-
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 Vs FX-62 Benchmark - HKEPC
- Thread starter kknd1967
- Start date
archcommus
Diamond Member
Hey, for being Intel's new gen versus AMD's old, I don't think AMD is doing that bad.
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
So much for a 2.16 Conroe beating an FX by 40% (Intel reps own words)
Performance is good, but hardly an FX crushing monster Intel made it out to be.
Performance is good, but hardly an FX crushing monster Intel made it out to be.
Corporate Thug
Lifer
well, compare it AMDs new AM2 and the results would be the same
Indeed.
I thought Intel were going to bring out a superior product.
These benchmarks seem to indicate that a better word would be equivalent.
However, an equivalent product is still good. We, the consumers, are the ones who'll do well out of competition between these two.
So it's still good news, people can choose between the two and go with the manufacturer they prefer.
I love AMD, I've run them for years now. But they've had the market cornered for too long now, competition was needed.
And it looks like it's here. 🙂
I thought Intel were going to bring out a superior product.
These benchmarks seem to indicate that a better word would be equivalent.
However, an equivalent product is still good. We, the consumers, are the ones who'll do well out of competition between these two.
So it's still good news, people can choose between the two and go with the manufacturer they prefer.
I love AMD, I've run them for years now. But they've had the market cornered for too long now, competition was needed.
And it looks like it's here. 🙂
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
I can't find the quote anymore, but I could have sworn an Intel rep was claiming that a mid range Conroe was going to beat an (overclocked at the time) FX by 40%. If Intel was talking about their Netburst based CPU's, well then they are not saying much.
archcommus
Diamond Member
No, AM2 is not AMD's "next gen," simply a new platform for the current gen processor. This is a comparison of AMD's old gen CPU with Intel's new, so imagine how AMD would do with their own next gen CPU.
The Conroe is still a winner in these benchmarks and thats all Intel really needs to be able to claim Conroe as The Best. But I want to see a final production chip head to head before I give Intel the nod. The official launch is still a 5 weeks away. So far it is looking good for Intel.
A few things. One the FX62 is clocked at a lower speed as well, so it may even steal a couple clocked at the same speed. The encoding and rendering of the Conroe is just blistering, lol, I don't think AMD will catch Intel until K8L and even then I ain't too sure. The oc is also pretty good for Conroe, but I would take those clocks witha grain of salt. I guess it can be summed up like this, Conroe is superior, but with a very slight edge.
AM2 may be the better buy, because AMD will release 65mm with a few core enhancements, so as a platform with more of future AMD may be driving the bus. Conroe is a stud, but it looks like its dominace may be short lived. If the oc of conroe is indicative of future speed bumps looks like 3.6-3.7 may be tops and I would assume AMD on 65mm will probably tap out around the same.
AM2 may be the better buy, because AMD will release 65mm with a few core enhancements, so as a platform with more of future AMD may be driving the bus. Conroe is a stud, but it looks like its dominace may be short lived. If the oc of conroe is indicative of future speed bumps looks like 3.6-3.7 may be tops and I would assume AMD on 65mm will probably tap out around the same.
"Next Gen" is really a null point. By the time K8L comes out, all the Intel fanboy's will be saying "just you wait untill the 45nm shrink" which is Q1, '08.
And then all the AMD fanboy's will be complaining its not fair because AMD is only on 65nm, and say, "Just wait untill AMD goes 45nm," and then by the time AMD goes 45nm, Intel's next, next gen will 6months away, and the Intel fanboy's will be saying "Just you wait untill Intel's next, next gen comes out" and so it continues.
GET OVER IT! Current vs current is the only FAIR way of comparison.
Granted, Conroe isn't out yet, and won't be for another 5 weeks, so yes its 'unfair' to do comparisons now, but come 5 weeks time, it will be fair (and its worth the wait, whether you're pro-AMD or Intel because AMD is cutting prices day after conroe comes out).
All Intel needs to do is compete with AMD, and obviously they can push clock speeds up fairly easily (read: they only needed to release XE @ 2.93 vs 3.2 in Q4 to beat FX-62, and easy air overclocks to 3.5Ghz+)
And don't forget, Woodcrest is being released in a week on a 1333FSB, so theres no doubt Conroe can be released if need be on a 1333FSB.
And then all the AMD fanboy's will be complaining its not fair because AMD is only on 65nm, and say, "Just wait untill AMD goes 45nm," and then by the time AMD goes 45nm, Intel's next, next gen will 6months away, and the Intel fanboy's will be saying "Just you wait untill Intel's next, next gen comes out" and so it continues.
GET OVER IT! Current vs current is the only FAIR way of comparison.
Granted, Conroe isn't out yet, and won't be for another 5 weeks, so yes its 'unfair' to do comparisons now, but come 5 weeks time, it will be fair (and its worth the wait, whether you're pro-AMD or Intel because AMD is cutting prices day after conroe comes out).
All Intel needs to do is compete with AMD, and obviously they can push clock speeds up fairly easily (read: they only needed to release XE @ 2.93 vs 3.2 in Q4 to beat FX-62, and easy air overclocks to 3.5Ghz+)
And don't forget, Woodcrest is being released in a week on a 1333FSB, so theres no doubt Conroe can be released if need be on a 1333FSB.
coldpower27
Golden Member
This new generation vs old generation stuff is getting old. Just live with it people, this is the comparison that will be when Conroe is officially launched on July 23rd.
You compare what is out at the current time to what is out at the current time, so that means when Conroe arrives no 65nm Dual Cores, or K8L for AMD. That is something down the road. The Windsor core is going to be at the time AMD's most powerful core and hence will be compare, we don't wait around till AMD has an advantage and THEN compare. :disgust:
I would hardly call this an equivalent Conroe is looking to be better then what AMD will have at the time.
You compare what is out at the current time to what is out at the current time, so that means when Conroe arrives no 65nm Dual Cores, or K8L for AMD. That is something down the road. The Windsor core is going to be at the time AMD's most powerful core and hence will be compare, we don't wait around till AMD has an advantage and THEN compare. :disgust:
I would hardly call this an equivalent Conroe is looking to be better then what AMD will have at the time.
the problem is that we are comparing benches between an available cpu with a not available one since four months ago.
We are talking about conroe since FIVE MONTHS before it will be released (and probably more time if we talk about availability after launch).
This is ridiculous and tired if you ask me.
We are talking about conroe since FIVE MONTHS before it will be released (and probably more time if we talk about availability after launch).
This is ridiculous and tired if you ask me.
Stoneburner
Diamond Member
This really does bring it into perspective. AMD is not doing bad but intel is clearly a step above its products. The early benchmarks and hype did indicate a slaughter though. Alot of the games were practically tied at the highest resolutions which seems to indicate there isn't much of a cpu bottleneck for games.
DidlySquat
Banned
I didn't know you can run crossfire on Intel 975X motherboard ????
I guess SLI and x-fire chipset requirement are a wash, as shown by the new SLI on a single card 7950 GX2, which is compatible with all motherboards and chipsets (not just nvidia's SLI chipset).
I guess SLI and x-fire chipset requirement are a wash, as shown by the new SLI on a single card 7950 GX2, which is compatible with all motherboards and chipsets (not just nvidia's SLI chipset).
Keysplayr
Elite Member
Whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. 🙂
AM2 is the latest, current offering from AMD. It's what they have to offer until their next gen. As of right now, or at least as of July 23rd, AMD has nothing better to offer. So, whether it is "old" technology or new, it's still all AMD has, for now. By the time AMD's next gen comes out, don't you think Intel will have something better out by that time as well? I don't know why some guys don't think about these things. Intel creates Core 2 Duo, and takes permanent lunch? Not likely.
Your forgetting that Netburst was out long before A64 and still had to compete with "old" technology against A64 for a very long time. Too long IMHO. 🙂
BlingBlingArsch
Golden Member
as for power consumption dont forget about AMDs 35W AM2 models.
neither 0.65 parts during 4º quarter.
BTW
AMD will let out "anti- -.Hyper-Threading" in this year: the secret weapon Socket AM2
Let's wait if this is correct or not, but if it is...
BTW
AMD will let out "anti- -.Hyper-Threading" in this year: the secret weapon Socket AM2
Let's wait if this is correct or not, but if it is...
Here's my take on all this:
First off, Conroe looks to be the better chip, but we already knew that. For the most part, the Conroe XE is between 10-15% faster than the FX-62, excluding gaming and Excel/Winrar (where it is around 30% faster!).
Gaming is much closer than expected. At 1024x768 the difference is around 12% (with the extremes being ~15%) but this shrinks to between 3-5% at 1600x1200 (which is my preferred resoultion, and my video subsystem is way weaker than the one used in this test). It seems like Intel will have a slight advantage and more room for growth, but dont expect any miracles out of Conroe in this regard, video will still rule gaming.
Now onto power consumption. A difference of 21W at idle, 24W at load. While nice, this is a far cry from the TDP difference of 50W between the two CPUs (yes, I know they're measured differently but this shows that the differences are real, not just fanboy garbage). Also, the power draw difference between an nForce4 SLI and an nForce4 SLI-32 is around 15W at idle and 10W at load (and ATI's chipsets better the Nforce SLI by around 5Ws). If you take all of this into account Conroe doesn't look THAT impressive on the power consumption side, or, at least, the Conroe XE doesn't.
First off, Conroe looks to be the better chip, but we already knew that. For the most part, the Conroe XE is between 10-15% faster than the FX-62, excluding gaming and Excel/Winrar (where it is around 30% faster!).
Gaming is much closer than expected. At 1024x768 the difference is around 12% (with the extremes being ~15%) but this shrinks to between 3-5% at 1600x1200 (which is my preferred resoultion, and my video subsystem is way weaker than the one used in this test). It seems like Intel will have a slight advantage and more room for growth, but dont expect any miracles out of Conroe in this regard, video will still rule gaming.
Now onto power consumption. A difference of 21W at idle, 24W at load. While nice, this is a far cry from the TDP difference of 50W between the two CPUs (yes, I know they're measured differently but this shows that the differences are real, not just fanboy garbage). Also, the power draw difference between an nForce4 SLI and an nForce4 SLI-32 is around 15W at idle and 10W at load (and ATI's chipsets better the Nforce SLI by around 5Ws). If you take all of this into account Conroe doesn't look THAT impressive on the power consumption side, or, at least, the Conroe XE doesn't.
when's the last time you have seen a cpu beating another so thoroughly across the board?
those who believed intel's word of 40% advantage over fx62 really should know better; companies do this all the time, giving out bloated figures trying to hype the public.
nonetheless, I'm very excited for conroe as well as what AMD would bring to counter this.
those who believed intel's word of 40% advantage over fx62 really should know better; companies do this all the time, giving out bloated figures trying to hype the public.
nonetheless, I'm very excited for conroe as well as what AMD would bring to counter this.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
