To all Conroe Fanboys!

[m25]

SH*T; it's a whole step forward, totally another planet...
At leas this was my first impression after reading the benchmarks.

Yes that's unprecedented performance!However It's easy to be caught by enthusiasm (even for the THG's titles, pretty DRASTIC lately) and forget to do some simple arithmetics... That's how the a new, the most ferocious species of fanboys is born: the Conroe Fanboys!

Making some simple points one can see that:
There's nothing substantially new in this architecture. After some deep thoughts I think <<IT'S ALL ABOUT THE 65nm EFFECT>>. Core2 is substantially a K8, boosted with more logic units; here explained the extra performance (because 65nm allow this @ ~ the same die size) and it runs cooler still because of the 65nm process.

Conclusions: When AMD cores shrink to 65 nm they will:
1.BE able to incorporate more arithmetic & logics & wider busses than they currently do, call it K8 or K8L makes no diference @ that point.
2.Run cooler than Core2 because they almost match them on 90nm.
3.Potentially be cheaper after the price war(intel can't make it last

forever) because they do fine even with 512K L2.

AMD's transition to 65 nm (subsequently all the mentioned points) will happen much earlier than the 2008 or 2010 someone has mentioned. IMO, AMD is just round the corner, so keep your feet on the ground people; it's just a step forward not landing on moon .

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

POINTLESS
MISINFORMED

Prepare to be flamed.

 

[Pippero]

Pssst... delete everything while you're still on time... :lol:

 

[m25]

Would be glad if you pointed out my missinformation.

 

[deusex]

There's a sharp stick in my backyard...

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

SH*T; it's a whole step forward, totally another planet...
At leas this was my first impression after reading the benchmarks.

Terrible spelling and puctuation.

Yes that's unprecedented performance!However It's easy to be caught by enthusiasm (even for the THG's titles, pretty DRASTIC lately) and forget to do some simple arithmetics... That's how the a new, the most ferocious species of fanboys is born: the Conroe Fanboys!

Soo even though Conroe is faster people shouldn't be excited by it? What you used to pay $1,000 for we can now get for $320? That makes me a fan!

Making some simple points one can see that:
There's nothing substantially new in this architecture.

Incorrect

After some deep thoughts I think <<IT'S ALL ABOUT THE 65nm EFFECT>>

Wrong, these things overclock like mothers. If it was all about 65-nm they would be barely overclockable.

Conclusions: When AMD cores shrink to 65 nm they will:
1.BE able to incorporate more arithmetic & logics & wider busses than they currently do, call it K8 or K8L makes no diference @ that point.
2.Run cooler than Core2 because they almost match them on 90nm.
3.Potentially be cheaper after the price war(intel can't make it last

Perhaps your right. Where can I buy these AMD chips you speak of? Oh ya, they DO NOT EXIST. Sooo, that's why people will buy Conroe. It will be the best available technology.

Can some other people help me own this guy?

 

[old_times]

SH*T; it's a whole step forward, totally another planet...
At leas this was my first impression after reading the benchmarks.

Yes that's unprecedented performance!However It's easy to be caught by enthusiasm (even for the THG's titles, pretty DRASTIC lately) and forget to do some simple arithmetics... That's how the a new, the most ferocious species of fanboys is born: the Conroe Fanboys!

Making some simple points one can see that:
There's nothing substantially new in this architecture. After some deep thoughts I think <<IT'S ALL ABOUT THE 65nm EFFECT>>. Core2 is substantially a K8, boosted with more logic units; here explained the extra performance (because 65nm allow this @ ~ the same die size) and it runs cooler still because of the 65nm process.

Conclusions: When AMD cores shrink to 65 nm they will:
1.BE able to incorporate more arithmetic & logics & wider busses than they currently do, call it K8 or K8L makes no diference @ that point.
2.Run cooler than Core2 because they almost match them on 90nm.
3.Potentially be cheaper after the price war(intel can't make it last

forever) because they do fine even with 512K L2.

AMD's transition to 65 nm (subsequently all the mentioned points) will happen much earlier than the 2008 or 2010 someone has mentioned. IMO, AMD is just round the corner, so keep your feet on the ground people; it's just a step forward not landing on moon .

Why dont you go back to Gaico commercials?

/

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Articles about the CORE microarchitecture (the basis for Conroe):

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2748 <-- excellent overview of some of the microarchitectural improvements made in CORE.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2711 <-- coverage of the official unveiling of the Core microarchitecture at Spring IDF 2006, San Francisco.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars <-- A "big picture" post on ArsTechnica.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/ <-- the seminal article here at Tom's covering some of the secret plans that lead to Core and some things to come, concerning 45nm.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT030906143144 <-- The original in-depth analysis of the Core architecture. This compares it with Yonah and Netburst. Anandtech and ArsTechnica base their architecture reviews on this one.
http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/demo/demo.htm <-- Intel Marketing flash animation about some of the new features in Core. (link goes to page with Flash).


The "So what makes Core so new?" Section:

Here I will try to present some of the differences between CORE and previous architectures (in particular, the Core Duo, Intel's most current architecture you can buy today).

Conroe features a large 4MB cache, which is a first in consumer x86 products. This cache also has ultra-fine-grained power control, and an intelligent sharing mechanism between the two cores (in fact on some motherboards you will see that you can turn off one of the cores and dedicate the entire 4MB to one core, for more stablity in ultra high overclocks for single threaded apps. I can't provide proof for this statement yet, but you'll just have to wait and see if I'm right). That power control and sharing mechanism is not a walk in the park to design, and while many of the principles are present in Core Duo, this was a complete redesign with more aggressive power saving algorithms and more sensors and much more fine grained control, meaning smaller sections of the cache can be turned off more frequently.

Conroe also features memory disambiguation which allows most Loads to be speculatively executed before Stores. This is a HUGE benefit for some workloads. This is also not present in Core Duo.

Conroe has a 4-issue core, which means that 4 (or in some cases 5, see below) instructions are simultaneously pulled from the instruction cache and fed through the pipeline. Core Duo (and every other x86 product on the market) is 3-issue.

Conroe has macro and micro-ops fusion which allows certain combinations of x86 ops to be combined into one as they are pulled from the instruction cache. Macro-fusion allows the chip to save energy and have higher bandwidth, particularly during popular CMP-JMP operation pairs (if/then or switch statements in most programming languages decode into these instructions). It saves energy because it can literally do the same work with less physical transistor switching as the fused instruction moves through the pipeline. Core Duo only has micro-fusion.

Conroe has a completely redesigned 128-bit wide SSE engine that completes all SSE ops in 1 cycle. Core Duo has nothing close to this, in fact nothing on the market has anything close to this.

Conroe is 64-bit, Core Duo is 32-bit.

The SSE units also weren't the only thing expanded. The FPUs were also widened to 128-bit from 64-bit in Yonah, but since the FPUs share some of their resources with the SSE units the two are interrelated. The ALUs have also been widened to 64-bit from 32-bit which should provide a performance boost in integer operations as well.

Other improvements include increases in L1-L2 transfer bandwidth and the near tripling of bandwidth between the L1 cache and the rest of the core. A lot of that has to do with the widening of the internal data paths from 64-bits in Yonah to 128-bits in Core.

Other minor details include SSE4 support, although Intel may be looking to come up with a new marketing name. Related to the 4-wide issue rate is that all the buffers have been widened to handle the increase. The number of ports has also increased from 6 from 5 in Yonah to better organize the additional execution units and the division of capabilities (Vshuffle, etc.) for each execution unit has also changed somewhat to avoid conflicts. The instruction fetch size has also increased from 128-bit to 160-bit (possibly higher) in order to feed the 4 decoders.

Ownage.

 

[Luke111]

AMD may not be "far behind" but they are indeed behind NOW, and that is a big difference for any market.

Establishing an advantage is pivotal in technologies, in an industry in which all functions of computer design (including software) tie in some part to a processors capabilities, a two year, or even single year, lull puts one manufacturer at a severe disadvantage in both liscening and R&D.

Even if there's little "fundamentally new" (which, I disagree with, if it wasn't new, hypothetical max. capabilities would be the same as any last-gen processor) about Intel's latest line, but they are still fundamentally more powerful devices and even a small advantage in the computer world can become an unsurmountable gap in little to no time (especially in an industry with significant evolution every three years).

 

[Pippero]

You asked for it.
There you go:

There's nothing substantially new in this architecture. After some deep thoughts I think <<IT'S ALL ABOUT THE 65nm EFFECT>>. Core2 is substantially a K8, boosted with more logic units;

Following the same logic, then K8 is substantially a 486, boosted with more logic units, thanks to its 90nm EFFECT. :lol:

here explained the extra performance (because 65nm allow this @ ~ the same die size) and it runs cooler still because of the 65nm process.

Nope, in fact Netburst, on the same 65nm process, runs as hot as hell.
NGMA is an architecture which expands on several energy saving features which debuted on NOTEBOOKS (hence, power / heat constrained systems) with the Pentium M.

Conclusions: When AMD cores shrink to 65 nm they will:
1.BE able to incorporate more arithmetic & logics & wider busses than they currently do, call it K8 or K8L makes no diference @ that point.

Sure they WILL BE ABLE.
But IF and WHEN this is going to happen, it's anybody's guess.

2.Run cooler than Core2 because they almost match them on 90nm.

Might be, but again, this is just your speculation.

3.Potentially be cheaper after the price war(intel can't make it last
forever) because they do fine even with 512K L2.

Why do you think AMD is at any advantage in a price war?
Intel is a bigger company (hence it has more capital), has way more production facilities, and a much much better and cost effective process.

AMD's transition to 65 nm (subsequently all the mentioned points) will happen much earlier than the 2008 or 2010 someone has mentioned.

Actually it should happen end of 2006 / beginning of 2007.
But this is just another point proving that you're misinformed.
However, a transition to 65nm does not mean the debut of a new architecture, unlike what you may think.

 

[m25]

Articles about the CORE microarchitecture (the basis for Conroe):

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2748 <-- excellent overview of some of the microarchitectural improvements made in CORE.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2711 <-- coverage of the official unveiling of the Core microarchitecture at Spring IDF 2006, San Francisco.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars <-- A "big picture" post on ArsTechnica.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/ <-- the seminal article here at Tom's covering some of the secret plans that lead to Core and some things to come, concerning 45nm.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT030906143144 <-- The original in-depth analysis of the Core architecture. This compares it with Yonah and Netburst. Anandtech and ArsTechnica base their architecture reviews on this one.
http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/demo/demo.htm <-- Intel Marketing flash animation about some of the new features in Core. (link goes to page with Flash).


The "So what makes Core so new?" Section:

Here I will try to present some of the differences between CORE and previous architectures (in particular, the Core Duo, Intel's most current architecture you can buy today).

Conroe features a large 4MB cache, which is a first in consumer x86 products. This cache also has ultra-fine-grained power control, and an intelligent sharing mechanism between the two cores (in fact on some motherboards you will see that you can turn off one of the cores and dedicate the entire 4MB to one core, for more stablity in ultra high overclocks for single threaded apps. I can't provide proof for this statement yet, but you'll just have to wait and see if I'm right). That power control and sharing mechanism is not a walk in the park to design, and while many of the principles are present in Core Duo, this was a complete redesign with more aggressive power saving algorithms and more sensors and much more fine grained control, meaning smaller sections of the cache can be turned off more frequently.

Conroe also features memory disambiguation which allows most Loads to be speculatively executed before Stores. This is a HUGE benefit for some workloads. This is also not present in Core Duo.

Conroe has a 4-issue core, which means that 4 (or in some cases 5, see below) instructions are simultaneously pulled from the instruction cache and fed through the pipeline. Core Duo (and every other x86 product on the market) is 3-issue.

Conroe has macro and micro-ops fusion which allows certain combinations of x86 ops to be combined into one as they are pulled from the instruction cache. Macro-fusion allows the chip to save energy and have higher bandwidth, particularly during popular CMP-JMP operation pairs (if/then or switch statements in most programming languages decode into these instructions). It saves energy because it can literally do the same work with less physical transistor switching as the fused instruction moves through the pipeline. Core Duo only has micro-fusion.

Conroe has a completely redesigned 128-bit wide SSE engine that completes all SSE ops in 1 cycle. Core Duo has nothing close to this, in fact nothing on the market has anything close to this.

Conroe is 64-bit, Core Duo is 32-bit.

The SSE units also weren't the only thing expanded. The FPUs were also widened to 128-bit from 64-bit in Yonah, but since the FPUs share some of their resources with the SSE units the two are interrelated. The ALUs have also been widened to 64-bit from 32-bit which should provide a performance boost in integer operations as well.

Other improvements include increases in L1-L2 transfer bandwidth and the near tripling of bandwidth between the L1 cache and the rest of the core. A lot of that has to do with the widening of the internal data paths from 64-bits in Yonah to 128-bits in Core.

Other minor details include SSE4 support, although Intel may be looking to come up with a new marketing name. Related to the 4-wide issue rate is that all the buffers have been widened to handle the increase. The number of ports has also increased from 6 from 5 in Yonah to better organize the additional execution units and the division of capabilities (Vshuffle, etc.) for each execution unit has also changed somewhat to avoid conflicts. The instruction fetch size has also increased from 128-bit to 160-bit (possibly higher) in order to feed the 4 decoders.

Ownage.

Can't you figure out it's just commercial S-H-I-T; You can find tons of it about the Pentium Pro & up!

 

[m25]

If you think it's just speculation, remember the transition from 18 to 13 microns that the Willamette to Northwood brought: 2 to 3.06GHz running even cooler. This is how you can make an idea of what the 90-65nm brings

 

[Pippero]

:roll:
.. i leave you in the hands of the real Intel fanboys.. :lol:
Have fun!

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

normal sane socialized people buy whats best for the money.

If those AMD's you speak of actually existed people would buy those. Thats competition. People buy whatever is the better product for the price.

You're hypocrisy is astounding though. You title a thread "all conroe fanboys" in a attempt to bash fanboys but yet here you are being a fanboy.

Children like you really need to consider going outside more. i would recommend basketball if your tall. Maybe try rollerblading. Go outside more you really need the vit D.

SH*T; it's a whole step forward, totally another planet...
At leas this was my first impression after reading the benchmarks.

Yes that's unprecedented performance!However It's easy to be caught by enthusiasm (even for the THG's titles, pretty DRASTIC lately) and forget to do some simple arithmetics... That's how the a new, the most ferocious species of fanboys is born: the Conroe Fanboys!

Making some simple points one can see that:
There's nothing substantially new in this architecture. After some deep thoughts I think <<IT'S ALL ABOUT THE 65nm EFFECT>>. Core2 is substantially a K8, boosted with more logic units; here explained the extra performance (because 65nm allow this @ ~ the same die size) and it runs cooler still because of the 65nm process.

Conclusions: When AMD cores shrink to 65 nm they will:
1.BE able to incorporate more arithmetic & logics & wider busses than they currently do, call it K8 or K8L makes no diference @ that point.
2.Run cooler than Core2 because they almost match them on 90nm.
3.Potentially be cheaper after the price war(intel can't make it last

forever) because they do fine even with 512K L2.

AMD's transition to 65 nm (subsequently all the mentioned points) will happen much earlier than the 2008 or 2010 someone has mentioned. IMO, AMD is just round the corner, so keep your feet on the ground people; it's just a step forward not landing on moon .

 

[redeemer]

Conroe will be the best tech available. Intel has really stepped up their game. There isn't really any reason why Intel should be 2nd here. They are the chip giant. Intel competed quite nicely with their inferior prescott chip. Intel is going to have a one year advantage in the 65nm process over AMD.

 

[Da_Banig]

There's a sharp stick in my backyard...

Mind if I borrow that for a minute DeusEx?

Can some other people help me own this guy?

I just shovel the stick up his ass, I hope I assisted you in owning him lol

 

[ikjadoon]

I think he may not be the only one "misinformed". Why would AMD continue to market a slower (How much slower? I'll leave that up to you decide, ) processor at a much higher premium? I'm still very confused why AMD would try to do this. It doesn't seem like a smart move.

So, AMD will just sell at the same, albeit outrageous, prices even after Intel brings a faster processor to the table?

You know good and well AMD will lower prices to match the price/performance of Intel. Intel did with their dual-cores when they saw the speed of the X2's. They saw they had a slower product and realized the only way for people to even think about buying them would be if the prices were lower.

~Ibrahim~

 

[requester]

Lol ... so you say the best cpus are the ones we can expect in the future ... tell me something new :roll:

AMD are behind now, that's a fact just look at all the benchmarks around the globe. Maybe AMDs transistion to 65nm might do some tricks, but there are absolutely no indications of this, at this point, it's pure speculations taken out of thin air. Nothing I can base my selection of hardware on, there's always something better in the horizon, but I want something better here and now.

And conroe running cooler just bcs of 65nm, that's garbage talk. Everyone with a little knowledge to semiconductors and electronics knows that the internal design are just as important as the size of technology used for making them.

For the record, I have a 3800+ atm and have had AMD since my k4-450, but one thing's sure, Im migrating to Intel platform once summer holidays are over ... that's also a fact.

 

[RichPLS]

Ikaj, yes they will lower prices, and they are known and significant if on their own, but even at the new prices they are grossly disproportionate when compared to competing Intel chips.
It does mean that they are still worthy to consider, but most buyers willing to fork over hard cash for a gaming or production rig will be hard pressed not to select Intel if price/performance and thermal outputs are considered.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I think he may not be the only one "misinformed". Why would AMD continue to market a slower (How much slower? I'll leave that up to you decide, ) processor at a much higher premium? I'm still very confused why AMD would try to do this. It doesn't seem like a smart move.

So, AMD will just sell at the same, albeit outrageous, prices even after Intel brings a faster processor to the table?

You know good and well AMD will lower prices to match the price/performance of Intel. Intel did with their dual-cores when they saw the speed of the X2's. They saw they had a slower product and realized the only way for people to even think about buying them would be if the prices were lower.

~Ibrahim~

Where did I say that AMD wouldn't lower their prices? They will, but not enough. In order for a new system builder (that is sane) to consider AMD as an option they would have to lower the FX-62 down to the price of $300 for it to compete with it's rival the E6600 (which is Intel's midrange, not top dawg product).

AMD won't keep it's prices the same, but it sure as heck won't sell an FX-62 for $300.

 

[m25]

normal sane socialized people buy whats best for the money.

If those AMD's you speak of actually existed people would buy those. Thats competition. People buy whatever is the better product for the price.

You're hypocrisy is astounding though. You title a thread "all conroe fanboys" in a attempt to bash fanboys but yet here you are being a fanboy.

Children like you really need to consider going outside more. i would recommend basketball if your tall. Maybe try rollerblading. Go outside more you really need the vit D.

SH*T; it's a whole step forward, totally another planet...
At leas this was my first impression after reading the benchmarks.

Yes that's unprecedented performance!However It's easy to be caught by enthusiasm (even for the THG's titles, pretty DRASTIC lately) and forget to do some simple arithmetics... That's how the a new, the most ferocious species of fanboys is born: the Conroe Fanboys!

Making some simple points one can see that:
There's nothing substantially new in this architecture. After some deep thoughts I think <<IT'S ALL ABOUT THE 65nm EFFECT>>. Core2 is substantially a K8, boosted with more logic units; here explained the extra performance (because 65nm allow this @ ~ the same die size) and it runs cooler still because of the 65nm process.

Conclusions: When AMD cores shrink to 65 nm they will:
1.BE able to incorporate more arithmetic & logics & wider busses than they currently do, call it K8 or K8L makes no diference @ that point.
2.Run cooler than Core2 because they almost match them on 90nm.
3.Potentially be cheaper after the price war(intel can't make it last

forever) because they do fine even with 512K L2.

AMD's transition to 65 nm (subsequently all the mentioned points) will happen much earlier than the 2008 or 2010 someone has mentioned. IMO, AMD is just round the corner, so keep your feet on the ground people; it's just a step forward not landing on moon .

I'm not saying "Don't buy Conroe", Just don't put it on the Black & White saying AMD is dead.

 

[derek2006]

Guys just leave m25 alone. He dosent know what he's saying, he's smoking dope and he's in his own little world right now.

 

[HYST3R]

you've got him back peddling TC.

AMD is not dead, why is it thought that one architexture will destroy a company?

im pretty sure our slogan isnt "one architexture to rule them all" or is it 8O

 

[djgandy]

Conclusions: When AMD cores shrink to 65 nm they will:

You got that right. When.
I like AMD processors, but intel have the upperhand for now.
The fact of the matter is, that if you are about to buy a new cpu / pc you want core2duo.

 

[m25]

There's nothing substantially new in this architecture.

Dude, you have issues. Conroe is a totally new architecture. 65nm has little to do with it.

Plues, Intel went with lower clock speeds, so it's not a Netburst :lol: If the architecture was not different, we would see 5GHz+ (at least) CPUs.

Read the whole thing I stated @ the beginning; It's just K8 with larger busses & more units. If this is really new & sensational?!!!...