Q Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 I've been following the recent news on this new Intel CPU, and I was wondering what everyone else thought about it. I've seen the benchmarks (Intel's and everyone else's), and they seem quite impressive. It looks like even the midrange Core 2 Duo outperforms an Athlon FX-62, whereas the similarly priced Extreme just blows it away. Plus they're 65nm, low voltage, cool running, and seem to be very suitable for overclocking. I'm sure there's a lot of AMD heads out there and I was wondering what AMD has planned as an answer to Conroe? I decided to hold off buying/building a new PC until the dust settles from this recent CPU upheaval (and the price-gouging subsides). I was definately leaning towards AMD, but now I'm not sure. Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 lolz.... the question is...what do you want to achieve with your compy. I have a not too shabby AMD x2 4800+, whch runs with a 1gb nvidia 7950 dual cpu graphics card. Are these specs able to deal with every single task I want to do with and at great speed, -sure. I have seen the Intel specs too, and my advice to people who ask me this very question is to think about what they want to use it for. If you want bragging rights for having the 'biggest and best' sure - splurge on a conroe - however, theres not a massive amount of time until quad-core CPUs will emerge(from both camps)... now that AMD have merged withg ATI, I'm looking forward to see what specialised setups they come up with. As any system builder will know, you can have the best components in the world, but if there is no driver support to make the CPU and graphics hardware work fluidly and efficiently, you might as well put a tin of spam into that pci-x slot Look at the numbers for the much vaunted "Quad SLI" or "XFire"(ATIs name for it). As Quad-SLIs drivers are still in their formative stages, some games run with bugs, some dont run at all, some run really well at various settings. However, similar benchmarking numbers can be achieved with "dual gpu + single" setup and even a "single + single" SLI setup as they can often have better driver support. lolz. the other considerations - which Im sure is important to many - is PRICE. You will need to spring for a new motherboard etc to accomodate these new CPUs. Then theres the cost of the CPU.... you're looking at a hefty wad of $$$ even before you pick out your 1337 graphics card, not to mention the rest of the bits n pieces mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted August 14, 2006 Author Share Posted August 14, 2006 ^^^ I'm starting from scratch, so I'll be getting a new m/b anyway. The Conroe I'm looking at is the E6600, the cheapest one with 4MB L2 cache. I've seen it priced at US $360-$460 now, and the price is bound to fall once limited availability (and the price-gouging that results from it) is no longer an issue. I priced the 4800+ at Newegg at US $307. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 in all honesty, i really don't care all that much at this point. i'm not building computers for anyone at the moment, and i'm not getting a new compy for some time (probably not until well after the Vista launch). i've said it before, and i'll say it again: if i can get good performance and reliability at a good price, i'll take it reguardless of the brand name. people get way too hyped up on brand names and loyalties in the tech industry for some randomly stupid reason. just my two pennies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 From what I've heard, the conroe is definitely the chip to get. If I can manage to upgrade in the near future, that's what I'd want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char Ell Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 If you want bragging rights for having the 'biggest and best' sure - splurge on a conroe - however, theres not a massive amount of time until quad-core CPUs will emerge(from both camps)...Words of wisdom, these are. I'm sure there's a lot of AMD heads out there and I was wondering what AMD has planned as an answer to Conroe? Doesn't seem like AMD has much of an answer for Conroe in the short-term. Objectively speaking, AMD has been kicking Intel's butt for the past 2-3 years but Intel has turned the tables with the introduction of the Core 2 Duo. But as Astrotoy7 states quad-cores from both AMD and Intel will be introduced soon. Intel is reportedly releasing their quad-core at the end of 2006. AMD's 4x4 platform is supposed to be available in mid-2007. My impression is that AMD's quad-core will be of a better, more efficient design than Intel's quad-core. But I'm waiting for both quad-cores and Windows Vista to make it to market and mature a bit. Once that happens I'll evaluate the available quad-cores, pick one, and upgrade my system along with its OS. If you have to build a computer [highlight]right now[/highlight] then Intel's Conroe is likely the best choice. If I were building one right now I too would go with the E6600 for all the reasons you stated (performance per watt, power consumption, overclockability). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 I'll probably just wait a little longer and see what materializes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.