Conroe vs. X2 predictions

[dmens]

Crap, the float performance is relatively weak. Looks like the FCW/MXCSR control words need to be redone... maybe that's why the K8L project (rumor?) was initiated.

Int is looking good, but not sure how it behaves on misbehaving loads. Literally LOL.

 

[RallyMaster]

Well, looks like AMD better start cranking again! The benchmarks just posted on main page wasn't a comparison, it was a slaughter. That X2 had no chance. 40% performance increase in FEAR?! You've gotta be kidding me! But no, it's truth and sometimes, truth hurts.

*sob, RIP AMD Dominance for 3 Years

 

[MDme]

unless a miracle happens...AMD will be in trouble.

Miracle=AMD actually has some tricks in AM2, launches 4GHz A64's.

If miracles don't happen then expect to see the FX-62 selling for 300 bucks. (since the 2.67 Conroe will be 530??)

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: n7
I think clock for clock, Conroe will be very very close to the X2s.

I actually think the Conroe will be better for games, & the X2s better with media/video encoding, etc., since with Yonah, that was generally how it seems to stack up.

It does seem like Intel is going to be able to ramp up speeds faster than AMD, & ironically enough, it appears this will be a clockspeed battle.

To quote myself, i certainly was a bit off, but the performance gap was bigger in games than it was with video pretty much like i expected.

When AM2 actually hits we'll see how close they are, but i think the difference with video/media will be relatively small.
Ironically enough though, it really does seem Intel will be the way to go for games.

 

[CodedGrey]

I think AMD deserves applause for stepping up the competition. Feels good to be a consumer when you see two giants bunny hopping each other.

 

[NaOH]

According to the recent benches on anand, the Conroe owns the X2.

 

[code65536]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Funny how the tables can turn

I'm not sure I'd call it table turning. The way I see it, Intel made a major screwup by opting to go down the NetBurst path. But luckily, they kept their options open with the Pentium-M's architecture. *Intel looked bad not because AMD kicked their butts; they looked bad because NetBurst was just a bad idea.* Even before Conroe, the P-M architecture was shown to be very powerful, if you factor in that it's watered down a bit for laptops. From the way I see it, this was written in the stars a long time ago, but because NetBurst was blocking the view, many people didn't see it.

Whether or not people like to admit it (I'm not an Intel fanboy; just someone who likes electrical engineering), Intel has always had the technical edge with sheer money, capacity, technical know-how, etc. AMD may have been the first to 64-bits for consumer chips, but given how Intel was able to so effortlessly turn on 64-bit support in its newer chips indicates that this is something that they had planned for. Who was the first to 130nm, 90nm, 65nm, etc.? Who has dominated notebook power efficiency? Who had the lower heat dissipation before Prescott crashed in? Who had the snazzier branch predictor? I think that Intel has had the technical edge all along, and their product line incompetance in the form of NetBurst (esp. Prescott) gave off the *illusion* that they had lost that edge. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that NetBurst was fundamentally flawed and that it deserved to lose market share, but in the end, it's important to not mistake Intel vs. AMD with NetBurst vs. K8.

 

[Stoneburner]

Code, the problem with what you say is that AMD has generally been in the lead for several years with some intervals where intel takes over. ALso, these chips are 6 months away ... problem is who the hell knows what AMD has planned.

 

[Drayvn]

How long has it been for Intel to get something that would beat the X2s?

... Quite some time then... This is good to see that Intel have really pulled up their sleeves. But really AMD would undoubtly have something new to bring out fairly soon.

 

[AkumaX]

I think the Via C5 Behemoth @ 2.0ghz w/ decimate all!!!

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
I think the Via C5 Behemoth @ 2.0ghz w/ decimate all!!!

ftw

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: code65536


Whether or not people like to admit it (I'm not an Intel fanboy; just someone who likes electrical engineering), Intel has always had the technical edge with sheer money, capacity, technical know-how, etc. AMD may have been the first to 64-bits for consumer chips, but given how Intel was able to so effortlessly turn on 64-bit support in its newer chips indicates that this is something that they had planned for. Who was the first to 130nm, 90nm, 65nm, etc.? Who has dominated notebook power efficiency? Who had the lower heat dissipation before Prescott crashed in? Who had the snazzier branch predictor? I think that Intel has had the technical edge all along, and their product line incompetance in the form of NetBurst (esp. Prescott) gave off the *illusion* that they had lost that edge. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that NetBurst was fundamentally flawed and that it deserved to lose market share, but in the end, it's important to not mistake Intel vs. AMD with NetBurst vs. K8.

One thing I would like to correct. AMD's original Athlon was launched in the era of the Pentium 3, which was a very good processor upon which some parts of the Pentium M architecture and perhaps even Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest are derived. This was when AMD first gained their performance lead, not against netburst, but against the P3.

Of course since Intel and AMD's architectural updates are generally staggered, netburst may have been in the works already when the Athlon hit the scene...

 

[pedramrezai]

The way most of the people are thinking is just the way Intel has planned. I am a AMD fan but I can realize competition is good for customers. I was shocked by Core performance but using a handicapped AMD system really annoyed me. First, reviewers have already proven RD580 or solutions with dual 16x can deliver up to 10-15% more performance when paired with high-end, bandwith hungry vga cards. Second, we have been hearing of dual core optimizations in display drivers for some time but were unable to see something significant until we saw Conroe performance; I am quite suspicious over some hefty optimizations in intel-cooked display driver. Time will reveal. Third, this might be the beginning of a new SSEx game with unfair optimizations for a new technoogy.
I am surprized how people are trashing the current as well as future AMD64 technology.But remember that Core is not out yet and all these might be some optimizations that has granted it this performance level. Moreover, the current AMD64 technology is almost 3 years old and the new AM2 will update its specs. AMD did not like DDR2 high latency; What they are looking for is its higher frequency that can be paired with the new AM2 FSB.For Athlon 64 and Sempron a 333mhz FSB that paires with DDR2 666 and for the Fx parts a 400 mhz FSB pairing with DDR2 800. If DDR1 could reach these frequencies you could now see the real potential of AMD64. This kind of bandwith will give Core a hard time. Also remember that AMD is increasing cache (L2 and maybe L3). Shared cache is also something that will be seen in the future products and will bring huge performance gains. Based on the preliminary data of 200/266 async single channel bandwith of 3500mb/s a memory bandwith of >10k is expected in the final product and if Intel was going to compare its future platform, it was not fare to compare it with an infrastructure of >2 years old. I am sure the new AM2 will regain AMD reputation once again. But we all must remember that this competition between major players is good for the end users.