Intel: Conroe vs. presler

[imported_niz]

Intel: Can we expect better gaming perfromance from the first Conroe processors than the the then-top-end (not extreme ed.) Presler?

 

[foodfightr]

Intel? Gaming performance?

Hrm... this doesn't make sense.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: niz
Intel: Can we expect better gaming perfromance from the first Conroe processors than the the then-top-end (not extreme ed.) Presler?

we can only hope Northwood 2.0

 

[imported_niz]

It does when you *need* to run Intel because you develop Linux code for a living.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: niz
It does when you *need* to run Intel because you develop Linux code for a living.

I too write C++/asm in Linux.

 

[dexvx]

One of the major advantages Conroe will have (that Dempsey will have too) is dual independant FSB's. As you may have noticed, a large part of the problem with dual proc and dual dual core procs is the implementation of the shared FSB design. As we can see here:

http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=110

Dual 1066 FSB's alleviates the problem by a fair margin in terms of scalability. Now, if Intel just copies the current Dothan and packages two of them in 1 package and called it Conroe (supposedly the first low-pipeline desktop proc), the gaming performance would still be greater than that of any Pressler. Dothan's single core gaming performance matches that of an Athlon64 clock for clock. If you want to extrapolate gaming performance from a Conroe, I'd look carefully at how Yonah (which IS a dual core 65nm Dothan) performs in a desktop environment.