Make no mistake about it, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor struggles to compete with Intel's Core 2 Duo, and the upcoming four-core Core 2 Quad will move the goalposts even further away. Which gives AMD a major problem until it starts to roll out Athlon 64 X4 mid-2007. Meanwhile, it can’t rely on sales of mobile …
Here We Go Again
Nothing New Here, same ole story how Intel has to really 'Scratch it's but' to stay ahead of AMD's old system.
6150 motherboard instead of 6100 motherbaord should be used.
There is a substantial price difference of $80(10%) for the two platforms. A 6150 based motherboard(+$15) and an Athlon X2 4800+(+$35) should be used instead of 6100 based motherboard and an Athlon X2 4600+. It does not take an expert to know that the comparison is done in a very amateur manner.
I didn't know such a low grade graphics as 6100 was still available from Nvidia. Surprise me! I suppose if you use such a very low grade old tech chip from Nvidia, with the basic tech from what, 5 years ago?, yes some integrated modern graphics would be just as good. Aren't even the inexpensive $70 graphics from Nvidia now about 2-4 times the performance of a 6100? I wound't even waste the money to buy a 6100 for any computer of mine if it cost only $5. Why waste your funds? How was this a test of the open platform?
Let`s compare apples to apples
Apart from the previous comments relating to the age of the Athlon equipped graphics etc.. Why is the Athlon quoted as having 767 MB RAM versus the .99 GB (1GB) of the Intel powered machines? Also why is the Athlon shown as running a 32bit operating system when Real Vista is a 64 bit operating system?
AMD has been able to run both 32bit O/S`s as well as 64 bit O/S's for almost 4 years now - a feat in itself.
So why test either system in 32 bit mode when Vista launches next month and 32 bit O/S are intended for soon to be obsolete machines?
The 6100/6150 _are_ Nvidia's current integrated parts, though they've been out at least a year. The clock rate for the 6150 is ~10% faster than the 6100. The 6150 does much better at scaling video for full screen playback, that's the real difference, not 3D performance.
The G965 is the only Intel integrated solution that supports Shader Model 3.0 in DirectX, and that's the critical feature. Anything with a Q965 or GMA-xxx (G945, etc) will not have the same appearance with Vista. AMD is not incorrect to make their claims - there are lots of mATX boards being sold with 945 chipsets, and driver support for G965 is currently very spotty.
The same image quality difference comes up in a game like World of Warcraft, where SM 3.0 chips give you greatly improved views in and around water, because the surface transparancy is enabled. The 6150 manages ~20fps in WoW, but they're really pretty frames...
What about ATI's integrated chipsets? are those available for Intel as well as AMD, and do they support SM 3.0?
Missed the point
You have all missed the point of the article, anyone with any average to high level of knowledge with computers wouldn’t buy either system in the first place unless its for office use only.
The point of the article is that the everyday user doesn’t know what they are buying, the two systems are "typical" systems at the low end of the market, which is exactly the kind of systems people would consider buying.
It is irrelevant that the hardware is old, and can not be directly compared because of tech differences, simply because that is what is on offer today off the shelf’s for a similar price.
From a suppliers point of view these systems can be purchased very cheap and sold for considerable profit, this is where the money is made as margins on high end systems are comparatively low, thus this is exactly what kind of reviews the "new" user needs to read.
When I was using my 6150 I got a score of 3.0 then I installed a 7600GS and now have a 4.5. I didnt think Vista was usable with the 6150 it was too slow to drag windows around. The 7600GS is a pretty good option for Vista since you can get the XFX one which has no fan, just a heat sink, and gets you a high enough score.
Could not find performance comparison for 6100
But from Tom's Hardware charts comparing a 6200 to a 7300 GS, the later has more than 17 times the 3dmark06 performance. This should tell you a little about why it matters what the chip is. One price point I found was a 7100 GS for about $52. Open platform means really the person buying the computer could ask for a gaming computer, even a low end one, and get a card in this vicinity, with hugely more graphic performance than a 6100.
Notice the price difference of 50 which I guess is about $97. Now......for $97 you can buy a rather nice graphics card........................for example for about $76 you could get a nice 7300GT (better than the previously mentioned GS), with more than 30 times the 3dMark06 performance of a 6200. So the AMD system would still be less than the Intel System, but have 30 times the performance of the tested system.....Hmmmmmm.......guess that's a little closer to Apples to Apples, price wise......make sense yet??
Intel have advantages
It's nice that windows vista gets lots of nice press, but I'm more concerned with the fact that AMd have yet to offer anything in the way of secure drivers to me as a linux user. intel on the other hand are co-operative and have developers in there doing their thing.
The support difference means I could never buy the amd/nvidia anyway. it'd be too risky.
- Analysis Oh no, Joe: WinPhone users already griping over 8.1 mega-update
- Leaked pics show EMBIGGENED iPhone 6 screen
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning
- OK, we get the message, Microsoft: Windows Defender splats 1000s of WinXP, Server 2k3 PCs
- Episode 4 BOFH: Oh DO tell us what you think. *CLICK*