Anandtech: Intel Yonah Performance Preview-Part I: The Exclusive First Look at Yonah

Printable View

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-04-2005, 05:33 AM
Soul Assassin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImaNihilist

Not to an AMD fanboy. AMD releases the X2, which FINALLY, for the first time in history, beats an Intel chip in everything. Suddenly, their entire portfolio is better. Turion beats Pentium M, A64 beats P4 w/HT.

You've got Intel on top of the single core desktop market with HT and completely owns the notebook market with the Pentium M. That doesn't matter to most people on this forum though. They see it, "OMG I CAN OVERCLOCK MY A64 3000+ to 3800+ speeds!!! AMD FOR THE WIN!"

OMG AMD IS SOOOO BOMBR0X0RZZZZZ!@#11!!!!

I think AMD is cool, but people who think AMD is without equal are 100% mental and need to graduate from elementary school. Oh, and quit riding the short bus to school.

I remember getting an Opteron server once. It had all these bells and whistles and I thought "hey this is badass". 2 weeks later I was thinking "hey this is suck ***". I've never seen a crappier Exchange box in my life. I don't know what it is about single-core AMDs, but they are the worst performing multitasking machines I have ever seen. The machine ran Exchange, a mail server AV (GFI) and a fax server (also GFI) and it was 100% unadulterated crap.

So if dual core AMDs are good, more power to them. In the meantime, anyone who tries to talk shite about Intel can eat it. At least they don't run like Pentium 3's. Good for gamers (people who should buy an xbox) and poor for everyone else.
12-04-2005, 05:38 AM
ImaNihilist

You have to keep in mind though that most people on this forum are gamers and overclockers. All they care about is FPS, and so that's how performance is judged.
12-04-2005, 05:44 AM
Soul Assassin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImaNihilist

You have to keep in mind though that most people on this forum are gamers and overclockers. All they care about is FPS, and so that's how performance is judged.

Well if they are overclockers, why don't they buy Intel? Just today I saw Eshbach selling a 3.8 Intel that's overclockable to 6ghz. If you're trying to set records, Intel is the way to go.

Judging by FPS is like judging by MPG. Sure, a Prius will give you 60mpg. A Ferrari will give 8mpg. Which is the better car?
12-04-2005, 03:26 PM
commanderkeen

Prius....
Intel is the king of portable processing. I don't care what AMD has to offer cause it doesn't compare to any processor Intel has out (well... atleast not in the portable arena). I love AMD for desktops, but damn people, you can't deny Intel has AMD pinned in portables - which, I'm sorry to say, is atleast as big a market as desktops. Therefore, Intel for teh win in portable entertainment.
12-04-2005, 04:47 PM
kpxgq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Assassin

Well if they are overclockers, why don't they buy Intel? Just today I saw Eshbach selling a 3.8 Intel that's overclockable to 6ghz. If you're trying to set records, Intel is the way to go.

Judging by FPS is like judging by MPG. Sure, a Prius will give you 60mpg. A Ferrari will give 8mpg. Which is the better car?

but you also have to consider price... unless i win the lottery, i will alwasy buy a prisu over a ferrari.... since im not a rich college student, price/performance is more important to me than efficiency.. thus i stick with amd for the time being...
12-06-2005, 11:52 AM
Almost Famous

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Assassin

I'm guessing you must think that the Turion is better than the Dothan? Since they compete and as far as the rest of the world knows, the Dothan spanks it in both performance and power usage.

There's more markets than just the desktop market you know.

This test is flawed, but given that AMD is using 4x the amount of power that Intel is to do roughly the same amount of work, I'd say Intel is doing much more than just "competing".

I'm guessing you're talking about the notebook market??
If so, you must have read some VERY flawed info.
When compared in a notebook platform for both chips (not a desktop platform using notebook chips), the dothan gets seriously spanked!
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources...p?id=17&page=8
This is probably the most comprehensive review I've seen with both chips being compared/reviewed in the notebook platform.
I make it 17 to 11, Turion over Dothan. :p ;)

"First, the power ratings between Dothan and Turion cannot be directly compared. A lot of people see Dothan's 27W TDP & Turion ML's 35W TDP and assume that Dothan is automatically lower power. Intel computes thermal design power as 75% of the maximum load on the chip, while AMD's TDP rating is derived from the absolute worst case power dissipation of the chip. Part of the total system power is also incorporated into AMD's TDP, as the memory controller is located on-chip. Intel's memory controller is built into the chipset and thus draws power not calculated as part of Dothan's TDP."
12-07-2005, 12:50 AM
Soul Assassin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almost Famous

I'm guessing you're talking about the notebook market??
If so, you must have read some VERY flawed info.
When compared in a notebook platform for both chips (not a desktop platform using notebook chips), the dothan gets seriously spanked!
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources...p?id=17&page=8
This is probably the most comprehensive review I've seen with both chips being compared/reviewed in the notebook platform.
I make it 17 to 11, Turion over Dothan. :p ;)

It seems that different review sites record different data, because GamePC has had this review out (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...urion64&page=7) for about 8 months showing a much different result.

Either way, both sites show that the Dothan dominates in power usage when the laptop is actually being used.
12-07-2005, 10:55 AM
Almost Famous

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Assassin

It seems that different review sites record different data, because GamePC has had this review out (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...urion64&page=7) for about 8 months showing a much different result.

Either way, both sites show that the Dothan dominates in power usage when the laptop is actually being used.

Did you even read the testbed for that review you linked??
That was exactly what I was talking about.
They did that entire review of the processors in a desktop environment, not in notebooks (laptops).
They did the power usage full load and idle on desktop motherboards (along with the rest of the benchmarks)!!!

Your statement "I'm guessing you must think that the Turion is better than the Dothan? Since they compete and as far as the rest of the world knows, the Dothan spanks it in both performance and power usage." is UNTRUE if you're comparing them in the laptop environment, which is where they were meant to compete.
So what exactly is your point??
12-07-2005, 04:41 PM
Soul Assassin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almost Famous

So what exactly is your point??

https://www.sharkyforums.com/

is my point.
12-07-2005, 06:01 PM
PCJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnmcl7

Clearly some people have missed the point here, this is a mobile processor - if this is what they can do with tight restraints on the wattage, it show promise for the desktop variants.

John

90w != mobile.
12-07-2005, 08:12 PM
Almost Famous

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Assassin

http://www.laptoplogic.com/data/reso...nditioning.gif

is my point.

ha Ha..you forgot to add the idle bench, which is where a laptop spends most of its time.
http://www.laptoplogic.com/data/reso...ymark-life.gif

Once again....your statement was "Since they compete and as far as the rest of the world knows, the Dothan spanks it in both performance and power usage.'
NEITHER of which is true...last time....what was your point??? ;) :p
12-07-2005, 08:19 PM
ImaNihilist

rofl.
12-08-2005, 02:07 AM
Soul Assassin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almost Famous

ha Ha..you forgot to add the idle bench, which is where a laptop spends most of its time.

If your laptop spends most of its time idle, maybe you should buy a PDA?

Mine actually spends most of its time doing work, and when I'm running F@H on it, it spends all of its time doing work. Hell even something as simple as software resampling in foobar takes a good 20% of the CPU and I'm listening to music quite a bit.

Next you'll be telling me that AMD is comparable because at 200mhz the AMD is faster or that the AMD is faster when both machines have 64MB of RAM or some other meaningless benchmark.
12-08-2005, 05:21 AM
Weedkiller420

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Assassin

Well if they are overclockers, why don't they buy Intel? Just today I saw Eshbach selling a 3.8 Intel that's overclockable to 6ghz. If you're trying to set records, Intel is the way to go.

Judging by FPS is like judging by MPG. Sure, a Prius will give you 60mpg. A Ferrari will give 8mpg. Which is the better car?

Cause were not super cooling our chips like he does and becouse we could buy a $150 3000+ venice overclock it to 2.8ghz and get competitive results to a supercooled p4 with just air cooling.

Quote:

So if dual core AMDs are good, more power to them. In the meantime, anyone who tries to talk shite about Intel can eat it. At least they don't run like Pentium 3's. Good for gamers (people who should buy an xbox) and poor for everyone else.

I dont even know how to respond to this? Get an xbox... Pentium 3's? am not even gonna bother. Even tbird want make sensational claims like this.
12-08-2005, 05:59 AM
yngwie98

You guys forgot to look at the next page of that review.
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources...?id=17&page=15

All are +/- 5 minutes, which you won't notice. I'll gladly take 5 minutes less of battery life for ~5% better performance.

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page