AT Benches Core 2 X6800 (2.93 Ghz Conroe) vs FX-62

[MDme]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/

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

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2771

 

[Furen]

Game results are less impressive than the IDF tests (impressive nonetheless) since it seems that the systems are bottlenecked by the video cards quite a bit (at lower resolutions Conroe does seem to be significantly better). Very nice transcoding results, though.

 

[stevty2889]

Too bad they don't actualy have a conroe on hand, they are using the same data from the Intel demonstration, and they are running the AMD setup with SLI, so they aren't using the same graphics cards. Hardly a good comparison gaming wise. Conroe is still looking great, but it would be nice to see those types of benchmarks done by someone that actualy set up their own Conroe system.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Too bad they don't actualy have a conroe on hand, they are using the same data from the Intel demonstration, and they are running the AMD setup with SLI, so they aren't using the same graphics cards. Hardly a good comparison gaming wise. Conroe is still looking great, but it would be nice to see those types of benchmarks done by someone that actualy set up their own Conroe system.

The article says
"The test systems used an ATI-based graphics card built around the X1900XTX chipset."

"an" and "card" is singular. It never says they used SLI. The motherboard was SLI, but they only used one ATI card.


"Again, we must emphasize that our testing situation was not optimal, because the Intel system had been preconfigured and didn't represent the final version. Even so, we were able to determine that not even AMD's top-of-the-line Athlon FX-62 CPU running at 3.0 GHz could clearly best the pre-release model of the Core 2 Duo (2.66 GHz Conroe) processor we tested. This comparison didn't even use the top-of-the-line Conroe processor, which Intel plans to introduce soon."

 

[compgeek89]

Well, the conroe only used ddr2-667.. and this is really inconclusive since these guys never touched the conroe rig themselves.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Too bad they don't actualy have a conroe on hand, they are using the same data from the Intel demonstration, and they are running the AMD setup with SLI, so they aren't using the same graphics cards. Hardly a good comparison gaming wise. Conroe is still looking great, but it would be nice to see those types of benchmarks done by someone that actualy set up their own Conroe system.

The article says
"The test systems used an ATI-based graphics card built around the X1900XTX chipset."

"an" and "card" is singular. It never says they used SLI. The motherboard was SLI, but they only used one ATI card.


"Again, we must emphasize that our testing situation was not optimal, because the Intel system had been preconfigured and didn't represent the final version. Even so, we were able to determine that not even AMD's top-of-the-line Athlon FX-62 CPU running at 3.0 GHz could clearly best the pre-release model of the Core 2 Duo (2.66 GHz Conroe) processor we tested. This comparison didn't even use the top-of-the-line Conroe processor, which Intel plans to introduce soon."

Oops, missed that part.

 

[the cobbler]

Originally posted by: Furen
Game results are less impressive than the IDF tests (impressive nonetheless) since it seems that the systems are bottlenecked by the video cards quite a bit (at lower resolutions Conroe does seem to be significantly better). Very nice transcoding results, though.

kind of what I've been expecting. bottlenecked by GPU anyway, so AMD bandwidth might still keep it on top. who'd have thunk?

yeah I'll take these with a grain of salt, thanks for the link though

 

[nyker96]

looks like Conroe of same clock is about 15-25% faster than a AMD64 core. Pretty impressive, I wonder if the lowest clocked conroe will be so OCable as to make it a bit hit with OC community. If it turns out to be so, then I see a conroe in my near future. Love the competition. AMD time to do some research and catch up technologically!

 

[ahock]

early engineering samples shows that conroe is an overclock monster CPU from 3rd party websites. I think (just my opinion) that they will be that is why Intel will be offering lower cache compared to their high end mainstream parts. With that there will still be performance difference.

Based from THG early benchmarks, well somehow pretty impressive considering that this is not their Extreme part. It would be nice to see core2 duo extreme as well as an overclocked version.

 

[MDme]

we should reserve judgement on OC'ability once the retail samples are out. ES chips may have been cherry picked since intel is clearly targetting enthusiasts with their actions lately. It would be really awesome though to see those OCs.

 

[Fallengod]

I dunno, but I am pretty sure I will be picking a conroe up if benchmarks hold true. I cant wait to see real comparison benchmarks done.

 

[Absolute0]

3.5-4 Ghz on air is what it seems, so long as you have a high enough multi so that the FSB can get high enough. The cheapest conroes will top out around 3-3.2 Ghz due to FSB constraints.

Intels don't seem to correlate so strongly based on week/stepping, seems the higher ones just clock better. E6600 looks to be the mainstream choice for overclockers, looking into a 6700 for myself because the 10x multiplier makes 4+ Ghz possible.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Absolute0
3.5-4 Ghz on air is what it seems, so long as you have a high enough multi so that the FSB can get high enough. The cheapest conroes will top out around 3-3.2 Ghz due to FSB constraints.

Intels don't seem to correlate so strongly based on week/stepping, seems the higher ones just clock better. E6600 looks to be the mainstream choice for overclockers, looking into a 6700 for myself because the 10x multiplier makes 4+ Ghz possible.

That is my same line of thinking....

 

[MDme]

by FSB you mean the CPU fsb and not memory speed right? since memory could run asynchronously with the FSB. If yes, then the OC'ability of the conroes will most likely be limited by how fast the FSB could go...just as you guys say.

 

[fatty4ksu]

Originally posted by: MDme
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/

Looks great for INTEL

 

[SunnyD]

IF they can finally beat AMD on price, Intel has a shot. Looks like they did their homework this time around, and built a competitive product. +/- 10% with the current top of the line FX-series CPU, it's a good bet. However, it just means AMD will be working harder shortly, and we should see that gap narrow once again.

 

[AngleDust]

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

 

[Vegitto]

Without even reading the article, I'm calling it biased. It's THG. It's always been biased, is biased and will always be biased. I don't give a crap about who they call the winner this time, I'm not buying it. I wanna see some benchmarks from respected sites.

 

[MDme]

Hmmm the FS article seems to say that conroe isn't as fast as it seems. (on Q4 at least). Sandra benchies don't mean anything anyway.

 

[kknd1967]

Now FX62 has to fight with 6600 and is still behind

Originally posted by: MDme
Hmmm the FS article seems to say that conroe isn't as fast as it seems. (on Q4 at least). Sandra benchies don't mean anything anyway.

 

[Ranulf]

Yeah, I wasn't impressed by their game benchmarks on either article.

 

[Kalessian]

FS should have used Fear and Quake3 for the benchmarks. Not Q4.

 

[mamisano]

These are all Intel supplied systems that are being tested here, with OSes, etc installed by Intel.

I will wait until I see an IN-HOUSE comparrison from a reputible site before I pass judgement.

Intel marketing at work once again...

 

[MDme]

agreed. but the point is there seems to be quite a delta between the benches. though it does seem clear that intel's core architecture will win the performance crown this round as well as IPC from the A64.

 

[classy]

There are several things to take from this. One Conroe will be faster, but it won't be as overwhelming as people thought. Price will be a big factor and demand will ultimately determine how much Conroe will cost the end user. But I don't think the crown will last very long. 65mm AMD will be here rather soon and more than likely will have some improvements besides clock speed. And looking at the quick dirty oc numbers from fs 2.9-3g seems to be where most Conroe's will probably land. I expect AMD with 65 to go about 3.4-3.5, then K8L will arrive. The 4x4 AMD is somewhat of joke. I think the original marks of Conroe were a bit over "optimistic".