Conroe vs. AMD FX-62

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: 450R
There's nothing else to compare Conroe to. Great knee-jerk reaction though.

LOL ;-)

 

[Todd33]

Will Conroe be cheap? If they can put it in a $1000 laptop the desktop version can't be $700 I hope.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Will Conroe be cheap? If they can put it in a $1000 laptop the desktop version can't be $700 I hope.

Conroe will not be used in laptops. The laptop version will be called Merom. Merom will be just about as powerful as its Conroe brother however.

I also believe going by past info, that these processors will be aggressively priced, meaning they will be fairly priced to the end user.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: JAG87
you should not compare the two. I understand that there is nothing to compare conroe to, but honestly its like saying ATI X1900 kills the 6800s... yea no ****** sherlock it only came out 2 years later... you just should not compare the two. kudos to conroe and to intel but for the love of god stop bashing the K8 architecture.

If there's nothing to compare Conroe with, does that mean it's the undisputed performance leader?

 

[Todd33]

Whining about comparing FX to Conroe is ridiculous. You compare the latest and greatest from both, neither chip is based on anything new. Isn't Conroe based on the Pentium-M which was based on the P3? Isn't the A64 technology based on the technology AMD bought like 5+ years ago in a buy out?

 

[hemmy]

Originally posted by: JAG87
you should not compare the two. I understand that there is nothing to compare conroe to, but honestly its like saying ATI X1900 kills the 6800s... yea no ****** sherlock it only came out 2 years later... you just should not compare the two. kudos to conroe and to intel but for the love of god stop bashing the K8 architecture.

Um, a 6800 and x1900 do not compete for the same section of the market, so your method of logic is totally debunked here

 

[larciel]

I'm guessing, that MAYBE, AMD's K9 architecture is very quickly designed up right now.. hehe

This is more than when AMD turned the world upside down with its K7 athlon over Intel Katmai and coppermine. (which made AMD make Thunderbird, and you all know how they performed)

 

[Cookie Monster]

You do realise that the E6700 and E6600 will sell for around $530 and $316 respectively against the $999~ AMD FX 62.

Link

The real matchup for the FX-62 and the 64 is the Core 2 XE (Conroe clocked at 3.33ghz, 1333FSB and such).

 

[Absolute0]

Latest news says Intel isn't rolling out the 3.33 XE for a while since... they don't need to

Word says the first XE will be 2.93 Ghz 1066 bus, and after a while they'll move it up to 3.33 and 1333 bus.

 

[Regs]

The gaming benchmarks look amazing. 60 more FPS on average in Far Cry? I think we found our bottleneck. What surprises me is that it took over 3 or more years to finally get a new processor. The Conroe looks like it scales a whole lot better too. An extra 300Mhz gives far cry 10 more FPS. When done the same with a AMD 64 we could expect maybe 2 FPS difference. It just got boring a tedious. When a processor hits it's optimal frequency, there's just not much left to offer but lower power consuming parts which cost an arm and a leg.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Regs
The gaming benchmarks look amazing. 60 more FPS on average in Far Cry?

Let's not forget the resolution was 1024x768. The lower the resolution, the less the video card is a factor.

 

[blackllotus]

To be honest I don't know why anybody thinks AMD is going to rush out their new architecture with Conroe becoming the performance leader. Its not like AMD's sales are going magically stop. I think most people here would be surprised at how many people build their own computers, but don't do much research into what processor they buy. I see no reason why AMD would "rush" out K9.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

I am curious about the high end server market more than the desktop market as a concern for AMD. It seems that at the 4 way and up server market AMD is (will) still be dominant because of hypertransport. The only reason I can think Dell would choose now to jump on AMD is because of the performance gaps between AMD and Intel's new chips (I am sure Dell has some test cpus).

Disclaimer: I am in no way impugning Intel or championing AMD. I am SPECULATING. Furthermore, I consider myself of average intelligence so any fanciful insults will simply slide by anyway so please feel free to rip me a new one to appease your siicon gods if I have offended any fanboi(girl)dom.

 

[Athlongamer]

As much as I LOVE AMD and dislike Intel.....I believe I will be purchasing one of the Conroe's....considering I am looking to upgrade, and this just happen to come at the right time

I can't wait to see the K8l though

 

[Munky]

So, according to their "benchmarks" a Conroe with FSB mem controller and DDR2-667 at 3-2-2-8 2T timings gets lower memory latency than a s939 K8 with integrated mem controller and DDR-400 at 2-2-2-5 1T timings? Yah, right... :roll: Maybe they got a bridge to sell me too?

 

[justly]

I'm sure there are more reviews out there (for comparison sake) but since I know that both Hexus and Xbits tested Far Cry I'll use their numbers.

First off the differences between the FX60 and the FX62 amount to basicaly 2 things, 1-a 200MHz increase in processor frequency, 2-the switch from DDR1 to DDR2.

Acording to Hexus the FX62 (AM2) has a 42+% increase in bandwidth and a 7+% reduction in latency over the FX60 (S939). This means that Hexus has shown no reason for FX62 performance to drop below FX60 levels, yet it does in 3 of their tests (one bing Far Cry), this alone should introduce some doubt about their results.

Comparing FarCry results between the two reviews we see
Hexus shows a FX60 score of 130.2 FPS, and Xbits shows 135.18 FPS
Hexus shows a FX62 score of 125.1 FPS, and Xbits shows 154.51 FPS
Hexus FX62 score dropped 4% below the FX60, while Xbits score went up 12.5%.

Personally I believe Xbits results are more realistic considering an increase in bandwith and processor speed along with reduced latency (assuming Hexus bandwith and latency results arn't totaly FUBAR).
If the Xbits performance increase percentage is true Hexus should have gotten at least 146 FPS on Far Cry.

If the same is done with the Quake 4 numbers the FX62 is within 1 FPS of the E6700 Conroe.

Yes the Conroe still wins but anyone getting all giddy over how Conroe spanked AMD by using this review just wants to get caught up the the Conroe hype instead of getting a true comparision.

After reading this article I think I trust Tomshardware more than Hexus.

BTW notice that the bandwidth and latency get worse for conroe as the processor speed increases, this could be an indication that Intel will require motherboards to be replaced as FSB speeds need to be increased, I guess AMD still has some good points (along with actually being available).

 

[TanisHalfElven]

all i wanna know is can the core duo speed up x24 encoding. my gaming is fine but the encoding times are killing me.
also its perfectly logical to compare k8 or core 2 cuz both will be i the same price range. after all we do compare 6800gt to 7600gt cuz both are bieng soldd in similar price ranges.

lastly i glad to see the market leader stop screwing us and give us an amazing cpu. yay for intel

 

[burney]

fans boys fight ..while i sit back and enjoy

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

It looks like Conroe will easily remove any CPU limitation from gaming - unfortunately there isn't a single video card out there right now that won't be a major bottleneck at higher resolutions/graphics settings. SLI/Crossfire setups may see a decent increase.

Maybe the developers need to start offloading more work onto the CPU to balance out the performance. The CPU already handles geometry and physics, but it might be difficult to get it to do shader/texture work. It certainly won't be as efficient at it as the GPU, but if there are cycles to spare, use them.

Ideally, you'd want to see the GPU/CPU doing the same amount of work so that neither becomes the bottleneck before the other has reached its full potential. If the GPU is at 100% utilization and the CPU at 50%, that's a lot of wasted potential.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
It looks like Conroe will easily remove any CPU limitation from gaming - unfortunately there isn't a single video card out there right now that won't be a major bottleneck at higher resolutions/graphics settings. SLI/Crossfire setups may see a decent increase.

Maybe the developers need to start offloading more work onto the CPU to balance out the performance. The CPU already handles geometry and physics, but it might be difficult to get it to do shader/texture work. It certainly won't be as efficient at it as the GPU, but if there are cycles to spare, use them.

Ideally, you'd want to see the GPU/CPU doing the same amount of work so that neither becomes the bottleneck before the other has reached its full potential. If the GPU is at 100% utilization and the CPU at 50%, that's a lot of wasted potential.

Better AI Please. If the CPU has all that extra time, I'd rather it be given over to AI, then trying to help the GPU.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
It looks like Conroe will easily remove any CPU limitation from gaming - unfortunately there isn't a single video card out there right now that won't be a major bottleneck at higher resolutions/graphics settings. SLI/Crossfire setups may see a decent increase.

Maybe the developers need to start offloading more work onto the CPU to balance out the performance. The CPU already handles geometry and physics, but it might be difficult to get it to do shader/texture work. It certainly won't be as efficient at it as the GPU, but if there are cycles to spare, use them.

Ideally, you'd want to see the GPU/CPU doing the same amount of work so that neither becomes the bottleneck before the other has reached its full potential. If the GPU is at 100% utilization and the CPU at 50%, that's a lot of wasted potential.

Better AI Please. If the CPU has all that extra time, I'd rather it be given over to AI, then trying to help the GPU.

I'd like to see better AI as well, but good AI is more a function of programming quality than CPU power or lack thereof. Developers are lazy... having enemies run straight at you or stand stationary and shoot is a lot easier to code than having realistic behavior with many different variations. They feel that their time/money is better spent making flashy graphics at the expense of gameplay, and it seems to work on most people unfortunately.

The CPU already handles all the AI anyway.

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: munky
So, according to their "benchmarks" a Conroe with FSB mem controller and DDR2-667 at 3-2-2-8 2T timings gets lower memory latency than a s939 K8 with integrated mem controller and DDR-400 at 2-2-2-5 1T timings? Yah, right... :roll: Maybe they got a bridge to sell me too?

Remember timings are dependent on clock speed so DDR2-667 at 3-2-2-8 2T in DDR-400 speeds would be 1.8-1.2-1.2-4.8 1.2T

 

[fern420]

anyone want to hazzard a guess as to when we might see a crossfire or sli bench? also any word on the availability of crossfire and sli mobo's at release time?