185€. (I don't know why I use German words... )

E6300 is more powerful than the best A64 FX and much less expensive.

For the same price, you get A64 (X2 or not) 4000+ which is getting mainstream if not already.

I think there's nothing against Sempron64. And I don't think it was Intel's goal...

Edited August 9, 2006 by Camarade_Tux

[ripken204]

if i was to get a new computer right now, i'de get the e6600. 4mb cache, now that what im talking about.

[1337rice]

well, it wasnt really a fair trial for those 2 cpus. Of course teh intel would take the cake because its overclocked 600mhz faster than the OCed fx-62. To AMD, the fx-62 wont be their flagship anymore when they come out with better fx series. Its just the beginning for AMD's new AM2, you might not know what else they would have

[ringfinger]

Bah! Freakin' CPU evolution..... Why did I have to build a computer last year!?!

Edited August 9, 2006 by ringfinger

[ripken204]

Bah! Freakin' CPU evolution..... Why did I have to build a computer last year!?!

haha. my video card became obsolete a few months after i got it...

[ringfinger]

It's amazing how fast things move. That Core 2 EX6800 is off the charts!! That is one amazing piece of technology right there. I can only imagine where we'll be in 5 more years.

[Zxian]

well, it wasnt really a fair trial for those 2 cpus. Of course teh intel would take the cake because its overclocked 600mhz faster than the OCed fx-62. To AMD, the fx-62 wont be their flagship anymore when they come out with better fx series. Its just the beginning for AMD's new AM2, you might not know what else they would have

Did you forget to see that the 2.4GHz E6600 still beat out the 3.0GHz FX-62 in several tests? Where's the 600MHz there?

Clock speed doesn't mean anything when you're comparing different chips. The whole AMD naming convention should have made that apparent...

Oh... and AM2 was a whole lot of hype... but not much else. The benchmarks so far are definately not as spectacular as Conroe has been and is.

[puntoMX]

VMware made a report on there program with both CPUs. Get the report here.

[azagahl]

Isn't Core 2 EE still 32-bit?

What will you do when your new game needs more than 2 GB to run?

Also 64-bit apps are typically 30% more efficient than 32-bit versions.

Edited August 14, 2006 by azagahl

[puntoMX]

No it´s 64bits, or 2x32bits .

[ripken204]

and wasnt there a test showing how crappy intel perfoms in 64bit applications? im staying with 64bit as i find it to be much better.