Conroe & AM2...disappointed by both...

[JPH1121]

I'm currently an AMD user...I have a 3700+ oc'd to 2.54 (normally run it at 2.7, but it's too hot for summer :/) with an OC'd 7900gt.

Here's my thoughts...

AMD had a kick ass processor back with the K8 and it's still great.
Conroe is a good chip.

Here's the thing though...

Intel, with three frickin years could only come up with a (liberally) 30% performance boost?

and just as bad...AMD, with those same 3 years, couldn't come up with something to even compare with that 30% performance boost?

Over the past 3 years there has been a clockspeed hike of what...1.2 ghz on AMD's side?

Relative to the performance available today...yes, Conroe is a great chip and there really is no denying that...

But both of the camps have been putting out crap relative to where they both should be after being granted a full 3 years to work on new tech...

Am I alone here?

 

[Stoneburner]

what are you talking about! Intel's increased its performance per watt by about 5000 percent. And AMD has ddr2! DDR2! stop buying into facts so much.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: JPH1121
But both of the camps have been putting out crap relative to where they both should be after being granted a full 3 years to work on new tech...

Maybe you should enlighten everyone on the direction CPU development should have gone in the past years instead of the current "crap".

 

[Polish3d]

No I kind of agree. I mean, dual core could be considered a "doubling" of CPU speed and I g uess that's how its going to go in part in the future here.

The oveclockability of Conroe is where the temptation lies for me

 

[harpoon84]

What are you talking about man?

Conroe is leaps and bounds better than A64. Guess how much A64 beat Northwoods by when they first came out? By around 10% at most. Was that 'disappointing' as well? Most people didn't think so, because back then Northwood was 'the ******' and to have something beat it by 10% was a fair effort.

Now Conroe has come out and beaten A64 by 20%, and you call it 'disappointing'.

That's a mighty jump in performance from a CPU launch, hell if you still aren't content you can always overclock the ****** out of the Conroe.

I mean, the cheapest E6300 @ 2.94GHz eats an o/ced 3GHz A64 for lunch!
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

Now imagine what something like Anands E6600 @ 4GHz would do...

Disappointing? Hardly.

It's the biggest leap in performance I've seen in a long, long time, and with excellent overclockability to boot.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

The Conroe Extreme Edition was originally supposed to be a 333FSB part with a 10X Multiplier, IIRC (i.e. a 3.33GHz CPU). They realized 2.93 GHz (266x11) still gives them the bragging rights to the "Best Desktop CPU on the Market" which is why they are milking this for what it's worth and waiting for the AMD comeback to launch their next speed-bump.

The future is headed towards more efficiency (R&D FTW!), and more cores (More R&D, keep TDP low, smaller manufacturing process which complicates things).

It's true what they say about competition bringing out the best in enemies: without competition, both camps would stagnate. Now, they will be in a race to outdo one another whether it is via better tech, or price cuts. And yeah, we will all be GPU-limited for quite some time as far as gaming is concerned.

FYI, Conroe has like a 25% advantage in video encoding. 25% is pretty huge when considering the fact that most (ahem!) real-world video-encoding projects have render times that are measured in hours, not a few minutes like the ones reviewers use.

 

[fatty4ksu]

conroe is best cpu ever

 

[thescreensavers]

i agree with the OP. When the K8 came out ok 10% increse over northwood ok but this is 3 years later 3 years of newer tech on how to make CPU's as each year goes by the spu making machines and achitech get more adavanced. I bet amd can put out a 4Ghz chip right now. but dont want to git a wall and not get any faster cpus for another 3 years.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
I bet amd can put out a 4Ghz chip right now. but dont want to git a wall and not get any faster cpus for another 3 years.

Hmm, if that were true, they wouldn't be cutting prices (and profits) on their current CPUs. They would just release their 4GHz chip and give Intel something to worry about all over again. I think it has been said repeatedly all over the Intraweb that AMD needs to move to 65nm if they hope to deliver 3GHz+ A64s. At least, this is what I think.

 

[Sable]

You've got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In a relatively short space of time intel pull an architecture out of their ass that has very large performance gains, very large powersavings and all at competative prices.

What do you want, the moon on a bloody stick?!?!

I don;t think you've actually got any idea what goes into designing and procucing a CPU.

 

[Sable]

And don;t go reading too much into those HOCP gaming results either, I think they're very misleading. When the R600 and G80 are out next year you'll see Conroe stretch it's legs and the gap between AMD and Intel widen. Until AMD releases something faster be it higher clocked 65nm K8's or the K8L.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: JPH1121
I'm currently an AMD user...I have a 3700+ oc'd to 2.54 (normally run it at 2.7, but it's too hot for summer :/) with an OC'd 7900gt.

Here's my thoughts...

AMD had a kick ass processor back with the K8 and it's still great.
Conroe is a good chip.

Here's the thing though...

Intel, with three frickin years could only come up with a (liberally) 30% performance boost?

and just as bad...AMD, with those same 3 years, couldn't come up with something to even compare with that 30% performance boost?

Over the past 3 years there has been a clockspeed hike of what...1.2 ghz on AMD's side?

Relative to the performance available today...yes, Conroe is a great chip and there really is no denying that...

But both of the camps have been putting out crap relative to where they both should be after being granted a full 3 years to work on new tech...

Am I alone here?

Would you rather Intel did a P3 -> Williamette kind of job?
Or maybe a Northwood -> Prescott job?

Lets face it, the last big change name wise (P3 -> P4 Willy) was pretty bad.
And one of their within generation changes (NW -> Prescott) was pretty bad too.

Just be glad you got a performance increase at all, especially given the power consumption reductions.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
I bet amd can put out a 4Ghz chip right now. but dont want to git a wall and not get any faster cpus for another 3 years.

If you're gonna release something that won't advance for 3 years, but would still be ahead of the competition, wouldn't it be better to release it SOONER rather than later? At least AMD would get the performance crown back for however long it takes Intel to respond.

Which, incidentally, using your example, is almost none, since most Conroes are overclocking to 3.5 - 4GHz themselves, and indicates a lot of headroom in the C2D architecture. A 3.5GHz Conroe would more than match a 4GHz A64 due to it's higher IPC.

 

[cmrmrc]

Originally posted by: Sable
And don;t go reading too much into those HOCP gaming results either, I think they're very misleading. When the R600 and G80 are out next year you'll see Conroe stretch it's legs and the gap between AMD and Intel widen. Until AMD releases something faster be it higher clocked 65nm K8's or the K8L.

i don't know about that, R600 and G80 will surely give alot more horsepower than current high end cards but don't forget that newer games will have tougher graphics and the next generation of graphic cards will have a mouth full of jobs to do just like our current generation with our current generation of games...

so if you think about it, the gap may not widen that much since newer effects will come into play and make it gpu limited again...of course not at low resolutions but look at now, 20in monitors are very cheap and most people play at like at least 12X10 maybe even 16X12

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
I bet amd can put out a 4Ghz chip right now. but dont want to git a wall and not get any faster cpus for another 3 years.

If you're gonna release something that won't advance for 3 years, but would still be ahead of the competition, wouldn't it be better to release it SOONER rather than later? At least AMD would get the performance crown back for however long it takes Intel to respond.

Which, incidentally, using your example, is almost none, since most Conroes are overclocking to 3.5 - 4GHz themselves, and indicates a lot of headroom in the C2D architecture. A 3.5GHz Conroe would more than match a 4GHz A64 due to it's higher IPC.

Yeah, sure. Let's hypothesize on that. What kind of OC is a 4 GHz FX-62? About 42.8%.

Now, a X6800 runs natively at 2.93 GHz. Meaning that an OC to 3.5 GHz is a 19.5% OC.

So, if we take the stock FX-62 as our baseline(x), the stock X6800 has about a 20% advantage on average, which gives us 1.2x. Now, using the OC's, the FX-62 is now 1.429x and the X6800 is 1.433x.

Which means that right now, without having any benchmarks, it doesn't make much sense to say that a 3.5 GHz X6800 would more than match a comparable AMD chip at 4.0 GHz.

We know Conroe is a better CPU, now ffs be quiet.

 

[harpoon84]

General consensus is that a 2.4GHz E6600 matches or slightly edges a 2.8GHz FX-62.

Anandtech review quote:

Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all.

Now let's get to the PROPER MATHS, shall we...

2.8 / 2.4 = 1.16

4 / 3.5 = 1.14

If an A64 FX can't beat a Conroe with 1.16x the clockspeed, how do you expect it to beat one with 1.14x the clockspeed?

Therefore, *assuming both CPUs scale at similar levels*, a 3.5GHz Conroe would be slightly faster than a 4GHz A64, therefore = MORE THAN MATCH.

It ain't that hard to understand.

Now STFU, go back to school and learn to think logically before attacking someone.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
General consensus is that a 2.4GHz E6600 matches or slightly edges a 2.8GHz FX-62.

Anandtech review quote:

Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all.

Now let's get to the PROPER MATHS, shall we...

2.8 / 2.4 = 1.16

4 / 3.5 = 1.14

Therefore, *assuming both CPUs scale at similar levels*, a 3.5GHz Conroe would be slightly faster than a 4GHz A64, therefore = MORE THAN MATCH.

It ain't that hard to understand.

Now STFU, go back to school and learn to think logically before attacking someone.

I didn't attack you, and you used a different chip. You didn't exactly explain your math, and you didn't say anything about my arguement. Next time you want to argue a point, make sure you're arguing the right one.

You didn't say anything about a X6800 - only the E6600.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: harpoon84
General consensus is that a 2.4GHz E6600 matches or slightly edges a 2.8GHz FX-62.

Anandtech review quote:

Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all.

Now let's get to the PROPER MATHS, shall we...

2.8 / 2.4 = 1.16

4 / 3.5 = 1.14

Therefore, *assuming both CPUs scale at similar levels*, a 3.5GHz Conroe would be slightly faster than a 4GHz A64, therefore = MORE THAN MATCH.

It ain't that hard to understand.

Now STFU, go back to school and learn to think logically before attacking someone.

I didn't attack you, and you used a different chip. You didn't exactly explain your math, and you didn't say anything about my arguement. Next time you want to argue a point, make sure you're arguing the right one.

What 'different' chip did I use? All I mentioned was Conroe, I didn't mention any particular model, and from what I've seen E6600s up to X6800s have similar amount of headroom.

All I originally stated was that, if AMD *could* release a 4GHz A64 tomorrow, it would make sense if they did - if anything it would bring them right back into the performance ballpark of Conroe.

I also stated that, if early overclocking signs are anything to go by, Intel could conceivably roll out a 3.5GHz model without too much trouble, and match or beat a hypothetical 4GHz A64.

What was wrong with what I stated?

 

[River Side]

I guess we should discuss all of this (and this superiority of Conroe) when we can actually buy one off the shelf for about the retail price.. Good luck finding E6600 for $300 all of you with E6600 Conroe wish-builds in your profile

 

[NoStateofMind]

Well from my understanding, a jump in performance 20% or more in the tech world is huge.

 

[imported_inspire]

Fine. I read your 'more than match' as a 'beat by a significant difference'. I'm still trying to figure out the math you used and how it applies to my arguement, because if you take both of them together, the obvious conclusion is that the E6600 scales just as well, if not better than the X6800 in a hypothetical OC. Which may be true.

You'll have to excuse me for geeting a little defensive when the entire first page of the forums is about how much Intel rocks right now - I think most people have gotten the picture, and the who haven't, won't.

EDIT: Your numbers work out better because 2.4 - 3.5 is a LOT more of an OC than 2.93 - 3.5. The aforemention conclusion should stick out when we look at it that way.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Sable
And don;t go reading too much into those HOCP gaming results either, I think they're very misleading. When the R600 and G80 are out next year you'll see Conroe stretch it's legs and the gap between AMD and Intel widen. Until AMD releases something faster be it higher clocked 65nm K8's or the K8L.

Agree 100%

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: inspire
Fine. I read your 'more than match' as a 'beat by a significant difference'. I'm still trying to figure out the math you used and how it applies to my arguement, because if you take both of them together, the obvious conclusion is that the E6600 scales just as well, if not better than the X6800 in a hypothetical OC. Which may be true.

You'll have to excuse me for geeting a little defensive when the entire first page of the forums is about how much Intel rocks right now - I think most people have gotten the picture, and the who haven't, won't.

I see where you are coming from, but the thing is, it's harder to use the X6800 for comparison because you can't put a definitive 'it is 20% faster' tag on it - in some tests it is only 10% faster, while in some tests it would be 30% faster, and unless someone has spreadsheeted all the benchmark numbers and graded the X6800 v FX-62 victories in % form, it is just much easier to use a CPU that is *comparable* to the FX-62, in this case an E6600, and then make the relevant calculations from there.

 

[n7]

Funny, i don't see the OP producing his own much-improved CPUs :roll:

It's not exactly a piece of cake for manufacturers to magically create a faster CPU.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: n7
Funny, i don't see the OP producing his own much-improved CPUs :roll:

It's not exactly a piece of cake for manufacturers to magically create a faster CPU.

I guessed he used up his 3 wishes from the genie.