Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougSF30 who wrote (188889)	3/7/2006 5:46:35 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: But just what is in that special driver that Intel is running? Specially hand-optimized pathways for Conroe? You just don't know with an Intel setup like this. What are "hand-optimized pathways"? Do they use a soldering iron or a chisel to do that? I doubt all of those benchmarks were specifically tweaked for Conroe while specifically left untweaked for Athlon 64. But as a couple of my previous posts allude to I don't completely rule out some sort of benchmarking setup issue that is hurting AMD performance in comparison to Intel's. Thinking back to your "Osborne" comment...I believe the chilling effect will be on AMD rather than Intel. There will be a whole lot of "enthusiasts" and gamers (ones that would never have gone dual-core Netburst) who will hold out for Conroe this fall after seeing these benchmarks rather than buying a high-end Socket-939 or AM2 system this summer.

To: dougSF30 who wrote (188889)	3/7/2006 6:05:49 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Doug you have a good point, why would Intel need to run modified for Conroe driver on AMD system "(the ATI graphics driver was modified to recognize the Conroe CPU but that driver was loaded on both AMD and Intel systems)" the other thing is that bios is not updated for AMD as per screen message "AMD processor model unknown" I could not find any fx-60 benchmarks that would be consistent with intel's, can anyone confirm that? -AK

To: dougSF30 who wrote (188889)	3/7/2006 7:02:20 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Doug: I just looked at Unreal 2004 benchmarks and a FX-57 did 189.5 FPS with a single 6800GT PCI-E card. Even a 4800X2 (2x2.4GHz) did 164 FPS on Tom's hardware CPU shoot-out. It was 0.5FPS faster than a FX-53 (1x2.4GHz) using slower memory and the same 6800GT card. That means that a FX-62 likely went up to 190 FPS at the same settings on a 6800GT card. I find it quite disturbing that a lower power video card ran faster than a top end X1900XTX (2x$584) in a crossfire ($238) setup (total $1406+Conroe). ATI wouldn't sell many X1900XTX Conroe 2.66GHz setups, if a simple Asus A8NSLI MB ($119), FX-57 ($814) and a 6800GT ($223) could match it (total $1156 with CPU). And before any upgrade to AM2. And they could have pulled a simple stunt like with Skype on the driver that the faster path is taken when the CPUID says "GenuineIntel". Just "running with the same driver" is so fraught with loopholes that you can drive a Terex dump truck (its so large it could haul away your house) through them. I'll wait for some totally independent third party testing Conroe against A64 FX. Pete