Google
 

View Full Version : AMD's FX-55 beats Intel's newest P4 Extreme like a drum in a Turkey Day Parade


The Frog
11-19-2004, 08:42 AM
Just read Maximum PC's Head2Head comparison.

In 15 out of 19 benchmarks taken, the Athlon FX-55 running at 2.6GHz beat the Intel Extreme running at 3.46 GHz.

Here are the stats:

Athlon FX-55
CPU Clock: 2.6GHz
Frontside bus: Full Core Speed (2.6 GHz)

P4 Extreme
CPU Clock: 3.46GHz
Frontside bus: 1067 MHz

DngrMse
11-19-2004, 01:03 PM
Man.....I remember when AMD was known only for their cheap knock-offs of Intel X86's. They've come up in the world, eh?

The Frog
11-19-2004, 02:24 PM
Yes indeedy. Plus, somewhere in 2005 they'll be releasing a dual-core chip that has TWO of these things on it. Yowsa!

Von Apfelstrudel
11-19-2004, 04:30 PM
Go AMD !

Manu
11-20-2004, 09:26 PM
Personally, still an intel fan here. Why did they compare that to the 3.4EE? When Intel has a 3.8?

The Frog
11-21-2004, 01:05 AM
3.8 still not available for testing. Also, look how at 800MHz slower clock rate, it spanks the Pentium.

Manu
11-21-2004, 05:15 AM
Anandtech did a test with a 3.8?

Who cares about clock? I care about price point.

The Frog
11-21-2004, 10:44 PM
Well, then- AMD is also cheaper.

Nyah!!

Manu
11-22-2004, 02:05 AM
Not the FX:)

The Frog
11-22-2004, 08:28 AM
Bzzt. Wrong.

Athlon FX-55: $827
3.46 GHz p4 extreme: $999


That's from the article, and I'd imagine this 3.8 would cost more than the 3.46

Manu
11-23-2004, 02:51 PM
3,8 is not EE, better performance, check the review out at anand.

The Frog
01-04-2005, 04:54 PM
Update- this month they did the 3.8 P4J against it. AMD still won. Not as big, granted, but by now we're talking about Intel having 1.2 GHz more clock and still not winning.

DngrMse
01-04-2005, 06:09 PM
Update- this month they did the 3.8 P4J against it. AMD still won. Not as big, granted, but by now we're talking about Intel having 1.2 GHz more clock and still not winning.

Sounds like AMD is just kicking Intel's butt all over the place. :nice:

This, of course, will force Intel to make better/faster/cheaper chips to compete with AMD. Which, of course, will force AMD to make better/faster/cheaper chips to compete with Intel. Lather, rinse, repeat!

The Frog
01-05-2005, 08:56 AM
...always repeat.

Brian
01-06-2005, 05:30 PM
Sounds like AMD is just kicking Intel's butt all over the place. :nice:

This, of course, will force Intel to make better/faster/cheaper chips to compete with AMD. Which, of course, will force AMD to make better/faster/cheaper chips to compete with Intel. Lather, rinse, repeat!


May be wrong here, but, I don't think Intel has EVER made a less expensive chip than AMD. They may at some point get faster and better, but not cheaper....

Betty
01-06-2005, 05:33 PM
Intel doesn't seem to be getting the faster and better part...

Manu
01-07-2005, 05:05 PM
Brian-

While thats true, dngrs point was that the price point will need to get closer to AMDs.

We are not seeing the INSANE markup on CPUs today that we did see 5 years ago...

DngrMse
01-07-2005, 07:36 PM
Brian-

While thats true, dngrs point was that the price point will need to get closer to AMDs.

We are not seeing the INSANE markup on CPUs today that we did see 5 years ago...

Competition. It's a beautiful thing.

Brian
01-08-2005, 01:02 PM
Brian-

While thats true, dngrs point was that the price point will need to get closer to AMDs.

We are not seeing the INSANE markup on CPUs today that we did see 5 years ago...


I would be surprised if the cost gap narrows any more. :nonono:

The price gap hasn't narrowed to the point where making an Intel vs. AMD decision is difficult, even after the original Athlon and A-64 caught Intel with thier pants down, IMO.

The next batch of PC's I buy for my company will be AMD based PC's, already been approved by the board (hopefully along with that will be some A-64 based rackmount servers :nice: so I can retire these old HP LH3000 Netservers...damn things take up too much floor space )

Google