Anand's Conroe article up and running

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Linky

GOGOGOGOG!

 

[Duvie]

Seems pretty good.....

Gaming looks better but ofcourse AT used high res but turned off all AA and AF...so not comparable to other sites....

I see great ocing but nowhere do they list the temps they got...It maybe th efact they are running the Asus i975x mobo that is widely considered to be off 15-20 degrees....

I also learned something the X6800 is the only cpu with totally unlocked multis...can you say like the FX of AMD???

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Seems pretty good.....

Gaming looks better but ofcourse AT used high res but turned off all AA and AF...so not comparable to other sites....

I see great ocing but nowhere do they list the temps they got...It maybe th efact they are running the Asus i975x mobo that is widely considered to be off 15-20 degrees....

I also learned something the X6800 is the only cpu with totally unlocked multis...can you say like the FX of AMD???

We weren't GPU limited though, thus it's more of a CPU test. If you're GPU limited, it's kinda pointless to see those benches. It's like turning v-sync on..

 

[StarBeamAlpha]

OMGWTFBBQ

"The 2.4GHz E6600 turned out to be quite an overclocker in our tests. Even though it was hard-locked at a 9 multiplier it reached an amazing 4GHz in the overclocking tests. That represents a 67% overclock."

 

[CyborgNinja117]

OMFG!!!!!!!! this is teh pwn!!!!!!!

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Duvie
Seems pretty good.....

Gaming looks better but ofcourse AT used high res but turned off all AA and AF...so not comparable to other sites....

I see great ocing but nowhere do they list the temps they got...It maybe th efact they are running the Asus i975x mobo that is widely considered to be off 15-20 degrees....

I also learned something the X6800 is the only cpu with totally unlocked multis...can you say like the FX of AMD???

We weren't GPU limited though, thus it's more of a CPU test. If you're GPU limited, it's kinda pointless to see those benches. It's like turning v-sync on..

well ofcourse the other sites are using like 4xAA and 8xAF...you dont match their numbers....

You should have ran the 640x480 numbers for cpu test and then ran moderate gaming settings with 1280x1032 with no AA and then 1600x1200 with AA for the heavy gamers...

You would have been gpu limited had you tested it that way...if you dont think so then just look at almost a half dozen of th esites that have done reviews showing this....

 

[Duvie]

So if you did this review...

1)I see you got 2 pages of benches in between the worthless synthetics and tons of gaming....I guess that is a step up

2) where are the temps or talk about heat with the ocing??? I seen some hot temps reported at other sites and want to see if you confirm it...

3) Kudos on being one of the only site showing the E6300

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Duvie
Seems pretty good.....

Gaming looks better but ofcourse AT used high res but turned off all AA and AF...so not comparable to other sites....

I see great ocing but nowhere do they list the temps they got...It maybe th efact they are running the Asus i975x mobo that is widely considered to be off 15-20 degrees....

I also learned something the X6800 is the only cpu with totally unlocked multis...can you say like the FX of AMD???

We weren't GPU limited though, thus it's more of a CPU test. If you're GPU limited, it's kinda pointless to see those benches. It's like turning v-sync on..

well ofcourse the other sites are using like 4xAA and 8xAF...you dont match their numbers....

You should have ran the 640x480 numbers for cpu test and then ran moderate gaming settings with 1280x1032 with no AA and then 1600x1200 with AA for the heavy gamers...

You would have been gpu limited had you tested it that way...if you dont think so then just look at almost a half dozen of th esites that have done reviews showing this....

I agree. I remember when Anand published benches for the original Radeon and they went from 640x480 to 1600x1200 stopping at every intermediate resolution too.

Benches have been kinda sketchy lately, especialyl with things like 7800, 7900, X1800 reviews being skimped on.

That said, I think the Conroe review was definitely well written (GJ Anand!), but we could've had a little more info.

I say they should've pushed it to 20:15 resolution even like they do for other graphics cards reviews. 1280x1024 deserves published results too w/ AA and AF because a LOT of us have 19" LCDs. I'm sure more have 19" than 20" (4:3). Maybe even consider publishing a 16:10 resolution since the 2007FP is so popular.

Anyways, ignore the gaming benchmarks then and go look at the other system benches... It's definitely consistent with teh gaming benches..

Intel's definitely won this round, and I'm frowning at my Opteron 170.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Was someone hungry when they wrote that review, cause they sure did talk alot about the dinner table and how so and so eats etc etc .

 

[Bull Dog]

And so it begins

 

[theteamaqua]

well all i care about now is getting an E6700 or E6600, cuz newegg has X6800 already for only $1359 and tax here in cali is crazy ...

 

[MBrown]

E6600 at 4Ghz on air?!?!?!?1 That is a definate buy. Great article.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I believe the 6600 is a sweet spot. It's like in the single core era....

AMD 3000+, 3200+, 3500+.. then you jumped to ~$300 for the 3700+ which gave you that doubled cache.

Same with when dual cores came out, you made that jump to $300 for the X2 3800+.

Plus it OCs like insane. I'm definitely getting a 6600 =]

 

[AnandThenMan]

So.........AMD we await your response

 

[theteamaqua]

but they didnt run any test for E6600 at 4GHz.. i wonder why that is . screenshot OC ....

i have no doubt E6600 can do around 3.8 , 3.9GHz dual prime stable on tower 120 ... and 4.05Ghz for pi 1 M

also theres a typo:

The 2.4GHz E6600, which outperformed the FX-62 in most benchmarks at stock speed costs $223

E6600 is around $320 ... thats E6400

 

[DaveSimmons]

That's 2 articles (AT, HardOCP) saying power consumption of Core 2 under load power is only a little below X2's, so it looks like TechReport's numbers are the wrong ones.

Still, much faster while using 6-10 watts less puts them ahead in every area including power consumption.

The 35 watt AMD X2 3800+ also looks like a nice part for mini machines, since all 3 reviews show it using at least 40 watts less under load. That is if they every actually ship any to more than review sites.

 

[theteamaqua]

oh yeah words on the street is that AMD's 4x4 is not going so well. hicookie in xs said that early benchies r not looking well, but im pretty sure they'll find a way around it


if u have air cooling get E6700, E6600 .. X6800 is simply too hot, at stock its power cunsumption is like 90w compare to E6700's 65w. its good for oc b/c when using ln2, phase (whch i dont rust, air never fails, never make any mistake and its there forever) it has unlucked multi and that really helps to get to say 5.2GHz by coolaler 9.7 sec pi 1m

 

[bobsmith1492]

So, these are officially the best desktop processors available, no caveats except they aren't available yet.
I think I'll get a 6600 for my next desktop.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
That's 2 articles (AT, HardOCP) saying power consumption of Core 2 under load power is only a little below X2's, so it looks like TechReport's numbers are the wrong ones.

Still, much faster while using 6-10 watts less puts them ahead in every area including power consumption.

The 35 watt AMD X2 3800+ also looks like a nice part for mini machines, since all 3 reviews show it using at least 40 watts less under load. That is if they every actually ship any to more than review sites.

No TechReports are correct, if you read the article you would have noticed that Anandtech uses ATI RD580 chipset which is more efficient in the power department then the nForce 590 SLI that Techreport uses.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
oh yeah words on the street is that AMD's 4x4 is not going so well. hicookie in xs said that early benchies r not looking well, but im pretty sure they'll find a way around it


if u have air cooling get E6700, E6600 .. X6800 is simply too hot, at stock its power cunsumption is like 90w compare to E6700's 65w. its good for oc b/c when using ln2, phase (whch i dont rust, air never fails, never make any mistake and its there forever) it has unlucked multi and that really helps to get to say 5.2GHz by coolaler 9.7 sec pi 1m

The TDP for the X6800 is 75W, not 90W... as well current 975X motherboard seem to report Core 2 temperatures completely wrong.

 

[Conky]

Now that is a fine review! :thumbsup:

Anand shows us again he knows his stuff and knows what we want. :beer:

 

[pacho108]

the board used for the intel test system, is it compatible with both crossfire and sli?

im asking because according to compgeek's benches he used that board with 2x7900gt's

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: pacho108
the board used for the intel test system, is it compatible with both crossfire and sli?

im asking because according to compgeek's benches he used that board with 2x7900gt's

Crossfire yes, 975X supports it natively, SLI no official support, maybe if you can get unofficial SLI drivers somewhere.

 

[theteamaqua]

ok 75w thats still much higher than E6700's 65w, i was too lazy to look bu t i knew it was higher. anyway its not good for air cooling, in xs the highest i have seen is 4Ghz and thats only barely .. coolaler did 4.109GHz with E6700 on MSI 975 with tower 120 ...

with air cool, E6700 > X6800. from what i have seen. if this is wrong show me some proof. as i rlealy dont see any reason to get X6800. i think im going with E6700 might be E6600 though

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
That's 2 articles (AT, HardOCP) saying power consumption of Core 2 under load power is only a little below X2's, so it looks like TechReport's numbers are the wrong ones.

No TechReports are correct, if you read the article you would have noticed that Anandtech uses ATI RD580 chipset which is more efficient in the power department then the nForce 590 SLI that Techreport uses.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up, I skimmed past the motherboard details to get to the charts