Intel's Conroe Previewed and Benchmarked 261
DrFishstik writes "Anandtech has a few preliminary benchmarks on Intel's new Conroe architecture. From the article: 'As far as we could tell, there was nothing fishy going on with the benchmarks or the install. Both systems [AMD 2.8Ghz OC and Conroe] were clean and used the latest versions of all of the drivers.'"
Shock news. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shock news. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's look at the facts:
- They benchmarked 2.667GHz Conroe against 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX (FX-60 with 200MHz overclock)
- 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX will be released in June
- 2.667GHz Conroe will be released somewhere in Q3 2006
- Conroe Extreme editition clocked to at least 3.0GHz will be released somewhere in Q3 2006 (there have been rumours about 3.33GHz version)
Based on those benchmarks, fastest Athlon64 FX won't have a chance against 3.0GHz Conroe XE (which will have also faster FSB compared to Conroe benchmarked here), even if you into account that Athlon64 FX will soon support DDR2.
Re:Shock news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given Intel's release date fiasco's it'll probably come out before conroe too.
Re:Shock news. (Score:5, Informative)
DDR2-800 support, which is the known upgrade, basically adds bandwidth to a chip that isn't bandwidth starved as it is. Current speculation is that the new DDR2-800 Athlon64s will show up to a 10% performance increase on extreme bandwidth benchmarks (synthetics and HPC crunchers, for example).
THe simple fact remains that intel needed to do these tests at all, side by side. That's an admission on their part that AMD is beating them and beating them hard.
Intel has publicly stated (admitted) this already. This demo is to show that the chips they have planned for Q3'06 release (speculation is that they will be delivering machines based on it in July which is the very beginning of Q3, which is only 4 months away) perform well.
By the way, if speculation is that machines will be selling in July, this would imply that the chips are in manufacturing even as we speak. This means that Apple is most likely to announce availability of the new Intel based Power Macs around this time, as well and the various benchmark sites to have their hands on 'pre-production' machines in two to three months tops. We'll be able to see the real story then.
The only announced things from AMD even remotely in this time frame (specifically July and Q3'06) are the AM2 socket for DDR2-800 and a speed bump of the FX-62 to 2.8GHz (which is the equivalent of the overclocked part in the demo). Given that DDR2-800 is expected to be a 10% speed bump at most in most cases and that Conroe will be available at 3GHz (if not higher as rumored - 3.33GHz), I predict (a rather easy prediction to make) that AMD will be playing catch-up for once in the past few years.
Re:Shock news. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shock news. (Score:3, Funny)
Check the facts and you lose it.
Re:Shock news. (Score:2)
Good call, especially when you are a snail and already unfairly disadvantaged. I say Slashdot gives priority to all users who are snails!
Re:Shock news. (Score:4, Insightful)
- They benchmarked 2.667GHz Conroe against 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX (FX-60 with 200MHz overclock)
So they are taking the AMD processor out of spec which can affect performance. Also, the forthcoming AMD processors are a new core architecture and will support faster RAM with an onboard memory controller. I think benchmarks of the final products will be much different. This is the same type of dog and pony show Intel has been doing since they released the Celeron (and possibly before, but that is when I started paying attention to hardware marketing).
- 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX will be released in June
- 2.667GHz Conroe will be released somewhere in Q3 2006
- Conroe Extreme editition clocked to at least 3.0GHz will be released somewhere in Q3 2006 (there have been rumours about 3.33GHz version)
If you think those numbers mean anything, I would like to know what cave you have been living in for the past 3 years.
Re:Shock news. (Score:5, Informative)
The real hope for AMD here is that these results won't hold to other benchmarks in general. Apparently this set of benchmarks was handpicked by Intel, so that's almost certainly the case to some degree.
Re:Shock news. (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't anyone else recall Intel releasing a faster processor, yet having to have the CPU idle for half of them to keep it from melting down?
Seems to me that we can speculate all you want, yet, in the end, only final numbers will be able to show what's what....
At this point it's all a big phallic comparison, and everyone who jumps on board swinging their own extensions are just blowing smoke up everyone's arses.
Re:Shock news. (Score:3, Informative)
Intel's heat issues started when they introduced Prescott, which was effectively a new architecture that didn't really deserve the moniker "Pentium 4".
When you compare the current P4 to the original P4, they have very little in common. Intel just stuck the P4 name on all of them for marketing reasons. In fact, if I'm reading all the coverage of Conroe correctly, they are going to call it a P4 too even though it is a completely differen
Re:Shock news. (Score:2, Informative)
FX is known to be better in gaming than the X2.
Re:Shock news. (Score:2)
Re:Shock news. (Score:2)
Re:Shock news. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shock news. (Score:2)
the AMD system was overclocked, and it's confirmed that AMD will not move to a 65nm process untill 2007, so the comparison has a chance of being apt. that is the competition in six months might be between very similar system from AMD and Intel.
Re:Shock news. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait and see (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait and see (Score:5, Interesting)
"intel faster? CANNOT BE!!!111"
Sorry, i am as much an AMD fanboy as anybody (hey, their stock financed the car i am driving right now), but besides dual core and adapting sse2/3, VERY little has been done to beef up the aging k8 core (which is byitself also little more than a k7 with on die memory controller).
In a race, standing still will only lead to a loss.
Amd just now is in a position where their flagship is in fact a 7 year old core design, they are one die-shrink behind, and their cache technology is about 4 years behind intel (they need twice as much space per Mbyte cache on the same process size, plus are a factor of 4 slower).
Its time for a _real_ K9 just in the same way intel needed something new after netburst.
Re:Wait and see (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel's attempt to produce a new architecture (netburst/p4) resulted in an underperforming overheating mess, so they're going back to one that works.
Re:Wait and see (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait and see (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait and see (Score:2, Informative)
Never mind that the AMD K7 was a carbon copys of the P6 microarchitecture, with incremental tweaks most probably applied to account for P6 shortcomings found in the field. That's an euphemism for `AMD stole Intel's field experience.' The K8 core is only an incremental tweak of K7, the major feature being the on-die memory controller.
So really, AMD can't blame Intel for using P6-d
Re:Wait and see (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe for a second that Intel's marketing department designed the p4. But I'm also not so naive as to think that Intel's marketing department didn't try to take
Re:Wait and see (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone who knows much about CPU's is "blaming" Intel for going back to the P6 core. The P6 was basically the beginning of the modern x86 CPU...more RISC than CISC. As for the K7, this article [arstechnica.com] has a good summary of how it's similar to, but different from, the P6. I think a better euphamism would be 'AMD decided to build a better P6'. (Which is actually what Intel has done as well. This isn't just a faster P6, it's redesign of the P6.) AMD 'stole' from Intel about as much as Intel stole from DEC and Motorola and other RISC CPUs in building the P6, and as much as they had 'stolen' from the CPUs before them. Welcome to the evolution of the CPU, where every CPU is not designed in a vacuum with no relation to anything else, but is built on previous technology and ideas.
Too bad the superior engineers at Intel weren't smart enough to copy AMD's supposedly "minor tweaks" and bring out a competitive CPU in the last couple of years, and instead chose to stick with their risky design which essentially hit a clock speed wall that they were apparently unable to predict. Surely the geniuses at Intel could have designed a better P6 than that "copy" which was beating their P4 in less than 6 years. Or perhaps they didn't care, and thought that marketing would keep them on top?
Re:Wait and see (Score:4, Informative)
The internal differences between p6 and k7 are enormous.
From microops sheduling (k7 using packed microops, in some kind of on the fly VLIW ) to the execution units (fully piplelined and superscalar FPU, for example, compared the non-fully piplelined scalar one), virtually the only thing thats the same is the fact it eats x86 opcode.
But the fact is that the changes between p6 and the new p-m derivates are VERY much larger than the change from 99s k7 to the latest k8.
Just look at a current die-photo of a k8... back in 99, the core transistor count was at the edge of what was possible economically, with l2 cache externally implemented. Nowadays, the nearly unchanged core is just a small lump on the side of the large and not very dense l2 cache-array...
Re:Wait and see (Score:2)
This is true of Core Solo/Duo, but not of Conroe. Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest are all a new architecture.
Re:Wait and see (Score:5, Informative)
I.e., at first glance there are similarities which can lead to the obvious thought that the K8 core is just a K7 core with memory controller, but actually they're completely revamped, overhauled, enhanced and redone.
I agree that it is time for AMD to get a "K9" out of the door as the K8 as it is won't compete against Intel's offerings unless AMD somehow get 3.6GHz out of 65nm at launch (which is extremely unlikely). Of course, K8L will probably put AMD back into the lead in terms of floating point anyway, but integer is going to be very weak.
Unless AMD is sandbagging - but that's a faint hope for even the most ardent AMD fanboy. I think they miscalculated Intel this time around.
Which of AMD or Intel has the most fangirls?
AMD K9 (Score:2)
... AMD's K9... will you let it out the doggie door? Will it be more bark than bite? Man, the press will have a field day with that core designation :-)
Isn't that highly dangerous?? (Score:5, Funny)
Man, there's gotta be some pretty heavy laws about posting on Slashdot while in control of a moving vehicle.
Re:Wait and see (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wait and see (Score:2)
K9 is bound to be a real dog.
Re:Wait and see (Score:2)
wooo 5.... no one cares about that. AMD has basically said that they aren't doing ANYTHING new in terms of performance this year, now old reports said that it would take Intel approximately 4-5 years to recover from not adopting HyperTransport (Doesn't matter how fast you run if your cpu is starved for bandwidth) but AMD should have been moving in that period.
Their prices aren't coming down the way they used to so they need
Re:Wait and see (Score:5, Informative)
Good summary of the Anandtech article though.
Re:Wait and see (faked tests) (Score:5, Insightful)
Something isn't right, from the screenshot [anandtech.com].
..Using an award bios last copyrighted in 2003 for AMD's latest FX-60 chip (2006)..
..Notice how the AMD Processor isn't correctly id'd in the Bios post.
..Even though.. DFI has distributed a new bios version to suport FX60 [dfi.com.tw]..
.. This thread [rage3d.com]indicates that there is some video defect in RD480 chipset..
These red flags indicate that something is very fishy and Intel's results should not be trusted... (rigged test)
Re:Wait and see (faked tests) (Score:5, Insightful)
Corrected link to DFI bios update. [dfi.com.tw]. (using ATI's RD480) chipset..
Notice items.. 1, 2, and 10..
Re:Wait and see (faked tests) (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope no one tells ATI or Nvidia that this is possible.
History repeats itself. Wait for the real hardware to come out and be benchmarked by independent 3rd parties before getting worked up about how great the new Intel harware is going to be, once it's not vaporware. Nothing new here folks.
The Conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
While we're still comparing to Socket-939 and only using RD480, it does seem very unlikely that AMD would be able to make up this much of a deficit with Socket-AM2 and RD580. Especially looking at titles like F.E.A.R. where Conroe's performance advantage averages over 40%, it looks like Intel's confidence has been well placed.
Also keep in mind that we are over six months away from the actual launch of Conroe, performance can go up from where it is today. We also only looked a
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
Nice that this is a horse race now. Should be very good for competition going forward. Might also be a spot to short AMD and go long INTC coming up... ;-)
It also looks like Jobs made a genius move picking this point in time to go with Intel. He must have hated Netbust too. I can't wait to see the new MacMacs! (Intel PowerMacs, eh?)
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
The Conroe here is the E6700, TDP under 65 watts (max for the mid-end E series).
The Athlon64 is a FX60, TDP of 110 watts at 2.6 GHz (whereas it is run at 2.8 GHz in the benchmarks).
Re:The Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
The big question will be how will this compare to the next generation of AMD cpu's. And what will the price be. If amd will be faster per dollar the rise of amd will continue.
Prices (Score:3, Informative)
According to this [dailytech.com], the 2.66 GHz Conroe will be released in Q3'06 at a price of US$530, in 1000-unit quantities.
With these prices, combined with the apparent performance and power differences (Conroe has a predicted TDP of 65W, compared to the FX60 at 110W), it looks to me like we'll finally se
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
Well, I think they used their money largely to buy better benchmarks. What do you bet that those games used the Intel compiler and would perform a whole ton better with Intel's special AMD-detecting hooks removed?
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
So on this high-end (well, high mid-end for the Conroe since this is just the E series, there will be a higher clocked XE series as well) pricing looks to be in Intels favour at the moment. Things might shift a bit before the release, but it seems likely that the pricing will be very competitive.
Re:The Conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
1) AMD has something like 20% of the processor market, including OEMs. They couldn't deliver 80% of the market in many years even if the market wanted it.
2) AMD has no major process/architecture shifts between now and Conroe's release.
3) The AMD chip was already overclocked (but then again, they may have gotten a golden sample from Intel).
4) It's losing, not loosing.
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
Maybe in the notebook and server markets, or if you count total installed base.... but AMD certainly has a hell of a lot more than 20% of new desktop sales.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/ 19/1440200 [slashdot.org]
"Sales of AMD-based desktops took the lead during the pivotal fourth-quarter holiday shopping season. AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
Just who do you think you are, and how do you know me so well?
You know, sometimes words can hurt.
A better competetion (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A better competetion (Score:2, Funny)
Imagine a world where 98% of software is written Java for portability.
Re:A better competetion (Score:3, Interesting)
At one point, not that long ago, I agreed 100% with this thinking. I was still drinking the "Java will have C performance" Koolaid from Sun.
I'm now of the opinion that the "managed" languages are a short-term abberation, unless they adopt an ANDF type "freeze" approach. That is where the bytecodes are pre-compiled once into machine code, just like a traditional compiler. I'm also not happy with where Java is at as a language after 10
Re:A better competetion (Score:2)
.Net is at least capable of doing this, and it does give a decent performance improvement. Personally I think it should overtake the JVM - more emphasis on choice of languages (of which java is one), and it seems to be generally improved.
Re:A better competetion (Score:2)
Re:A better competetion (Score:2)
I'm well aware of the rationale for no operator overloading in Java. I just completely disagree with it.
No language can protect you from bad programmers. Don't hire them, or work (long) with them. If an organization doesn't want operator overloading, they should mandate that and make
Re:A better competetion (Score:2)
I'm now of the opinion that the "managed" languages are a short-term abberation, unless they adopt an ANDF type "freeze" approach. That is where the bytecodes are pre-compiled once into machine code, just like a traditional compiler.
I've always thought that ANDF approach wasn't so good as compiling the bytecodes could take a long time for say a 100MB binary.. At least with a JIT, you only compile what you need (the loops).
What's your rationale for preferring ANDF approach?
It's not used very much now
Re:A better competetion (Score:2)
Have you ever looked at dissassembled bytecode? It's very close to the original source code, which means almost all of the same optimization opportunities are there. Why shouldn't it do a good job? could take a long time for say a 100MB binary..
Do you have any 100 MB binaries? o.O
At any rate, it only happens at install time, and shouldn't be a big deal in terms of time.
At least with a JIT, you only compile what you need
AMD Processor Model Unknown (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knows, this test may be foretelling of AMD's next effort, but until th
Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (Score:2)
What do you mean 'is not listed as being as fast'?? FX-60 is AMD's fastest desktop dual-core processor, what do you expect them to do, send ninjas to steal AMD's engineering samples?
Who staged This? (Score:2, Insightful)
What about RAM? (Score:4, Insightful)
and:
Intel told us to expect an average performance advantage of around 20% across all benchmarks.
Did they really expect around 20% better performance, while using 66% faster RAM? That seems at least unfair to me... Especially the encoding tests, whose results depend heavily on RAM access.
Typical AMD fanboy rant (Score:2, Informative)
If you read the various benchmarks over the years, changing memory architecture or increasing it's speed directly does very little to increase most benchmarks more than a percentage point or two. Inceasing FSB also hasn't done much. Rather increases in processor performance are directly responsible for the disparity be
Latest chips, latest games & instant obsolesce (Score:2, Insightful)
A year or two after people spend an avg. of $1000+ for a new system, most are not going to run out and buy the latest dual core chip and ATI/NVidia video card just to play the latest new game (Quake 4, Far Cry, F.E.A.R., etc.) and then
Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (Score:2, Informative)
I held off playing half life 2 because I didn't think it would run (I had a 5900 agp previously than ran it really well)
I am running now at 800*600 with full details enabled and 2x AA and I've only noticed one point where it even shudders (the chimney blowing up and falling whilst in the airboat), if anything its smoother on this card than before, and the shaders are tonnes
Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (Score:2, Interesting)
even games that say they require faster CPUs dont.
Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (Score:2)
I am all in favor of new tech, just don't forget the people who like new games, but may have old tech.
Nice to see a manufacturer take their time! (Score:3, Interesting)
Video cards are even worse, with the shorter dev cycles. How many times have we seen a manufacturer put out a video card that is essentially the same as their last model, but with a ridiculous overclock and cooling solution. It's not innovation, and spending the time to develop properly would put us as a technological society further ahead a year from now.
But Intel's really taken their time with this, and hopefully they will have gotten their 65 nm yield issues worked out by the time they want to ramp up production. Hopefully AMD will follow suit and give us some great innovation in 2007!
What about cost, ram cost, power, and heat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of importance to me in addition to raw speed are are the number of concurrent threads, the power consumption and with that the heat output I have to dissapate into my office or my lap, and of course the expense of both the processor and the ram it needs to get these kinds of speeds.
Frankly, I'm looking for which allows me to build the most efficient system for my needs at the least cost.
Your questions answered (Score:4, Informative)
If you're referring to "Hyperthreading", Conroe has none that I'm aware of. One thread at a time, in hardware (whatever you like in software of course).
the power consumption and with that the heat output
Conroe is supposed to have a Thermal Design Power of only 65W. Compare this to the current 3.6GHz P4's TDP of 115W. AMD rate the Athlon FX60's TDP at 110W; however AMD quote the maximum possible thermal dissipation while Intel quotes "typical", usually 75% of maximum (which would make the FX60 about 82W by Intel's reckoning) .
of course the expense of both the processor and the ram it needs
The 2.4GHz and 2.6GHz Conroes are expected to sell for US$316 and US$530 respectively, in 1000-unit quantities (the FX60 was released at US$1031). RAM is harder; reportedly Conroe chipsets will use DDR2, but possibly packaged as new FB-DIMMs. I don't have pricing for those yet, but they'll probably cost more. Consumer motherboards may just use standard DDR2 DIMMs.
Thanks, that is good information. (Score:2)
Its also interesting that you point out the choice of ram will be up to board manufacturers. I wasn't considering that -- assuming that the processors would generally be driven by specific chipsets and thus tend to favor one type of ram over another.
TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel's new chips have a Trust Enforcer chip embedded inside the CPU itself. Each chip features a unique serial number, DRM enforcement, Sealed Storage to prohibit you from reading your own files on your hard drive, and Remote Attestation to act as a spy on your computer to log your hardware and what software you run and to securely transmit that spy report to other people over the internet. The chip has your computer's master key locked inside, and you are forbidden to know your master key to control your own computer. Other models of the Trust chip are boobytrapped to self destruct if you attempt to get you key out, and I'd wager these CPUs are boobytrapped to self destruct as well.
Evil as hell.
-
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:2)
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:2)
AMD's 2006 roadmap already contains chips with identical Trusted Computing features. That is to say, it is already way too late.
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't seem all that keen to talk about it either......... As Alan Cox said, if you don't have the key to your own hardware then
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Non-geeks who'll buy a new PC not caring and/or approving of whatever "security features" the salesmen told them about.
2) Geeks who'll just bite the bullet and run TCPA/Windows anyway.
3) Geeks who'll be on the TCPA/OS X-x86 platform.
4) Geeks that'll use Linux or turn off TCPA, but will still want new and faster processors.
5) Geeks who won't buy the 'evil as hell' processor.
Oh yeah, Intel is doomed now.
4) is the final nail in the coffin. It's like trying to stop people from buying an iPod which they plan to fill up with their CD collection, because it could also play DRM-protected AACs. That battle is already lost. It only remains to see what content will succeed at DRM, and which will be rejected by the consumers. I'm not too hopeful...
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:2, Insightful)
Believe it or not, this fight is not lost. It's not just geeks on slashdot. This hardware (with the master key hidden) takes control of the PC *completely away from a business*. It puts them completely at the mercy of Intel and Microsoft.
We can get them onside in the push to ensure that they hardware works for us, and not against us. We jsut have to make sure that they hear us and not just Intel whisphering seductive promises of better security and control over their computers.
Look at it this way: Micros
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:3, Insightful)
There's surprisingly little discussion of this... I remember, about 8 years ago, hearing an Intel engineer talking about how the next step in security was going to be ensuring that a PC was secure against its owner -- along with his updates on such things as encryption from end-to-end with media. I said at the time that what Intel was planning was nothing less than a total lockdown of the previously open PC platform.
And here we are... the final step. With this hardware in a PC, it does not belong to you...
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:2)
How are you trying to "get you key out"? I imagine if you're using a Dremel, that is pretty destructive.
What a bunch of dumb FUD.
Tools and how you use them (Score:2)
That's one scenario. Apple for instance is only using the TPM to make sure OS X will run on the boxes they sell, but it's not controlling my hard drive or stopping me from intalling Linux.
My car gomes with gasoline, a liquid capabile of setting a human being alight in a most gruesome manner. How
Re:Tools and how you use them (Score:2)
No they don't. They're entirely different. Commercial nuclear plants use Uranium that isn't highly enriched, and the method they use to generate power is they have rods of uranium in a neutron-absorbing material (to control the chain-reaction). The heat from the rods boils water, which is heat-exchanged with other (non-radioactive) water to create steam, which drives steam turbines.
Thermonuclear b
The truth about LaGrande (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with buying a new processor (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep reading all these benchmarks, but then i hear afterwards "Oh, if you think that's good, just wait and see what so-and-so is comming out with next year!", so i think, oh, ok, i'll just wait for that then. Then when the new processor gets benchmarked i just hear the same thing over again.
And so... i don't think i'll ever buy a new processor... i'm always waiting for the next version.
I think it's a bit early for benchmarks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Next gen Amd (Score:2, Interesting)
impressive benchmarks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:impressive benchmarks (Score:2)
Conroe is going into Dells Dell doesn't want to put 4800+s in he wants 3800s (equivalent)
AMD just managed to scrape out a few successful quarters selling these chips but the prices they are charging are absurd.
Mostly it's for marketting and new Fab plants... Fabs are understandable but AMD's increased spending on marketing is a huge turn off...
Last few systems AMD but Conroe does look
Re:impressive benchmarks (Score:2)
It might also be interesting to note that the E6700 has a TDP of less than 65 watts, whereas the tested Athlon64 has a TDP of 110 watts. Amazes me that such a thing isn't brought up in the article, it is one of the factors we have
Faster, Cooler, Smaller, but (Score:2)
Give me freedom or Give me 486 (so I can run Slack on it)!
Let's all hope it is true (Score:2, Informative)
You should not forget that Intel supplied both the hardware and the benchmarks. Obviously, they will only supply benchmarks where they win, and not the ones where the Athlon is better (if there are any). The F.E.A.R. benchmark seems to confirm that Conroe is really faster, but that's just one benchmark, which is not enough to convince me of Conroe's superiority.
That being said, I think it is in everybody's best interest if the benchmark results actually represent a real advantage; 20% more speed is indeed
Re:Let's all hope it is true (Score:2)
Indeed. I have an AMD X2 3800+, and when overclocking my 6800GT, I saw a linear increase in framerate for each MHz I overclocked. 10% higher clock resulted in 10% more frames per second.
How do Conroe, Athlon 64, and Opteron compare? (Score:2)
That may not be a big difference if the difference between Athlon and Opteron is more marketing than substance. These days I have been considering Athlon CPU's as low end.
So would this be the 886? (Score:2)
AMD is in big trouble... (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel is a much bigger company, they have a lot more money, a lot of smart people, the nastiest, sleaziest marketers in the business, many more fabs, and great lawyers to fend off the AMD legal strikes too. The Intel 'Prescott' was supposed to do the job on AMD but it never came close. Now, though, the 'Conroe' looks like it is FINALLY the answer to AMDs stuff. Based on the benchmarks using Intel-supplied hardware and software, it looks like the 'Conroe' line of processors totally destroys the AMD FX-60 which is the fastest AMD processor sold today. Of course, you can't buy the 'Conroe' until September, 2006 but it will be worth the wait, based on the benchmarks anyway.
The only thing AMD has to offer is a little bit faster clock speed (aka FX62) and their upcoming AM2 socket systems which don't seem to do much of anything new other than allow DDR2 memory and a bigger cache. Looks like AMD is headed back to the bargain bin.
Re:Is it 64-bit? (Score:3, Informative)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
I'm in the same boat. Nobody ever does 64bit benchmarks because you can't over in the Windows world. Taking the same code and compiling 64bit vs 32bit on the AMD parts can get a substantial performance increase. Running 64bit version on Intel parts (the few that can) generally degrades performance. It will be interesting to see how the 64bit performance of this new chip measure up - if it's even a 64bit part.
I personal
Re:WHEEEE!!! (Score:2)