Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tom posts new AM2 Conroe tests....... Conroe looks good

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Will DDR2 800 raise Conroe's scores?

Total: 94 votes

  • Yes, Core 2 loves bandwidth
  • 45 %
  • No, it can't push what it has
  • 22 %
  • Maybe, it's hard to say
  • 35 %
June 5, 2006 6:47:11 PM

I just saw the newest comparison and had to post. It looks very interesting an seems like Intel is introing new SSE instructions because nonSSE code is not as friendly to Conroe.

I noticed how the gaming results were very close in most cases. I am getting sick of these partial reviews though. I'd rather wait until the damn thing comes out.

I also noticed that Intel was using DDR2 667 which may have slowed them down a little, but from what I've seen Core2 doesn't do a lot more with the extra bandwidth.

I still think though that all benchmarks should be run with things in the background. I never run games with everything else closed. Non of this clean room stuff. I mean it is relevant to some extent but I want to see how my chip and video do with 700MB laoded before running the game. I guess I could run all the benches myself though.

Anyway, again Conroe is looking good. It will finally give K8 some competition. But then if K8L is half what they say as a dual core, Conroe will catch MASSIVE BEATDOWN next year.
a c 96 à CPUs
June 5, 2006 7:29:33 PM

A regular Core 2 chip by itself can't utilize more than DDR2-533 in dual channel (1066 effective) as its FSB is 266 quad-pumped (1066 effective.) The chipset can utilize a little more RAM bandwidth for other things, particularly an integrated graphics core. So I'd say that in a Core 2 chip, you'll see DDR2-533 be slightly beaten by DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 being pretty much equal with DDR2-667, with all the latencies being equal.

AMD's AM2 chips are a much different story as their integrated memory controllers expect to see DDR2-800 and don't function that hot with RAM slower than that (as Tom's AM2 story showed, especially with the 2.2 GHz X2s and Athlon 64s.)
June 5, 2006 7:57:04 PM

Well, I think that the performance will improve since many memory makers are going for fast DDR2-800 which will reduce timings of the modules and that is a pretty good thing.
Related resources
June 5, 2006 7:57:08 PM

Quote:
But then if K8L is half what they say as a dual core, Conroe will catch MASSIVE BEATDOWN next year.


Is next year good enough?

Intel will have 45nm and monolithic quad core next year. And a year from next, they will intro Nehalem...

All the AMD fanboys seem to be expecting miracles from AMD's transition from 90nm to 65nm. Going by that logic, the Core architecture could benefit a lot from going 45nm...

And, next year might have only server class K8Ls. Nothing is clear at this stage (the situation is similar to what it was last year with the NGMA hype); but many reports seem to suggest that K8L desktop chips will intro only in 2008. And that is wayyy late.

By the way, I agree that K8L would be very good. After all, it is a new marchitecture. But then again, wasn't it AMD's own Henri Richard himself who said that K8L will be only "evolutionary", rather than revolutionary?
June 5, 2006 9:06:47 PM

Yeep it still looks good but its starting to look much more even now
The 2.66GHz Conroe beats the 2.8GHz FX62 but not with so much (in games and even the fx62 at 3GHz).
But its not with that much ...

So AMD will stay in the race untill there die shrink when they can pump up the Hertz some more.

And as long as they can get chips out there thats 10-15% faster in MHz then they can compete with conroe.

Also this was agains a 2.66GHz 4Mb cache conroe.
There will be slower conroes with only 2Mb and they will prob have a harder time agains amd as intel needs it cache (FSB anyone?) and then the diffrence might not even be that much (MHz/MHz).
Ohh but there will be a 3GHz EE version to...
Yeeh but hardly with more cache then 4Mb and then its the same diffrence that with the 2.66GHz version just higher clocked.

So AMD isnt dead yet (and will live to be the champs again then K8L comes out).

Hehe fanbooiie I am (well not really but Im pretty tired of conroe allready as the intel fanboys go on and on...)
June 6, 2006 12:16:18 AM

Quote:
But then if K8L is half what they say as a dual core, Conroe will catch MASSIVE BEATDOWN next year.


Is next year good enough?

Intel will have 45nm and monolithic quad core next year. And a year from next, they will intro Nehalem...

All the AMD fanboys seem to be expecting miracles from AMD's transition from 90nm to 65nm. Going by that logic, the Core architecture could benefit a lot from going 45nm...

And, next year might have only server class K8Ls. Nothing is clear at this stage (the situation is similar to what it was last year with the NGMA hype); but many reports seem to suggest that K8L desktop chips will intro only in 2008. And that is wayyy late.

By the way, I agree that K8L would be very good. After all, it is a new marchitecture. But then again, wasn't it AMD's own Henri Richard himself who said that K8L will be only "evolutionary", rather than revolutionary?

Yeah, AMD has been really tight lipped, but at Analyst Day, they did say that K8L WOULD BE DUAL CORE also. What it looks like they are doing is Quad for servers dual for desktops and mobile. It's just good to see the inventor of x86 not look like Cyrix. But then they di run several manufs out of business so I guess AMD is payback.

When you think about evolutionary, it means that their simulations say K8 is not dead. Tweaking the decoders to take larger streams, tweaking the pipeline to do more in a cycle (superscalar). WIth the improvements that can be made to K8, they don't need a K9 or K10.

ANd as far as Socket F being pushed back I woul dsay that they are making most of them for Dell, Sun and HP, so by delaying it they can get more chips to them for system testing. In my opinion.
June 6, 2006 1:32:54 AM

Quote:
Yeep it still looks good but its starting to look much more even now
The 2.66GHz Conroe beats the 2.8GHz FX62 but not with so much (in games and even the fx62 at 3GHz).
But its not with that much ...

So AMD will stay in the race untill there die shrink when they can pump up the Hertz some more.

And as long as they can get chips out there thats 10-15% faster in MHz then they can compete with conroe.

Also this was agains a 2.66GHz 4Mb cache conroe.
There will be slower conroes with only 2Mb and they will prob have a harder time agains amd as intel needs it cache (FSB anyone?) and then the diffrence might not even be that much (MHz/MHz).
Ohh but there will be a 3GHz EE version to...
Yeeh but hardly with more cache then 4Mb and then its the same diffrence that with the 2.66GHz version just higher clocked.

So AMD isnt dead yet (and will live to be the champs again then K8L comes out).

Hehe fanbooiie I am (well not really but Im pretty tired of conroe allready as the intel fanboys go on and on...)


What you fail to notice is that this processor that is near enough to the FX-62 in gaming benchmarks isn't the top of the range processor. So if you want performance that almost matches AMD's top range processor you only need to pay roughly 50% of the price of an FX-62. if you want to buy a more expensive processor you can get the Extreme Edition. Also don't forget that as the review says.... this wasn't an ideal test setup for Conroe and you will see improvements in Conroe performance as time goes on and different steppings are released. These will be small of course but still important.

We will need to wait till the lower spec processors are compared to lower specced AMD processors before we can conclude that the Conroe's with only 2mb of cache aren't going to perform.
June 6, 2006 2:03:54 AM

While i'm glad intel finally has something worth buying! what interests me the most is how much performance do these conroe chips actually get from that 4mb Cache. I know they made lot of improvement to the core, but most of the gaming benchmarks I believe its all cache!

It will be very interested in seeing how the 2mb cache version do.

It about time they started to push AMD after sitting on K8 for the last 3 years with no answer from intel.

As for K8L we might just see it in 2007, but I believe that will be the server chips. The desktop K8L will come in dual core first then Quad.

As it is right now i'm still gonna hold on to my opteron 146 and go to a Dual core 170 after a few more prices drops. I will be more interested in doing a full system upgrade when the 170 is to slow for me.

seeing conroe win in the games is impressive but no one plays sh*t in low detail most everyone plays stuff in 1280x1024 or higher or atleast I do. so my upgrades will be videocards until then. CPU bottlenecks aren't as great as they use to be.
a c 96 à CPUs
June 6, 2006 3:31:30 AM

I'd be dumb to take you up on your bet as you are likely right. The FSB and northbridge on the Intel setup limit what different RAM can do to the CPU, both for good (high-latency, slow RAM doesn't affect the CPU that much) and for bad (low-latency, fast RAM doesn't help the CPU out much.) We've seen it with the P4 lineage, why should it be different as the chipsets talk to the processor the same way?
June 6, 2006 3:38:18 AM

Quote:
Yeep it still looks good but its starting to look much more even now
The 2.66GHz Conroe beats the 2.8GHz FX62 but not with so much (in games and even the fx62 at 3GHz).
But its not with that much ...

So AMD will stay in the race untill there die shrink when they can pump up the Hertz some more.

And as long as they can get chips out there thats 10-15% faster in MHz then they can compete with conroe.

Also this was agains a 2.66GHz 4Mb cache conroe.
There will be slower conroes with only 2Mb and they will prob have a harder time agains amd as intel needs it cache (FSB anyone?) and then the diffrence might not even be that much (MHz/MHz).
Ohh but there will be a 3GHz EE version to...
Yeeh but hardly with more cache then 4Mb and then its the same diffrence that with the 2.66GHz version just higher clocked.

So AMD isnt dead yet (and will live to be the champs again then K8L comes out).

Hehe fanbooiie I am (well not really but Im pretty tired of conroe allready as the intel fanboys go on and on...)


What you fail to notice is that this processor that is near enough to the FX-62 in gaming benchmarks isn't the top of the range processor. So if you want performance that almost matches AMD's top range processor you only need to pay roughly 50% of the price of an FX-62. if you want to buy a more expensive processor you can get the Extreme Edition. Also don't forget that as the review says.... this wasn't an ideal test setup for Conroe and you will see improvements in Conroe performance as time goes on and different steppings are released. These will be small of course but still important.

We will need to wait till the lower spec processors are compared to lower specced AMD processors before we can conclude that the Conroe's with only 2mb of cache aren't going to perform.

True but the 4800+ and 5000+ are not THAT much slower than the FX62 at 300-400 less. I'm sure the Core 2 with 2MB will be competitive, at least I hope Intel didn't pull a cache trick even though they tend to do that a lot.

AM2 is looking good. AMD will jsut be in a position of needing to be 300MHz faster at a similar price. They definitely have a low power chip - except for the FX62. Both companies look good right now. Let's hope it continues so prices will go down.
June 6, 2006 5:11:35 AM

Quote:
Yeep it still looks good but its starting to look much more even now
The 2.66GHz Conroe beats the 2.8GHz FX62 but not with so much (in games and even the fx62 at 3GHz).
But its not with that much ...

So AMD will stay in the race untill there die shrink when they can pump up the Hertz some more.

And as long as they can get chips out there thats 10-15% faster in MHz then they can compete with conroe.

Also this was agains a 2.66GHz 4Mb cache conroe.
There will be slower conroes with only 2Mb and they will prob have a harder time agains amd as intel needs it cache (FSB anyone?) and then the diffrence might not even be that much (MHz/MHz).
Ohh but there will be a 3GHz EE version to...
Yeeh but hardly with more cache then 4Mb and then its the same diffrence that with the 2.66GHz version just higher clocked.

So AMD isnt dead yet (and will live to be the champs again then K8L comes out).

Hehe fanbooiie I am (well not really but Im pretty tired of conroe allready as the intel fanboys go on and on...)


What you fail to notice is that this processor that is near enough to the FX-62 in gaming benchmarks isn't the top of the range processor. So if you want performance that almost matches AMD's top range processor you only need to pay roughly 50% of the price of an FX-62. if you want to buy a more expensive processor you can get the Extreme Edition. Also don't forget that as the review says.... this wasn't an ideal test setup for Conroe and you will see improvements in Conroe performance as time goes on and different steppings are released. These will be small of course but still important.

We will need to wait till the lower spec processors are compared to lower specced AMD processors before we can conclude that the Conroe's with only 2mb of cache aren't going to perform.

True but the 4800+ and 5000+ are not THAT much slower than the FX62 at 300-400 less. I'm sure the Core 2 with 2MB will be competitive, at least I hope Intel didn't pull a cache trick even though they tend to do that a lot.

AM2 is looking good. AMD will jsut be in a position of needing to be 300MHz faster at a similar price. They definitely have a low power chip - except for the FX62. Both companies look good right now. Let's hope it continues so prices will go down.

I concur also. I care not for the sticker that I put on the front of my PC. Only how fast it makes my PC does stuff and how much it costs me.
June 6, 2006 5:37:03 AM

Wuzy's post.

Quote:
I'm betting Conroe doesn't need DDR2-800 while timing lower than 4-4-4-x 1T won't show much increase either. Anyone wanna place money on it?
Unlike S-AM2 which has been proven (unlike some idiotic comments here) it needs lowest possible timing (preferbly 3-2-2-x) and not DDR2-800.
June 6, 2006 5:53:55 AM

Bah to expensive memory! Unless you're overclocking.
June 6, 2006 12:00:17 PM

Quote:
tbh i can't say i care. i would have thought intel with all there marketing people would stop mucking around with this pre setup tests that no one ( hopefully) believes. i mean what are they thinking. i would have thought they would have been all too happy to allow some independant tests by now. it is nearly launch time and they are still acting suspiciously. what gives.



It definitely is fishy. I believe the marks but I never liked benchmarks run on clean machines. Intel should be letting systems out. I mean eventually, Tom will get all the speeds and do a comparison.
June 6, 2006 12:56:02 PM

Dont some of those tests (the games) show that the systems were bottlenecked by the gfx cards. On the higher resolutions the FPS were about the same, but at lower resolutions, the Conroe was ahead.
June 6, 2006 1:34:44 PM

A $180 E6300 competes with the FX-60? I can't see AMD matching that price to performance ratio. They go dual socket and double CPU price and power consumption? Silly. Power consumption, price, and performance, Conroe is the leader.

DDR2-800 will show a minimal improvement over DDR2-667 with Conroe. Best of all it will run 1:1 at 3.5-4GHz.
June 6, 2006 1:52:20 PM

We have a winner. Yes most games are bottlenecked by video performance. Cpu's bottles necks aren't as great as they use to be these days.

And unless you plan on playing at 800x600 with your new conroe, it isn't gonna be much faster at the resolutions and settings people actually play at.
June 6, 2006 1:58:26 PM

"We have a winner."

oooo what do i win :D 

I thk I will be sticking with my system for a little bit longer, especially since the only game I am playing at the moment is wow ( didnt like oblivion, so wasted £25 ).
June 6, 2006 2:00:25 PM

Yes Conroe looks really good. Although they admit the tests were run on preconfigured systems from Intel.
Looks like we have a winner but not by the margins that we were led to believe.
This will really bump up the cpu war and only means good things for us. :lol: 
June 6, 2006 2:08:45 PM

It all looks very nice, but when playing at a resolution higher than 640x480 I see no reason to upgrade to a Conroe this year. :lol: 
June 6, 2006 2:12:29 PM

Regarding the the comment "we have a winner", that was Makaveil nicely pointing out the obviousness to my statement of bottlenecking :D 
June 6, 2006 2:15:37 PM

I was somewhat disappointed in these benchmarks. Mainly because it doesnt really give us enough information about the test systems to be able to draw definite conclusions. It was interesting to see the FX-62 win the Far Cry high quality tests.

Just for the sake of fair comparison, though you should only compare the non-overclocked benches. Otherwise, you would need to consider what the conroe scores would be if similarly overclocked.

I also realized thiere is a bit of disparity between these results and the early IDF benchmarks. This is likely to be due to this test being more GPU limited as the IDF scores were obtained using an ATI crossfire setup as opposed to the single card that was used for this test. The low res scores in this review pretty much confirm this.
June 6, 2006 2:24:07 PM

I wouldnt worry too much about the benchmarks just yet, like you have just pointed out for me, it was just done on a single gfx card for a start, so lets hope for some duel gfx tests when conroe is released to remove any gfx bottlenecks.
June 6, 2006 2:45:44 PM

I think that if Intel is limited by its FSB speed then AMD is also,
if we look at Anandtech review, the AMD FSB OC from 200 to 250, we also see the same trend.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=274...

I was expecting AMD going to use the 266mhz bus with Am2 (even if it was 266x3, instead of 200x5).

Maybe they lack chipset support like Intel is also lacking (using P4 modified ones).

The results that Anandtech took from the 250Mhz FSB, AMD results are also much better, in games however doesn’t turn out so good.

22% better latency, 39% better bandwidth, 54% better memory write, 20% better Pi result,… even Far Cry goes from 62 to 75 fps.

I think that we have been looking at benchmarks with low detail settings where Conroe fly because of the huge 4MB (when using one core). That fit very well because of the lower number of instructions that has to compute, and more stay in cache improving the results.

I think with more details settings both will perform on par because of Video cards processing limitation and because of more accesses to the system RAM.
June 6, 2006 2:57:53 PM

Those early Farcry high detail benches in Toms preview certainly seem to support this theory.

Anybody else have any theories on why conroe lost those Farcry high detail benches?
June 6, 2006 3:09:40 PM

Quote:
Dont some of those tests (the games) show that the systems were bottlenecked by the gfx cards. On the higher resolutions the FPS were about the same, but at lower resolutions, the Conroe was ahead.



That's the point. Who is going to spend $3-400 on a GPU to run at 800x600? I think it says a lot for the K8, that it's keeping up with the new gen from Intel.
June 6, 2006 3:11:31 PM

Quote:
"We have a winner."

oooo what do i win :D 

I thk I will be sticking with my system for a little bit longer, especially since the only game I am playing at the moment is wow ( didnt like oblivion, so wasted £25 ).


More power to you. I jsut upgraded from 3200+ but only because 754 didn't seem like it would last and Iwwanted an upgrade path. Now I can get FX60 in 6 months.
June 6, 2006 3:12:23 PM

Quote:
Yes Conroe looks really good. Although they admit the tests were run on preconfigured systems from Intel.
Looks like we have a winner but not by the margins that we were led to believe.
This will really bump up the cpu war and only means good things for us. :lol: 



Wow, you bought an AM2 Sempron? How's it running?
June 6, 2006 3:20:06 PM

Quote:
I think that if Intel is limited by its FSB speed then AMD is also,
if we look at Anandtech review, the AMD FSB OC from 200 to 250, we also see the same trend.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=274...

I was expecting AMD going to use the 266mhz bus with Am2 (even if it was 266x3, instead of 200x5).

Maybe they lack chipset support like Intel is also lacking (using P4 modified ones).

The results that Anandtech took from the 250Mhz FSB, AMD results are also much better, in games however doesn’t turn out so good.

22% better latency, 39% better bandwidth, 54% better memory write, 20% better Pi result,… even Far Cry goes from 62 to 75 fps.

I think that we have been looking at benchmarks with low detail settings where Conroe fly because of the huge 4MB (when using one core). That fit very well because of the lower number of instructions that has to compute, and more stay in cache improving the results.

I think with more details settings both will perform on par because of Video cards processing limitation and because of more accesses to the system RAM.




I am curious also why they didnt' up the HTT bus some for AM2. Especially since so many speeds are running DDR2 outof spec. They should have went to 333 which would give higher bandwidth and better spec fror the RAM. But then 400 would be even better for DDR2 800. The HTT makes DDR2 Ram dividers a pain.
June 6, 2006 3:34:54 PM

i am very happpy that intel is back in the fight because it causes compition and also it is better for intel conreo to come out first cus it gives K8L enoughh time to repair anything that might now be good enough or ever redisign the whole chipset if they have to
June 6, 2006 4:00:36 PM

Quote:
I noticed how the gaming results were very close in most cases.


Well, if you want to game at low quality then it's clear that Conroe (as reported in these benches) is for you. I was surprised that AM2 was competitive at all. Surely, real world gamers will OC their Conroes and get significantly better performance? If not, I'll be bumming as I'd hoped for MUCH more. DDR2 is going to improve, right? And whose platform is most likely to benefit from that?

I've gotta believe that Conroe is going to do much better once it hits the streets and gets tweaked.
June 6, 2006 4:06:06 PM

1 thing to point out is that according to the graphs the intel is running DDR2-667 BUT according to the article its running DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-12 timing. Says so right in the article.

"The previous Intel-validated memory configuration for dual core processors is DDR2-667 at CL4 timings. With Conroe, Intel has altered this value to DDR2-800, likewise with CL4 timing."

meaning the IDF ran at 667, this is being run at 800. Look at the picture below that line in the article. It clearly shows a memory stick at 2:3 ratio with timings of 4-4-4-12.

Not to say anything bad about Intel here, just that anyone thinking they will see an increase with DDR2-800 isn't going to see anything and there may even be a small hit if your running 667.
June 6, 2006 5:00:52 PM

Yeah the benchies were a little dissapointing. I mean your talking about 90nm vs 65nm on a brand new 975 chipset and 4 freaking mb of cache!!!
I expected the Conroe to do a bit better especially since its on preconfigured Intel systems. This means the FX processors will have to come down to the price range of conroe. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
June 6, 2006 5:28:02 PM

Quote:
means the FX processors will have to come down to the price range of conroe. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 


I'll believe it when I see it.
June 6, 2006 6:00:17 PM

Quote:
tbh i can't say i care. i would have thought intel with all there marketing people would stop mucking around with this pre setup tests that no one ( hopefully) believes. i mean what are they thinking. i would have thought they would have been all too happy to allow some independant tests by now. it is nearly launch time and they are still acting suspiciously. what gives.


Intels knows that Conroe's performance is all cache related so it's similar to Intel bumping the MHZ on their P4 chips to market products and make them seem faster than they really are. It helps the processor sell well, but in real world multitasking performance, it lags because in that environment the CPU design itself has to increase the performance and you can't get the gimicky "nitro" boost from the oversized cache to make your benchmarks look good.

Intel will continue to prevent independent teams from getting samples and running real and true reviews all the way up until launch date. You think they want to jeapordize any of the preorders that are already set up by letting some hack run a real independent benchmark?? Hell no!
June 6, 2006 6:15:21 PM

Quote:
We have a winner. Yes most games are bottlenecked by video performance. Cpu's bottles necks aren't as great as they use to be these days.

And unless you plan on playing at 800x600 with your new conroe, it isn't gonna be much faster at the resolutions and settings people actually play at.


There's ALOT of people out there on 1280x1024 flat panels. CPU bottleneck is an issue at this res.
June 6, 2006 6:27:42 PM

June 5, 2006 14:03
One month ahead of the Core 2 Duo launch, we take a look at the 2.66 GHz version and run benchmarks. Will Conroe really be Intel's Athlon 64 killer?


someone needs to change this
June 6, 2006 7:01:39 PM

hmm the first thought that came into my mind was conroe being (amd's athlon 64) killer

parenthesis to highlight wat i read at first glance

*shrugs*
June 6, 2006 7:15:39 PM

:D  Call me crrazy or something, but all i know is that Intels $550 cpu in my opinion DESTROYED amd's $1100 CPU. Destroyed!!!!

Why say destroy, easy.. a $550 cpu, IE cheaper than ANY FX cpu out there, and some of their X2 cpu's yet whips AMD FASTEST chip in a few exercises. I wonder what their Extreme model will do to the FX line.

With post about disapointed about the results, this is like comparing a 2007 Mustang SVT GT500. to say a dodge viper. With teh mustang beating the Dodge by small margins.. people may argue well, the dodge is close.. BUT the bottom line is the dodge, is 2X the price...

Same as the FX 2X the price, and still loosing, AMD has a lottt of work ahead of themselves. Performance is one thing, but 2X the price, and barely holding on, I am like the Author, i want to see what the EXTREME model will do.

INFACT, i would like to see what a Xeon 5080 compares to the FX62, considering that is the New Xeon 3.73 GHz dual core. 1066 bus.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

COST of $873.99... i wander what the performance will be like..

Amd == FUMBLE, now intel has the ball. This will be indeed a VICIOUS year, /yahhhh prices plumit, and every consumer is happy, except the people who bought pc's within the last 2 months,
June 6, 2006 7:26:12 PM

Quote:
Yeah the benchies were a little dissapointing. I mean your talking about 90nm vs 65nm on a brand new 975 chipset and 4 freaking mb of cache!!!
I expected the Conroe to do a bit better especially since its on preconfigured Intel systems. This means the FX processors will have to come down to the price range of conroe. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 



Actually they won't have to because FX 62 is competing with FX 60 not Conroe. The X2 4800 and 5000+ are a lot less and those prices will drop first. Intel Extreme will be $1000+ and the 965 is still selling for around 1000. I think an FX 62 is worth it. if I were buying now I wouldn't mind haing an AM2 system. Especially for the upgrade path. AMD has said that K8L will be dual on AM2.
June 6, 2006 7:31:31 PM

Quote:
:D  Call me crrazy or something, but all i know is that Intels $550 cpu in my opinion DESTROYED amd's $1100 CPU. Destroyed!!!!

Why say destroy, easy.. a $550 cpu, IE cheaper than ANY FX cpu out there, and some of their X2 cpu's yet whips AMD FASTEST chip in a few exercises. I wonder what their Extreme model will do to the FX line.

With post about disapointed about the results, this is like comparing a 2007 Mustang SVT GT500. to say a dodge viper. With teh mustang beating the Dodge by small margins.. people may argue well, the dodge is close.. BUT the bottom line is the dodge, is 2X the price...

Same as the FX 2X the price, and still loosing, AMD has a lottt of work ahead of themselves. Performance is one thing, but 2X the price, and barely holding on, I am like the Author, i want to see what the EXTREME model will do.

INFACT, i would like to see what a Xeon 5080 compares to the FX62, considering that is the New Xeon 3.73 GHz dual core. 1066 bus.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

COST of $873.99... i wander what the performance will be like..

Amd == FUMBLE, now intel has the ball. This will be indeed a VICIOUS year, /yahhhh prices plumit, and every consumer is happy, except the people who bought pc's within the last 2 months,




If you look at teh price of the 965EE which can't win against FX62 you will see that Intel is ARTIFICIALLY deflating the price to screw up AMD. I would moreso compare Xeon to Socket F Opterons.


Again, i don' think AMD is going to play the price war this time around. they have credibility now and can say that the better multitasking and power requirements make the chips worth more.
June 6, 2006 7:36:03 PM

Quote:
Intels knows that Conroe's performance is all cache related so it's similar to Intel bumping the MHZ on their P4 chips to market products and make them seem faster than they really are. It helps the processor sell well, but in real world multitasking performance, it lags because in that environment the CPU design itself has to increase the performance and you can't get the gimicky "nitro" boost from the oversized cache to make your benchmarks look good.



Yea, having a large cache is SOOOOOO not fair. I mean, AMD would never do that with their top line of chips, like the FX series. I mean, NEVER!

Cache is not a bad thing. The vast majority of benchmarks don't magically fit inside the cache. Cache results in real world performance gains. Fewer cache misses never hurt anyone. Complaining that Intel puts too much cache in their processors makes as much sense as claiming that AMD puts too many logic transistors in their processors.
June 6, 2006 7:37:43 PM

intel is basicly going to kill amd.... then amd will basicly kill intel, the cycle repeats itself............. pentium3 compared to old old athlon processors
June 6, 2006 7:47:18 PM

Quote:
there are alot of concerns about the lifespan of AM2,with ddr3 expected in 2008,and htt3 in late 07 or 08 (correct me if i am not naming the appropriate dates).I read an engineers post who was thinking am2 wouldnt see htt3,or ddr3.since i have already purchased an am2 ,and dual cpu is coming i am concerned,i dont like transitional technology.



AM2 will be the desktop socket for a few years. DDR3 supposedly is pin compatible with DDR2. If you just got AM2 you are good to go for a few years. K8L WILL be on AM2 accordign to the Analyst Day article at Anandtech.com
June 6, 2006 9:20:17 PM

Quote:
I'd be dumb to take you up on your bet as you are likely right. The FSB and northbridge on the Intel setup limit what different RAM can do to the CPU, both for good (high-latency, slow RAM doesn't affect the CPU that much) and for bad (low-latency, fast RAM doesn't help the CPU out much.) We've seen it with the P4 lineage, why should it be different as the chipsets talk to the processor the same way?

Hey, don't forget, most of all, the huge cache.
That plays a major role in smoothing out the effect of the RAM clock and latency on Conroe's performance.
June 6, 2006 9:23:31 PM

Quote:

Anyway, again Conroe is looking good. It will finally give K8 some competition. But then if K8L is half what they say as a dual core, Conroe will catch MASSIVE BEATDOWN next year.

Unlikely.
Sure, K8L architecture is still largely unknown.
But for what it has been published, it looks like it will be competitive or outperform Conroe, but not by any huge margin.
So they better get it out quickly, before it's "too little, too late". :( 
June 6, 2006 9:44:50 PM

Quote:
We have a winner. Yes most games are bottlenecked by video performance. Cpu's bottles necks aren't as great as they use to be these days.

And unless you plan on playing at 800x600 with your new conroe, it isn't gonna be much faster at the resolutions and settings people actually play at.


Yea, with that theory, its not worth getting anything more than a Celeron D, and that's what makes AMD's current advantage over Intel's bull****, am I right??
June 6, 2006 10:35:07 PM

Quote:

Yea, having a large cache is SOOOOOO not fair. I mean, AMD would never do that with their top line of chips, like the FX series. I mean, NEVER!

Cache is not a bad thing. The vast majority of benchmarks don't magically fit inside the cache. Cache results in real world performance gains. Fewer cache misses never hurt anyone. Complaining that Intel puts too much cache in their processors makes as much sense as claiming that AMD puts too many logic transistors in their processors.


Hehe, they would if they could and if it would help them much... (wait until the die shrink)

k8 IMC help amd so it dosnt really need to have as much cache as intel -have- to have to perform good. Sure more cache would help but not as much as it helps intel. going over 1Mb l2 cache will help some but not much (comparied with the 1Mb one).
Fast ram helps AMD becouse the have an IMC (integrated memory controller) and small caches. When the cache isnt big enugh they go to the ram and then it needs to be fast.
Fast ram DOES NOT help intel that much for the same resons! Huuh?
Well intel have large caches (4MB) and is therefor able to keep most of what it needs in cache and as loong as the cache is big enugh then ram speed dosnt mather (that much).

And please all stop comparing pricing on an unrelised cpu (conroe) with cpus out now. Also count in that an Intel MB will cost much more then a camparable one for AMD. Amd will prob have to cut some prices esp at the lower end x2's.

Conroe is/will be a killer chip WHEN it comes.
How much a performance hit will the 2Mb cache versions will take agains the 4Mb versions? Hard to say but ~5% or so in games is prob expected.

Then again if a 4Mb cache conroe is ~10-15% faster then A64
Then the 2Mb version is prob ~5-10% faster clock for clock.

Now thats faster, thats better and if u have it at the same cost (cpu/MB/mem) as what AMD can offer I will get one when I change next time.

But its not the killer it looked like when we read the first prev. of it.
AMD can and will compete (not beat) with current tech and might even beat it with faster chips after the dieshrink (christmas time).
But I would think that it isnt untill K8L then AMD will take lead again (GHz to GHz that is).

And sorry for the bad spelling/english
June 6, 2006 11:22:16 PM

Quote:

Anyway, again Conroe is looking good. It will finally give K8 some competition. But then if K8L is half what they say as a dual core, Conroe will catch MASSIVE BEATDOWN next year.

Unlikely.
Sure, K8L architecture is still largely unknown.
But for what it has been published, it looks like it will be competitive or outperform Conroe, but not by any huge margin.
So they better get it out quickly, before it's "too little, too late". :( 


From what I've seen K8L will give 40% increase over K8. They're looking to increase IPC by 1-3 IPC. The new OoO bufer will give 10% along with the increased fetch. Look at how much better than Core Core 2 is.

Of course, it may not be 40% fatser than Conroe, but it will get at last 10-20% with the improvements to the core.
!