Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Post-NDA Conroe Benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 14, 2006 2:22:19 AM

Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

Toms Hardware Guide
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)
PC Perspective (posted by JumpingJack)
Trusted Reviews
NeoSeeker
PC Word
Hexus Review
HotHardware
TechReport
The Channel Insider
Overclockers.com
ExtremeTech (copy of PCMag review)
FiringSquad (posted by ltcommander_data)
GotFrag (posted by JumpingJack)
LegionHardware (posted by JumpingJack)
GD Hardware (posted by JumpingJack)
TweakTown (posted by ltcommander_data)
HardwareZone (posted by ltcommander_data)
|Legit Reviews (posted by ltcommander_data)
Register Hardware (posted by ltcommander_data)
X-bit Labs (posted by JumpingJack)
SharkyExtreme (posted by JumpingJack)
AnandTech (posted by ltcommander_data)
Madshrimps.be (posted by 1Tanker)
The Inquirer (posted by ltcommander_data)
Bit-Tech (posted by ltcommander_data)
Planet X64 (posted by ltcommander_data)
Hardware Secrets (posted by ltcommander_data)
Gamepyre (posted by ltcommander_data)
OC Workbench (posted by ltcommander_data)
Hexus SLI (posted by ltcommander_data)
Bytesector 1/2 (posted by ltcommander_data)
Digit Life (posted by ltcommander_data)
ByteSector (posted by iterations)
Phoronix (posted by iterations)
SimHQ (posted by iterations)
Trusted Reviews (posted by iterations)



Non-English:
Cubic Review (google translation / French)
Chile Hardware (posted by ltcommander_data)
Computer Base (google translation / German)
Hardware.fr (google translation / French)
Maximo PC (google translation / Spanish)
July 14, 2006 2:32:01 AM

Wow, HardOCP is extremely biased, no explanation about the video card bottleneck throttling the performance, just how mediocore Core2 is :roll: :roll:
a c 478 à CPUs
July 14, 2006 2:41:20 AM

I will be buying a E6600, but it would have been nice if German "THG" also tested the lower model to see how they would stack up against the other CPUs in the benchmarks.

I would have preferred if Hdocp conducted thier benchmarks will lower resolutions. That way you would be able to the difference between the CPUs processing power. Using higher resolution show how well the GPU performs with the CPU. Great for a GPU comparision, not so good for CPU comparision. I know a lot of people care about gaming performance, but it would have been nice if Hdocp tossed in some non-gaming benchmarks.
Related resources
July 14, 2006 2:42:13 AM

Quote:
Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

German "THG"
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)


I called it :)  --- they would crank it up to limit at the GPU, then calim uggh see not so great :)  Dimwits -- they should have benced an 805D at stock as well.

:lol:  You certainly did. What a tragedy.
July 14, 2006 2:45:03 AM

I haven't even read the rest of the HardOCP article but WTF is this:

"The ONLY difference that we experienced is that we did have to lower a couple of settings with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform compared to the Intel platforms. This was the internal and external shadows. Luckily the shadow sliders there are “notched” so it is easy to know exactly what position they are in. With the Intel CPUs we were able to have this 5 notches up which is in the middle of the slider for those shadow options. When we tried these same settings on the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform we found performance to be overall lower than the Intel CPUs and not playable. By moving those sliders down a couple of notches to 3 notches on the slider performance was now playable."

Who the hell benches like this and openly handicapps one of the contestants? If the FX couldn't attain the same FPS under the SAME settings than the entire test is BS.
July 14, 2006 2:49:02 AM

Quote:
I haven't even read the rest of the HardOCP article but WTF is this:



What's even funnier is that in the power section (in a seperate article), they turned off Intel's EIST to measure idle wattage so that the FX-62 could claim victory (although even HardOCP couldn't figure out how to make the FX's under-load numbers be lower than the Conroe's)
July 14, 2006 2:57:54 AM

Looks like your guestimates were right, Jack - the Conroe surface area is only 143mm^2.
July 14, 2006 2:58:20 AM

Quote:
Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

German "THG" (google translation)
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)
Cubic Review (google translation)



The more interesting trend is that the $1000 6800 only gives 1 fps in high-res (real-world) gaming. I would NEVER spend $1000 on any non dual-core server chip, so that makes 6800 less appealing. I have said that benchmars for any proc are only valid at real world resolutions. I didn't pay for a 19" 1280 LCD to play at 800.

Face it. The 6700 is more of a value than the 6800.
July 14, 2006 2:59:06 AM

"We test Intel's Core 2 Duo and Extreme using real-world gaming. Don't let a bunch of canned benchmarks lie to you about gaming performance, real gameplay experience tells a different story. Unless of course you game at 800x600."

Right... heaven forbid I ever trust a "canned benchmark" that actually produces useful results. :roll:
July 14, 2006 3:00:35 AM

Quote:
Face it. The 6700 is more of a value than the 6800.


"enthusiast" chips are always a rip off
July 14, 2006 3:01:18 AM

Quote:
The more interesting trend is that the $1000 6800 only gives 1 fps in high-res (real-world) gaming. I would NEVER spend $1000 on any non dual-core server chip, so that makes 6800 less appealing. I have said that benchmars for any proc are only valid at real world resolutions. I didn't pay for a 19" 1280 LCD to play at 800.


Someone spending $1000 on a CPU wouldn't spend only $400 on GPU's.


Quote:
Face it. The 6700 is more of a value than the 6800.


I think everyone already agreed on that.
a c 102 à CPUs
July 14, 2006 3:03:56 AM

I think that it is pretty apparent to the likes of us that anything game-related over maybe 800x600 will tax the GPU way more than the CPU- heck, if you plopped my 2.2 GHz P4-M in a desktop 478 motherboard with a 7800GS it will flat-out kill my X2 4200 and 6200TC even though the X2 is far superior to the P4-M in any performance metric out there. It's gotten to the point that I just flat-out ignore gaming benchmarks, even the 640x480 ones as even those aren't as good of an indication of CPU power as rendering, encoding, compiling, number crunching, and application benchmarks are. Low-res gaming benchmarks are one step above synthetic benchmarks in determining CPU performance, and we all know how poorly synthetic benches predict real-world performance.

However, I do agree that most will not be able to tell the difference between a Pentium D, Athlon X2, or Conroe chip. The gamers will have a GPU that negates any difference, while mom and pop will not tax even the cheapest Sempron or Celeron. It's only people who use their computer for doing heavily number-crunching-intensive applications that will really tell the difference between the chips, and then only with a stopwatch (or wall clock, for long rendering/encoding sessions.)
a c 478 à CPUs
July 14, 2006 3:10:09 AM

Quote:
I haven't even read the rest of the HardOCP article but WTF is this:

"The ONLY difference that we experienced is that we did have to lower a couple of settings with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform compared to the Intel platforms. This was the internal and external shadows. Luckily the shadow sliders there are “notched” so it is easy to know exactly what position they are in. With the Intel CPUs we were able to have this 5 notches up which is in the middle of the slider for those shadow options. When we tried these same settings on the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform we found performance to be overall lower than the Intel CPUs and not playable. By moving those sliders down a couple of notches to 3 notches on the slider performance was now playable."

Who the hell benches like this and openly handicapps one of the contestants? If the FX couldn't attain the same FPS under the SAME settings than the entire test is BS.


I certainly missed that since I only glanced through the so-called "review" relatively quickly. I guess I will need to read all their reviews twice to look for errors. Then again it would be easier to just skip their reviews altogther for fear of some not so easily noticable bias in their reviews.
July 14, 2006 3:18:34 AM

That has got to be one of the most idiotic reviews, EVER. If they want REAL-WORLD gaming situations, why don't they put together a crossfire or sli enabled system?? When you spend $1000 on a processor, there is no way in hell you would only spend $400 on graphics card. Good lord these guys are idiots.
July 14, 2006 3:19:46 AM

HardOC's review is just so funny :lol: 
They make it look like AMD is still competing on the same level as the 6800 Conroe.
Man, and what is up with the nVidia One card dual GPU card? Why does the ASUS MB not like it? What gives, that is the card I’m wishing to purchase with my Conroe, god damn !
July 14, 2006 3:29:45 AM

Still reading through some of these, but people really aught to use the new B2 stepping. (THG specifically) At least they're using B1 so the performance should be nearly identical. Looking at the power numbers, their Preslers are still B1 stepping with no SpeedStep. It's kind of a strategy though since Intel probably uses B1 stepping too in order to should a bigger improvement over Netburst. I'm sure some people will also cry foul that AM2 doesn't appear to have Cool'n'Quiet enabled. Would really want to see some of those 65W and 35W AM2s tested too. Anyways back to reading. (Where's the english version? Probably still translating. Please get the grammer right or else people could latch onto unintended interpretations.)
July 14, 2006 3:35:01 AM

A lawsuit is pretty stupid. They were honest about what they did, and I'm sure the numbers they put down are in fact accurate. The fact that they are retarded doesn't mean Intel can sue them. It just means they're retarded.
July 14, 2006 3:35:24 AM

I don't know about biased. Maybe extremely dumb and misguided would be the right word? :lol: 

They think they're giving the people a better perspective... yet they're too dumb to realize that they're system is gpu limited, then proceed to blame the processor not the gpu.
July 14, 2006 3:35:50 AM

Quote:
Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

German "THG" (google translation)
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)
Cubic Review (google translation)


The HardOCPGaming "Review"(ers) reminds me of someone who I believe has been banned from THG forums, for posting biased BS...Sharikou??? lol
July 14, 2006 3:37:59 AM

Yeah it is just funny :)  lol
looking at the THG numbers and their numbers it is a world of difference LOL
July 14, 2006 3:55:19 AM

Quote:
Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

German "THG" (google translation)
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)
Cubic Review (google translation)


The HardOCPGaming "Review"(ers) reminds me of someone who I believe has been banned from THG forums, for posting biased BS...Sharikou??? lol





Ummmm, but excuse me the THG article tests at 1024 with 1900XTX which we all know is good to 1920.


My LCD will only run at 1280 - because I will never turn it down to see how fast my proc MIGHT be. CrossFire works on Conroe.


Excuses, excuses.
July 14, 2006 3:58:36 AM

Hey Baron, just have yourself a good cry. You will feel so much better after you do.
July 14, 2006 4:10:14 AM

Quote:
Quote:
The HardOCPGaming "Review"(ers) reminds me of someone who I believe has been banned from THG forums, for posting biased BS...Sharikou??? lol


This is the problem, shirkabobbooob will be all over this like flies and donkey dung.

I'm still composing myself from reading some BS threads from Juanes287...how these two guys relate to each other might be complicated to explain, but at least jUanaMan posts BS to make himself look dumb and bring a good laugh, where as Shakirou chooses to be ignorant with the BS that not even a nOOb like me would've attempt to discuss...that made wonder what Shakirou might be planning on doing with HardOCP's review on his blog spot by now!
July 14, 2006 4:13:54 AM

Reviews are really coming out of the woodwork since it hit 12:00 AM EST time.. added reviews from Hexus, PC World, and HotHardware.
July 14, 2006 4:16:11 AM

Geez! gonna take me a while to read through all of these. I dont think I am going to have a very productive day at work tomorrow
July 14, 2006 4:18:07 AM

Quote:
I called it :)  --- they would crank it up to limit at the GPU, then calim uggh see not so great :)  Dimwits -- they should have benced an 805D at stock as well, imagine a 89 dollar dual core giving the same result as an FX-62.
You were right; they basically tested the GPUs and called all of the CPUs equal.
July 14, 2006 4:26:24 AM

Quote:
I called it :)  --- they would crank it up to limit at the GPU, then calim uggh see not so great :)  Dimwits -- they should have benced an 805D at stock as well, imagine a 89 dollar dual core giving the same result as an FX-62.
You were right; they basically tested the GPUs and called all of the CPUs equal.

I have seen some poeple saying for video encodeing the old P4 is still the fastest (I hope this isnt true as I actualy do play around alot with video and those 4.7GB files do take a wee bit of time to do...) well I still want one but I may just have to keep a P4 system around for video work lol
July 14, 2006 4:36:24 AM

I'm going to bed.. if you find any other reviews, please post them here. :) 
July 14, 2006 4:41:55 AM

Holy crap check out the power consumption on tech report, talk about ownage.
July 14, 2006 4:47:19 AM

Quote:
Holy crap check out the power consumption on tech report, talk about ownage.


You know until your post I actualy skipped that part LOL and the load number is outragous !

I figured Conroe would be better then the old P4 but I honestly wasnt expecting to see better numbers then AMD....
a c 87 à CPUs
July 14, 2006 4:57:30 AM

This isn't aimed at anyone, just hit reply at the end.
I know you Intel fanboys are having one joyful day. Congrats with your new favorite chip. I do feel you have been overly "hard" on hardocp. The turning of ONE detail slider TWO notches was only needed on ONE game. For those that complained about the lack of SLI testing, its not Hardocp's fault. Have you already forgotten that SLI doesn't work on 965/975?
I too would have liked more tests at "LCD" resolutions other then the first two. 1600x1200 is too much of a test of the video cards, but who cares that you can get 400+FPS in F.E.A.R. at 640x480? (unless you like block gaming...)
Very interesting ready, anyone have a review on the mainstream chips? (or those with 2MBs L2 cache?)
July 14, 2006 5:03:44 AM

I like the firingsquad review as they include both single gpu as well as crossfire results on the game benches. Pretty much proves once and for all that the IDF game benches were no fluke. (for those of you that dont recall, the IDF machine was running crossfired X1900's
July 14, 2006 5:03:46 AM

Quote:
Looks like your guestimates were right, Jack - the Conroe surface area is only 143mm^2.


Nice see-through image on the OCAU review. Amazing performance to boot.
July 14, 2006 5:09:15 AM

Quote:
Ummmm, but excuse me the THG article tests at 1024 with 1900XTX which we all know is good to 1920.

You know if you were to say that people might as well stick with Presler, the E6300 or the X2 3800+, because at 1920 it wouldn't really matter whether you are running a FX62 or a X6800. Still, it doesn't stop people from buying high-end processors. Conroes speed may not be a huge advantage in high resolution gaming, but that's true for any processor. Besides, people aren't gaming at high resolutions all the time and in other applications you will see more performance differentiation.

Quote:
My LCD will only run at 1280 - because I will never turn it down to see how fast my proc MIGHT be.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCw5...

If you actually look at the review you see that at your 1280 resolution you do benefit with Conroe. You gain 5fps in the averages in Oblivion (8.3%), 6fps average in Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (12.2%), and 7 fps average in Half Life 2 (5.8%). So if you want to be picky even at your real world resolution of 1280 the benefits are there.

Quote:
CrossFire works on Conroe.

There are reasons why Crossfire isn't always used in standardized benchmarking. For one, it doesn't always work for all games which can cause complications. For another, you would need an ATI chipset on the nVidia side, which will theoretically disadvantage AMD since the nVidia chipset is supposed to be faster (slightly). This would of course open them up for more criticism. If you want to see Crossfire results some people are running them. Firing Squad for one:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_perfor...

Firing Squad is pretty good too since they like to run benchmarks at 800x600 to really show CPU performance, and "realworld" resolutions of 1600x1200 to show how much that really translates. The Crossfire results still show a Conroe advantage.
July 14, 2006 5:19:16 AM

Arg!! Nobody is giving looking at the E6300 or E6400 (or I missed an article)! Come on! Us poor people need opinions too dammit!:lol: 
July 14, 2006 5:20:24 AM

Taken as a whole, the AMD FX-62 performs slightly below Intel's $314 Core 2 Duo 6600 @ 2.4 ghz.

The FX-62 is now officially a $299 part :) 



Progress - you have to love it!

8) 8) 8) 8)
July 14, 2006 5:34:42 AM

Here are some more:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/923/intel_core_2_duo_...

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=...

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/362/1/

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1989036,00.a...

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/14/intel_core2_duo...

You'd think with all these reviews, people would think that at least one of them is remotely honest. Unless Intel paid them all. Doubtful.

Argh. It's going to take me forever to read all these. I'd organise the links a bit better instead of just pasting them, but I haven't gone over most of them yet.
July 14, 2006 5:56:55 AM

Quote:
JumpingJack posted this in another thread:

http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/cpus/intel/conroe/X6...


This is a really great review...besides all the technical stuff I mean. This dude kept me laughing through the whole thing with comments like:

Quote:
SiSoft’s Sandra benchmark is quite popular and here we see the Core 2 Duo kicking the living crap out of the competition. I mean, Holy Lord – someone get the deliberator pads out; AMD needs to be resuscitated.


Quote:
As we see in our results AMD is still looking for the nearest First-Aid Box.


And the best of all!

Quote:
AM2 should be called AMwho?


Good stuff!
July 14, 2006 5:59:27 AM

Is it just me or does it look like the retail conroe's arent overclocking as well as the ES's did.. just got that from techreport.com review and posts on XES
July 14, 2006 6:03:45 AM

Hmm, I was waiting on X-Bit and Anandtech. X-Bit's seems like a placeholder for a bigger article. I'd be interested in their RAM speed influence breakdown like they did for AM2. It's interesting that they conclude that the L2 cache size isn't that significant a performance factor though, 2-3%. Should help put to rest the perception that all Conroe's performance is because of the large 4MB L2 cache. On another note I wouldn't call the ASUS P5W DH Deluxe a mainstream platform. It would cost more than the E6300 they're coupling with. Guess we're waiting on those G965s and more P965s.
July 14, 2006 6:09:55 AM

You have to look at the circumstance. XtremeSystems for one usually used "extreme", hence the name, overclocking methods. This could mean huge heat sinks and fans, water cooling etc. They are often more likely to overvolt the processor, NB, RAM, etc. Most review sites don't go to these extremes. They many overclock on stock voltage and stock cooler in order to show what an average setup can achieve. In the case of Extreme Editions, they often overclock using multipliers only in order to show the performance of chips that Intel could release in the future like 3.2GHz, 3.46GHz, etc. Extreme Editions.

You should look over all the reviews. There's like 25 or so now. The one at X-Bit Labs overclocked a 1.83GHz E6300 to 2.9GHz or Extreme Edition speeds which is very impressive and they were only limited by the motherboard BIOS.
July 14, 2006 6:15:03 AM

Cool they gave the transistor count, 291mil, solid.
July 14, 2006 6:18:38 AM

Quote:
Another site just posted and update and got to 3.6 G on air no issues. I don't think the TechReport site puch too much effort into as high as they could go --- other factors, memory, etc. play in:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-9/intel-core-2-d...
Scroll down to overclocking.

Are you sure they updated. The article is from July 4th when the translated from the French one I believe. Still using B0 stepping too. I wish all websites would run CPU-Z so we can see what revision they're using.
!