Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Conroe 3dMark05 scores revealed

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 24, 2006 12:59:46 AM

Freecable guy has managed to get his Stock 2.13Ghz Conroe part up to 2.6GHz and has started posting independent benchmark results. First up: 3dMark05 with a score of 13588 with all stock settings and cooling other than the chip being 2.6GHz. That is ... quite good ... to say the least.

Screenshot here: Conroe/x1900 3dMark05 score

Thread here for those interested in more: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97248
April 24, 2006 1:13:13 AM

By the way that was with a SINGLE x1900 not SLI. The previous world record for a single GPU 3dMark05 was:

CharmedLover84- 11447 FX-55 @3.04GHz, XFX 7900GTX OC 512MB @ 700/900

So that is a new world record by Freecableguy. I have a feeling it wont stand for long. He is currently trying to get SLI up an running on his system, and we may see an overall world record soon.

Cheers!
April 24, 2006 1:26:11 AM

Quote:
By the way that was with a SINGLE x1900 not SLI.


You mean Crossfire, SLI is Nvidia.
Related resources
April 24, 2006 1:31:04 AM

True, I guess that is their marketing name for it. I have the bad habit of reffering to all of the multi-GPU solutions as SLI, since back in the Voodoo days :p  hehehe.
April 24, 2006 1:49:08 AM

validation would be nice

=]
April 24, 2006 1:51:16 AM

I try to stay out of these type of threads but why didn't they use 3dmark 2006? They like the bigger numbers? AMD, Intel, I don't care but test with the latest tools.
April 24, 2006 1:55:35 AM

He will KWH.

He is currently (as we speak) doing other tests, I'm sure including 3dMark06. 3dMark05 is just the first one he has released.
April 24, 2006 2:00:52 AM

wouldn't it be good for him to do the cpu tests? I don't understand 3dmark very well, but it seems like that would help for comparison purposes wouldn't it?
April 24, 2006 2:02:23 AM

What I like is the fact that he can run the chip at a 1333MHz FSB for the overclock at stock voltage. That should mean Woodcrest yields are going to be very good.
April 24, 2006 2:03:46 AM

Quote:
validation would be nice

=]

Straight up.
I agree more validated data is most welcome, but you really shouldn't imply that he is somehow "faking" it.

Freecableguy has a 4 year, 2,500 quality post history at Xtremesystems where he has reliably gotten engineering samples and done extreme overclocks of both AMD and Intel products. He has no ulterior motive than to just show the latest and greatest regardless of what it says on the heatspreader. It is appears he is delivering on just that, yet again.

Cheers!
April 24, 2006 2:06:50 AM

Quote:
wouldn't it be good for him to do the cpu tests? I don't understand 3dmark very well, but it seems like that would help for comparison purposes wouldn't it?

Yes, maybe I didn't make myself clear. He just got his rig up and running, this was just the first benchmark that he performed. There will be more CPU-centric benchmarks coming.

Cheers!
April 24, 2006 2:10:01 AM

Indeed, I'm surprised to see the 6F1 stepping Engineering samples overclocking so stable this early. Good news indeed.
April 24, 2006 2:33:47 AM

Quote:
Freecable guy has managed to get his Stock 2.13Ghz Conroe part up to 2.6GHz and has started posting independent benchmark results. First up: 3dMark05 with a score of 13588 with all stock settings and cooling other than the chip being 2.6GHz. That is ... quite good ... to say the least.

Screenshot here: Conroe/x1900 3dMark05 score

Thread here for those interested in more: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97248


I got 12,105 w/ a Single x1900XT @ 690Core 1580Memory, that 13k has little to do with CPU, because I did it with a Opteron 165 @ 2.2GHz. That's nothing special, sorry Itty. BTW, look at that RAM, DDR2-667 @ 3-2-2-8, my RAM was @ DDR480 of 3-4-4-8, as I say again, that score is not special given the GPU clock speeds and RAM speed/timings. Though, I expect a thorough post of 10 or so paragraphs into the architecture or some BS of 3DMARK (ripped straight from a website albeit) so please, type away.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 2:46:47 AM

I have a question. Look at the 3dmark scores, how come there's no cpu scores listed? It wasn't selected? Isn't the first test or two GPU intensive? I'm curious as to why there's no CPU test scores. I'm not trying to start any flaming but I find it a bit odd. Maybe there's a reason, I just can't think of it.
April 24, 2006 2:49:56 AM

Quote:
I have a question. Look at the 3dmark scores, how come there's no cpu scores listed? It wasn't selected? Isn't the first test or two GPU intensive? I'm curious as to why there's no CPU test scores. I'm not trying to start any flaming but I find it a bit odd. Maybe there's a reason, I just can't think of it.


Just read my post, that score is not special. At BEST, I'd give Conroe a 2-4% faster, AT BEST, and that's if there were 100% Cache Hits, and I doubt that was the first time that test was ran. Look at the GPU Speeds/RAM Speeds&Timings, and one simple (non IntelLover, albeit) can deduce, it's not special.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 2:50:14 AM

That score is surprizingly unimpressive considering how good Conroe is supposed to be.

Remember we're talking about a next gen chip here - That's a current generation score. I hope/expect 3D06 to be much better.

For all the hype about Conroe, it should/must be a complete step ahead of any current generation products - you can't do nothing for 4 years and then only catch up - Intel really needs to surpass the competition to give itself time to work itself out of the FSB hole it's in.
April 24, 2006 2:56:09 AM

We must have posted near the same time. :)  I just ran 3dmark 2005 and my CPU scores show up. Did he pick the tests? I wished I had that graphics card so I could see how close my Opty@3.01 would come.
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2006 2:57:55 AM

Quote:
Freecable guy has managed to get his Stock 2.13Ghz Conroe part up to 2.6GHz and has started posting independent benchmark results. First up: 3dMark05 with a score of 13588 with all stock settings and cooling other than the chip being 2.6GHz. That is ... quite good ... to say the least.

Screenshot here: Conroe/x1900 3dMark05 score

Thread here for those interested in more: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97248


Who cares! I still can't go to my local retailer and buy a Conroe. I still can't go to Newegg, Monarch, ZipZoomFly and buy and Conroe. So really, who really effing cares about pre-production engineering sample benchmarks.

Another pointless thread...
April 24, 2006 2:58:19 AM

Quote:
We must have posted near the same time. :)  I just ran 3dmark 2005 and my CPU scores show up. Did he pick the tests? I wished I had that graphics card so I could see how close my Opty@3.01 would come.


My Opty is @ 2610MHz now, I'll OC my GPU and see where I get, Though my RAM is severely lower than his, which can boost performance upwards of 1,000 points (I've ran several tests on multiple platforms to prove this), but we'll see.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 3:00:40 AM

Like I stated, I don't want a flame war but these small things just struck me as odd. I don't even know anyone that has an XT1900, but I do know someone that has the 7800GTX, maybe I'll get him to bring it over for a few tests.
April 24, 2006 3:14:51 AM

I'm curious why is says N/A for the CPU tests. I'm running 3DMark05, not registered or anything, and I see my scores for the CPU tests. Odd.
April 24, 2006 3:16:03 AM

Nice OC on the gfx card. I didn't know they would go that high.
Good latencies on the ram as well.
Yup cableguy is a class act.
April 24, 2006 3:20:42 AM

Quote:
I'm curious why is says N/A for the CPU tests. I'm running 3DMark05, not registered or anything, and I see my scores for the CPU tests. Odd.


You must manually remove the CPU tests for them not to be ran, as automatically they are selected each time.

http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scores6mw.jpg

My Core is 100MHz Below that of his, as well as the Memory is 100MHz (200MHz Effective) below that of his, and my System Memory is higher timings and MUCH lower speed, and I managed about 10% difference, which can easily be deduced to the speeds and timings of Memory/Core/S-Memory. See, my gullable Itty, that is not special.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 4:35:53 AM

You really need to chill. Not everything is an attack on you.

Your score seems right in line with other scores for systems with your specs: For example here are the top 4 verified scores for 3dMark05 other than the Conroe system:

1. CharmedLover84- 11447 FX-55 @3.04GHz, XFX 7900GTX OC 512MB @ 700/900
2. Vikeor- 11028 146 opteron @3.0GHz, ATI X1800XT 512MB @770/865
3. CharmedLover84- 10762 FX-55 @3GHz, BFG 7800GTX OC 512MB @615/2.00GHz
4. DeathWish187- 10068 X2 4800+ (stock), 7800GTX 512MB (stock)

It looks like your x1900 gives you an advantage over even a 3.04GHz Opteron system with a 7900GTX, well done!

But the fact remains that this air cooled, engineering sample conroe system that he has had less than a day to configure and tweak is beating all of these scores by over 15%. That is pretty special.

No need for you to hate so much, enjoy life! :)  If you can improve on his score of 13588 that would be great and I'd love to see it. You should also give him a chance to further improve his scores. I'm looking forward to it!

Cheers!
April 24, 2006 4:51:51 AM

So sad... I guess you really aren't interested in facts. That is fine, best of luck in the future. Especially in the next couple months.
April 24, 2006 4:55:08 AM

Quote:
So sad... I guess you really aren't interested in facts. That is fine, best of luck in the future. Especially in the next couple months.


Hah, you're hillarious, you're a pure riot I tell ya mate! Always witty with the "So sad" post, woot! That's a great one!

Cheers Mate! :D 

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 4:59:52 AM

Indeed mate, I think you are going to have a truly challenging road ahead, trying to spin all of the data that will be released, to meet what ever agenda you have there!

Cheers again, I look forward to the amusement!
April 24, 2006 5:03:01 AM

Quote:
Indeed mate, I think you are going to have a truly challenging road ahead, trying to spin all of the data that will be released, to meet what ever agenda you have there!

Cheers again, I look forward to the amusement!


Yea, can't wait to see Conroe get chumped by my 2800+ in 64-bit as Clovertown does!

Mate! oh wait, you say Cheers!

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 5:18:34 AM

That's the thing. If a 2800+ "chumps" another processor, that is fine. I would certainly be impressed, wouldn't you? Do you honestly think that will happen? Maybe you do, and I guess we will see.

The thing is, I have a strong suspicion that you are going to run out of benchmarks that you claim are valid (only becuase they show the processor of which you are a fanboy in a positive light). As more and more insumountable evidence piles up against you, in a last ditch effort to discredit it, you declare that the benchmark is no longer valid (see SuperPi, as an example).

Please, advance the state of the art. As Conroe scores become available, show your 2800+ chumping them, as you so eloquently put it. It would be an impressive feat indeed! But be sure to provide real, verifiable data, or at the very least links to those who can provide it. Anything less, is intellectually dishonest, and as I said before, sad.
April 24, 2006 5:24:54 AM

Quote:
That's the thing. If a 2800+ "chumps" another processor, that is fine. I would certainly be impressed, wouldn't you? Do you honestly think that will happen? Maybe you do, and I guess we will see.

The thing is, I have a strong suspicion that you are going to run out of benchmarks that you claim are valid (only becuase they show the processor of which you are a fanboy in a positive light). As more and more insumountable evidence piles up against you, in a last ditch effort to discredit it, you declare that the benchmark is no longer valid (see SuperPi, as an example).

Please, advance the state of the art. As Conroe scores become available, show your 2800+ chumping them, as you so eloquently put it. It would be an impressive feat indeed! But be sure to provide real, verifiable data, or at the very least links to those who can provide it. Anything less, is intellectually dishonest, and as I said before, sad.


It's spelled "insuRmountable".

Clovertown Getting Beat

Conroe Getting Beat

Hmm....

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 5:39:12 AM

Quote:
That's the thing. If a 2800+ "chumps" another processor, that is fine. I would certainly be impressed, wouldn't you? Do you honestly think that will happen? Maybe you do, and I guess we will see.

The thing is, I have a strong suspicion that you are going to run out of benchmarks that you claim are valid (only becuase they show the processor of which you are a fanboy in a positive light). As more and more insumountable evidence piles up against you, in a last ditch effort to discredit it, you declare that the benchmark is no longer valid (see SuperPi, as an example).

Please, advance the state of the art. As Conroe scores become available, show your 2800+ chumping them, as you so eloquently put it. It would be an impressive feat indeed! But be sure to provide real, verifiable data, or at the very least links to those who can provide it. Anything less, is intellectually dishonest, and as I said before, sad.


It's spelled "insuRmountable".

Clovertown Getting Beat

Conroe Getting Beat

Hmm....

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
I'm glad you know how to spell insurmountable, though it is sad that your debate has devolved into pointing out typos. The coming months will show whether or not you know the definition of insurmountable.

Anyways, those links that you provided do not demonstrate what you claim they do. Did you even read them? The early run, engineering sample of Clovertown achieved a score of 1723 in Cinebench 9.5. Feel free the show me a system getting a better score than that, as the link that you provided does not.

As for your second link, again maybe you didn't actually read the thread, though I have taken the liberty of doing so. Here is the exact same person that you just linked to (Redpriest, one of the authors of ScienceMark) providing his anaylsis, in the exact same theead, where he says that Conroe WON the comparison.

Conroe not being beaten
April 24, 2006 5:42:07 AM

Quote:
Yea, can't wait to see Conroe get chumped by my 2800+ in 64-bit as Clovertown does!

You're not still on about the stuff Sharikou posts are you?

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/04/clovertown-scores-...

If you've checked his website lately, you'll notice some interesting things.

First some Cinebench scores at 2GHz he requested.

Quote:
Anonymous said...
venice 2000mhz ddr500 370 cinebench64bit

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/482/cine6tm.gif

sciencemark64bit

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/7158/science0rw.gif

7:16 PM, April 15, 2006

The score shows 370. Oh no! We are all weeping for Cloverton. However, Sharikuo shows, for once, that he believes in accuracy:

Quote:
Sharikou, Ph. D said...
venice 2000mhz ddr500 370 cinebench64bit
Could you download the newer Cinebench 9.5 from www.cinebench.com and rerun the bench?

Thanks.

10:01 PM, April 15, 2006

The problem was, the previous 370 score was obtained through Cinebench 2003, which he has finally acknowledged is not the same thing as the newer Cinebench 9.5.

The result:

Quote:
Anonymous said...
cinebench64 9.5 venice 2000mhz ddr500
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/7957/cine21wg.gif


cinebench64 9.5 venice 2700mhz ddr490
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/7785/cine39pq.gif

6:01 AM, April 16, 2006

If you check the first link, a 2GHz A64 3000+ clearly only scores 335 compared to Cloverton's 362. What's more, this score was obtained with the HT overclocked to 250MHz, an advantage even AM2 won't have. As well, they were running DDR500 which your average 2800+ won't likely have, especially for the "less than $100 for CPU+Mobo" that Sharikuo boasts about.

The results are bolstered by the next poster:

Quote:
Anonymous said...
ran cinebench 9.5 64 bit edition on a Athlon64 X2 4200+ (2.2 GHz) with dual 7800 SLI

http://i3.tinypic.com/vpiya0.jpg

Max was 370 but average was around 363. (we ran it 5 times)

And that's 200 MHz faster then the Intel variant.

Scale the X2 down to 2.0 GHz and you'd get around 330ish

Core has a 8.8% performance advantage and that's WITH the bottlenecked FSB.

11:22 PM, April 16, 2006

Sadly, the poster didn't include a CPU-Z image, but in light of the previous post, the results are sensible. Sensible enough for Sharikuo to believe it at least.

In the end Sharikuo is clearly wrong. He acknowledged this somewhat by replying to the above poster:

Quote:
We should conclude that Conroe and Athlon 64 are within a few percent of each other at the same clockspeed. As we can see from independent ScienceMark and Cinebench 9.5 results, except the pathological case of MolDyn where Conroe led by 33%, which I concluded to be a result of the boundary effects of the 4MB cache.

This is definitely an improvement from Pentium 4.

On desktop, what we will have next then is a GHZ war. Who commands the clockspeed advantage will win the day.
Quote:

The last sentence isn't quite as aggressive as some of his earlier statements. Reading his blog over again, it seems that the language has been toned done with successive edits. In any case, that post was made on April 17th, and he's been curiously quiet ever since and not bothered to reply to the 9 later posters.
April 24, 2006 5:54:44 AM

Lol, those are 2.4Ghz conroe scores, not 2.8GHz. Are you trying to look dishonest?
April 24, 2006 5:59:45 AM

Quote:
Lol, those are 2.4Ghz conroe scores, not 2.8GHz. Are you trying to look dishonest?


CONROE 2.4

Molecular Dynamics
Conroe : 2133.38

Primordia (Energy calculations for 1 atom)
Conroe: 1365.85

Cryptography
Conroe: 1065.59

STREAM
Conroe: 1242.94

CONROE CALCULATED @ 2.8 (Calculations are based LINEARLY, which is highly unlikely for any CPU)

Molecular Dynamics
Conroe: 2489

Primordia
Conroe: 1593.49

Cryptography
Conroe: 1243

STREAM
Conroe: 1450

See the difference?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 6:01:22 AM

And you have finally devolved into pure insults yet again. I guess you have given up actual intellectually honest debate? So sad.

Back on topic, FUGGER just got his conroe to hit 2.9GHz and posted a 33second PiFast, not a world record (that is currently owned by a 4.1GHz dothan processor) but still very impressive!

Link here: Conroe PiFast @ 2.9GHz
April 24, 2006 6:01:23 AM

Read my last post. Than go write more into your Google-Bound post of electrons or w/e the F you're ranting about.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 6:01:56 AM

Quote:
By the way that was with a SINGLE x1900 not SLI. The previous world record for a single GPU 3dMark05 was:

CharmedLover84- 11447 FX-55 @3.04GHz, XFX 7900GTX OC 512MB @ 700/900

So that is a new world record by Freecableguy. I have a feeling it wont stand for long. He is currently trying to get SLI up an running on his system, and we may see an overall world record soon.

Cheers!

Bah, single cards aren't the hardcore fellows =)
vr-zone.com did with overclocked 7900's @900 core :o 
April 24, 2006 6:05:18 AM

Quote:
By the way that was with a SINGLE x1900 not SLI. The previous world record for a single GPU 3dMark05 was:

CharmedLover84- 11447 FX-55 @3.04GHz, XFX 7900GTX OC 512MB @ 700/900

So that is a new world record by Freecableguy. I have a feeling it wont stand for long. He is currently trying to get SLI up an running on his system, and we may see an overall world record soon.

Cheers!

Bah, single cards aren't the hardcore fellows =)
vr-zone.com did with overclocked 7900's @900 core :o 
That is awesome! I'm hoping freecableguy can get Crossfire working so we can see some dual gpu results. I'm just impressed that he got a score that high after only having a working system for less than a day, and it is already comparing to (and beating) scores for rigs that have been tweaked for months. Seems like alot of potential out there!
April 24, 2006 6:16:03 AM

Quote:
Clovertown scores 362 for 1 core, which BARELY beats a 2GHz Venice.

That's actually not true. According to the scores, the posters at Sharikuo's own website report, Cloverton's score seems to be in line with what a 2.2GHz K8 with 1MB of cache would produce.

For the ScienceMark 2.0 benchmarks, it's difficult to take them at face value when you actually look at the link Sharikuo provided:

http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?id=115...

Quote:
Hyperthreading Technology (HTT) supported.
- 2 logic processors per physical processor.

I highly doubt, the benchmark executing as 4 logical cores is very beneficial to the dual core Conroe. ScienceMark 2.0 was written with multithreading in mind, so while the AMD system is loaded for 2 cores, it looks like the Conroe might have been loaded for 4.

http://www.sciencemark.org/frame.php?frame=99
(Just click FAQs, their frames messes the links up)

Quote:
Q: Does ScienceMark 2.0 support multiple processors?
A: ScienceMark 2.0 was written with multithreading in mind.


Also, Sharikuo was quick to point out:

Quote:
The following results were obtained by running 32 bit ScienceMark binaries optimized for Intel Pentium

What he forgot was the 4 after the Pentium since it was actually optimized for Netburst. You can say that its still Intel, but we all know that the Core architecture is closer to the Pentium M, PIII, and K8 than Netburst, so the benchmark isn't horribly favoured toward a particular architecture. The fact that it's Netburst optimized may be why it's so quick to activate Hyperthreading.

Quote:
....what happened to it's 40% lead it had over the FX-60 of 400MHz more?

I think it should be noted that Intel has never claimed a 40% lead over AMD. What they claimed was 20%, which may still be exaggerated, but there's no need to further exaggerate.

http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6041120.html?part=rss

Quote:
Instead, Intel will count on its microarchitectural improvements and a faster front-side bus to deliver the 20 percent improvement in performance over AMD's chips, based on standard benchmarks, Eden said.
April 24, 2006 6:20:54 AM

Quote:

That's actually not true. According to the scores, the posters at Sharikuo's own website report, Cloverton's score seems to be in line with what a 2.2GHz K8 with 1MB of cache would produce.


Actually, it is true.

Quote:
Hyperthreading Technology (HTT) supported.
- 2 logic processors per physical processor.

I highly doubt, the benchmark executing as 4 logical cores is very beneficial to the dual core Conroe. ScienceMark 2.0 was written with multithreading in mind, so while the AMD system is loaded for 2 cores, it looks like the Conroe might have been loaded for 4.

You've never ran ScienceMark on a Dual-Core or SMP, have you? My Dual Socket 940 (2 Single Cores) and my Dual-Core Socket 939 Opteron 64's ALL get "HyperThreading Enabled" by ScienceMark, you think I have special CPUs?

Quote:
The following results were obtained by running 32 bit ScienceMark binaries optimized for Intel Pentium

What he forgot was the 4 after the Pentium since it was actually optimized for Netburst. You can say that its still Intel, but we all know that the Core architecture is closer to the Pentium M, PIII, and K8 than Netburst, so the benchmark isn't horribly favoured toward a particular architecture. The fact that it's Netburst optimized may be why it's so quick to activate Hyperthreading. [/quote]

What's truly sad is now Intel is copying their Competition....again....

Quote:
....what happened to it's 40% lead it had over the FX-60 of 400MHz more?

Quote:

I think it should be noted that Intel has never claimed a 40% lead over AMD. What they claimed was 20%, which may still be exaggerated, but there's no need to further exaggerate.


No, but AnandIntel, IntelSystems.Org, JumpingJack, YOU, Iterations, ETC. All said that, and now, AGAIN, you're ALL PROVEN WRONG...See, you're all idiots...you keep changing your stories to make yourselves come out as if you're above me, which I am very glad to say, you most definately are not. At least I keep my facts straight.

Got anything else wonder Fan?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 24, 2006 6:24:57 AM

Wow. Iterations, kudos to you!

I've never seen anyone go toe-to-toe with Mad Mod Mike more than 2 or 3 rounds (posts). At some point most just give up and write him off as the overgrown 12-year old he is. He could be staring at benchmarks produced by AMD stating the conroe is faster, and he'd still make excuses to support his AMD dogma.

You can't win with him, even if you're right.

I don't mind fanboys, but Mad Mod Mike slurs insults and profanities like an old lady standing in line waiting for her social security check. Someone should let him know that people might take him more seroiusly if he showed others with different opinions a little respect.

Instead he cloaks his narcisism by putting everyone else down that might violate the fantasy he has built about AMD's superiority (and his tech knowledge, I'm sure). This, of course, always makes him right in his mind. He's probably just compensating for the fact that he's just really fat or he got beat up a lot in school. Either way, it's best just to pad him on his head, give him his xanax, and tell him, "It's ok. AMD really is better than god." He'll smile and go on posting on various boards, living his virtual life with glee, beckoning for ill-deserved online respect.

Anyway, on-topic, It's nice to see some info on conroe. Please keep more info coming.
April 24, 2006 6:26:49 AM

Post deleted
April 24, 2006 6:40:33 AM

April 24, 2006 7:21:17 AM

Actually, it was "head, Give", more of a directive, of which you regularly abide by...
April 24, 2006 12:38:29 PM

Uh...Someone tell me the starting price of conroe? How hot it runs? Some solid data instead of this flaming ranting random crap that accomplishes nothing but stroking an ego. Honestly, this thread needs a babysitter and a timeout room...

Edit : Mike, could you stop being such a moron, fix your post and make it not go off the page, k thx...
April 24, 2006 12:44:22 PM

Quote:
Uh...Someone tell me the starting price of conroe? How hot it runs? Some solid data instead of this flaming ranting random crap that accomplishes nothing but stroking an ego. Honestly, this thread needs a babysitter and a timeout room...

Edit : Mike, could you stop being such a moron, fix your post and make it not go off the page, k thx...

It will run rather cool considering it has a vcore of 1.1 and 65nm technology. Also, it has a number of start prices from 200i-1000, 1.67 to 3.33 ghz, and 2 to 4 mb of L2 cache.
Here's some examples:
E6700 : 2.67 GHz – FSB1066 – 4 MB cache – $529
E6600 : 2.40 GHz – FSB1066 – 4 MB cache – $315
E6400 : 2.13 GHz – FSB1066 – 2 MB cache – $240
E6300 : 1.86 GHz – FSB1066 – 2 MB cache - $210
April 24, 2006 12:45:31 PM

Quote:
Uh...Someone tell me the starting price of conroe? How hot it runs? Some solid data instead of this flaming ranting random crap that accomplishes nothing but stroking an ego. Honestly, this thread needs a babysitter and a timeout room...

Edit : Mike, could you stop being such a moron, fix your post and make it not go off the page, k thx...

Indeed. Conroe has a 65W TDP for the 2.13, 2.33, 2.46, and 2.67GHz versions. There is a rumored 80W TDP for a 3.33GHz Extreme Edition. This is a huge improvement over the 125W TDP on Prescott.

The roadmap pricing also looks very agressive, at $309 for the 2.4GHz, which was shown to blow the doors off of even a $1000+ FX-60 in media encoding, and gaming benchmarks. I'm looking forward to more benchmarks being released so we can get an even more complete picture of this chips capabilties. I believe the introduction price for the 2.67GHZ is $527, and there are $240 and $210 versions available as well at launch.
April 24, 2006 12:46:32 PM

I believe the new Extreme Edition is going to run a stock 1333 FSB or something like that when it comes out.
April 24, 2006 12:50:37 PM

Quote:
I believe the new Extreme Edition is going to run a stock 1333 FSB or something like that when it comes out.

Yes, supposedly it will. Rumor has it that it's bandwidth starved.
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2006 5:51:38 PM

WOW another pointless post :roll:
!