Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WHY IS THE AMD FX-60 SO DAMN SLOW?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 14, 2006 8:16:37 AM

I think we all know where this is going to go.
March 14, 2006 8:17:16 AM

Because the Conroe is a 4-issue (per core) processor.

The Athlon 64 FX-60 is only a 3-issue (per core) processor.

It is similar to comparing the higher clocked Radeon 9600 Pro to the lower clocked Radeon 9800 Pro. (We all know the Radeon 9800 Pro wins out, because it has 8 pipelines at lower clock speed, instead of 4 pipelines at a higher clock speed). It is basically the same thing comparing Pentium 4 to Athlon 64 / Opteron to Conroe. (Intel Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest being the 'new / future' Core processors, not just dual core Pentium-M's like the 'old' Core Duo was which was released in the last batch of Intel notebooks)

You can compare ATI GPUs here:
http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/

For example:
Part: RADEON 9800 PRO 128MB vs RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB
Engine Clock Speed (MHz): 380 vs 400
Pipelines: 8 vs 4

Gives the following final performance:
Pixel Fillrate: 3.04 Gpixels/sec vs 1.6 Gpixels/sec
Geometry Rate: 380 MTriangles vs 200 MTriangles

That should shed some light on why various processors can perform very differently.... for similar reasons. (in laymens terms anyway).

Clock speed alone usually means jack.
Related resources
March 14, 2006 8:22:13 AM

Yet another never ending nerd war. Well, if FX-60 is slow then get a better one.
March 14, 2006 8:42:55 AM

Ah meltie! you are just the person to answer this. I haven't been able to get my hands on an FX, or X1900XTs, but got to run the Quack benches on my friend's 170 opty@ 2.6, with X1800XTs in crossfire. Scores were 156 without the patch and 223 with. So , why does the OCed FX, with X100XTs score worse than a 2.6ghz opty with crossfired X1800XTs?
March 14, 2006 8:54:52 AM

No, it was running SPOOLSV.exe as a service, closed loop. That's why Intel wouldn't let them look at device manager.
a b à CPUs
March 14, 2006 9:37:49 AM



The FX60 isnt slow, but conroe is faster (or according to benchmarks) to word it better, and for now the FX60 is the fastest stock chip on the market otherwise.

I somehow doubt that 4 ipc is the reason for the speed - the Itanium has what 9 IPC and it shamefull aparently (and hot where as conroe is colder) so its more like a totally new core using P6 and netburst elements to make a god dam fast chip (P4 has the best prediction engine to assist the long pipelines and its issues, using that with a p6 design would zoom alone, and everything else) - its a combination of everything tweaked and done well to make, well conroe.

Its just a generation leap and a big one at that, AMDs current design now needs some heavy optimisations to come back and that usually takes 9+ months and more for initial designs so id say 2 years from now they will have something to compete (also cause they wont want to waste the current AM2 design when its only new and not even out yet).

They cannot just add some cache, up the "fsb" and memory speed to beat it unfortunatly.
March 14, 2006 10:58:26 AM

Sigh... another troll thread.... why...

Please donate your SLOW FX60 NOW to those who have the even SLOWER A64s, and wait for the (phantom chip) Conroe, which i hear should be out is just six months... WOW... did I just say that Conroe is not AVAILABLE right now!!! hmmm.... but still do donate your FX60.... goes for all the FX60 owners who think their FX60 are SLOW!!!
March 14, 2006 10:59:56 AM

Quote:
WHY IS THE AMD FX-60 SO DAMN SLOW?


coz its not fast.... 8O
March 14, 2006 11:04:18 AM

if fx60 is slow for you, then get conroe (if u can get one right away) :twisted:

conroes should be compared to upcoming AMD am2's, so stop this crap!
March 14, 2006 11:15:35 AM

They know most of the settings and game versions used in the AMD tests. So if you don't believe the results, then set up your own AMD machine and duplicate them from the AMD side. I really don't understand why someone hasn't done that already, since so many people do not believe the results. I would have thought, within a day of these results from IDF, it would have happened.

And if your Fx-60 is so slow, then send it my way. I will take that SLOW processor off your hands, so you it wont be bothering you so much.
March 14, 2006 11:28:32 AM

Quote:
The FX60 isnt slow, but Conroe is faster (or according to benchmarks) to word it better, and for now the FX60 is the fastest stock chip on the market otherwise.

Its just a generation leap and a big one at that, AMDs current design now needs some heavy optimisations to come back. . .


Apache is correct about a lot of things. The FX-60 is the fastest processor. Conroe will more than likely be even faster when it is released.

This is another source confirming the Intel benchmark(eting). I don't trust these benchmarks 100% because Intel won't just hand the technology over. I would love to see Tom's Hardware benchmark a production Conroe in their labs, those are benchmarks I'll feel more comfortable with; independent ones.

One thing that I disagree with Apache about is that I think AMD has more flexibility in their current architecture than what you think. They can play the Pentium 4 game with their FX line and make run as fast and as hot as possible and throw some more cache on there (although MadModMike has posted there is a limit to the benefits of increasing cache size).

- Conroe will more than likely be faster
- The FX-60 is and will remain the fastest processor until Intel releases Conroe
- Don't completely trust the Intel tainted benchmarks; we need independent ones
- When we do get independent benchmarks they will more than likely she Intel was a little shady with their numbers, but not too far off
March 14, 2006 11:30:00 AM

Just for the record, in windows, it reads my CPU as Althon 64 FX-60, not Althon unknown processor. If they say its a FX-60, then windows will pick it up as an FX-60. Whatever
March 14, 2006 11:37:44 AM

AMD FX-60 is the fastest processor on the market. :!:
March 14, 2006 1:11:25 PM

I agree the FX60 is meant to be t he best processor on the market just like the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series.

I am an AMD fanboy but I think that the Intel 'Conroe' will possibly get a possible increase over AMD`s Socket AM2 Athlon 64`s and FX62s but not much possibly by 5% at the most.
March 14, 2006 1:12:46 PM

I agree the FX60 is meant to be t he best processor on the market just like the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series.

I am an AMD fanboy but I think that the Intel 'Conroe' will possibly get a possible increase over AMD`s Socket AM2 Athlon 64`s and FX62s but not much possibly by 5% at the most.
March 14, 2006 1:15:23 PM

I agree the FX60 is meant to be t he best processor on the market just like the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series.

I am an AMD fanboy but I think that the Intel 'Conroe' will possibly get a possible increase over AMD`s Socket AM2 Athlon 64`s and FX62s but not much possibly by 5% at the most.
March 14, 2006 1:37:39 PM

lol U said it 3 times :lol: 
March 14, 2006 1:46:09 PM

K we got the picture. No need posting 3 times the same thing.
And the FX 60 is the best CPU(overall,not at all tasks) at stock but it's a very poor OCer 3 GHZ is a limit for AMD chips(IE very few can pass it while being stable,that's of course with "buyable" things). I'd rather OC a 350$? opteron 165 Oclock it to 2.8 and save some cash. Or if i'm really mad get a 955 and OC the hell out of it(BTW can't wait for Netburst's final shot,the Intel 965).
March 14, 2006 1:50:45 PM

4.00 GHz at stock would be much better, just looks kewler.
March 14, 2006 2:03:23 PM

Quote:
K we got the picture. No need posting 3 times the same thing.
And the FX 60 is the best CPU(overall,not at all tasks) at stock but it's a very poor OCer 3 GHZ is a limit for AMD chips(IE very few can pass it while being stable,that's of course with "buyable" things). I'd rather OC a 350$? opteron 165 Oclock it to 2.8 and save some cash. Or if i'm really mad get a 955 and OC the hell out of it(BTW can't wait for Netburst's final shot,the Intel 965).

I agree it is not worth buyng an FX60 when you can OC an opteron :wink:
March 14, 2006 2:23:57 PM

Why is it slow??? DUH man, cuz it's not INTEL!
March 14, 2006 2:26:45 PM

This whole argument is prety pointless really..

Of course the conroe should be faster than and FX60.. It would be prety retarded of intel if it wasnt, since the conroe is future technology that isnt due for release for *AGES* wereas the FX60 is here right now in the present, and has been for some time. Thered be something severly amiss if conroe wasnt faster than an FX60!!

But, as a side note all the benchmarks iv seen have been gameing related, so frame rates are dependant on the graphics cards, drivers, motherboards and various stuff that i have no idea about. Intel could easily have found a way to boost frame rates over the FX60s, but it dosent really mean much..

It would be far more interesting to see some benchmarks that are entirely cpu related, ie plain cpu benchmarks without involving graphics in the equation. Like some rendering benchmarks.. sciencemark.. all that kinda thing..

But in conclusion, dose it really matter? why is everyone so scared of the POSSIBILITY of conroe being a massive improvement over anything weve seen yet? It should be a good thing, cos as far as i can tell what ppl like u and me care about is having the most powerfull cpu we can get our hands on. Im not sure loyalty comes into it. It dosent matter who makes the damn thing! when you buy a computer unless you have other unsual requirements (your an energy saving obsessed type person, or you want no fan noise or other special requirements that take precidence) you go for the fastest thing you can buy! and thats what ul all do, unless you so blindly guided by a misplaced and irrational sense of loyalty to one company or another despite possible evidnece to the contrary.

discalimer: id just like to state my complete independence in this matter. I go with whoever makes the fastest chip i can afford at the time of buying a system. The fact if bougth amd twice in a row generates some sense of loyalty, but if something faster came along from a rival company id be a fool to choose the slower product. wouldnt you say so?

so lets stop this whole argument and look foreward to an exciting future!! of more processing power and lower power coinsumption from both manufactures!!
March 14, 2006 2:29:19 PM

Quote:
This whole argument is prety pointless really..

Of course the conroe should be faster than and FX60.. It would be prety retarded of intel if it wasnt, since the conroe is future technology that isnt due for release for *AGES* wereas the FX60 is here right now in the present, and has been for some time. Thered be something severly amiss if conroe wasnt faster than an FX60!!

But, as a side note all the benchmarks iv seen have been gameing related, so frame rates are dependant on the graphics cards, drivers, motherboards and various stuff that i have no idea about. Intel could easily have found a way to boost frame rates over the FX60s, but it dosent really mean much..

It would be far more interesting to see some benchmarks that are entirely cpu related, ie plain cpu benchmarks without involving graphics in the equation. Like some rendering benchmarks.. sciencemark.. all that kinda thing..

But in conclusion, dose it really matter? why is everyone so scared of the POSSIBILITY of conroe being a massive improvement over anything weve seen yet? It should be a good thing, cos as far as i can tell what ppl like u and me care about is having the most powerfull cpu we can get our hands on. Im not sure loyalty comes into it. It dosent matter who makes the damn thing! when you buy a computer unless you have other unsual requirements (your an energy saving obsessed type person, or you want no fan noise or other special requirements that take precidence) you go for the fastest thing you can buy! and thats what ul all do, unless you so blindly guided by a misplaced and irrational sense of loyalty to one company or another despite possible evidnece to the contrary.

discalimer: id just like to state my complete independence in this matter. I go with whoever makes the fastest chip i can afford at the time of buying a system. The fact if bougth amd twice in a row generates some sense of loyalty, but if something faster came along from a rival company id be a fool to choose the slower product. wouldnt you say so?

so lets stop this whole argument and look foreward to an exciting future!! of more processing power and lower power coinsumption from both manufactures!!

5 stars to that :trophy:
I totaly agree
March 14, 2006 2:56:53 PM

yea deff.

FX-60 is fine for most people.

especially for games, messaging, and browsiing the web.

It's still to much $$$

i'll wait to see what else is released.

later guys,
Rob
March 14, 2006 3:09:49 PM

Sorry For The Tripple Posts (I Hit The Back And Refresh Buttons on My Ppc After The First Post Was Loaded....)

But Anyway AMD Athlon 64 FX 62 is coming out and will hopefully beat the Conroe but then again the Conroe can win

But Even If the Conroe Wins By 20% Enthusiast OverClockers Will Make The AMD Athlon 64 FX62 GO EVEN HIGHER!
March 14, 2006 3:24:07 PM

AMDMeltdown - rofl what a name :lol:  :D 

Get a life nerd, get a life.
March 14, 2006 3:29:14 PM

Well I was an INTEL Guy all the way, from P1 to P4, but now... bah, I'm on the AMD Camp, and can't complain at all! also, yeah THE FX-60 is a monster processor, but you can easily OC a 4800+ to FX60 Performance & save the cash. As for the Conroe. Intel took they're sweet time making a new CPU, after they're DUAL CORE DISSAPOINTMENT, they're heatlevels were way to high, and while AMD's CPUs worked better at a much lower temp and frequency. Also don't forget INTEL LIED TO US. bastards... I had an INTEL Friend bitchin' about it for a week; Still Like They said Earlier YEAH IT'S FASTER (at the moment) and it's not on the market, the FX-60 has been on the buy me button for a while now. So Ofcourse if they took they're time, it's obvious it's HAS to be faster.. Wait Until the new AMD comes out! and plus let's face it, only 1 out of 100 members in the forum have a damn FX-60, and NONE have a Conroe.. I'll just keep trusting MY OWN BENCHMARKS. :roll:
March 14, 2006 3:59:30 PM

Quote:
Get a life nerd, get a life.
To be fair, Melty is one of the only (if not THE only) fondly remembered trolls. At least he has a sense of humour....
March 14, 2006 4:02:53 PM

Quote:
Just for the record, in windows, it reads my CPU as Althon 64 FX-60, not Althon unknown processor. If they say its a FX-60, then windows will pick it up as an FX-60. Whatever


That only works if the bios is updated which Intel probably didnt do. I have November bios from DFI and if I popped in a FX-60 it would come up unkown, but if i used the december bios it would pop up FX-60.
March 14, 2006 4:29:16 PM

Quote:
Just for the record, in windows, it reads my CPU as Althon 64 FX-60, not Althon unknown processor. If they say its a FX-60, then windows will pick it up as an FX-60. Whatever


That only works if the bios is updated which Intel probably didnt do. I have November bios from DFI and if I popped in a FX-60 it would come up unkown, but if i used the december bios it would pop up FX-60.

Ah ok, I just thought it was kinda fishy that mine comes with with FX-60 name and theirs didnt hehe. 8)
March 14, 2006 4:34:39 PM

Quote:
That only works if the bios is updated which Intel probably didnt do. I have November bios from DFI and if I popped in a FX-60 it would come up unkown, but if i used the december bios it would pop up FX-60.


I don`t think AMD intended to make an FX60 from before I remember how they did their FX scheme:

FX51 then FX53 , then FX55 then FX57 and the FX60 (Which didn`t follow the pattern of +2)

BUT IT WAS ALSO THE FAULT OF THE MOTHERBOARD MAKERS WHO DIDN`T IMPLEMENT THE FX60 IN THE EARLIER BIOS!
March 14, 2006 4:41:09 PM

Do not get any hopes what so ever for m2. Amds memory controler clearly benifits for lower latencies then clock speeds, you have all seen toms review on m2, its marginally slower, meaning ddr2800 will not even make up the marginally slower difference because its latencies will be even higher then ddr2 667mhz. That intel test was built to demonstrate the performance of amds flagship processor on m2, hence the 2.8 ghz instead of 2.6 as the fx 62 is the same as an fx60 only using socket m2 and it will have a 200 mhz higher clock speed @ 2.8 ghz. Goto anandtech and look at their own timedemos, they show that intel was being relativily conservative with their benchmarks as the conroe is even faster then the 2.8 ghz fx 60 then in the intel benchmarks. Is it soo hard to beleive that the Bigger company will have the fastest chip ? the company with better silicon, more engineers, more funding will have the fastest chip ? I dont think that its soo hard. As someone stated before its not the brand that matters it is truly the price vs performance. Intel will have both as the fx 60 costs over 1000$ and the 2.66 ghz conroe has a rumored cost of just over 500 $. Also on the ddr2 800 mhz thing, you do know intel platforms will also have ddr2 800 mhz, so how does amd have the advantage ?. The memory controler bandwidth being better is bs. I switched from Intel to amd with the EXACT same ram and my memory bandwidth benchmarks come out to be lower on the amd system.How ever my frame rate has gone up. Gaming is not all the gpu either there are sevral games which are bottlenecked by the processor, to name a few Far cry, hl2, bf2 also highly relys on the cpu etc. The conroe is also schedueled for 3rd quarter which runs from april 1st to june 30th, so prepare for the conroe in max 4mths.
March 14, 2006 4:56:39 PM

Quote:
That only works if the bios is updated which Intel probably didnt do. I have November bios from DFI and if I popped in a FX-60 it would come up unkown, but if i used the december bios it would pop up FX-60.


I don`t think AMD intended to make an FX60 from before I remember how they did their FX scheme:

FX51 then FX53 , then FX55 then FX57 and the FX60 (Which didn`t follow the pattern of +2)

BUT IT WAS ALSO THE FAULT OF THE MOTHERBOARD MAKERS WHO DIDN`T IMPLEMENT THE FX60 IN THE EARLIER BIOS!

Yeah I think the FX-60 was more of a way to steal some more cash from enthusiasts than anything else. From what I understand its a X2 4800+ with a higher multiplier, oooo big deal lol. I'm not poking fun at anyone who bought one, bc they are damned fast and make my Venice look like a p1 hehe. It is just amazing the price diffrence between a x2 4800+ and a FX-60 is my only point.
March 14, 2006 5:08:58 PM

Do you have a processor faster than the FX-60?
Why do you brag about something you don't even have?
March 14, 2006 5:17:32 PM

why is amdmeltdown so stuipid
March 14, 2006 5:26:22 PM

Quote:
why is amdmeltdown so stuipid
:lol:  i agree :D  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
March 14, 2006 5:49:22 PM

Conroe is set for 3rd quarter, meaning from april 1st to june 30th, max four mths away. Not 6, there hasnt been an exact date for all we know it could come out in the middle of 3rd quarter. Also Spoolsv.exe has absolutely no performance impact and is AUTOMATICALLY run when windows xp is booted up. Ive run source tests with it on and off, there was not even a 1 fps difference. Unless the people who say they ran spoolsv.exe on the amd machine are talking about the backdoor trojan, but im assuming they arent. Both systems were freshly formatted. Bur by no means is the fx 60 a slow processor, its very fast, fast enough to play any game you want to for awhile.
March 14, 2006 5:55:43 PM

Quote:
Conroe is set for 3rd quarter, meaning from april 1st to june 30th, max four mths away. Not 6, there hasnt been an exact date for all we know it could come out in the middle of 3rd quarter. Also Spoolsv.exe has absolutely no performance impact and is AUTOMATICALLY run when windows xp is booted up. Ive run source tests with it on and off, there was not even a 1 fps difference. Unless the people who say they ran spoolsv.exe on the amd machine are talking about the backdoor trojan, but im assuming they arent. Both systems were freshly formatted.


Correct then....

FX60= Still in my case

Conroe= 4 months away (and hopefully released on time)

Ill still take the FX60 right now because in 4 months or 6 months another CPU from AMD will be 3 to 4 months down the road from that... maybe I should wait for that....

Hmmm.... Maybe I should wait 10 years to buy a CPU! Imagine how good they will be!! :) 
March 14, 2006 5:57:12 PM

In 10 years intel plans on having 100's of cores in one processor I cant wait!!!. If I was you I wouldnt upgrade that fx 60 is fast enough to run any game atm and a for quite a while.
March 14, 2006 6:05:54 PM

Quote:
In 10 years intel plans on having 100's of cores in one processor I cant wait!!!. If I was you I wouldnt upgrade that fx 60 is fast enough to run any game atm and a for quite a while.



How about 16 cores?? You read this one?

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/14/cebit_tyan_psc/



and yeah, im hoping the FX60 will carry me for 3 years. I only went with a single vid card solution right now because I know when the DX10 Vid cards release ill buy 2 and go with SLI in true x16. (Hopefully by then the true x16 will make a difference :wink: )
March 14, 2006 8:42:49 PM

Yea i read that before I registered with toms hardware, thats quite the insane pc too bad they didnt put a good gfx card in it. If they do they could call it the most powerfull home pc around.The processing power must be soo immense 8 dual core opterons that would be amazing. But yea there really isnt any point of upgrading gfx cards atm cause dx 10 isnt that far away, and it does seem like microsoft is really pushing it. The fx60 should last 3 years its quite a monster of a cpu, even if it does seem a bit slow you can always overclock.
March 14, 2006 8:56:05 PM

Quote:
Conroe is set for 3rd quarter, meaning from april 1st to june 30th, max four mths away. Not 6, there hasnt been an exact date for all we know it could come out in the middle of 3rd quarter. Also Spoolsv.exe has absolutely no performance impact and is AUTOMATICALLY run when windows xp is booted up. Ive run source tests with it on and off, there was not even a 1 fps difference. Unless the people who say they ran spoolsv.exe on the amd machine are talking about the backdoor trojan, but im assuming they arent. Both systems were freshly formatted. Bur by no means is the fx 60 a slow processor, its very fast, fast enough to play any game you want to for awhile.


Isn't 3rd quarter July - September?
March 14, 2006 9:17:41 PM

Quote:
Well not by wikipedia..
heres a link if you wish to read up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year


I have a feeling most companies choose to align the fiscal year and calander year. It makes accounting easier. You can't go by what the government does. If i remember correctly the only requirement the government has is that the company uses a consistent fiscal year from year to year.

Obviously each industry is diffrent, retailers choose a diffrent fiscal year to align thier business with the returns after christmas. When Intel says 3Q I would surmise they mean 3Q according to calender, but feel free to prove me wrong.
March 14, 2006 9:25:11 PM

Maybe ur right I didnt really look into it much. I figured theyd follow the government.My mistake.
March 14, 2006 9:50:15 PM

Quote:
In 10 years intel plans on having 100's of cores in one processor I cant wait!!!. If I was you I wouldnt upgrade that fx 60 is fast enough to run any game atm and a for quite a while.


Yes then they will have AI programs that think for themselves and start running our defense weapons systems.....OOPS! sounds like the Terminator ( judgement day ) WHERE ALL DEAD!!.... 8O .. :wink: :tongue:

People get real here! Intel has not released the proc yet. So who knows whats going to happen "UNTIL" its in the hands of third party non-biased testers!
Till then its just speculation at this point...but what about those "Intel" setups! and benchmarks #'s....Did we forget about intels marketing dept and lies in the past!!!!!!! I don't know about you but I don't like being decived and lied too by anybody. So the fact Intel had their hands on it doesn't mean anything is just BS....I'll take the non-biased independent test's as fact.
If Conroe is faster then its faster..so what, Loyality!!!...are u crazy..I don't recive a check from AMD for my loyality or Intel..they just want my money and yours..like any company. Its all about the performance you can afford, not how high a benchmark # you can get and at $$$$...thats insane!
Thats just my opinion and my reality.... :tongue:
March 14, 2006 10:43:39 PM

You honestly think they tainted with the computers/benchmarks ? When the task manager was opened, the conroe had 35 processes running, amd 32 processes running, amd system 8% cpu usage, conroe 2% cpu usage, you do know that tech sites did actually get hands on with these computers. They were not able to load their own time demos but woudl a time demo taht looks the same goes through the same motions make a 30 % difference, no it simply wouldnt. The difference of 6 % cpu usage would not even taint the benchmarks especially on a dual core system. Anandtech did their own demo with those computers and if you look at the numbers intel was actually conservative. I do not doubt these benchmarks every tech site has said these computers were not suspicious in anyway, anandtech could not find anything suspicious about those two computers. But as far as being loyal to one company, youd have to be crazy, I buy the processor with the best performance/price no matter which company it came from. I dont care if its amd or intel what matters is price and performance. I do however find it hard to beleive that people refuse to believe that a much larger company with more engineers working on their projects with alot more funding for these products would have a faster processor. Intel is not used to loosing in anyway they were always on the top of the performance charts, except for amds 3 prosperous years, they came out swinging with great force, when in downfall the fallen challenger learns.
March 14, 2006 11:07:33 PM

actually, Intel's plans were laid out several years ago, and then it had been speculated that Conroe was going to be released this year or early next, knowing it would be difficult to overtake AMD till these 65nm parts launch.
!