Conroe E6400, E6300 vs FX-60 benches

[imported_UncivilizedAMD]

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfis...ue%2fevalue%2fcpu%2f0605%2f791941.html

Poor translation but the main point is understandable and the scores speak for themselves.

Quick Summary: E6400 (2.13ghz) wins majority of benches vs Fx-60 stock and FX60 overclocked (2.8ghz). E6300(1.86ghz) comes behind FX-60 stock but beats downclocked FX-60 @ 1.86ghz.

 

[secretanchitman]

thanks for this! im surprised to see no one replied...

hmm, i would like to see some E6600 benches...though these are just fine.

edit: it says that the E6400 has 4MB cache...i thought only the E6600's and up have 4MB of cache and E6400's and below have 2MB of cache. correct me if im wrong...

 

[zizo]

yes E6400 is 2MB cache. This one is probably Engineering sample.

 

[Cookie Monster]

The mainstream Intel Conroe CPUs are beating AMD's "flagship" CPUs..

This is bad news for AMD, although im sure they have some tricks up their sleeve to counter this "problem".

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
The mainstream Intel Conroe CPUs are beating AMD's "flagship" CPUs..

This is bad news for AMD, although im sure they have some tricks up their sleeve to counter this "problem".

Why is this bad news, mainstream athlons were beating high end intel cpus, look what it resulted in, cheap prices, will be great for all the people with socket 939 single cores to upgrade to dualies.

 

[secretanchitman]

AMD is probably going to release hyperclocked athlon64s...either as single cores or X2s. i know they just cant sit there and do nothing!

competition drives newer technology!

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
AMD is probably going to release hyperclocked athlon64s...either as single cores or X2s. i know they just cant sit there and do nothing!

competition drives newer technology!

Exactly, they will release some hypercloked cpu or whatever, driving the prices of the lower cpus down, and even the 3800+ x2 is good enough for a lot of stuff, for average user, so for some people if these are priced cheaper it would be a better upgrade than going with conroe and new mainboard ram etc.

Mayber this will also cause amd to start making new cpus, they'we been sitting on athlon 64 long enough.

 

[Avalon]

AMD will be releasing 65nm chips at the end of this year...but I don't know how well they will do or how late they will be.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Originally posted by: Avalon
AMD will be releasing 65nm chips at the end of this year...but I don't know how well they will do or how late they will be.

65nm will only help with lower TDP's and higher clocks, clock for clock performance will remain exactly the same till K8L and in the desktop market K8L offers almost no performance increase, this round looks to be going to intel.

P.S. finally an x2 4400+ will be an affordable upgrade!

 

[larciel]

How the tides have turned. This situation is SO much similar to when AMD introduced K7 to compete with overpriced-and- under-performing P3.

Success of K7 made Intel push for Coppermine, which closed the gaps little, but it didn't help much.

AMD was able to rule the world for 3-4 years until Northwood came out along with those extra Instructions that made Intel chip little more competitive at some categories (like Digital editing, etc)

6 Years it took intel to fire back, and do it really nicely, will it take AMD 6years to fire back again? If so, I'm not sure AMD will be able to hang on for that long.

even with AMD enjoying so much fun for last couple of years, there's no comparison when you're comparing with 'the' Intel.


Since there isn't much on the roadsmap for AMD (other than playing with current silicon. i.e. K8L and 65nm) . Price might be the only weapon to bring to the battlefield for AMD.

I really wish them good luck.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Originally posted by: larciel
How the tides have turned. This situation is SO much similar to when AMD introduced K7 to compete with overpriced-and- under-performing P3.

Success of K7 made Intel push for Coppermine, which closed the gaps little, but it didn't help much.

AMD was able to rule the world for 3-4 years until Northwood came out along with those extra Instructions that made Intel chip little more competitive at some categories (like Digital editing, etc)

6 Years it took intel to fire back, and do it really nicely, will it take AMD 6years to fire back again? If so, I'm not sure AMD will be able to hang on for that long.

even with AMD enjoying so much fun for last couple of years, there's no comparison when you're comparing with 'the' Intel.


Since there isn't much on the roadsmap for AMD (other than playing with current silicon. i.e. K8L and 65nm) . Price might be the only weapon to bring to the battlefield for AMD.

I really wish them good luck.

I agree that price may be AMD's only weapon but, with the introduction of AM2 and production still ramping up, once conroe is released AMD will have a harder time of finding buyers to purchase the AM2 chips and ramping may have to be hindered. The only way AMD will hang on is with the introduction of K8L. While K8L will have little to no effect on desktop performance it will help noticably if not drastically on the server market, especially in the 4 and up processor(single or multiple core chips). The server share they've been digging away from Intel will be their only method of staying anywhere near the black till their next release(wich I do not forsee till summer 08 at the earliest)

 

[deeznuts]

Originally posted by: larciel
6 Years it took intel to fire back, and do it really nicely, will it take AMD 6years to fire back again? If so, I'm not sure AMD will be able to hang on for that long.

6 years? You mean three right? AMD didn't gain an edge until a64, IIRC. That was in 2003.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
The mainstream Intel Conroe CPUs are beating AMD's "flagship" CPUs..

This is bad news for AMD, although im sure they have some tricks up their sleeve to counter this "problem".

Why is this bad news, mainstream athlons were beating high end intel cpus, look what it resulted in, cheap prices, will be great for all the people with socket 939 single cores to upgrade to dualies.

Well yeah, but Intel conroe is beating AMD on ALL ground. (multitasking, encoding/decoding, game performance etc)

Im not sure if AMD CAN afford cheaper prices. The only reason they didnt cut prices in the first place is that its intel competition just didnt have the performance to match against AMDs superior Athlon 64 and were priced the same.

AMD is small compared to intel (they have smaller resources and so forth compared to intel), and for them to lose even in their own turf i.e the gaming arena/low power and heat/PRICE!, is a big blow.

 

[ribbon13]

AMD isn't going anywhere, in case you haven't noticed they've dug a thorough niche in the server market, and 65nm will only help keep them there. They still have the superior tech for large scale SMP. A lot of people are probably thinking AMD monkeyed Intel's mistake: They had multiple crowns and sat on thier laurels. But, oh wait no they didn't: They now have the fab capacity to supply Dell's high-end server range.

I'm guessing the engineers at Intel knew a time would come when the marketing department had to bite the bullet and stopped pushing them to develop the failure that is Netburst. So it's no suprise that when that time did come, it was an architecture of devastation. They still haven't ditched FSB or bridged memory controllers yet. But I imagine once AMD catches up a little, that will finally be thier next logical step.

Besides, with a monopoly lawsuit going, Intel sure as hell doesn't want AMD to go under. Not to mention, AMD allows Intel to concentrate on other markets while AMD does CPU research brunt work. Thier marketing departments may hiss at each other, but engineering has a lot of collaborative sharing. I'm sure Conroe had significant inspiration, if you get what I mean.

 

[larciel]

Originally posted by: DerwenArtos12

Originally posted by: larciel

I agree that price may be AMD's only weapon but, with the introduction of AM2 and production still ramping up, once conroe is released AMD will have a harder time of finding buyers to purchase the AM2 chips and ramping may have to be hindered. The only way AMD will hang on is with the introduction of K8L. While K8L will have little to no effect on desktop performance it will help noticably if not drastically on the server market, especially in the 4 and up processor(single or multiple core chips). The server share they've been digging away from Intel will be their only method of staying anywhere near the black till their next release(wich I do not forsee till summer 08 at the earliest)

Excellent point, considering the most of profit is made at server level.

But, since Woodcrest is coming along nicely (
Ars.) and historically, server machines aren't replaced frequently unlike desktop gaming machines, I don't think K8L will have much market on the server side. IT managers sure will be able to wait a few months for the 'Intel' chip that old-style CEOs just love just because it's "Intel"

Last year when K8 (AMD64) was enjoying so much success, I heard rumors about K9 or even K10 .. I really thought AMD was ready to stone itself as the performance and innovation leader in CPU market, but I guess rumor was really a rumor.

Still, AMD isn't doomed (I may sound like it is ) I'm sure they can withstand first onslaught of Core 2. Summer 07 might had been AMD's next launch of the 'big change' but I'm sure those people at Dresden is working overtime now to move up the date to maybe Spring 07.. then AMD will surely wont' be that affected by Core2

 

[larciel]

Originally posted by: deeznuts

Originally posted by: larciel
6 Years it took intel to fire back, and do it really nicely, will it take AMD 6years to fire back again? If so, I'm not sure AMD will be able to hang on for that long.

6 years? You mean three right? AMD didn't gain an edge until a64, IIRC. That was in 2003.

Actually AMD's budget Duron was competitive with P3 coppermine's back in 2000/01 (see my point of Conroe beating FX being ironic?) , not to mention Thunderbird kicked P3 in the arse, especially in areas where CPU's numbering crunch was put to test.

AMD, with AMD64, was able to go little side-step from conventional Giga-heartz war with Intel and bring on revolutionary ideas. partially because they built very strong grounds with K7 Thunderbird and palomino and such. If you compare todays' AMD support with what was back then you'll be surprised. (At launch of K7 Athlon, mobo makers were afraid to support AMD because of Intel. I know for a fact Asus provided a review board in a blank white box!! not like fancy retail box that we see today.

I'm so proud to have supported AMD for last 6 years. I told so many of my customer to 'break away' from Pentium and choose the best available option in AMD. We shall see if I'll have to lie to keep them with AMD

 

[StrangerGuy]

Site linky getting the AT forum effect.

EDIT:

A 14% increase in core clock with the same FSB for conroe results in a 20% increase in Farcry framerates! This architecture is going to scale stratospherically.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: larciel

Originally posted by: deeznuts

Originally posted by: larciel
6 Years it took intel to fire back, and do it really nicely, will it take AMD 6years to fire back again? If so, I'm not sure AMD will be able to hang on for that long.

6 years? You mean three right? AMD didn't gain an edge until a64, IIRC. That was in 2003.

Actually AMD's budget Duron was competitive with P3 coppermine's back in 2000/01 (see my point of Conroe beating FX being ironic?) , not to mention Thunderbird kicked P3 in the arse, especially in areas where CPU's numbering crunch was put to test.

AMD, with AMD64, was able to go little side-step from conventional Giga-heartz war with Intel and bring on revolutionary ideas. partially because they built very strong grounds with K7 Thunderbird and palomino and such. If you compare todays' AMD support with what was back then you'll be surprised. (At launch of K7 Athlon, mobo makers were afraid to support AMD because of Intel. I know for a fact Asus provided a review board in a blank white box!! not like fancy retail box that we see today.

I'm so proud to have supported AMD for last 6 years. I told so many of my customer to 'break away' from Pentium and choose the best available option in AMD. We shall see if I'll have to lie to keep them with AMD

You sure about your numbers? This review seems to show Coppermine outperforming Athlons clock for clock in most apps.

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: larciel

Originally posted by: deeznuts

Originally posted by: larciel
6 Years it took intel to fire back, and do it really nicely, will it take AMD 6years to fire back again? If so, I'm not sure AMD will be able to hang on for that long.

6 years? You mean three right? AMD didn't gain an edge until a64, IIRC. That was in 2003.

Actually AMD's budget Duron was competitive with P3 coppermine's back in 2000/01 (see my point of Conroe beating FX being ironic?) , not to mention Thunderbird kicked P3 in the arse, especially in areas where CPU's numbering crunch was put to test.

AMD, with AMD64, was able to go little side-step from conventional Giga-heartz war with Intel and bring on revolutionary ideas. partially because they built very strong grounds with K7 Thunderbird and palomino and such. If you compare todays' AMD support with what was back then you'll be surprised. (At launch of K7 Athlon, mobo makers were afraid to support AMD because of Intel. I know for a fact Asus provided a review board in a blank white box!! not like fancy retail box that we see today.

I'm so proud to have supported AMD for last 6 years. I told so many of my customer to 'break away' from Pentium and choose the best available option in AMD. We shall see if I'll have to lie to keep them with AMD

You sure about your numbers? This review seems to show Coppermine outperforming Athlons clock for clock in most apps.

I think Coppermine used to edge out the Athlons with off-die L2 cache (the ones with cache on the slot packaging) but the Thunderbirds (with on-die L2) were faster than the Coppermines. Plus they went to higher speeds (this was around the time Intel tried to introduce a 1Ghz Coppermine part but then had all kinds of problems with it because they were trying to cherry pick but not doing it too well).

So the Pentium III 1000 you see at the top of those charts actually got recalled, lol. The other thing is that you'll notice it was using RDRAM, and we all know how worked out in the end.

I myself upgraded from a Coppermine (550E in a slot package overclocked to 733-842Mhz[depending on how many sticks of ram I had in the mobo]) to a Thunderbird (1.2Ghz). I gotta say that I liked the Coppermine better but mostly because it was an overclocking god

 

[ElFenix]

IIRC, athlon and p3 were pretty much neck and neck. thunderbirds and palominos and thoroughbreds were better than willamettes the willamettes they were up against. northwood laid the smack down on barton eventually (the 3200+ wasn't quite as fast as a 3.2 GHz northy). the northwood was the processor to have for a while. then the A64s came out in fall of 2003 and have pretty much owned intel ever since.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
IIRC, athlon and p3 were pretty much neck and neck. thunderbirds and palominos and thoroughbreds were better than willamettes the willamettes they were up against. northwood laid the smack down on barton eventually (the 3200+ wasn't quite as fast as a 3.2 GHz northy). the northwood was the processor to have for a while. then the A64s came out in fall of 2003 and have pretty much owned intel ever since.

That's pretty much correct...it says as much in the conclusions of the review SK linked to.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: TekDemon

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: larciel

Originally posted by: deeznuts

Originally posted by: larciel
6 Years it took intel to fire back, and do it really nicely, will it take AMD 6years to fire back again? If so, I'm not sure AMD will be able to hang on for that long.

6 years? You mean three right? AMD didn't gain an edge until a64, IIRC. That was in 2003.

Actually AMD's budget Duron was competitive with P3 coppermine's back in 2000/01 (see my point of Conroe beating FX being ironic?) , not to mention Thunderbird kicked P3 in the arse, especially in areas where CPU's numbering crunch was put to test.

AMD, with AMD64, was able to go little side-step from conventional Giga-heartz war with Intel and bring on revolutionary ideas. partially because they built very strong grounds with K7 Thunderbird and palomino and such. If you compare todays' AMD support with what was back then you'll be surprised. (At launch of K7 Athlon, mobo makers were afraid to support AMD because of Intel. I know for a fact Asus provided a review board in a blank white box!! not like fancy retail box that we see today.

I'm so proud to have supported AMD for last 6 years. I told so many of my customer to 'break away' from Pentium and choose the best available option in AMD. We shall see if I'll have to lie to keep them with AMD

You sure about your numbers? This review seems to show Coppermine outperforming Athlons clock for clock in most apps.

I think Coppermine used to edge out the Athlons with off-die L2 cache (the ones with cache on the slot packaging) but the Thunderbirds (with on-die L2) were faster than the Coppermines. Plus they went to higher speeds (this was around the time Intel tried to introduce a 1Ghz Coppermine part but then had all kinds of problems with it because they were trying to cherry pick but not doing it too well).

So the Pentium III 1000 you see at the top of those charts actually got recalled, lol. The other thing is that you'll notice it was using RDRAM, and we all know how worked out in the end.

I myself upgraded from a Coppermine (550E in a slot package overclocked to 733-842Mhz[depending on how many sticks of ram I had in the mobo]) to a Thunderbird (1.2Ghz). I gotta say that I liked the Coppermine better but mostly because it was an overclocking god

Actually, the 1GHz Coppermine was not recalled, the 1.13GHz chip was, however.