Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Proof that the Conroe Benchmark by Intel was rigged.

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Benchmark
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 9, 2006 3:37:58 AM

Intels benchmark
AMD 64 FX-60 with dual X1900XT i Crossfire.
160.4FPS


Earlier THG benchmark
AMD 64 FX-57 with a 6800GT.
183.4FPS


I find this very strange...

And as I promised in an earlier thread I said I would become an Amish if Intel should beat AMD with more than 20% in a gaming benchmark.

More about : proof conroe benchmark intel rigged

March 9, 2006 4:25:46 AM

Quote:
Intels benchmark
AMD 64 FX-60 with dual X1900XT i Crossfire.
160.4FPS


Earlier THG benchmark
AMD 64 FX-57 with a 6800GT.
183.4FPS


I find this very strange...

And as I promised in an earlier thread I said I would become an Amish if Intel should beat AMD with more than 20% in a gaming benchmark.

FX-57 is 200Mhz higher than FX-60, even though FX-60 is a dual core processor. you should compare to FX-55, which i did in some threads. FX-55 w/ 6800GT w/ 1Gb ram = 174.5 FPS. this still shows the test is rigged.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/pag...
March 9, 2006 9:47:25 AM

Quote:
Intels benchmark
AMD 64 FX-60 with dual X1900XT i Crossfire.
160.4FPS


Earlier THG benchmark
AMD 64 FX-57 with a 6800GT.
183.4FPS


I find this very strange...

And as I promised in an earlier thread I said I would become an Amish if Intel should beat AMD with more than 20% in a gaming benchmark.

FX-57 is 200Mhz higher than FX-60, even though FX-60 is a dual core processor. you should compare to FX-55, which i did in some threads. FX-55 w/ 6800GT w/ 1Gb ram = 174.5 FPS. this still shows the test is rigged.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/pag...

They overclocked the FX-60 to 2.8GHz so it was just like having 2 FX-57's.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Related resources
March 9, 2006 9:55:40 AM

Anand just updated his conroe review. More ifs and maybes.
March 9, 2006 10:20:33 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716...
With SMP enabled we see that Conroe holds an even larger 31% performance advantage and with it disabled, the unreleased CPU was 29% faster. If anything, Intel’s own demo was a little more conservative on Conroe and definitely not optimized to make AMD look bad.

After review, the end result is that the Conroe was the disadvantaged one, runing at 5-5-5-15 instead of 4-4-4-15 as reported...

Believe it or not, Intel doesn't seem malicious in their intent. The AMD system could be better configured by using a RD580 based motherboard instead of a RD480 platform, but other than that there's not much else that can be done to improve the performance of the system...

AMD will be launching Socket-AM2 in Q2 of this year, which will bring about more memory bandwidth as well as lower power consumption thanks to the Energy Efficient CPUs that will ship on the platform. We have yet to see whether or not real world performance will go up as a result of the move to DDR2, but it very well may.

On the Intel front, there is a lot of time for performance optimization with regards to Conroe and its platforms. It’s also worth noting that the 2.66GHz E6700 we previewed here is simply a high end mainstream part, it is not an Extreme Edition flavor of Conroe. At 2.8 or 3.0GHz, a Conroe EE would offer even stronger performance than what we’ve seen here.
March 9, 2006 10:23:44 AM

That is more unfairness towards Intel, testing a mainstream future Intel processor that costs $500 to $800 with a future FX-62 Edition that will cost over $1100.
March 9, 2006 10:24:08 AM

Quote:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716...
With SMP enabled we see that Conroe holds an even larger 31% performance advantage and with it disabled, the unreleased CPU was 29% faster. If anything, Intel’s own demo was a little more conservative on Conroe and definitely not optimized to make AMD look bad.

After review, the end result is that the Conroe was the disadvantaged one, runing at 5-5-5-15 instead of 4-4-4-15 as reported...

Believe it or not, Intel doesn't seem malicious in their intent. The AMD system could be better configured by using a RD580 based motherboard instead of a RD480 platform, but other than that there's not much else that can be done to improve the performance of the system...

AMD will be launching Socket-AM2 in Q2 of this year, which will bring about more memory bandwidth as well as lower power consumption thanks to the Energy Efficient CPUs that will ship on the platform. We have yet to see whether or not real world performance will go up as a result of the move to DDR2, but it very well may.

On the Intel front, there is a lot of time for performance optimization with regards to Conroe and its platforms. It’s also worth noting that the 2.66GHz E6700 we previewed here is simply a high end mainstream part, it is not an Extreme Edition flavor of Conroe. At 2.8 or 3.0GHz, a Conroe EE would offer even stronger performance than what we’ve seen here.


Got any strawberries?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 10:24:39 AM

Quote:
That is more unfairness towards Intel, testing a mainstream future Intel processor that costs $500 to $800 with a future FX-62 Edition that will cost over $1100.


Got any strawberries?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 10:27:59 AM

Quote:
Anand just updated his conroe review. More ifs and maybes.


I just read the update, and it seams Conroe may be the real deal despite the conspiracy theories. We will have to wait till these things can be bought and benches are run. I hope Intel has improved and both companies are forced to give more and more performance for market share.

These forums have been a big help to me and the knowledgeable input is always welcome; but the recent fanboy rhetoric is nuts.

In a maybe futile attempt to not be labeled a fanboy I am now cutting my overclocking teeth on a 3 week old opteron 175.
March 9, 2006 10:50:49 AM

We re-ran Intel’s Quake 4 demo to confirm our initial results. Much to our surprise, we actually short-changed Intel the first time around. We noted that Conroe held a 28% performance advantage over the 2.8GHz Athlon 64 FX-60 with SMP disabled, but with it enabled the performance advantage shrunk to 15%. We re-tested and confirmed our suspicions that Conroe’s Quake 4 performance with SMP enabled was more in line at a 24% advantage:

With SMP enabled we see that Conroe holds an even larger 31% performance advantage and with it disabled, the unreleased CPU was 29% faster. If anything, Intel’s own demo was a little more conservative on Conroe and definitely not optimized to make AMD look bad.
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2006 10:57:06 AM

Quote:
Intels benchmark
AMD 64 FX-60 with dual X1900XT i Crossfire.
160.4FPS


Earlier THG benchmark
AMD 64 FX-57 with a 6800GT.
183.4FPS


I find this very strange...

And as I promised in an earlier thread I said I would become an Amish if Intel should beat AMD with more than 20% in a gaming benchmark.

FX-57 is 200Mhz higher than FX-60, even though FX-60 is a dual core processor. you should compare to FX-55, which i did in some threads. FX-55 w/ 6800GT w/ 1Gb ram = 174.5 FPS. this still shows the test is rigged.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/pag...

They overclocked the FX-60 to 2.8GHz so it was just like having 2 FX-57's.

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

Welp that backfired on the AMD fanboy denial
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2006 11:02:32 AM

The graphs are not apple-apples comparisons, as they are running different demos at THG and Anandtech....

Naturally, depending on which demo is used, framerates will vary...

Anandtech did admit to making a mistake, and accidentally running the FX60 system at a higher resolution, so the FX60's FEAR deficit has shrunk from 40% to only 20%.....
March 9, 2006 12:51:07 PM

apache you and your army intel plants need to stop postin all this crap look me mike and 9-inch are the only ones with some logic and commonsense left on these forumz!(except for hergie hes like the smartest guy here)
March 9, 2006 1:06:24 PM

Quote:
apache you and your army intel plants need to stop postin all this crap look me mike and 9-inch are the only ones with some logic and commonsense left on these forumz!(except for hergie hes like the smartest guy here)


If this is true, and I believe you believe it to be, that is SAD
March 9, 2006 1:21:42 PM

Yeah right,like you're the only ones saying that AM2 will have the performance lead and urging people not to cancel their AMD orders.

People we can all conclude that as it is shown,conroe has a 20-25-30% lead against AMD. By the time that chip arrives,there will be a 2.8GHZ FX that shall battle it. Even if DDR2 will turn tables a little,the odds of AMD keeping the crown in desktops are null. I've visited AT forum and the situation there is the same.
AMD is currently having a lot of issues with its DDR2 memory controler and i wouldn't be surprised if they delay the AM2 release even further.
AM2 as it is now with the defective controler is weaker than 939.
Intel can do fixes/boost performance in this 6 months(or better say 4 months).

We shall see the outcome. My bet is on the Conroe. And i don't say i'll go for Conroe just because i'm a fanboy,i'll buy it if it will be better at this point in time,it is.
It's turning to be an interesting year after all.
March 9, 2006 1:33:15 PM

All of this ballyhoo is nothing but prognostication at this point. Would it be so bad if Conroe pwn3d when it comes out? AMD has already said it has nothing for this year but AM2. If Intel did whoop some ass then it would only spur more competition so it's in everyone's best interest that it kick ass! Think about it!

It's the same with ATI vs nVidia. If they don't trade the performance lead every 6 months then there is no incentive for the other camp to one up each other. I have one word for you, Matrox!

:roll:
March 9, 2006 2:02:17 PM

Quote:
Intels benchmark
AMD 64 FX-60 with dual X1900XT i Crossfire.
160.4FPS


Earlier THG benchmark
AMD 64 FX-57 with a 6800GT.
183.4FPS


I find this very strange...

And as I promised in an earlier thread I said I would become an Amish if Intel should beat AMD with more than 20% in a gaming benchmark.


Guru, you do realise you are comparing two totally different timedemos often known to perform worlds apart right ?

I mean 10/10 for effort, and same res, and same game and all, but dude the timedemos and game versions are different so you can not draw a direct line between the two results the way you have.

Clearly it has mislead people and is causing disputes ;) 
!