Article: Intel's Conroe and Merom chips

[Jake_Barnes]

Intel expects its forthcoming Conroe and Merom chips to deliver a performance advantage of at least 20 percent over chips from Advanced Micro Devices that are slated to be released at the same time, an Intel executive said Friday.

Next month's Intel Developer Forum will include a thorough airing of the company's new design philosophies, said Mooly Eden, vice president and general manager of Intel's Mobile Platforms Group. The company plans to brief hardware developers, partners, and analysts on the nitty-gritty details of its new microarchitecture, which is set to replace Intel's blueprints for desktop, mobile and server processors.

Source: Intel strikes back with next-generation chips, CNET News.com
By Tom Krazit
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: February 17, 2006
Copyright ©2006 CNET Networks

 

[CompGeek]

20% is a LOT.If the difference will be that big,i'm gonna buy Intel for the rest of my life!

 

[endyen]

If the difference will be that big,i'm gonna buy Intel for the rest of my life!

As compared to?
I'm not holding my breath. If any front man tells me his product is only 20% better than the competition, you know he's worried.
A little while ago, our friend LC Data gave us an Intel sponsored review of Presler. It certainly showed that Presler was more than 20% faster than Opteron.

 

[the_guru]

20% better tha AMD? We'll have to wait and see.

It's most likely 20% in some obscure intel-biased benchmark and not in games...

 

[luminaris]

That's music to Intel's ears as far as i'm concerned. I certainly hope it does offer 20% increase in performance over AMD. I honestly believe it will be true since Intel has their backs to the wall with the anti-trust thing and AMD having a slight performance advantage in the 32 bit arena.

 

[luminaris]

Yeah your right man, I think all benchmarks and tests are biased, no matter who performs them.

 

[luminaris]

Do you have a link to where LC Data has that info? I would love to read it.


Thanks in advance

 

[the_guru]

That's music to Intel's ears as far as i'm concerned. I certainly hope it does offer 20% increase in performance over AMD. I honestly believe it will be true since Intel has their backs to the wall with the anti-trust thing and AMD having a slight performance advantage in the 32 bit arena.

Since it's Intels own statement it would be stupid to think it's true in general. It is most likely true but under some special Intel-biased conditions. If it's 20% faster than the FX-60 when it comes to gaiming I will become Amish.

 

[Jake_Barnes]

If it's 20% faster than the FX-60 when it comes to gaiming I will become Amish.

 

[Ycon]

Only 20%? Coulda been more, but lets see.
Well, actually it could be more with new features included (like SSE4).

 

[endyen]

Sorry, I cant find it. I thought it was @ 2cpu.com, but couldn't find it there.
If you PM Data, I'm sure he knows where it is.

 

[apache_lives]

20% advantage in what? power consumption? clock speed? heat output?

if its close to a pentium m internally then yes it will be good in gaming (pentium m in gaming does actually do quite well).

This is intel's new cpu were talkin bout here - its expected to compete better then the P4 so we might have a change of leaders here maybe.

Conroe is supposed to be quicker then yonah and yonah is equal to an X2 3800 clock for clock - intel might just be able to take lead if conroe is quicker.

On the other hand, knowing intel cpus, even if it did beat AMD it would be twice the price for 10% extra performance and the boards will still be in early forms.

 

[luminaris]

20% performance increase over AMD. I wouldn't worry so much about the cost index right now either. Intel is getting ready to slash prices on current stock so they can roll out new stock at competitive prices.

 

[apache_lives]

A 65nm 3.8ghz intel P4 with water cooling should see some nice overclocking results if they become cheap enough - 5ghz minimum anyone?.

I cant wait to see conroe, i doubt intel will let AMD win for much longer, even raw clock speed (65nm advantage) would alow conroe to push ahead of AMD and 4 instuctions per clock vs all currents (amd and intel) doing 3 - thats 33% more, not to mention pentium m is quicker in raw calculations then AMD.

Oh and btw that article noted that it would be 20% quicker then AMD's new chips as in the new AM2/DDR2 chips.

 

[luminaris]

I agree Intels have some sick OC'ing room. As I've stated before, it ain't over till its over. Once Intel rolls out conroe, we simply won't know the performance advantages. I believe Intel will certainly apply the pressure. Its just nice to know that they are confident that they will have a performance advantage.

 

[old_times]

Advanced Micro Devices that are slated to be released at the same time, an Intel executive said Friday.

I'd be very happy cuz the consumer is the final winner. But how the hell does an Intel executive know -on Friday- the performance of the AMD chips which are to be released next summer?!

:!:
,,

 

[apache_lives]

come on its only a shift from average latency ddr1 to high latency ddr2 - thg benchmarked an A64 with DDR500 and there was barly any diffrence, ddr2 will add bandwidth (double in theory) but at the cost of latency, but it will also add a bit of headroom (lower power thanks to the ddr2 and controller vcore) - its still an A64 and still processes things the same way VS intels ground up (almost) new chip - and yes we, the people get better deals that way, and if intels low end chips do eat amds high end chips they will lower prices conciderably - and that i like (aswell).

 

[Jake_Barnes]

and if intels low end chips do eat amds high end chips they will lower prices conciderably - and that i like (aswell).

And I love it ... as well ... :trophy: :trophy: :trophy:

 

[dvdpiddy]

well if intel will beat amd then they will have to innovate wont they like with hyper transport.64bit procs and soi

 

[luminaris]

That's right DVD. One hand leads the other when it comes to innovation. Intel has had many and so has AMD. As long as the new innovations work, they will stay ahead or equal each other at best.

 

[dvdpiddy]

ok luminaris btw if amd innovates then intel will make its own new technology to keep up but if intel innovates then amd will team up with ibm agian to bring down intel(ibm hates intel since back in the day when they used to help each other out back in the days of the ibm compatible pc and the days when windows wasable to run on more than one architecture)(i read alot of pc history books)(did you know that the first transistor wasnt invented till 1947 and that texas instruments didnt develop the integrated circuit till 1953 and that xerox invented the mouse and windows not the os silly)

 

[luminaris]

Thank you for that VH1 moment in computer history :lol:

 

[Jake_Barnes]

lol ... the kids a trip ... :roll:

 

[endyen]

Good news. He's found the "other" forum, so he will be posting down there. I know you're smiling. It's wingding time.

 

[hergieburbur]

Intel also said in the Mac arena that their chips would be 2-4 times faster than the powerPC chip, which Mac had previously stated (until the magoc shift when Intel got to be way better), that the PowerPC chip was a far better performer.

Both of those statements were more PR than true, and I see this as eing an exageration as well. I can see the new chips being faster than the first AM2 chips (though the latency inscrease won't be that bad). Hoever, I DON't think there will be that drastic of a difference.

This is a major architecture shift for Intel, and if I understand correctly, AMD is still working toward their early long term goals for A64 and HyperTransport. The next 12-24 months should be pretty interesting.