I saw yesterday where Anandtech had an updated comparison that used an
updated BIOS for the AMD. They also corrected an error where the Intel
came
out ahead by 40% or so. After the correction, Intel is only ahead by 20%
or
so.
Sorry, I do not have a link for you.
I posted said link on this list yesterday. "Only" 20% is very substantial.
If the numbers Anand reported are completely accurate, then we should fast
forward to the competitive landscape in 6 months to see where things lie.
Let's say AMD releases the FX-62*, maybe FX-64 at 2.8 and 3.0GHz,
respectively. Let's also say these chips are AM2/DDR2. Even if these
enhancements are enough to catch up that 20% (which they won't be), that
still leaves the best-of-breed AMD chip as an equal to Intel's entry level
2.6GHz Conroe. That's assuming that Intel makes no more improvements to the
core, AND isn't accounting for the fact that the Conroe was tested with
DDR2-667, not DDR2-800 like it will be at release.
The 3.3GHz XE Conroe (with, I believe, twice the cache) will best anything
AMD can throw at it.
* The benchmarks were ran against a 2.6GHz FX-60 that was overclocked to
2.8GHz, and therefore should be indicative of how a DDR1 FX-62 would
perform.
