You guys are really Amazing, jealous of others success, to all of the losers here is going to happene what happend to all the ATI Fan boy, now nvidia is back and there they with the mouth on they assess, if Intel make a faster and better chip then we are the one who should be happy because the price will come down for a better chip. Keep dreaming about AMD is better, that is why every server in mission critical task out there for professional business around the globe use AMD?. Let me see, why Intel Xeon not opteron?, I will get a new chip and that will be Intel I don’t give a damn what some no body think about a company just because they are jealous of the success of that company, just like the geek who use apple, now they are using Intel Chip. Before intel was the worse now they are going to use the very product that they said was so bad and slow, that is what is going to happen to all of you who talk so bad about Intel and the time come, you will do what all of the ATI Fan boy are doing, that is using what is better and that is nvidia. so stop talking like that about Intel, because if not because of Intel you losers will be right now in the toilet with your hand on something else and is not a keyboard.
You guys are really Amazing, jealous of others success, to all of the losers here is going to happened to all the ATI fun boy, now nvidia is back and there they with the mouth on they assess, if Intel make a faster better chip then we are the one who should be happy because the price will down for a better chip. Keep dreaming about AMD is better, that is why every server or mission critical task out there on professional business around the globe use AMD. Let me see, why Intel Xeon not opteron?, I will get a new chip and that will be Intel I don’t give a damn what some no body think about a company just because they are jealous of the success of a company, just like the geek who use apple, now they are using Intel Chip. Before intel was the worse now they are going to use the very product that they said was so bad and slow, that is what is going to happen to all of you who talk so bad about Intel.
To complain about a "look ahead" during the wrap-up is totally ridiculous. This is why we read these articles, to be informed. If one is gathering information on a current purchase and is not interested in waiting, then one can easily omit the "look ahead's" inclusion.
Here is what was stated in this "highly controversial" look ahead,
If you need more of a reminder of why it will only help to wait, here are a few of the Conroe tests that we were able to run at IDF, which we duplicated on our systems here (same test configuration, test files and hardware): Conroe is being compared in one test area (encoding), an area which is the P4 true strength. The point being made that the P4 will be a soon to be obsolete, not that it outperformed the FX-60. The P4 already demonstrated that. This comparison "HURTS" Intel. Why would Intel pay for that?
While the 965 has become a lot more competitive with the FX-60, our overall nod still goes to AMD. For current buyers who must have high-end, AMD is the way to go. Why would Intel pay for a recommendation for an AMD part?
With AMD's Socket-AM2 right around the corner, and Conroe not too far away, we honestly can't recommend anything but a low cost CPU today to avoid virtually immediate obsolescence. And we'll be telling you exactly what low cost CPU that would be sometime next week... AT is recommending a low cost CPU for current buyers and will be releasing a comparison with the specific recommendations next week. How would this comment be biased one way or the other? What CPU or CPU's do you think that they will recommend? Has someone's confidence been shaken?
Intel would not pay for a review that essentially says that although the latest P4 is an improvement and brings it closer to what is currently offered by AMD, despite it's strengths in a few areas the overall recommendation after comparing these 2 high-end parts in the P4EE review is the FX-60. To assert that Intel paid for such a recommendation is stupid.
The review was balanced and the inclusion of the "look ahead" was appropriate as it supported one of their final recommendations (as there was more than 1) regarding the part under review. They conclude after reviewing the P4EE,
1- The FX-60 is the better overall CPU at this price point.
2- The P4EE is only recommended if it's strengths are the primary requirement.
3- For current buyers, purchase a low cost part and wait for their comparison next week for assistance.
4- If a buyer can wait 3 to 6 months, the Conroe looks to easily outperform the current high-end from both companies at half the cost.
AT has been forthright regarding the Conroe and has misrepresented nothing. It was clearly stated when it is to be released, there was no attempt to mislead. The information known about the Conroe should be included in every CPU review and\or comparison at it's performance level or expected price point. How many times have reviews (not just CPU's) ended with "xxxxx coming out in a few months is not expected to provide much benefit" or "xxxxx is due out in a few months, if you can wait you may be better off". This is a common practice and to NOT have this information for consideration would do all readers as well as prospective buyers a disservice.
These silly accusations against AT as being "paid off" are pathetic and nothing more than a sign that there is fear in hearts of those who have tied themselves to of all things, a corporation. We can all be thankful that these people are not doing the reviews.
Lets be clear about the comparisons here - AMD X2 and 64 cpu's currently exist and so do the Intel P4's. Conroe isn't a production part, so why are you making comparison's with it, the FX series and the new 965's when Conroe can't be bought??
Why ... well it is clear ... this site has been bought out by Intel just like Toms was a few years back.
Intel obviously payed you very well for the positive feedback, and the constant references in benchmarking since eh??
I have always preferred to check Anand's views on new technology in the past as I always considered his reviews balanced.
I think this review fell into a serious hole because it essentially isn't of any value, and as a propaganda tool, I feel it has damaged AMD's reputation in the market.
AMD and Intel both have prototype silicon capable of much higher level of function than we currently enjoy today, however, none of it is at mass production spec.
The Conroe review is flawed because it was reviewed without ever being a production chip. This hypes the market up for Intel, and does unneccessary damage to the fragile market AMD has garnered over the past few years where they have enjoyed a small advantage, both in terms of raw cpu power and lower thermal envelope.
AMD is a small company, Intel is huge.
Reviewing an engineering sample like this in isolation therefore does more damage than good.
I only made my previous point to make it clear that I was outraged - I apologise for the comment.
I, like many others, have enjoyed the power that AMD has brought to the PC world with it's competition with Intel.
If AMD were not around, we would still have P3's as Intel would have had no competition ... we would also be paying a lot more money for CPU's.
Competition breeds innovation.
Bias (intentional or otherwsie) places unfair advantage ..
No, he would tell us to buy the FX-60 rather than the 965 EE, as the FX-60 is better.
If Conroe were going to be available for purchase in the next month or even two months then including verified benchmark results for it would be fine, but it is still half a year away. If AT is going to routinely start including results for parts that we won't be able to buy for half a year, continuous improvements in price/performance means the recommendation on what to buy will always be to wait several more months. That's not much help for someone who wants to upgrade. You should only include products which are either available or will be available very soon.
Well it varies, some reports say Late June, while the most pessimistic reports say September. So anyware from 3 to 6 months away.
It's good to know this as in potentially less then half a years time your going to be getting a CPU on the Intel side that will outperform this processor by a large margin 20% or greater, and which cost half the price.
This is like getting an Athlon 64x2 2.2GHZ/2x1MB for 1000US now and in at most 6 months you can get something like Athlon 64x2 2.8GHZ/2x1MB for 500US, using current performance improvement timetables this typically hasn't occured, and such a grand scale of price cuts or performance enhancement in such a short interval of time for CPU's.
"Can´t belive Anand is promoting a CPU that will not be launched in next 6 months."
What is wrong with reviewing a CPU that isn't in the market today, anyway? Isn't that why you and me visit hardware review sites anyway? In any case, this article is a benchmark/evaluation, NOT a promotion. Ironically, the final recommendation by Anand is NOT to buy the friggin CPU, so i don't see which way this article can be termed a "promotion".
Jeez, give the author some respect.
Ok, you're not a fanboi, and nor am i. Yes, we all know that AMD's performance today is better by a decent margin. However, what's with the flamewars about Conroe benchies not being done in an "ideal" setting, or even with this review? Ok, the Conroe benchmark wasn't totally under the reviewers' control, but give the authors a break, man. Are you telling me that all the reviewers who managed to review Conroe didn't smell anything fishy (if indeed there was something?)? Please think a few times before trashing someone's reputation, especially because they've spent years toiling for it. All it takes us to trash it, on the other hand, is a few clicks.
I don't know why they continue to slap an Extreme Edition label on the models lately, unless they mean "the extreme limits of what we can do with this architecture".
I would have hoped a processor with a higher clock, 65nm process and twice the cache would bench better and be more power efficient than the FX-60.
Should I assume the three FEAR charts are at different resolutions even though they all show at 1024x768. Or maybe I am missing something else altogether?
You know, putting Conroe benchmarks in there is pretty lame. Firstly, Controe cannot be purchased by ANYONE. Secondly, this is not a review of Conroe, period.
Why not put in some other speculative benches in, like an overclocked X2 etc. I don't care how fast Conroe actually ends up being. Tacking on the Conroe benches at the end smacks of Intel brown nosing. Reviews are about current products we can all actually purchase. Very unprofessional.
You know, Anand was doing all of us a favor by showing us Intel's latest offering, and then going the extra mile to show us why it would be a poor decision to actually buy one. Anand's point was simply to keep in mind that (to the best of everyone's knowledge) Conroe will very likely shame this PEE965 offering. He used one Intel product to spit upon another Intel product.
You call that brown nosing? What an absurd notion.
Considering that if Conroe is as great as it is supposed to be, in a few months you will be looking at those same benchmarks and Intel will then have the lead. Since this is likely the case, why not include it? Because it is Intel? Aren't we determining the FASTEST cpu? If that is likely to change in the near future than it is to everyone's benefit to point that out.
I think the review did what it was supposed to do, and that was compare the latest EE to the best AMD has to offer. While Anand traditionally doesn't include hardware that can't be purchased at present, please remember that the 965 won't be out until April. Would you have preferred we not have this review at all? Furthermore, including comparisons to Conroe were more for the purpose of reminding prospective buyers of the EE what will be on the horizon, not to show Conroe's dominance over all available processors, AMD or otherwise. I'm dying to build a new rig right now, but I know I will suffer an acute case of buyer's remorse once Conroe is available in some few short months and a much better chip is available for the price range I'm looking at.
"Would you have preferred we not have this review at all?"
What are you suggesting? That the review can't be published unless Conroe benches are in there as well? Let's be very clear here. Anandtech is publishing Intel sanctioned benches as the gospel truth. Anandtech is publishing benchmarks on an un-released product, running on unknown hardware, unknown settings, under restricted testing conditions, and passing them off without question at all.
If this is the way Anandtech plans to do all articles from now on, then I want to see benches that include future products from ATI, NVIDIA, and others as much as possible. And it won't matter if ATI or NVIDIA supplies the hardware, doesn't allow anyone to see it, and puts restrictions on what benches can be run and for how long. Anandtech will STILL publish these benches and assure us all they are 100% accurate.
It is very, very dissapointed to see Anandtech pull this crap. Conroe could very well live up the the hype and more. That is not the point. Integrity of testings means you control the testing environment, you control the hardware, and you control the software. And if you DON'T, then you SPECULATE and make it very clear that the results are speculation. You don't announce, "Intel takes back the performance crown" based on tests Intel let you perform. Very poor job.
You're overreacting. Any reader knows that the original Conroe tests couldn't be 100% verified, since Anand made that very clear. So then you read this review, and you keep that in mind. Big whoop.
Thanks, Anand, for showing the Conroe numbers. It's information that any sane builder would want to see, even though the numbers haven't been independently confirmed.
"If this is the way Anandtech plans to do all articles from now on, then I want to see benches that include future products from ATI, NVIDIA, and others as much as possible. And it won't matter if ATI or NVIDIA supplies the hardware, doesn't allow anyone to see it, and puts restrictions on what benches can be run and for how long. Anandtech will STILL publish these benches and assure us all they are 100% accurate."
It would be a bit pointless for the companies to supply the hardware, but not allow anyone to see it and put restrictions on the benchmarks run. It would be far more sensible if the companies simply ran the benchmarks on future products themselves, and provided Anand with the figures to publish :)
Anand is doing intel's dirty work. It's called osborne effect - leak an upcoming products when you have nothing to undercut competitors sales. Brillaint move by intel - and Anand is being played like fiddle.
AMD could possibly be more competitive with a 4 MB cache instead of 2MB the Current Athlon 64 has. It may or may not help much but conroe also has a 60MHz advantege over A64.
Can we get some HT disabled tests, the replay bug really messes with these chips performance in some apps, would be nice to see how disabling HT would help in some apps. Its usually like a 50:50 split, so if you have a specific use then there is a good possibility you will likely get better performance than these benchmarks suggest in certain apps.
I don't think there is anything wrong with how you feel about AMD and Intel. I think the majority of geeks have been used to rooting for the underdog, AMD, for the past couple years. AMD was cranking out superior chips in comparison to Intel's.
But now, Intel is back as the powerhouse we once knew. This is competition and it is what we should have all been rooting for instead of just the underdog. Sure, it's easy to get wrapped up in the benchmarks and post ubsurd comments such as, "AMD is t3h pwnz0rz0x0x!!11", but now, it's time to be realistic and say that Intel's back with something that isn't the suck.
I'm happy with my AMD setup and in the future, if money presents itself, Intel may once again have a place in my pocket book. Let's just hope that AMD comes back with something competitive to Conroe!
The Power house we once new stood by itself with a P3 that ran quake and ms excel with the help of 3DfX voodoo. When did Intel ever have the lead in 3D games? Before the K8? This was...8 years ago? This is exactly why people route for the "underdog". As far as im concerned, AMD has always been the superior technology for gaming and overall efficiency no matter what Intel said or threw at it. We have finally reached a new cycle for processing, visual effects, and programming. AEGIA's physics processor concept, Windows Vista, Intel's conroe, AMD's new born, and DX9/DX10 gaming are right around the corner. Yes, exciting times are ahead.
Have you hear of Athlon, then Athlon XP, ... and it wasnt 2.5 years ago...
SUNNYVALE, CA -- January 31, 2003 --AMD (NYSE:AMD) today announced that the worldwide introduction of its next-generation, 64-bit AMD Opteron™ processor for servers and workstations will take place on April 22 in New York City. AMD plans to follow up with the introduction of the AMD Athlon™ 64 processor for the desktop and mobile markets in September 2003.
The first Athlon (the P3 killer and the more recent P4 killer) was released in June 23, 1999.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
41 Comments
Back to Article
TheTrue - Sunday, April 2, 2006 - link
You guys are really Amazing, jealous of others success, to all of the losers here is going to happene what happend to all the ATI Fan boy, now nvidia is back and there they with the mouth on they assess, if Intel make a faster and better chip then we are the one who should be happy because the price will come down for a better chip. Keep dreaming about AMD is better, that is why every server in mission critical task out there for professional business around the globe use AMD?. Let me see, why Intel Xeon not opteron?, I will get a new chip and that will be Intel I don’t give a damn what some no body think about a company just because they are jealous of the success of that company, just like the geek who use apple, now they are using Intel Chip. Before intel was the worse now they are going to use the very product that they said was so bad and slow, that is what is going to happen to all of you who talk so bad about Intel and the time come, you will do what all of the ATI Fan boy are doing, that is using what is better and that is nvidia. so stop talking like that about Intel, because if not because of Intel you losers will be right now in the toilet with your hand on something else and is not a keyboard.TheTrue - Sunday, April 2, 2006 - link
You guys are really Amazing, jealous of others success, to all of the losers here is going to happened to all the ATI fun boy, now nvidia is back and there they with the mouth on they assess, if Intel make a faster better chip then we are the one who should be happy because the price will down for a better chip. Keep dreaming about AMD is better, that is why every server or mission critical task out there on professional business around the globe use AMD. Let me see, why Intel Xeon not opteron?, I will get a new chip and that will be Intel I don’t give a damn what some no body think about a company just because they are jealous of the success of a company, just like the geek who use apple, now they are using Intel Chip. Before intel was the worse now they are going to use the very product that they said was so bad and slow, that is what is going to happen to all of you who talk so bad about Intel.CobraT1 - Monday, March 27, 2006 - link
To complain about a "look ahead" during the wrap-up is totally ridiculous. This is why we read these articles, to be informed. If one is gathering information on a current purchase and is not interested in waiting, then one can easily omit the "look ahead's" inclusion.Here is what was stated in this "highly controversial" look ahead,
If you need more of a reminder of why it will only help to wait, here are a few of the Conroe tests that we were able to run at IDF, which we duplicated on our systems here (same test configuration, test files and hardware):
Conroe is being compared in one test area (encoding), an area which is the P4 true strength. The point being made that the P4 will be a soon to be obsolete, not that it outperformed the FX-60. The P4 already demonstrated that. This comparison "HURTS" Intel. Why would Intel pay for that?
While the 965 has become a lot more competitive with the FX-60, our overall nod still goes to AMD.
For current buyers who must have high-end, AMD is the way to go. Why would Intel pay for a recommendation for an AMD part?
With AMD's Socket-AM2 right around the corner, and Conroe not too far away, we honestly can't recommend anything but a low cost CPU today to avoid virtually immediate obsolescence. And we'll be telling you exactly what low cost CPU that would be sometime next week...
AT is recommending a low cost CPU for current buyers and will be releasing a comparison with the specific recommendations next week. How would this comment be biased one way or the other? What CPU or CPU's do you think that they will recommend? Has someone's confidence been shaken?
Intel would not pay for a review that essentially says that although the latest P4 is an improvement and brings it closer to what is currently offered by AMD, despite it's strengths in a few areas the overall recommendation after comparing these 2 high-end parts in the P4EE review is the FX-60. To assert that Intel paid for such a recommendation is stupid.
The review was balanced and the inclusion of the "look ahead" was appropriate as it supported one of their final recommendations (as there was more than 1) regarding the part under review. They conclude after reviewing the P4EE,
1- The FX-60 is the better overall CPU at this price point.
2- The P4EE is only recommended if it's strengths are the primary requirement.
3- For current buyers, purchase a low cost part and wait for their comparison next week for assistance.
4- If a buyer can wait 3 to 6 months, the Conroe looks to easily outperform the current high-end from both companies at half the cost.
AT has been forthright regarding the Conroe and has misrepresented nothing. It was clearly stated when it is to be released, there was no attempt to mislead. The information known about the Conroe should be included in every CPU review and\or comparison at it's performance level or expected price point. How many times have reviews (not just CPU's) ended with "xxxxx coming out in a few months is not expected to provide much benefit" or "xxxxx is due out in a few months, if you can wait you may be better off". This is a common practice and to NOT have this information for consideration would do all readers as well as prospective buyers a disservice.
These silly accusations against AT as being "paid off" are pathetic and nothing more than a sign that there is fear in hearts of those who have tied themselves to of all things, a corporation. We can all be thankful that these people are not doing the reviews.
Some people really need to grow up.
rallyhard - Friday, March 31, 2006 - link
To complain about a "look ahead" during the wrap-up is totally ridiculous.Some people really need to grow up.
My thoughts exactly.
Reynod - Sunday, March 26, 2006 - link
Lets be clear about the comparisons here - AMD X2 and 64 cpu's currently exist and so do the Intel P4's. Conroe isn't a production part, so why are you making comparison's with it, the FX series and the new 965's when Conroe can't be bought??Why ... well it is clear ... this site has been bought out by Intel just like Toms was a few years back.
Intel obviously payed you very well for the positive feedback, and the constant references in benchmarking since eh??
Reynod - Thursday, March 30, 2006 - link
Thanks for that.I have always preferred to check Anand's views on new technology in the past as I always considered his reviews balanced.
I think this review fell into a serious hole because it essentially isn't of any value, and as a propaganda tool, I feel it has damaged AMD's reputation in the market.
AMD and Intel both have prototype silicon capable of much higher level of function than we currently enjoy today, however, none of it is at mass production spec.
The Conroe review is flawed because it was reviewed without ever being a production chip. This hypes the market up for Intel, and does unneccessary damage to the fragile market AMD has garnered over the past few years where they have enjoyed a small advantage, both in terms of raw cpu power and lower thermal envelope.
AMD is a small company, Intel is huge.
Reviewing an engineering sample like this in isolation therefore does more damage than good.
I only made my previous point to make it clear that I was outraged - I apologise for the comment.
I, like many others, have enjoyed the power that AMD has brought to the PC world with it's competition with Intel.
If AMD were not around, we would still have P3's as Intel would have had no competition ... we would also be paying a lot more money for CPU's.
Competition breeds innovation.
Bias (intentional or otherwsie) places unfair advantage ..
Pino - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
Can´t belive Anand is promoting a CPU that will not be launched in next 6 months.I´m not an AMD or Intel fan.
I´m fan of my pocket!
It´s good to see that in the future we´ll have options, because today we only have one choice, AMD.
But until them, I wish Anand to stay against the paper launches, as ever.
stephenbrooks - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
--[Can´t belive Anand is promoting a CPU that will not be launched in next 6 months.]--You'd rather he told you to buy the 965 EE? :)
PrinceGaz - Friday, March 24, 2006 - link
No, he would tell us to buy the FX-60 rather than the 965 EE, as the FX-60 is better.If Conroe were going to be available for purchase in the next month or even two months then including verified benchmark results for it would be fine, but it is still half a year away. If AT is going to routinely start including results for parts that we won't be able to buy for half a year, continuous improvements in price/performance means the recommendation on what to buy will always be to wait several more months. That's not much help for someone who wants to upgrade. You should only include products which are either available or will be available very soon.
coldpower27 - Friday, March 24, 2006 - link
Well it varies, some reports say Late June, while the most pessimistic reports say September. So anyware from 3 to 6 months away.It's good to know this as in potentially less then half a years time your going to be getting a CPU on the Intel side that will outperform this processor by a large margin 20% or greater, and which cost half the price.
This is like getting an Athlon 64x2 2.2GHZ/2x1MB for 1000US now and in at most 6 months you can get something like Athlon 64x2 2.8GHZ/2x1MB for 500US, using current performance improvement timetables this typically hasn't occured, and such a grand scale of price cuts or performance enhancement in such a short interval of time for CPU's.
asliarun - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
"Can´t belive Anand is promoting a CPU that will not be launched in next 6 months."What is wrong with reviewing a CPU that isn't in the market today, anyway? Isn't that why you and me visit hardware review sites anyway? In any case, this article is a benchmark/evaluation, NOT a promotion. Ironically, the final recommendation by Anand is NOT to buy the friggin CPU, so i don't see which way this article can be termed a "promotion".
Jeez, give the author some respect.
Ok, you're not a fanboi, and nor am i. Yes, we all know that AMD's performance today is better by a decent margin. However, what's with the flamewars about Conroe benchies not being done in an "ideal" setting, or even with this review? Ok, the Conroe benchmark wasn't totally under the reviewers' control, but give the authors a break, man. Are you telling me that all the reviewers who managed to review Conroe didn't smell anything fishy (if indeed there was something?)? Please think a few times before trashing someone's reputation, especially because they've spent years toiling for it. All it takes us to trash it, on the other hand, is a few clicks.
dev0lution - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
I don't know why they continue to slap an Extreme Edition label on the models lately, unless they mean "the extreme limits of what we can do with this architecture".I would have hoped a processor with a higher clock, 65nm process and twice the cache would bench better and be more power efficient than the FX-60.
mino - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
there are at least 10 cases where 965 shows unreasonably high score compared to 955.The is something fishy here. These score are either fake(surely not) or the margin of error is so huge it makes no sense to publish them.
It's not OK whem from 7% or so frequency bump on the CPU one gets 15% performance bum in Game !!!
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
The F.E.A.R. numbers for the 955 were incorrect, I've fixed the errors. Thanks for the heads up :)Take care,
Anand
mino - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
bum == bumpKeithTalent - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Should I assume the three FEAR charts are at different resolutions even though they all show at 1024x768. Or maybe I am missing something else altogether?AnandThenMan - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
You know, putting Conroe benchmarks in there is pretty lame. Firstly, Controe cannot be purchased by ANYONE. Secondly, this is not a review of Conroe, period.Why not put in some other speculative benches in, like an overclocked X2 etc. I don't care how fast Conroe actually ends up being. Tacking on the Conroe benches at the end smacks of Intel brown nosing. Reviews are about current products we can all actually purchase. Very unprofessional.
Houdani - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
You know, Anand was doing all of us a favor by showing us Intel's latest offering, and then going the extra mile to show us why it would be a poor decision to actually buy one. Anand's point was simply to keep in mind that (to the best of everyone's knowledge) Conroe will very likely shame this PEE965 offering. He used one Intel product to spit upon another Intel product.You call that brown nosing? What an absurd notion.
krwilsonn - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Considering that if Conroe is as great as it is supposed to be, in a few months you will be looking at those same benchmarks and Intel will then have the lead. Since this is likely the case, why not include it? Because it is Intel? Aren't we determining the FASTEST cpu? If that is likely to change in the near future than it is to everyone's benefit to point that out.redbone75 - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
I think the review did what it was supposed to do, and that was compare the latest EE to the best AMD has to offer. While Anand traditionally doesn't include hardware that can't be purchased at present, please remember that the 965 won't be out until April. Would you have preferred we not have this review at all? Furthermore, including comparisons to Conroe were more for the purpose of reminding prospective buyers of the EE what will be on the horizon, not to show Conroe's dominance over all available processors, AMD or otherwise. I'm dying to build a new rig right now, but I know I will suffer an acute case of buyer's remorse once Conroe is available in some few short months and a much better chip is available for the price range I'm looking at.AnandThenMan - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
"Would you have preferred we not have this review at all?"What are you suggesting? That the review can't be published unless Conroe benches are in there as well? Let's be very clear here. Anandtech is publishing Intel sanctioned benches as the gospel truth. Anandtech is publishing benchmarks on an un-released product, running on unknown hardware, unknown settings, under restricted testing conditions, and passing them off without question at all.
If this is the way Anandtech plans to do all articles from now on, then I want to see benches that include future products from ATI, NVIDIA, and others as much as possible. And it won't matter if ATI or NVIDIA supplies the hardware, doesn't allow anyone to see it, and puts restrictions on what benches can be run and for how long. Anandtech will STILL publish these benches and assure us all they are 100% accurate.
It is very, very dissapointed to see Anandtech pull this crap. Conroe could very well live up the the hype and more. That is not the point. Integrity of testings means you control the testing environment, you control the hardware, and you control the software. And if you DON'T, then you SPECULATE and make it very clear that the results are speculation. You don't announce, "Intel takes back the performance crown" based on tests Intel let you perform. Very poor job.
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, March 24, 2006 - link
You're overreacting. Any reader knows that the original Conroe tests couldn't be 100% verified, since Anand made that very clear. So then you read this review, and you keep that in mind. Big whoop.Thanks, Anand, for showing the Conroe numbers. It's information that any sane builder would want to see, even though the numbers haven't been independently confirmed.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
"If this is the way Anandtech plans to do all articles from now on, then I want to see benches that include future products from ATI, NVIDIA, and others as much as possible. And it won't matter if ATI or NVIDIA supplies the hardware, doesn't allow anyone to see it, and puts restrictions on what benches can be run and for how long. Anandtech will STILL publish these benches and assure us all they are 100% accurate."It would be a bit pointless for the companies to supply the hardware, but not allow anyone to see it and put restrictions on the benchmarks run. It would be far more sensible if the companies simply ran the benchmarks on future products themselves, and provided Anand with the figures to publish :)
Zebo - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Anand is doing intel's dirty work. It's called osborne effect - leak an upcoming products when you have nothing to undercut competitors sales. Brillaint move by intel - and Anand is being played like fiddle.Zebo - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
How do you know there was'nt a 3.6 Ghz conroe in there?cornfedone - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
SOS, DD.They ain't got a clue.
ksherman - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
not sure if it is real or not, but it goes down in my bookas one sweet word: "obsolescence" (found in the closing paragraph)Chadder007 - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Who in their right mind would purchase this processor??? ....on yeah, the one that buys the new $10,000 Dell. :kekekeke:jojo4u - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
EIST was introduced in the 6xx series and not in the 5xxJ as the article suggests.Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
You are correct, I've made the appropriate change to the article :)Take care,
Anand
whitelight - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
what cpu do you think it is? an opty 144?
swtethan - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
P-D 805 probablypnyffeler - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
I've always been a huge supporter of AMD, but parts of me get all tingly when I think of Conroe on the horizon.Talk about switching teams...
Googer - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
AMD could possibly be more competitive with a 4 MB cache instead of 2MB the Current Athlon 64 has. It may or may not help much but conroe also has a 60MHz advantege over A64.BrownTown - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Can we get some HT disabled tests, the replay bug really messes with these chips performance in some apps, would be nice to see how disabling HT would help in some apps. Its usually like a 50:50 split, so if you have a specific use then there is a good possibility you will likely get better performance than these benchmarks suggest in certain apps.allometry - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
I don't think there is anything wrong with how you feel about AMD and Intel. I think the majority of geeks have been used to rooting for the underdog, AMD, for the past couple years. AMD was cranking out superior chips in comparison to Intel's.But now, Intel is back as the powerhouse we once knew. This is competition and it is what we should have all been rooting for instead of just the underdog. Sure, it's easy to get wrapped up in the benchmarks and post ubsurd comments such as, "AMD is t3h pwnz0rz0x0x!!11", but now, it's time to be realistic and say that Intel's back with something that isn't the suck.
I'm happy with my AMD setup and in the future, if money presents itself, Intel may once again have a place in my pocket book. Let's just hope that AMD comes back with something competitive to Conroe!
Regs - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
The Power house we once new stood by itself with a P3 that ran quake and ms excel with the help of 3DfX voodoo. When did Intel ever have the lead in 3D games? Before the K8? This was...8 years ago? This is exactly why people route for the "underdog". As far as im concerned, AMD has always been the superior technology for gaming and overall efficiency no matter what Intel said or threw at it. We have finally reached a new cycle for processing, visual effects, and programming. AEGIA's physics processor concept, Windows Vista, Intel's conroe, AMD's new born, and DX9/DX10 gaming are right around the corner. Yes, exciting times are ahead.defter - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
Athlon64 was released 2.5 years ago...
MrKaz - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
Have you hear of Athlon, then Athlon XP, ... and it wasnt 2.5 years ago...SUNNYVALE, CA -- January 31, 2003 --AMD (NYSE:AMD) today announced that the worldwide introduction of its next-generation, 64-bit AMD Opteron™ processor for servers and workstations will take place on April 22 in New York City. AMD plans to follow up with the introduction of the AMD Athlon™ 64 processor for the desktop and mobile markets in September 2003.
The first Athlon (the P3 killer and the more recent P4 killer) was released in June 23, 1999.
LoneWolf15 - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
The Athlon and Athlon XP were K7 chips, not K8. Therefore, the reply makes sense.allometry - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
You know, I spell check the damn thing and forget to copy and paste it back in.Sorry for the mis-sp3lings. I r smart.