now it makes sence as to why amd isn't even bothering wth ddr2 till it speeds up

Reply

The moral of this story, buy AMD instead.

Reply

zzzzzz

Reply

Actually now that I think of Intel might be correct. The chipset may be up to 15% faster, its just that Prescott is up to 15% slower.

Reply

baby steps...

Reply

Well this has just confirmed my plan for an athlon 64 next - I can't see any reason to be looking towards intel, either now or in the near future (next 6 months).

Reply

guess i'll be keeping my system for another 1 year.. hehehe ;). just gonna buy me a new GPU!

Reply

This article has let me down completely. I have been looking forward to this new technology for my new system build. To see the benchmarks and the virtual lack of performance gains has hit me like a bullet.

A novice computer builder hears "3.6ghz, PCI-E, DDR2, ICH6" and goes insane with happiness.

I beg the question, has Intel lost its mojo? Trying to redfine the computer world by exhibiting hardware that barely exceeds the preceeding hardware? What is a man to do?

I should admit, I am a hyper-threading fanatic. But Since A64 beat Intel in everything, I guess "hyper-transport" is what I'll settle with.

The message is clear, my life is over....

Reply

the thing that i was most dissapointed in, is the fact that intel feels they need to shaft non sata users by only providing one pata channel. Intel's anti consumer attitude "you'll upgrade when we tell you to" with constantly changing sockets, crippled chipsets (remember how 815 only supported 512 megs ram when the older 440bx did 2 gigs of ram in an attempt to force people to the extremely expensive (and slow) P4 platform at the time), will only force more and more of the white box and DIY market to amd.

Reply

Reply