Jeez, did you actually read my post? First, I said that Conroe was the better chip, period. Secondly, I said that power consumption isn't THAT impresive because the chipset on the AMD system is a know power hog, not to mention the FX-62's power draw being pretty sick (30W more than the X2 5000+ on Anandtech's tests). Now, notice I didn't say performance per watt or anything of the sort, I said POWER CONSUMPTION. Personally I think the FX-62 is a horrible chip because the power draw increase compared to the FX-60 is too much, but I'd be impressed if the Conroe XE kept a significant power draw lead against an FX-62 on an ATI chipset.
-
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
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jeez, did you actually read my post? First, I said that Conroe was the better chip, period. Secondly, I said that power consumption isn't THAT impresive because the chipset on the AMD system is a know power hog, not to mention the FX-62's power draw being pretty sick (30W more than the X2 5000+ on Anandtech's tests). Now, notice I didn't say performance per watt or anything of the sort, I said POWER CONSUMPTION. Personally I think the FX-62 is a horrible chip because the power draw increase compared to the FX-60 is too much, but I'd be impressed if the Conroe XE kept a significant power draw lead against an FX-62 on an ATI chipset.
coldpower27
Golden Member
You have to keep in mind however, that we have yet to see how the difference is like between the nForce 590 SLI vs the nForce 570 SLI, and if the chipsets difference is as great thereas they were on the Socket 939 based motherboards.
What I find curious is that the TDP level of Windsor FX is just around right when you compare it the Presler XE. It looks however Conroe XE is using a different scale that is not quite as conservative.
I guess Nvidia didn't worry so much about how their chipsets perform on power consumption this generation when their competitions high end graphics solution suck up over 40% more power compare to their offering, Nvidia foucsed on having their GPU solution being TDP thrify rather hten their chipset technology.
What is interesting howeve they missed out the games where Intel showed some of the greatest advanatges such as Quake 4 or F.E.A.R, though I would like a more
comprehensive suite when the reviews arrive on July 23rd officially.
I really don't know why you guys gets your panties all bunched up over these comparisons (you guys have AMD stocks or something?). If the comparisons are using AMD 'old gen' technology, then it's AMD fault for not being on the ball. If you can get some 'new gen' CPUs for a more fair comparison, then start showing us some results.
Personally, i'm thankful for these comparisons and previews. Without them, i would have kicked myself for buying a system a few weeks ago when Conroe is so close and so superior.
Let me correct you on something. First off the Conroe top end model will be $999. And all the prices displayed are not end user prices but distributor pricing. Intel has also done away with oem price breaks to boot. So depending on SUPPLY and DEMAND, the prices we will pay has truly not been established. And so far the info as to Conroe being readily available at launch for the end user to buy is not looking promising at all.
coldpower27
Golden Member
If he is refering to the top end mianstream line then he is correct the Conroe E6700 is debuting at 530US, while the Athlon 64x2 4800+ deuted at 1001US.
There was no FX based Dual Core till the advent of the Athlon FX 60, which debuted at 1031US which is inline with what the Core 2 Extreme X6800 debuting at 999US.
What most nice about this launch is the lowest end model isn't over 500US like the 4200+ with a price of 537US was at the time of introduction, with the E6300 at 183US.
We will have to see how supply pans out, this is true.. though that just remains a question mark as you can make good arguments for both fronts on that particular subject.
archcommus
Diamond Member
All you people quoting me I don't think understand the point I was trying to make. I wasn't trying to say that it's not a fair comparison because it's AMD's old gen versus Intel's new. I was just making a point of mentioning that AMD's "old gen" isn't doing all that bad against Intel's latest and greatest, so it shows you how good AMD WAS doing already.
archcommus, I understood what you meant, I had the same reaction. Conroe is an impressive chip. Who knows, I may own one someday. However, I thought the gap would be bigger. I don't think this means "conroe isn't as good as I thought" but rather "this proves to me that AMD really hit one out of the park with K8".
Tangerines
Senior member
Conroe XE's TDP is 95W I believe.
coldpower27
Golden Member
That was when we believed COnroe XE had a 1.33GHZ FSB. Now it's down to 75W, apparently 95W is the probable TDP of Kentsfield.
kidcool321
Member
cool cant wait for core its going to be the best 🙂 seems really fast and better then amd(that is right now),but i bet amd is going to come out with something even better right after core comes out.
I think the most we can expect out of AMD in the short term (within a month of Conroe's launch) is a speed bump, which will not be enough to deal with the performance difference we're currently seeing. A 5400+ also allows AMD to have a chip in the $500+ price range, which would be good for ASPs, if yields allow it.
DidlySquat
Banned
ROFL !!!! what speed bump ? Are you talking about a 3 GHz FX ? because if you do then you don't understand that with the current Athlon64 core revision and manufacturing process it is quite hard to reach 3 GHz. Even hardcore overclockers that try out many cherry picked CPUs have a hard time to reach 3 GHz, especially on air cooling. So I don't think AMD will be able to release a 3 GHz FX CPU in any significant quantities, until they move to 65 nm or significant;y optimize their manufacturing process.
Uh huh...as single core is already at 3 GHz (256 and 856 Opterons), I'm gonna guess that you're probably wrong here...
Due respect, I don't think you understand the manufacturing yourself...
The new AMD SiGe straining process with DSL (for some 90nm and all 65nm), allows for a 40% reduction in power at the same speeds.
PlatinumGold
Lifer
ya, and who's "fault" was that?
no one told intel they had to abandon the p3 architecture for the netburst.
shoot, if intel had put all their resources into developing the p3 architecture instead of develping and marketing netburst, they would have BURIED AMD by now.
Holysmoke36
Member
QFT
archcommus
Diamond Member
I just want fast dual core processors for no more than $200, whoever can deliver me that wins.
My post was actually in reply to kidcool321's, who said that he'd bet AMD has something better than Conroe lined up for the end of July. I think a speed bump is doable though, of course, the chips would be insanely cherry-picked. Now, I don't think it LIKELY, but it is possible. Notice that I suggested a 5400+ (which would be a 2.8GHz/512kBx2 part) because it is simply much more likely than an FX-64.
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
-
-
