AMD prototype with Apple components...

[bigboss]

??????????????

 

id second that, the FX-57 is one 2.8ghz core while the FX-60 is 2x2.8ghz cores.. its essentially 2 fx-57 cores on one chip... how can the fx-57 be faster?

[TerraPhantm]

FX60 is actually two 2.6GHz core procesors, but in the conroe preview, they OC'd it to 2.8GHz, and Conroe STILL beat it by 50%. Intel is going to have the lead until AMD releases K8L, and even then it may not be enough.

 

Also I don't think that picture is fake, because if you look, the battery relecting its surroundings correctly. Atlhough it appears slightly granier then the rest of the picture, that's most likely a camera limitation.

[BCT Instructor]

As far as Intel vs AMD on speed I ran into this rather strange difference:

My desktop is an Athlon 64 3000+, 2GB DDR 400 RAM, 120GB 7200 RPM HD, Radeon 9800 Pro AGP, DVD+/-RW burner

My Laptop is a Gateway P4m 2.2GHz (no HT), 512MB DDR 333, 40 GB HD, Intel 82855GM video, DVD-ROM drive

 

Ripping a DVD with DVD Shrink to ISO file. The laptop did the disc in 32 minutes...took the desktop almost 50 minute for the same disc.

 

Both systems rin XP Pro with pretty much identical configs as far as software goes. Process lists are almost identical. No difference between them really accounts for it.

 

Pretty odd. The AMD system runs 10.4.5 quite well from a second HD. Laptop can't run it well due to the 82855GM video...stuck at 800x600.

 

I'll just buy a new MacPro tower when they come out so I don't have to worry about constant patches...but I'm sure I'll always play with the hacked versions to compare other hardware. That's why I scan this site daily...see what everyone is experiencing.

[As The Penguin Flies]

As far as Intel vs AMD on speed I ran into this rather strange difference:

My desktop is an Athlon 64 3000+, 2GB DDR 400 RAM, 120GB 7200 RPM HD, Radeon 9800 Pro AGP, DVD+/-RW burner

My Laptop is a Gateway P4m 2.2GHz (no HT), 512MB DDR 333, 40 GB HD, Intel 82855GM video, DVD-ROM drive

 

Ripping a DVD with DVD Shrink to ISO file. The laptop did the disc in 32 minutes...took the desktop almost 50 minute for the same disc.

 

Both systems rin XP Pro with pretty much identical configs as far as software goes. Process lists are almost identical. No difference between them really accounts for it.

 

Pretty odd. The AMD system runs 10.4.5 quite well from a second HD. Laptop can't run it well due to the 82855GM video...stuck at 800x600.

 

I'll just buy a new MacPro tower when they come out so I don't have to worry about constant patches...but I'm sure I'll always play with the hacked versions to compare other hardware. That's why I scan this site daily...see what everyone is experiencing.

 

That seems completely incomprehensible... If you're actually ripping from a dvd to your computer I'm betting speed on your amd is hindered only by the speed of your dvdrw drive, I can't believe that a p4m 2.2 would cause a difference like that. What are the specs on your desktop's drive?

[bluedragon1971]

WHAT!?

 

You cannot compair a recent P4 CPU to an old AMD Athlon XP 3200+... It's like saying Windows XP is ALOT snappier than Windows 98... Well, duh! There's years between the two! Just like the comparison you are making...

 

Actually, given the same hardware, Windows 98 would most often be much snappier than XP.

[TheBudge]

Bottom Line: if we are goign to compair, do it apples for apples, your all basicially saying that software and hardware differences contribute to speed . . . DUH! the only real way to compair is to take 2 systems tih identical parts (save mobo cuz of the socket diffs) and chipsets, and then bench the {censored} outta each, yes, intel does accel in some places, but so does amd, u gotta pick wich is more important to you, and boom there you go, intels answer to the AMD's 64 question is the pentium D, or intel core duo, essentially using teo 32 Bit cores to accound for one 64 bit core, there are adavantages to each, intel compaired their conroe to an OC-ed FX-60 showed nothing except intels boneheadedness, the conroe is an entirely diff gen chip, if they wanted a real compairison, they would have waited for the K8L to come out then ran the tests. They are probably shaking in thier boots. . .