Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PROOF - Conroe Was Not Faithful

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 9, 2006 12:05:36 AM

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-t...

Now who's the dumbass?

"Set Cool 'n' Quiet Default to Disabled

- With Cool & Quiet enabled, AMD processors will throttle in order to save power and bring their thermal load down. This means the processor could be running as low as 800MHz in certain programs – no matter what the program is. In theory Cool & Quiet is supposed to throttle up to maximum in games but this is not always the case. No enthusiast PC goes out with Cool & Quiet enabled unless it’s a fanless machine or media center.

Add Support for AMD Athlon 64 FX60 CPU

- According to DFI the FX-60 will not operate correctly without this bios update. Without official support for the FX-60 CPU I’m not sure what we’re comparing against here.

Fix Memory Timings 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table Error.

- Memory latency can make a massive difference in performance. If the latency was not running at the correct latency we can see a pretty big difference in all kinds of performance. Anandtech stated “The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings…” Apparently this isn’t the case, but they would not be able to tell without having the platform in house.

Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode.
- More apparent performance issues under Crossfire mode.

Next, when you take a future Intel chipset and compare it to a chipset that no enthusiast supports (RD480) with an outdated bios it’s like taking a Ferrari and putting it on Bias-Ply tires. It’s just not a good way to show off a “new” technology."

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

More about : proof conroe faithful

March 9, 2006 12:21:53 AM

Intel's way to screw the competition (they always did) no matter at what cost. Nice find.
March 9, 2006 12:22:58 AM

Clearly you since you've posted that crap 50 times now.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 9, 2006 12:26:09 AM

Fun.
March 9, 2006 12:30:52 AM

How is conroe a lie? Its performance wont be any different. Such a lame troll, scurry back on to under your bridge.
March 9, 2006 12:31:14 AM

You. That is an interesting article. Nontheless, the majority of us are not talking about Conroe killing AMD. We are talking about how Intel is getting back into the game, and possibly starting up a price war/performance war from which we will benefiet. The simple fact is this, you cannot stand that Intel is trying to fix their problems, anyone who expresses excitement you will call a troll. You laugh and say that everybody is jumping on you, but that is because you brought that on yourself by how you treated other members of this forum.
March 9, 2006 12:32:21 AM

Quote:
How is conroe a lie? Its performance wont be any different. Such a lame troll, scurry back on to under your bridge.


lol, I don't care about IT's, the fact that K8 > CONROE IS F*CKING HILLARIOUS!!

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-t...

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 12:37:00 AM

lolz... OHHHH.. i forgot.. you're a intel fanboyz.. so you don't know squad about cpus huh...

let me ask you..
how does ram latency not make a difference to performance?
how does cpu support not make a difference to performance?
how does SSID support not make a difference to performance?

hey mike... they probably just can't accept the truth.. that's why they just throws insults and ignorance all around the room, and continue to live in their little world XD
March 9, 2006 12:38:28 AM

Quote:
lolz... OHHHH.. i forgot.. you're a intel fanboyz.. so you don't know squad about cpus huh...

let me ask you..
how does ram latency not make a difference to performance?
how does cpu support not make a difference to performance?
how does SSE/SSID support not make a difference to performance?

hey mike... they probably just can't accept the truth.. that's why they just throws insults and ignorance all around the room, and continue to live in their little world XD


Lol I know, I guess since I was one of the only people to still believe in AMD, and now I have PROOF, they can't just say "we're sorry, let's forget this", I would just move on, but I still get flamed after proving Conroe was rigged, it's sad.

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-t...

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 12:40:43 AM

seriously.. they just don't know what they are talking about

and also..

how do you know if its really FX -60? anand tech didn't take off the heatsink fan and take a picture of FX-60. maybe its actually an athlon xp XD..

OOOOHHH.. i forgot.. intel probably wouldn't let them take off the heatsink huh.. then their little "conroe is 20% + in performance" is nothing but a LIE

HOLY!!! "Conroe has shown a 20% improve against retiring AMD Athlon XP"...
how does that sound? :D 
March 9, 2006 12:47:11 AM

Sure troll.

I'm sure they would have run CPUZ and/or various diagnostics or something to test everything out.

Quote:
how does ram latency not make a difference to performance?
how does cpu support not make a difference to performance?
how does SSE/SSID support not make a difference to performance?


1. It does but it'd be minimal.
2. Minimal difference.
3. Minimal again.

Jez you cry babies need to get over that AMD have been trumped. They'll come back with socket AM2 and trump intel and extend the lead further when they roll out 65nm. Sad little fan boys.
March 9, 2006 12:47:59 AM

Quote:
Sure troll.

I'm sure they would have run CPUZ and/or various diagnostics or something to test everything out.

how does ram latency not make a difference to performance?
how does cpu support not make a difference to performance?
how does SSE/SSID support not make a difference to performance?


1. It does but it'd be minimal.
2. Minimal difference.
3. Minimal again.

Jez you cry babies need to get over that AMD have been trumped. They'll come back with socket AM2 and trump intel and extend the lead further when they roll out 65nm. Sad little fan boys.

Oh shut up you stupid moron, Conroe was proved to be a hack, get over yourself and stop denying, sheesh.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 12:53:48 AM

How is conroe a hack? Wrong again you lame troll.
March 9, 2006 12:54:04 AM

Still believe in AMD? What is this a religion? Mad Mike I have said this a million times and I will say it one more, the majority of us are NOT writting off AMD. We are merely speculating on whether or not Intel will regain the crown, and if not, what effect will this have on the industry? How will AMD responed? You seem to know alot about AMD, someone hinted that you worked for them. If you do, then can you say that AMD has something up it's sleeve? If not then why the flaming? You also got this bent out of shape when people said that AM2 wasn't shapping up like we thought it might? Why? If your goal is to make people want to people buy AMD do you think this bully tactic will work? Why is it that I am an intel fanboy, even though I have never posted anything anti-amd, have in fact asked whether or not I should get an opteron or an athlon x2, and as of recently asked you to stop bullying other members of this forum. I see nothing that makes me an intel fanboy. Or is it just because I do not have an AMD tatoo on my head? Is it because I am thinking about the possibility of buying a Conroe? How about this. Hypothetically, what if intel did beat AMD, hypothetically speaking, would me buying the intel processor because it was better make me a fanboy? Would you say, ok I was wrong, or would you become like the intel fanboys on this thread who said AMD sucked even when the benchmarks clearly showed otherwise?
March 9, 2006 12:55:03 AM

Quote:
How is conroe a hack? Wrong again you lame troll.


Give it up. I'm done fighting with you and other fanboys, this is ridiculous. Have fun continuously insulting me, I won't respond to that crap anymore, good day sir.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 1:00:36 AM

Good go away you lame ass troll.
March 9, 2006 1:02:52 AM

The funny thing about that BIOS is, I have the exact same BIOS on my brand new SLI board so, I wouldn't call it outdated by any means. The date on mine is 11-02-05. So, DFI is still shipping that same BIOS today.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-3/1156725/BIOSInfo....

So we can take the BIOS theory and shove it out the window.
March 9, 2006 1:04:19 AM

First of all this is the first time I've seen Bullshitter in a while so welcome back. I guess you've won out over THG afterall.

Now, I know you didn't write the article, but I'm wondering how Mr. Sood knew that the DFI motherboard was using the D49C-32 BIOS version. His entire argument centres upon Intel using that BIOS version which didn't include many fixes that would have affected performance.

He saids:

Quote:
You’ll notice that the image I am referring to on Anandtech's website (the bios image) states that the AMD processor is “unknown” which makes me believe that the bios they are running is outdated. So, I did a bit of digging and low and behold, the DFI bios version “D49C-32” they are running is from 10/11/05.

However, I click the link he gives and I don't see D49C-32 mentioned anywhere. The BIOS image that Anandtech provides only states the AwardBIOS v6.00PC is included which I don't think is the actual BIOS version. Maybe I'm not reading the image properly?

Interestingly, when I type D49C-32 into Google nothing comes up.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=D49C-32&meta=

According to the DFI website there are only 2 BIOS versions available the RDXDC23 and the rdx2a11.

http://us.dfi.com.tw/Support/Download/bios_download_us....

Now Sood specifically claims that the BIOS Intel was running was the D49C-32 so I think he's probably referring to the RDXDC23. The funny thing is the RDXDC23 was released on 2005/12/23 and includes all the fixes all the problems that he claims the AMD test system had. If we go by date, the only BIOS released on 10/11/05 was the rdx2a11 whose name looks nothing like the D49C-32 that he's referring to. I haven't actually tried installing the BIOSes on the website since I don't have the correct board, but I'm assuming their file names are representative of their contents.

Maybe I'm seeing things or overanalysing the situation, but if you could point me to the image on the Anandtech article that Sood said showed that the motherboard was running the D49C-32 BIOS version that would be appreciated. If you can also clear up the discrepancy of just which DFI BIOS version that the Sood is saying Intel was tricking us with that would also be nice.
March 9, 2006 1:10:28 AM

I do hope that Intel's chip is reasonable.
The problem arises now, because Intel is showing that conroe is much better than Amd.
So ,do I wait the 5 or so months for conroe?
Do I pre-order as soon as possible?
Then, at the end of september, when all the benches are in, and conroe is a bust, have I waited 6 months for zip, or have I blown a wad of cash for a not quite as good chip?
I will say, right up front, that the numbers for the FX60 just look wrong.
I will also say that it is a bad idea to wait for conroe. Based on the Intel benchmarks, I would say they are more hype than hot.
March 9, 2006 1:18:54 AM

I'd imagine we'll have independent benchmarks on conroe well before september. Some people are meant to have meroms already so yeah.
March 9, 2006 1:33:16 AM

Are you calling me a fanboy? You misinterpreted everything I've said.
Find one post of mine that wasn’t a joke ending with a face of some sort to signify humor.

Another thing I love is your use of the word "Fanboy". You use it so often while claiming Intel is not as good as AMD.
March 9, 2006 1:36:57 AM

Just show him your AMD cpu and he'll take back everything *holds up his venice*
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2006 1:46:57 AM

I did a quick check base on F.E.A.R. Since I dont care much for quake4 and I beleive(might be wrong, not really the point anyway) that its a better benchmark. Plus it wasn't pre-loaded by intel...


IDF
RIG
Anand - Conroe VS FX-60
Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz
running on a DFI RD480 motherboard.
The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings
pair of Radeon X1900 XTs

]Anand home test
RIG

ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2x 1GB DDR400 2:3:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStream PSU


Toms hardware Test
RIG
ATI Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition - Reference
ATI Xpress 200, BIOS version 02.58
ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512MB GDDR3 650MHz Core 1.55GHz Memory
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2.8GHz, 1.0GHz Bus, 1MB L2 cache
Corsair CMX1024-4400Pro
2x 1024 MB @ DDR400 (CL3.0-4-4-8)





IDF

Fx-60@ 2.8 - DFI RD480 - 1gig DDR 2-2-2-5(I think) 2X X1900XT - Avg fps in fear 1280X1024, :132

Anand Home
FX-57 2.6ghz - 2gig @ 2-3-2-8 - 133

Toms Hardware
FX-57 2.6ghz-2gig 3-4-4-8 radeon 1900XTX 145



They stated all the games that support SMP had the option disabled(or at least off on one off both Q4 demo) so the fact thats its dual or single is a non-issue. Performance is pretty identical...

Also guys, on TGDaily they reported they benched it against a 955EE Oced to 4.1 ghz and conroe whooped it.

So what they tested it against current gen and its not faire, I gues they could've ask AMD to supply so AM2 or better yet some K8L cpu.



Conroe vs 955EE

Quote:
There also was a demo benchmark of Call of Duty II, in which an overclocked 4.1 GHz Pentium Extreme Edition computer tried to keep up with Conroe - and trailed its successor with 90 fps to 110 fps. Finally, a Merom CPU was compared to Core Duo within a Napa64 platform: The 2.16 GHz Core Duo achieved 106.6 fps in a Quake 4 benchmark; with a Merom processor, this notebook came in at 134 fps.
March 9, 2006 1:53:34 AM

ok trolls, listen, if the proof isn't valide because its a blog, why are your comments worth anything, since this is like a community blog. Think before you speak.
March 9, 2006 1:57:32 AM

So anyways, I keep hearing the same thing about intel rigging the amd rig. Well I'm sure someone has already benchmarked the fx60 or whatever they used right, so we should be able to compare what anand got to those numbers. That just leaves conroes numbers which would be pretty stupid for intel to rig the numbers since they have already sent samples to the big boys, dell, hp. The only thing that is stilll not for certain is how well the am2 will perform. If am2 gives amd chips a 80% performance increase then they will regain the title.
March 9, 2006 2:01:32 AM

intel fanboyz are really good at looking at partial facts huh...
true.. it is a blog site, but its Voodoo PC's blog site. also, in case you haven't done any research at all, rahul sood is Voodoo PC's president. he actually had a pretty good reputation.

so i wouldn't just discredit what he post on his blog site
plus unlike most intel fanboyz, he actually found what V6.00PC was lacking in the experiment.
March 9, 2006 2:10:15 AM

take a look at this site

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/pag...

ok.. FX-60 runs at a speed of 2.6 for both cores, that's about the same speed as FX-55.
FPS for FX-55 for UT 2004 @ 1280 X 1024 high quality is 174.5. however, that's done with one 6800GT card. even FX-55 can get this FPS with 6800 GT, and FX-60, assuming it doesn't utilitize its second core, only gets 160.4 FPS with 2x ATI 1900XTX on crossfire? doesn't that sound kind of odd?
March 9, 2006 2:17:52 AM

I look on in an incredulous state. This is unacceptable. No offence to anyone, but how can you even post about things that haven't even come out yet? At best your comments are just educated speculation. I don't care what some CEO says, I want real-time third-party unbiased benchmarks that actually test the actual chips. Since they have not been released and tested, your comments really mean absolutely nothing! Flame me if you wish, but I speak the truth. You can't claim something that has not been released is better than something that is in the same position. Ridiculous.
March 9, 2006 2:19:49 AM

One thing I find interesting is why intel went with the low/mid level chip instead of their EE.
March 9, 2006 2:24:43 AM

Quote:
decent point ;IF anand hadent taken the conroe bribe.......Fact is were upset at inel for choking the crud out of their cometition and playing cheap bitch games
I can agree.
March 9, 2006 2:24:49 AM

"No offence to anyone, but how can you even post about things that haven't even come out yet?" And why not.... So what should we talk about then. OK so should we talk about what is out right now...that's no fun.
March 9, 2006 2:26:43 AM

Quote:
"No offence to anyone, but how can you even post about things that haven't even come out yet?" And why not.... So what should we talk about then. OK so should we talk about what is out right now...that's no fun.
Not what I meant. I meant that you can't say something is better than something else when they haven't come out and been tested FACE TO FACE<<<<<That right there is the deciding factor.
March 9, 2006 2:29:33 AM

Quote:
One thing I find interesting is why intel went with the low/mid level chip instead of their EE.


cause its probably not done.
March 9, 2006 2:38:31 AM

WOW, is there a link to that 8 core demo.
March 9, 2006 2:47:09 AM

Quote:
it was like 4 or 8 dual cores dont quote me,but it was a wow for me.toms had the article.


That thing sounds amazing, how come I never heard about this quad/octo chip. Any information would be appreciated. i.e. links, articles. Thanks.
March 9, 2006 2:48:05 AM

Sorry I just saw your post about tom having the article...
a c 99 à CPUs
March 9, 2006 2:49:44 AM

You know what? You're right. Intel's numbers for the X2 may be off, but the numbers from the Conroe should not be. So all one has to do is get an X2 OC'd to 2.8 with a proper mobo BIOS and drivers and then we can compare a non-hobbled AMD chip to the Intel Conroe numbers. I bet it would be at least a little closer.

Anybody out there with a Toledo X2 OC'd to 2.8 on a Crossfire board running X1900XT's want to run a benchmark? :D 
a c 99 à CPUs
March 9, 2006 2:52:40 AM

Also, I tend to view graphics benchmarks as suspect, especially if the resolution is more than 640x480 as it deals more with the GPU than the CPU. If you managed to stuff a 7800GS in my old P4-2.2, it surely would beat my 4200+ with a 6200TC. So I'd like to see it benchmarked with application benchmarks as they tend to draw a lot more on the CPU than anything else.
March 9, 2006 2:53:51 AM

Did a search for quad and octo amd chips at tom's and didn't find anything about a demo. Maybe it was anand site?
March 9, 2006 2:56:15 AM

Oh it's an 8 way server. Got it.....So did they benchmark this thing. What WOWd you?
March 9, 2006 2:58:05 AM

Quote:
Also, I tend to view graphics benchmarks as suspect, especially if the resolution is more than 640x480 as it deals more with the GPU than the CPU. If you managed to stuff a 7800GS in my old P4-2.2, it surely would beat my 4200+ with a 6200TC. So I'd like to see it benchmarked with application benchmarks as they tend to draw a lot more on the CPU than anything else.

that's true. that's why i don't think this is really a geniune benchmark, and would like intel to post another benchmark that tests CPU instead of a combination of CPU + GPUs. such benchmarks are for example, office processing, video encoding, or to name a program, prime 95.

i just want to stress that i post all these on the forum is not to flame anyone or provoke any CPU wars. i'm here just to say that Conroe's test benchmark was not as authentic as it should've been, and i've listed some of the places that rose my suspicion. if you guys find any of the facts untrue or duped, feel free to add your own source to the thread
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2006 2:58:40 AM

Well I looked at it but since its THG demo, it's not really comparable. The F.E.A.R demo was com parable since they state its the same they usually use...As you proably know, FPS will be quite different in a indoor Vs outdoor level etc...

Thats the thing, you can't exactly compare it too other benchmark since you dont really know what demo/level/whatever they used.

My stance and the one of many others here is that we're excited because Intel seams to be back in the game. I'd be totaly surprise if intel won ALL the benchmark you can throw at it... Right now I'm just wiating for other reviews like everyone elses. And anyway everything I might add has been said...

I beleive, and I could be wrong!, that nobody will really be able to come out and say I TOLD YOU when conroe gets out. Who knows, maybe AM2 will perform much better and conroe a bit worst and it'll be really even, that would be the best scenario except for flame war :?

Cant wait too see how both chip will Oc and all that I guess thats what goin to steer my decision when I buy a rig in october/novemvber
March 9, 2006 3:05:37 AM

I think that the am2 would have to get @60% performance gain to compete with the EE conroe. As for oc, we already know that the 90nm amd is at its limit. The conroe is 65nm so we don't know if it still has headroom.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2006 3:11:35 AM

They're suppose to bring the TDP by a good margin on the AM2, I dont have any links but thats backable and Im too tired too look.
Lower TDP with the same cooling should improve the Ocing unless that the gates juste cant switch faster even if they're cooler, maybe.

As for the AM2 getting 60%, maybe they'll get 25% and faster clocked CPU and the conroe figure are right but are not representative of the whole picture...Who knows, we have to wait I guess.
March 9, 2006 3:17:12 AM

I hope intel is right about those conroes, not because I want one.....well OK I do want one, but because Im losing a ton of money on the stock. Well maybe not a ton but some money.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2006 3:22:12 AM

lol!
They sure seam to be confident and agressive, thats usually good!
Im far from knowledgeable in this area but I think this is good stuff for their stock!
March 9, 2006 3:32:44 AM

lolz..
well if you really care about intel's stock and their cpus, you would want intel to come up with radically new architectures, new marketing strategy (no BS). cuz with their architectures still using FSBs, and haven't come up with a real dual core architectures, their chips have very limited potential. intel claims that their new microarchitectures, Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest, are new chips designed with power consumption with mind, but their architectures are not as radical as what amd did with athlon xp and a64.
!