Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Conroe Core 2 latest and greatest benchmarks......

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 12, 2006 5:08:01 PM

Intel Conroe Core 2 X6800, E6700 and E6600 all get benchmarked. On a side note, I heard that sharikou and MMM have already pre-ordered their Conroes.... :D  :D  :D 

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/1/page_1_benchmar...
June 12, 2006 5:34:06 PM

HP is recomending people who wants AMD Opteron workstations or the laters 8400 with Xeon 5000 to wait for Woodcrest if they can. Is the first time I have seen it but Woodcrest are very impresive in rendering and DCC.

And they are specting to use 8x8GB FB-DIMM. 64 Gb RAM in a workstation.
June 12, 2006 5:38:23 PM

i had high hopes for this benchmark but when i finally got to see the specs of the computer running only a 7800 GTX and then to see the resolutions only run at 640x480 i was sorely disappointed, i mean who truly runs at those resolutions...

it was impressive that they tested the X6800, E6700 and E6600 along with the FX-62 and X2 5000+ but the resolutions they actually ran for the games just plain sucked

Quote:
Intel Conroe Core 2 latest and greatest benchmarks......


Yes they maybe the latest, but they are definitely not the greatest
Related resources
June 12, 2006 5:46:23 PM

Quote:
i had high hopes for this benchmark but when i finally got to see the specs of the computer running only a 7800 GTX and then to see the resolutions only run at 640x480 i was sorely disappointed, i mean who truly runs at those resolutions...

it was impressive that they tested the X6800, E6700 and E6600 along with the FX-62 and X2 5000+ but the resolutions they actually ran for the games just plain sucked

Intel Conroe Core 2 latest and greatest benchmarks......


Yes they maybe the latest, but they are definitely not the greatest

I don't think you understand the purpose of the low-res benchmarks. When benchmarking a CPU you run at the lowest resolution possible to try to reomve the graphics card from the equation. The second you start increasing the resolution, it beomes a graphics card test, instead of CPU test.

So don't worry, higher resolutions will work just fine, but for games you are often limited by the graphics cards far before the CPU.

Cheers!
June 12, 2006 5:49:06 PM

Very true indeed... thought that was well known around here :wink:
June 12, 2006 5:56:52 PM

Quote:
Intel Conroe Core 2 X6800, E6700 and E6600 all get benchmarked. On a side note, I heard that sharikou and MMM have already pre-ordered their Conroes.... :D  :D  :D 

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/1/page_1_benchmar...


humm.. you DO know that sharikou and MMM will definately calling this a "rigged site" or "intel-tweaked town" ?

i've been trying to convince MMM and sharikou about their AMD short-sightness syndrom .. but somehow.. they wouldn't even post mine ? :evil: 
June 12, 2006 5:58:43 PM

They will if you swear allegence to AMD forever, and curse and burn the Intel flag along with them. :lol: 
June 12, 2006 6:02:29 PM

Quote:
They will if you swear allegence to AMD forever, and curse and burn the Intel flag along with them. :lol: 


nah.. i want my E6700... BAD..
i'll swore allegiance with MMM and sharikou AFTER i get my E6700 :twisted:
June 12, 2006 6:45:19 PM

Quite interesting. In fact it convinced me to put some money on INTC stock especially with their current rate. I doubt it would get any cheaper.

PS: I hate the way this article is organized. I spent quite a bit of time on reading their graphs and finding next page button

,,
June 12, 2006 7:35:32 PM

Funny how the Pentium EE 955 beats the X2 competition in all gaming benchmarks and in F.E.A.R. even the P4 661 is faster than the X2 5000+
June 12, 2006 7:40:00 PM

So when do you think we will see Conroe Extreme editions surfacing on newegg.com??? This guy in tweaktown is saying around September 8O ?

When??
a c 472 à CPUs
a c 115 å Intel
June 12, 2006 7:43:39 PM

Pretty good results Conroe. Even the Conroe E6600 seems to do well against the FX-62.

I wish they added a DivX benchmark similar to what Tomshardware does. That would be useful to me because I like to compress all my DVDs to DivX and play them off of my HTPC onto my TV screen. That way all of my movies are centralized in one location, and I can store away my DVDs and keep them in prestine condition.

An H.264 test would have been nice as well.
June 12, 2006 8:43:57 PM

Quote:
Pretty good results Conroe. Even the Conroe E6600 seems to do well against the FX-62.

I wish they added a DivX benchmark similar to what Tomshardware does. That would be useful to me because I like to compress all my DVDs to DivX and play them off of my HTPC onto my TV screen. That way all of my movies are centralized in one location, and I can store away my DVDs and keep them in prestine condition.

An H.264 test would have been nice as well.


This is something I would like to see as well. HTPC's and what they do are the next logical progression of home computing. Video encoding/decoding is becoming ever more important. This should be reflected in reviews/benchmarks as time goes on.
June 12, 2006 9:35:48 PM

Quote:
Funny how the Pentium EE 955 beats the X2 competition in all gaming benchmarks and in F.E.A.R. even the P4 661 is faster than the X2 5000+


It is funny, especially since tom's shows the 955EE (a $1000+ processor) getting beaten by the X2 4800 (a ~$650 processor) by 20-30 frames in games as well as beating that 661 by about the same. Yeah, I buy these benchmarks.... :roll:
June 13, 2006 1:58:15 AM

Well, MMM and shakira have posted their rebuttals on their respective blogs for these benchmarks. All I can say is these guys pretty much have a complete disconnect from the reality that the rest of us live in.
June 13, 2006 2:42:09 AM

Quote:
Intel Conroe Core 2 X6800, E6700 and E6600 all get benchmarked. On a side note, I heard that sharikou and MMM have already pre-ordered their Conroes.... :D  :D  :D 

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/1/page_1_benchmar...


I was hoping someone else saw that. It was interesting but again not some incredible blowout of 5000+. I personally would rather have Primordia run faster because it's actually a usable tool, whereas SuperPi is a joke in terms of how much productivity it provides.

It's the same thing with CineBench. I don't think I'll ever care about Cinema4D. The games were run at stupid resolutions (my 2 19" 1280 LCDs will never see 640x480). I am just as interested in Conroe perf in heavy use situations as AM2 so that review only tells me that Core 2 will win by a little over the 5000+ at 640 but will destory it in Super PI.

Crap.

I hate most benchmarks becaus ethey're clean machine tests and not regualr use. I want to know that if I run XP for 2 months without a reboot and more than 1GB of RAM used I can still play Q4.I would like to know how VS2005 likes Core 2 for compiling or how much Virtual Sevrer likes them with several VMs running.

I have no immediate plans to upgrade (just added 2GB to make 4GBs RAM) so I'm interested just for research purposes.
June 13, 2006 2:50:39 AM

Quote:
So when do you think we will see Conroe Extreme editions surfacing on newegg.com??? This guy in tweaktown is saying around September 8O ?

When??



By conroe extreme, is that the 3.2 GHz 1366 FSB version? Or is that version the one coming before Christmas.
June 13, 2006 3:15:35 AM

Quote:
The games were run at stupid resolutions (my 2 19" 1280 LCDs will never see 640x480).


Come on, BaronMatrix! It's been said over and over again that the games were run at a low resolution so that the graphics card does not create a bottleneck; the test therefore stresses the CPU as opposed to the graphics card. Notice how once the resolutions are cranked up high, the frames per second for all the CPUs tested do not deviate much from each other? YES, that's the effect of the GPU bottlenecking the CPU! Yay, let's not use this argument ever again for putting down a CPU benchmarker, yeah??
June 13, 2006 3:21:09 AM

Quote:
Quote:
The games were run at stupid resolutions (my 2 19" 1280 LCDs will never see 640x480).


Come on, BaronMatrix! It's been said over and over again that the games were run at a low resolution so that the graphics card does not create a bottleneck; the test therefore stresses the CPU as opposed to the graphics card. Notice how once the resolutions are cranked up high, the frames per second for all the CPUs tested do not deviate much from each other? YES, that's the effect of the GPU bottlenecking the CPU! Yay, let's not use this argument ever again for putting down a CPU benchmarker, yeah??


SO what you're saying is that if the numbers aren't as great at 1280 it's the GPUs fault. GPUs don't become a bottleneck until 1920 or 2560 and things like SLI begin to stretch their wings at those resolutions.

Again Primordia I believe is CFD and Structural dynamics soit's worth something to people. Engineers dont spend their days timing PI calculations. At least I hope not.
June 13, 2006 5:12:13 AM

Quote:
Quote:
The games were run at stupid resolutions (my 2 19" 1280 LCDs will never see 640x480).


Come on, BaronMatrix! It's been said over and over again that the games were run at a low resolution so that the graphics card does not create a bottleneck; the test therefore stresses the CPU as opposed to the graphics card. Notice how once the resolutions are cranked up high, the frames per second for all the CPUs tested do not deviate much from each other? YES, that's the effect of the GPU bottlenecking the CPU! Yay, let's not use this argument ever again for putting down a CPU benchmarker, yeah??


SO what you're saying is that if the numbers aren't as great at 1280 it's the GPUs fault. GPUs don't become a bottleneck until 1920 or 2560 and things like SLI begin to stretch their wings at those resolutions.

Again Primordia I believe is CFD and Structural dynamics soit's worth something to people. Engineers dont spend their days timing PI calculations. At least I hope not.

Don't tell me you didn't know that lowering the resolution will bring out the cpu true potential. Higher resolution means the gpu is working. It is limited by how fast the graphics card can handle the info. Dahh!
Do more research or I will ask Action Man to tell you to get a new keyboard.
June 13, 2006 5:27:30 AM

Quote:
ns.

Again Primordia I believe is CFD and Structural dynamics soit's worth something to people. Engineers dont spend their days timing PI calculations. At least I hope not.



Primordia is no more worthless than the Pi benchmark for actual application use. Both result in static data that could easily be in a lookup table.

The cipher bench is, however, a relatively useful benchmark. Talk about that one, not Primordia.
June 13, 2006 6:06:02 AM

Quote:
Funny how the Pentium EE 955 beats the X2 competition in all gaming benchmarks and in F.E.A.R. even the P4 661 is faster than the X2 5000+


Yea, that 955 must be a moody bltch.
June 13, 2006 8:15:23 AM

I am still waiting for unbiased benchmarks. I beleive that the conroe will rule the roost but please give me benchmarks that can not be questioned. How can you compare a system with 1- 1 GB stick of ram with a system with 2-1 GB sticks? What about using the same brand, same speed and latency? What about the hard drives? SATA against ATA 133? Surely that had to make a differance. Next year, around this time when DX10 and vista have been out for a little while and most of the offerings from AMD and Intel have been out and tested, then I will buy a new system. Until then I will plug away on my X2 4400 desktop and my superhot P4 lappy. In the meanwhile, give me some benchmarks that are honest so as a consumer I can make an informed choice and also give my clients good advice on which system to buy that is designed with thier needs in mind.
June 13, 2006 8:22:50 AM

Wow, some people don't know anything about benchmarking cpus.
June 13, 2006 8:38:49 AM

Quote:
Wow, some people don't know anything about benchmarking cpus.


Not wanting to start a flame fest but please explain to me how the hard drives and the memory not being the same doesn't make a measurable differance? I thought that when 2 sticks of matching ram were run in a system it alowed a little bit faster access (dual channel)? What about accessing the hard drives for games? I am not sure but you would think these things would be worth a couple of seconds of time and a few points on bench marks.
June 13, 2006 9:36:22 AM

Quote:
We aren't here to blow sunshine up your arse. Do it yourself.


I am not looking for it either, I just want an explanation. Yes I know how fps work, heck higher fps is the constant push for the gamer.
Sure conroe will be a beast, I can see where some graphics were bottlenecked by some processors. All I am saying is that I want fair unbiased numbers so I can make an informed choice and when you set up systems with completely different parts I don't understand how you can compare them when they can use the same parts (both systems are compatible with DDR2 and SATA)
If this is the wrong way to look at it please explain.
June 13, 2006 10:35:02 AM

I wasn't refering to you since I didn't read your posts. Seriously people, read some benchmarks and look at the settings. Then read some GPU benchmarks and the settings. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
June 13, 2006 11:45:01 AM

Quote:
I am still waiting for unbiased benchmarks. I beleive that the conroe will rule the roost but please give me benchmarks that can not be questioned. How can you compare a system with 1- 1 GB stick of ram with a system with 2-1 GB sticks? What about using the same brand, same speed and latency? What about the hard drives? SATA against ATA 133? Surely that had to make a differance. Next year, around this time when DX10 and vista have been out for a little while and most of the offerings from AMD and Intel have been out and tested, then I will buy a new system. Until then I will plug away on my X2 4400 desktop and my superhot P4 lappy. In the meanwhile, give me some benchmarks that are honest so as a consumer I can make an informed choice and also give my clients good advice on which system to buy that is designed with thier needs in mind.


Here are the benchmarks you are looking for:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=277...

These systems were set up with out any oversight from Intel, they use the same hard drive, memory, memory settings, graphics card, os, etc...

From the article:

"Overall Office Productivity performance with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 is just over 26% faster than the identically configured FX-62."

"With Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800, our performance expectations are reset once more. In all of the Content Creation tests, the Core 2 Extreme outpaces the FX-62 by anywhere from 27% to 28%."

"We already knew to expect solid Quake 4 performance out of Intel's Core architecture, and the Core 2 Extreme X6800 does not fail us - offering just under 24% better performance than the FX-62."

"While performance here is extremely strong, we also haven't even touched on the overclockability of Conroe; from what we've seen, hitting above 3.5GHz on the highest end parts isn't too far fetched on air cooling alone. The absolute highest we've seen on air is 3.8GHz from a Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor. By the time Conroe officially launches, we'll be able to provide a full set of performance tests but so far we're seeing even more data to support the idea that Intel really has a winner on its hands."


Cheers!
June 13, 2006 11:56:54 AM

Quote:
Here are the benchmarks you are looking for:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=277...

These systems were set up with out any oversight from Intel, they use the same hard drive, memory, memory settings, graphics card, os, etc...

Thanks for the link, that is what I was looking for, an unbiased benchmark. I just wonder what the enthusiast market will do with these things on phase change systems. If I wouldn't have dropped $200 on DDR 500 ram in February I would think about building a Conroe, but as I said in a earlier post, next year around this time will be my next build. (that way the wife doesn't complain too much)
June 13, 2006 1:39:23 PM

Quote:
In the meanwhile, give me some benchmarks that are honest so as a consumer I can make an informed choice and also give my clients good advice on which system to buy that is designed with thier needs in mind.


As long as the institution doing the benchmarking reports their system specs accurately, then they are doing honest benchmarking. There is a difference between honesty and identicality. I don't think that the HD impacts many of the common gameing benchmarks although I'd want to compare systems as equally as possible WRT the RAM used.
June 13, 2006 3:07:00 PM

I agree with sleepy here...these benches are retarded. Look at some of the graphs, they improperly coloured some to show a 630 beating the snot out of the E6600. Why did it take Sleepy to point out to any of you how this benchmark was bad? Why attack MMM for pointing out the problems with it? Open your eyes people, conroe is going to be GOOD, but its not the AMD killer they keep touting. I agree that price/performance/watt goes to Intel on July 23rd but you do also realize that Intel themselves have said that quantities will be limited until Q4. So you will not be able to rush out and grab one so easily. While AMD will have a lot more stock of their "cheaper" AM2's.

Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with the numbers I've seen, just not these ones. Especially the price point of the performance(I could really care less about watts but saving some money on my hydro bill would be nice or OC these guys).
!