Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 compared directly to an Opteron 165 @ 3GHz

[the Chase]

Thanks for the benchies!!

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
have u tried phase change cooling?? coolaler in xs did 4Ghz under 1.35vcore using "cooler express"(not sure what brand it is)

but i am looking forward to OC a lot with Vapochill LS, say 4.5Ghz maximum?? with E6700

EDIT: but they say X6800 can do 4 GHz on air, who knows, it might be true

lol, i wish i could afford the cooling... and the electric bill.

 

[Xcobra]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: Xcobra
meh, i wanna see amd's 65nm process, i think comparing 90nm vs 65nm is bogus... but again, conroe seems to be a hell of a cpu...

... today vs today

not future vs today

conroe is today

i dont care, comparing cpus that use same technology is more of a fair comparison wouldnt you say?

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: Xcobra

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: Xcobra
meh, i wanna see amd's 65nm process, i think comparing 90nm vs 65nm is bogus... but again, conroe seems to be a hell of a cpu...

... today vs today

not future vs today

conroe is today

i dont care, comparing cpus that use same technology is more of a fair comparison wouldnt you say?

i wouldn't

 

[Xcobra]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Xcobra

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: Xcobra
meh, i wanna see amd's 65nm process, i think comparing 90nm vs 65nm is bogus... but again, conroe seems to be a hell of a cpu...

... today vs today

not future vs today

conroe is today

i dont care, comparing cpus that use same technology is more of a fair comparison wouldnt you say?

i wouldn't

well thats you, not me, and by this i dont mean that i wouldnt buy a Conroe cuz it looks like a sweet cpu, im just pointing out the "unfairness" if you will, of the benches, nothing else

 

[compgeek89]

It is not unfair, if AMD can't get a 65nm process out t=when intel can thats their problem

"No, wait everyone! Don't compare Conroe to any AMD cpus until AMD has 65nm!"

 

[Xcobra]

Originally posted by: compgeek89
It is not unfair, if AMD can't get a 65nm process out t=when intel can thats their problem

"No, wait everyone! Don't compare Conroe to any AMD cpus until AMD has 65nm!"

LOL... im not saying not to compare them, and they should be, otherwise how are people gonna see the advantages, duh! but i think what i think and you think what you think, period

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Xcobra

Originally posted by: compgeek89
It is not unfair, if AMD can't get a 65nm process out t=when intel can thats their problem

"No, wait everyone! Don't compare Conroe to any AMD cpus until AMD has 65nm!"

LOL... im not saying not to compare them, and they should be, otherwise how are people gonna see the advantages, duh! but i think what i think and you think what you think, period

The proccess and architecture are going to be differant anyway..AMD uses SOI, intel uses strained silicon, and there are many other differances. So by your thinking, you can't compare their CPU's at all, because they aren't the same technology..

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Xcobra

Originally posted by: compgeek89
It is not unfair, if AMD can't get a 65nm process out t=when intel can thats their problem

"No, wait everyone! Don't compare Conroe to any AMD cpus until AMD has 65nm!"

LOL... im not saying not to compare them, and they should be, otherwise how are people gonna see the advantages, duh! but i think what i think and you think what you think, period

AMD's 90nm vs Intel's 65nm is a legitimate comparison because AMD because o their decision will not have viable 65nm products till December 2006, so in the meantime the comparison doesn't halt. We don't compare to AMD only when it's favourable, you compare constantly.

It is completely fair because AMD has only brought this situation on themselves by thier decisions, there is NOTHING bogus about it.

So for the moment we will be comparing the Conroe core to the Windsor core, which are the best products available for each company when Conroe is released. This is a fair comparison. It's will be the best available AMD technology against the best Intel technology.

 

[theteamaqua]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
have u tried phase change cooling?? coolaler in xs did 4Ghz under 1.35vcore using "cooler express"(not sure what brand it is)

but i am looking forward to OC a lot with Vapochill LS, say 4.5Ghz maximum?? with E6700

EDIT: but they say X6800 can do 4 GHz on air, who knows, it might be true

lol, i wish i could afford the cooling... and the electric bill.

oh dang it, cos i am going to get Vaochill LS and E6600, but with high FSb, you will need good RAM too, like DDR 800 900, or even 1000

 

[theteamaqua]

to keep 1:1 FSB : RAM

 

[Xcobra]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Xcobra

Originally posted by: compgeek89
It is not unfair, if AMD can't get a 65nm process out t=when intel can thats their problem

"No, wait everyone! Don't compare Conroe to any AMD cpus until AMD has 65nm!"

LOL... im not saying not to compare them, and they should be, otherwise how are people gonna see the advantages, duh! but i think what i think and you think what you think, period

AMD's 90nm vs Intel's 65nm is a legitimate comparison because AMD because o their decision will not have viable 65nm products till December 2006, so in the meantime the comparison doesn't halt. We don't compare to AMD only when it's favourable, you compare constantly.

It is completely fair because AMD has only brought this situation on themselves by thier decisions, there is NOTHING bogus about it.

So for the moment we will be comparing the Conroe core to the Windsor core, which are the best products available for each company when Conroe is released. This is a fair comparison. It's will be the best available AMD technology against the best Intel technology.

i see your point

 

[Markfw]

AM2 is actually a few % higher by the benchmarks I saw, and you are comparing to that, and its available now, and Conroe still ISN'T available (to buy) so how is this fair ?

 

[Xcobra]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
AM2 is actually a few % higher by the benchmarks I saw, and you are comparing to that, and its available now, and Conroe still ISN'T available (to buy) so how is this fair ?

i think that was one of the points i failed to point out, its a good point

 

[fire400]

wow, this should be interesting!

 

[compgeek89]

Im really sorry about the lack of updates guys, my driver source is... lagging

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
AM2 is actually a few % higher by the benchmarks I saw, and you are comparing to that, and its available now, and Conroe still ISN'T available (to buy) so how is this fair ?

This is still a legitimate comparison because by the time Conroe ships Windsor core will still remain the most advanced AMD product of the particular time.

There isn't a need to modify the comparison.

This comparsion the topic creator making is now is just plainly stated he is compared an overclock Opteron 165 to an overclock E6600 both at 3GHZ. It isn't fair in the slightest, one they are using overclocked platforms for both parties, one at an obscence overclock, one at a more modest one. The RAM types utilizied are different. Other disreprencies, but thta isn't what this comparison is about.

The comparison is being made is because we are interested to see how a K8, would compare to a Conroe on per clock basis.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: lopri
Most plausible and priceless data among your testing, at least for me, looks to be the PCMark05. It's exactly what I've expected and Opteron rig's score is spot-on. We can also see that A64 still has advantages on memory access thanks to the on-die memory conroller (which itself is far from enough to be competitive to Conroe in overall performance)

I didn't mean to nit-pick your contribute to the community. I greatly appreciate your time and effort, and thanks to your PCMark05 data, I can compare the twos side by side in near-complete package. It's the most valuable data (PCMark05) that I've seen comparing A64 vs Conroe so far on the net.

Seconded, I appreciate the OP's efforts here.

 

[n7]

This is a ton of werk to do.

Thanx very much for your efforts compgeek89.

I am too more interested in the gaming & video encoding results than anything else, but overall, your benching will be more imformative than any review i've seen thus far.

Thanx again.

 

[theteamaqua]

ok heres what i ahve seen, AM 2 performs better in memory bandwidth in sis sandra(much like what netburst did) , but in other banchmarking tools like Divx, cinebench,3dmark, aquamark, games, they are slower, yes thats right i said slower, and i doubt they can get any faster with the "4x4" platform which can potentially cost $2300 just in cpu/mobo,

what does the FX 62 have over FX 60? besides 200MHz boost and more memory speed b/c of DDR2,

AMD had a good run for the past 3 years, at least from july 23 to somewhere b4 K8L launches, its intel's IMO, im selling my AMD rig on ebay

as for the 65nm vs 90 nm, well Intel always used smaller silicon process compare to AMD, and thats their advantage, so comparing the best products from both company can offer, i think its fair

 

[the cobbler]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
ok heres what i ahve seen, AM 2 performs better in memory bandwidth in sis sandra(much like what netburst did) , but in other banchmarking tools like Divx, cinebench,3dmark, aquamark, games, they are slower, yes thats right i said slower, and i doubt they can get any faster with the "4x4" platform which can potentially cost $2300 just in cpu/mobo,

what does the FX 62 have over FX 60? besides 200MHz boost and more memory speed b/c of DDR2,

AMD had a good run for the past 3 years, at least from july 23 to somewhere b4 K8L launches, its intel's IMO, im selling my AMD rig on ebay

as for the 65nm vs 90 nm, well Intel always used smaller silicon process compare to AMD, and thats their advantage, so comparing the best products from both company can offer, i think its fair

1) both have been @ 90nm process for years, and Intel was not competitive on that process. wait until AMD 65nm to make that kind of claim, imho.

2) AM2 enjoys whopping jump up in bandwidth (like AMD needed more) over S939. this is why you see AM2 (even S939) still taking the crown at high resolution/AA/AF from Conroe.

Conroe is good stuff for benchies, great big huge E-Penis and so forth. I am currently lmfao at all these people ready to dump their AMD gaming rigs for Conroe which have the potential to be slower still than AMD in those apps at those resolutions.

 

[theteamaqua]

fisrt off, i dont care about stock speed, AMD cpus have had cold bug for quite sometimes and i doubt AM2 doesnt, as for Conroe, some ppl in XS like fugger said htey were able to boot conroe at -150 C, not that my vapochill ls is that good only at -50c but the OC ability is just insane, E6700 can do 3.7 at air cool with DFI mobo, and i havent seen any good AM2 OC result

but anyway, if any of u find good AM2 OC results, pzl do post-

 

[Powermoloch]

holy crap :Q

 

[the cobbler]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
fisrt off, i dont care about stock speed, AMD cpus have had cold bug for quite sometimes and i doubt AM2 doesnt, as for Conroe, some ppl in XS like fugger said htey were able to boot conroe at -150 C, not that my vapochill ls is that good only at -50c but the OC ability is just insane, E6700 can do 3.7 at air cool with DFI mobo, and i havent seen any good AM2 OC result

but anyway, if any of u find good AM2 OC results, pzl do post-

that is a good point re: subzero

looks like all AM2 so far have stupid cold bug :disgust:

 

[theteamaqua]

how bout AM2 OC using watercool, air cool??

any links anyone??