lolz... anybody notice the screen where it says "AMD Processor unknown"?  
 
um.. i guess everybody did.. so did anyone notice the bios version?  
"Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PC, Copyright (C) 1984-2003, Phoenix Technologies, LTD"
 
guess what.. that version of bios actually was used for amd XPs.
 
still not enough?  
 
call DFI, and ask them if they've delivered any mobo with 2003 bios this year?  
 
there you go. intel actually rigged amd's platform so that they can actually produce a "20% increase in performance".  
 
and CTO of Voodoo PC, Rahul Sood, was actually shocked how anand tech was lying for intel..
 
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/ [...] chine.html
 
no wonder the test was very suspicious starting from the beginning. how can conroe deliver such shocking performance this year where the plan was set not long ago? how can conroe deliver such performance when it is still using FSB tech from 1970s?  
 
so... back to what "normal" ppl say... perform the benchmark AFTER they hit the market, not just when intel gave you a rigged platform.
 
this is where i got my details
 
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/ [...] intel.html
 
so it comes back to the old saying... "AMD has better architecture, and INTEL has better marketing (BSing skills in this case)". they are willing to do anything to decieve the public, and i mean ANYTHING.
 
so... intel fanboyz.. your "wonderful conroe" is nothing but a lie. should i put that in capital letters so you guys can see? "LIES"

1. All capital letters for a title makes people think you're a dipsh!t.
 
2. The mobo they were using does that when you overclock it.
 
3. Its been done to death.

i think you just can't accept the bloody truth.. "i believe conroe w/ my very heart that it is a lot better than amd, so what you said must be false"
 
no wonder people call intel fanboyz living in denial.
 
ok .. if that mobo really says "processor unknown" when you overclock it, then what about the bios version? the bios should be an updated one from 2003 at least?

Oh dear. Even if it was a 2003 bios which soooo doubt (i believe its from november) would it really make a difference? Think about it.

 
FINALLY SOMEBODY WITH A F*CKING BRAIN!!! I bet all the Intel Fanboys will flaunt this off and insult me again, should be hillarious now that somebody ELSE has exposed Conroe for the lie that it is.
 
~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

read the post you freakin intel fanboyz
 
look what rahul sood wrote on the site.
 
this is abstract:
"what the previous bios lacks was:
1. set cool and quiet default to disabled
2. support for amd FX60 <= i don't really know why intel use FX60 as their rival, but their test platform doesn't include the support for that processor?
3. memory timing 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 mode wrong and fix read preamble table error <= this is the bug for memory latency
4. fix fill 3114 SVID&SSID under cross fire mode <= funny.. is that's the reason why they are using ATI's chip + crossfire for testbeds?
 
ooo.. so intel is actually good at exploiting mobo bugs.. i see...

1. Wouldnt make a difference and besides its not Intel wouldn't know to disable it.  
2. Wouldn't make a difference.
3. Wouldnt make much of a difference.
4. I doubt it'd make a difference.

ahh.. nice ignorant post..
guess what..
can you just please step outside your little ignorant world of "conroe's wonderfulness", and take a look at the sites i posted?  
 
or maybe.. you just live completely in denial?

 
YOUR CONROE IS A HACK!! AHAHA
 
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/ [...] chine.html
 
~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Funny coming from you troll.

 
Thanks for that, here's more fun:
 
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/ [...] chine.html
 
~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

More trolling WOOT!

 
MORE RIGGAGE WOOT!
 
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/ [...] chine.html
 
~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Keep on trolling!

 
KEEP ON RIGGING:
 
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/ [...] chine.html
 
~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

My brand new SLI Expert board has the exact same BIOS as the machine tested at the IDF so what's the point? My BIOS is dated 11-02-05
 
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] OSInfo.jpg

here is the point:
do you use a FX-60? i really doubt it. the bios shown on the monitor in conroe's test as well as your computer does not have supports for FX-60. better yet, the bug on DDR latency is not fixed; the SSID/SVID bug w/ crossfire is not fixed; and FX-60 was actually running on cool and quiet enabled by default. i also posted a question regarding FPS. in intel's test, Conroe beats FX-60 with 191 FPS and 160 FPS in UT2004. however, according to tomshardware's test for UT2004,
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/0 [...] page7.html
FX-55 has FPS of 174 FPS, when it runs at the same clock speed as FX-60, with only a single core. so, that means under the assumption of FX-60 doesn't utilize the second core, and using 2 X1900XTX in crossfire, with the same amount and latency of ram, it actually performs worse than FX-55, with only 1 6800 GT?  
 
another point i was stressing is that why do they want to OCed a FX-60, that doesn't have ID on the boot up screen? why don't they just use the original FX-60, without OC it so that readers can actually see "AMD FX-60" on the boot screen to increase the credibility?
 
plus intel had a really good reputation of decieving its customers. from the case w/ skype, intel's low credibility can be seen.
http://www.konglish.org/skype.html
nobody would actually know if they had tampered with AMD's system to deliver their promise of "20% increase". this benchmark should serve only as a confirmation of "conroe really exist", rather than its real benchmark. i would love to see conroe's benchmark from prime95, or other intense CPU draining programs, not just these games.

 
Most BIOS display this when the version is checked, even ones on boards from 2005 and 2006. Anyone who deals with hardware frequently should have observed this at least once in their life and thought "how odd".... only pretty much every board on the market will say in the title of the BIOS version.
 
v6.00 = The current version of the Award BIOS (Known as source BIOS to ppl in the industry, which is then 'modified' by each manufacturer using BIOS customization software)
 
Copyright (C) 1984-2003 - Indicates a copyright period.... not a version.
 
You are just another fanboy (this time AMD) in denial..... I use an AMD Opteron 270 (4 cores over 2 sockets) now, and will likely be using a Conroe based system (for gaming) within 6-9 montes unless an AMD K9/K10 processor core is released that has a 5-8 issue core clocked at 2.5 GHz (apx).
 
Also, I'd take the entire pre-release benchmarks of any system with a grain of salt, when it is released we will know..... until then we should all learn to chill out and get along.
 
If the AMD 2.8 GHz system above is 'so fake' then why does it perform roughly as one would expect such a system to perform in FEAR ?
I think some sites are just lazy and didn't go to IDF, now they want to tarnish the reputation of Anandtech / Dailytech.
 
Note: I read TomsHardware, Anandtech and Xbitlabs to generate an informed opinion, if one site if 'slightly biased' the other sites generally will not be.

 
Most BIOS display this when the version is checked, even ones on boards from 2005 and 2006. Anyone who deals with hardware frequently should have observed this at least once in their life and thought "how odd".... only pretty much every board on the market will say in the title of the BIOS version.
 
v6.00 = The current version
 
Copyright (C) 1984-2003 - Indicates a copyright period.... not a version.
 
You are just another fanboy (this time AMD) in denial..... I use an AMD Opteron 270 (4 cores over 2 sockets) now, and will likely be using a Conroe based system (for gaming) within 6-9 montes unless an AMD K9/K10 processor core is released that has a 5-8 issue core clocked at 2.5 GHz (apx).
 
If the AMD 2.8 GHz system above is 'so fake' then why does it perform exactly as one would expect such a system to perform in FEAR ?
 
I think some sites are just lazy and didn't go to IDF, now they want to tarnish the reputation of Anandtech / Dailytech.
 
Note: I read TomsHardware, Anandtech and Xbitlabs to generate an informed opinion, if one site if 'slightly biased' the other sites generally will not be.
When dual X1900XT performs worse than a single 6800GT you have to admit something is wrong.

 
Most BIOS display this when the version is checked, even ones on boards from 2005 and 2006. Anyone who deals with hardware frequently should have observed this at least once in their life and thought "how odd".... only pretty much every board on the market will say in the title of the BIOS version.
 
v6.00 = The current version
 
Copyright (C) 1984-2003 - Indicates a copyright period.... not a version.
 
You are just another fanboy (this time AMD) in denial..... I use an AMD Opteron 270 (4 cores over 2 sockets) now, and will likely be using a Conroe based system (for gaming) within 6-9 montes unless an AMD K9/K10 processor core is released that has a 5-8 issue core clocked at 2.5 GHz (apx).
 
If the AMD 2.8 GHz system above is 'so fake' then why does it perform roughly as one would expect such a system to perform in FEAR ?
I think some sites are just lazy and didn't go to IDF, now they want to tarnish the reputation of Anandte