• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Conroe or AM2

K

keviheit

Member
What processor do you think will be better the Conroe or the AM2 processors? As of now, I have been Happy with my AMD processor but I saw some of the Conroe speeds I am thinking about building a new computer what CPU should I buy. I am going to use my computer for gaming
 
AM2 isnt going to be much of a leap forward, conroe supposedly will blow everything out of the water, but release is still a few months away
 
There isn't gonna be much question on the performance front for the first while anyway.

Conroe will be faster.
 
AM2 is a socket, Conroe is a processor. 😵

All anyone can say is that at the moment a 2.66ghz Conroe is faster than the FX60.

If (big if) AMD release a 4ghz FX chip for the AM2 socket then this will be faster than a 2.66ghz Conroe.
 
Yes Conroe will be faster then Windsor...

It's Conroe vs Windsor people not AM2.

65nm Brisbane will close the gap in cost. Unknown though about performance.... remember it took awhile for the 90nm SOI process to ramp in clockspeed.
 
Conroe of course. The preview was the 2.66ghz conroe vs the FX60 clocked at 2.8ghz.
I would suspect that the "real" challenger to the Fx-62 (2.8ghz) is the Conroe XE 3.33ghz 1333FSB etc.

In that case, the FX would get pretty badly mauled.
 
let's keep in mind that any "Extreme Edition" Intel chip is going to be so overpriced that almost nobody will buy one. it's almost pointless to even discuss it IMHO.

that being said, I think from what we've seen even the lower end Conroe processors should easily edge out comparable AMD products. Intel will finally close the gap after all these years of AMD dominance.
 
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
let's keep in mind that any "Extreme Edition" Intel chip is going to be so overpriced that almost nobody will buy one. it's almost pointless to even discuss it IMHO.

that being said, I think from what we've seen even the lower end Conroe processors should easily edge out comparable AMD products. Intel will finally close the gap after all these years of AMD dominance.
Click to expand...

i seriosuly doubt going to 65nm will do anything for amd. the 90 to 65nm transition is all about costs and not about performance.


that said, AMD FX processors are also really over priced the fx62 is suppsoed to be like $1300 which is more than any EE chip ever.

i would say that amd will only retake the lead with quad cores, since they have hypertransport. for dual cores, intel's 2 cores can communicate through the L2 cache and not the bus (so they are even faster interprocessor than the X2 chips). it remains to be seen what the cloverton type chips will do, as they have a shared bus, but i think amd would catch up on that one, even though each pair of chisp could communicate with each other, gonig to the other off die chips would be bad.


i dont think it will even matter for us though as i doubt most consumers will be getting quad core chips anytime soon. some people dont even think quadcore will come out on am2 and will be a socket F only thing.

anyways, am2 is also not out, and neither is conroe. they should both be out in july or august and we can then determine the winner.
 
Originally posted by: hans007
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
let's keep in mind that any "Extreme Edition" Intel chip is going to be so overpriced that almost nobody will buy one. it's almost pointless to even discuss it IMHO.

that being said, I think from what we've seen even the lower end Conroe processors should easily edge out comparable AMD products. Intel will finally close the gap after all these years of AMD dominance.
Click to expand...

i seriosuly doubt going to 65nm will do anything for amd. the 90 to 65nm transition is all about costs and not about performance.


that said, AMD FX processors are also really over priced the fx62 is suppsoed to be like $1300 which is more than any EE chip ever.

i would say that amd will only retake the lead with quad cores, since they have hypertransport. for dual cores, amd's 2 cores can communicate through the L2 cache and not the bus (so they are even faster interprocessor than the X2 chips). it remains to be seen what the cloverton type chips will do, as they have a shared bus, but i think amd would catch up on that one, even though each pair of chisp could communicate with each other, gonig to the other off die chips would be bad.
Click to expand...

Fix this please...
 
Even if we didn't have any benchmarks (however questionable) the smart money would still be on Intel's NGMA beating AMD's current Gen architectures. Isn't that what's supposed to happen when a new architecture is released?

Just to get it straight, Conroe is a brand new processor while AM2 is initially going to be just a new socket to plug the same old processors/w DDR2 support into. That intel will win that comparison is a virual no-brainer.

As for the future, if AM2 is still the current socket when the AMd's next architecture
launches then it very well could evolve into the preferred platform. However, we can't get excited about AMD's new architecture until they start telling us about it after AM2 launches.
 
i seriosuly doubt going to 65nm will do anything for amd. the 90 to 65nm transition is all about costs and not about performance
Click to expand...

Die shrinks allow more head room for cache and other circutry. Like memory conrollers.
 
after the latest reviews I have seen on really bad system almost no ram and bad video card and winning many bench marks I would say Conroe >>>>>AM2>>>>>P4 .
 
Originally posted by: Regs
i seriosuly doubt going to 65nm will do anything for amd. the 90 to 65nm transition is all about costs and not about performance
Click to expand...

Die shrinks allow more head room for cache and other circutry. Like memory conrollers.
Click to expand...

well yeah, but cache isnt going to help much. its generally a waste of die space unless you are trying to hide something (like say a non onboard memory controller thats why the intels have so much cache).

it wont really help the am2s that much if they say went to 2mb cache. what amd needs for one thing is a share cache on the x2 chips. that would make the cahce they have more effective. the memory controller is already ddr2 (which did eat up more die space) but i dont think making a memory controller that is more die is gonna help.

if they could do something like macro ops fusion or a trace cache or whatever intel has that is what they could really improve on, but 65nm is not going to make that happen.
 
Conroe will be faster than anything out on AM2 in the 90nm flavor, I suspect. However, I do think that 65nm will allow for some decent headroom for AMD. Look what 65nm did for Presler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top