Intel E6600 2.4Ghz Conore Benchmark

[tuteja1986]

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_conroe_benchmarks/default.asp

"with no Intel representatives around. We had several unsupervised hours to fiddle with the system, running artificial and real-world benchmarks. To top it off, we also tested against an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62. Keep in mind that the Core 2 Duo Conroe system is running at 2.4Ghz vs. the FX-62 at 2.8Ghz. Both are equipped with ATI's X1900XTX graphics card, both running Catalyst 6.5 drivers"

 

[DrMrLordX]

Weird results. That's all I can say. Er, well, that and their 2.9 ghz OC is kinda neat, but nothing surprising judging from what we've heard from others.

 

[Polish3d]

Huh...those were weird... Not sure what to make of that...

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Did anyone else notice the voltage settings in CPU-z? 2.64v?? holy hell!!! I don't give a flying rats tail if it's 65nm that is going to be a HOT processor.

 

[DrMrLordX]

It's already been shown that CPU-z doesn't report Conroe's vcore properly. It tends to double the actual figure.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
It's already been shown that CPU-z doesn't report Conroe's vcore properly. It tends to double the actual figure.

did not know that, thank you, haven't really been keeping up on conroe simply because I can't buy it yet.

 

[Figure]

in gaming the FX-62 didnt seem to be that far at all behind conroe...except in 800x600 resolution where conroe had about 20fps more...but who in there right mind would play a game @ 800x600 if they bought a $1000 processor...

when the resolution and AA/AF was turned up the FX did quite nicely...


duno what to say really

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Originally posted by: Figure
in gaming the FX-62 didnt seem to be that far at all behind conroe...except in 800x600 resolution where conroe had about 20fps more...but who in there right mind would play a game @ 800x600 if they bought a $1000 processor...

when the resolution and AA/AF was turned up the FX did quite nicely...


duno what to say really

Thats because they are were running a single GPU solution. at higher resolutions and with AA/AF the GPU becomes the bottleneck over the CPU. When we get around to hard launch of this product with some other chipsets available and we can see SLI and Crossfire benchmarks we really won't see a big difference, when was the last time you compared current 9xx intel extreme editions to FX in game tests? The FX led bya margin in low res tests but, in high res they are again GPU bound.

 

[BrownTown]

well, don't expect too muc hwith this chip, this is 533 mhz less clockspeed then the top of the line chip, and costs less than a third of what the FX-62 costs. Also, lol @ your 2.64 statement, you realise at that voltage it would put out 4 times as much heat as it does now, or 260W...

 

[acegazda]

impressive, consistant with all other benchmarks out there...

 

[SlitheryDee]

Yup Conroe's a beast. I'm sort of an admitted fanboy of AMD, but if the price isn't right on the X2s in the future then I might just have a look at intel for the first time in n years.

 

[acegazda]

where n>6