Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yawgm0th
A 4GHz P4 will not beat a mid-range Athlon 64 in most gaming applications. I don't know what benchmarks you'be been looking at, but you've been misinformed. It would be comparable to a 2.0GHz to 2.5GHz Athlon 64, depending on the game. Intel's new processors, on the other hand, appear to be ready to topple AMD's advantage at stock speeds. Granted, AM2 is coming out sooner and there will be some more clock boosts and no one knows for sure what performance change the new socket will bring, but Intel's next generation does not need to be overclocked (nor clocked that high at all) to beat AMD gaming performance by a considerable margin. That's assuming Intel didn't do something funky to the AMD system they tested on at IDF.
DDR2 isn't really slower anymore (the speeds have gotten to the point where it can make up for the latencies and the high DDR overclocks), and it has absolutely nothing to do with the performance difference. If you can remember back to when LGA775 came out, DDR and DDR2 performance tests were run on just about every site and they showed less than 5% difference in 95% of applications, and not all of them were in DDR1's favor.
|
You can see how the new socket will not help at all until faster RAM (DDR2-800) comes out.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/...orm/index.html
I was talking about Intel's new 65nm chips needeing to be overclocked to keep up/beat AMD in games and some apps. Everyone knows their current lineup sux.
Read that review here..
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/...treme_edition/
Take note that this review was done before AMD came out with faster chips (FX-60) and no AMD overclocking was done, which they should have IMO.