Is anyone as excited about Conroe as I am?

[dannyevilcat]

If you guys haven't seen these benchmarks yet, take a look: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

EDIT: And another, vs. an FX60 http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1

It's still 6 months away, but... wow. I don't think AMD's AM2 socket is going to bring enough of a performance boost to match it.

And what's more, the pricing looks good too, much more reasonable than the price-gouging AMD is doing with X2. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=787


Intel has never gotten a single dollar from me yet, and I hate their business practices, but it looks like that's about to change (the getting my money part) in the near future.

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

Hmmmm, pretty interesting.

I don't keep up with this as much as I should, so COULD AMD improve their lot that much by the time they're released?

I aint one to stick to AMD just because I dislike Intel though... whoever offers the best goods...

 

[dannyevilcat]

Hmmmm, pretty interesting.

I don't keep up with this as much as I should, so COULD AMD improve their lot that much by the time they're released?

Expectations for the new Athlons are roughly a 10% boost, but most recent samples have them only matching the current socket 939's with only 3 months before release. I'm quite sure AMD will make good their expectations, but I don't think there will be any miracles.

However, due to staggered releases, The post-AM2 generation should be out April-June 2007, so Intel might not have the lead for longer than half a year.


Still, I've been looking to go dual-core for a while now, but currently AMD's prices are too high, while Intel's current DC's are too crappy.

 

[Speedo]

Conroe looks promising, but I'll wait until we have real, independant benchmarks to pass judgement. It's no surprise that Intel would take the lead again soon, though. They've been clearly behind for about the last 3 years...

Even so, Conroe would have to be very impressive for me to seriously consider it if I do an upgrade in that timespan. Intel makes some decent products, but I have little love for them.

 

[Turner]

See, I'm one of those that just doesn't care whether my puter has a AMD or Intel chip inside.

/me looks at last two machines I bought - both Athlon's.

Anyways, I tend to go with what the system has on it, not what the processor does. Oh sure, I know that AMD's slightly better for gaming, and Intel slightly better for other apps. But that doesn't apply to me, as I don't run the high end stuff so I won't notice the difference anyways. What I notice is that AMDs tend to be slightly cheaper than Intel's. My compaq has a 3500+ chip in it, and I bought that particular model with the hope that I could upgrade the processor in a year or two. Then I find out 939's are going to end production this year....hopefully I'll be able to find a chip in a couple of years that'll boost performance.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Oh sure, I know that AMD's slightly better for gaming, and Intel slightly better for other apps.

Actually, Athlons are better at most things, not just gaming

What I notice is that AMDs tend to be slightly cheaper than Intel

Only for single core. As much as I love my AMD rig, much of the good-will I have towards AMD is tempered by what they charge for the X2's. They're excellent CPUs, but IMO just because they have 2 cores doesn't make them worth the price of 2 processors.

I used to buy AMD because they offered better value for the money, but hell, Intel just introduced a (albeit crap) dual-core CPU for $180 Cdn. The most affordable X2 is still $385.