Test to confirm the AMD-60 numbers from the Conroe benchmark

[n7]

Originally posted by: Zap
If there's a cheap overclockable CPU that gives us as good bang for the buck as the slut down the street, then I'm all over it like a sailor on leave.

Haha, i'm with you on that one.

Sure, i do somewhat detest Intel's business practises, but that's not gonna stop me from buying a lower end Conroe & clocking it past 3 GHz if it can be done

I've been a price/performance fanboi for quite a while now.
Whoever gives me that, gets my money

 

[WT]

Anyone who doesn't 'get' the bigger picture here should remember:

Competition is GOOD. It means lower prices in the long run as the (perceived) #2 player wants to be #1, and #1 wants to maintain that lead even if it results in lower overall profits. We all win when there is competition.

 

[stelleg151]

Well said Zap. I think the majority of us see through the green and blue lenses to the true colors.

 

[videopho]

Its 'bout time the slogan "Intel Inside" has finally meant something to be proud of...

 

[josh609]

AMD is usually always better in the price/performance factor. So this fall when i upgrade, i'll be looking into a 4800+ X2, or a Conroe at 2.4Ghz for $400-500 ( I read somwhere the 2.67GHz conroe will be around $600) But, from the looks of the benchmarks, a Conroe at 2.4GHz would blow away a 4800+ X2. So if that's the case, Conroe here i come!


Conroe 2.4GHz
Geforce 8800GT
Windows Vista home premium
2 GB DDR2 800

That be a good sig, ya say?

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: WT
Anyone who doesn't 'get' the bigger picture here should remember:

Competition is GOOD. It means lower prices in the long run as the (perceived) #2 player wants to be #1, and #1 wants to maintain that lead even if it results in lower overall profits. We all win when there is competition.

No question. However, if AMD can't come up with something reasonably competitive against Conroe, they're isn't going to be any competition in the high end.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
lol imagine how the Intel fanboys felt over the past years.

I know. I love my $300 FX-62, but I am loyal to whoever has the best product. But do you really think that AMD will sit quietly for the next couple of months or years? I think that they will have something for us shortly. BTW, I noticed that AMD stock is down, now is the time to pick some up, while Intel has the lead.

 

[Bobthelost]

I think AMD is going to be heading for a bit of a pasting, the AM2 chips out soon will thrash the current P4 lineup very nicely. Then conroe turns up and thrashes AM2 soundly for a bit untill AMD come out with the next line, however we don't know exactly what that is, how it'll perform and/or what it'll look like.

Good to see intel's got a CPU coming out that's worth buying that doesn't have an M attached to it

 

[bupkus]

It seems the fanbois on both sides of the fense make the most noise but that means nothing.

As others have said, "I'm a fan of AMD" cause they have saved me a lot of $$ over the past years and given me the chance to build cheap and good performing computers for my gaming needs and the low end needs of friends, family and customers.

I haven't been a fan/customer of Intel for so long for the reason that I don't perceive them to care about me and others who need to spend smart to stretch their purchasing power for housing, food, clothing, gas, computing, etc. I feel I can thank the Dells and others for marketing Intel so well that AMD had to drop their prices to sell their products.

For me it's not the best of breed and it never will be. We watch NASCAR and understand who the best car/driver is, but can anyone afford to buy one of those? We buy Hondas and Chevy economy models and that's where most of use are in our selection of products. If Intel comes along with a better cpu in my price range then I will become a fan of Intel. End of story.

 

[MBrown]

Just read Anands Blog and AM2 and I have to say I am getting a bit worried about AMD.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Looks good! Anyone who's been watching Dothan and Yonah benchmarks in the past probably saw this coming. Hell, Dothan had already been shown to be better clock-per-clock in games vs single-core Athlon 64s(by a small margin).

AMD better have something else besides DDR2 support coming. They'll have to get K8 to about the 3.2-3.5 ghz range to beat the 3 ghz EE Conroe I suspect.

Of course, I'd like to see some more benchmarks than those provided . . .

Originally posted by: Zebo 02/11/2006 at 08:01 PM

I see AMD selling $40 chips again like t-bred days in order to survive.

AMD fans laughed at me..said stupidest thing they ever heard etc...

 

[josh609]

Is Conroe a 64bit processor?

 

[bupkus]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Looks good! Anyone who's been watching Dothan and Yonah benchmarks in the past probably saw this coming. Hell, Dothan had already been shown to be better clock-per-clock in games vs single-core Athlon 64s(by a small margin).

AMD better have something else besides DDR2 support coming. They'll have to get K8 to about the 3.2-3.5 ghz range to beat the 3 ghz EE Conroe I suspect.

Of course, I'd like to see some more benchmarks than those provided . . .

Originally posted by: Zebo 02/11/2006 at 08:01 PM

I see AMD selling $40 chips again like t-bred days in order to survive.

AMD fans laughed at me..said stupidest thing they ever heard etc...

But now I have the last laught. Revenge is mine! I'll show them. Call me a nerd will they? Call me paranoid will they?

 

[bupkus]

Intel finally comes up with a good processor and Intel fanbois are writing AMD's obituary. Idiots.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
No question. However, if AMD can't come up with something reasonably competitive against Conroe, they're isn't going to be any competition in the high end.

Not all of us care about the high end...

Originally posted by: bupkus
I haven't been a fan/customer of Intel for so long for the reason that I don't perceive them to care about me and others who need to spend smart to stretch their purchasing power for housing, food, clothing, gas, computing, etc....For me it's not the best of breed and it never will be. We watch NASCAR and understand who the best car/driver is, but can anyone afford to buy one of those? We buy Hondas and Chevy economy models and that's where most of use are in our selection of products. If Intel comes along with a better cpu in my price range then I will become a fan of Intel. End of story.

Zap's emphasis

So true. The most expensive CPU I've purchased in years was the X2 3800+. For my usage patterns, it does not feel a single bit faster than the socket 754 2800+ it replaced. Both have been overclocked to 2.5GHz and 2.4GHz respectively so the X2 even has a 100MHz advantage. I built a socket 939 setup for my wife and recently got an Opteron 144. Speed-wise, can't feel a difference. No, I don't spend my days ripping/encoding. No I don't run Folding. No, I'm not a benchmark junkie. I use my computer for stuff like email, web browsing, schoolwork (currently Java programming) and gaming. No, gaming did not improve with the "faster" CPU. However, there has been one side benefit from socket 939. It was my introduction to PCIe. I have to say that having PCIe has been more beneficial to me than having a "faster" CPU. The reason is that PCIe video cards are cheaper and faster than current AGP offerings. Has anyone noticed that the 6800GS AGP is clocked slower than the PCIe version? Notice the 7800GS AGP has fewer pipes than the 7800GT PCIe? Notice the AGP versions have street prices higher than PCIe versions?

Recently I build a Sempron gaming rig with a Biostar Tforce6100 and Radeon X850XT PCIe. Really budget and it games just as well as my overclocked dual core setup. BTW, that video card is now $154AR. Besides not buying higher end CPUs, I don't buy higher end video cards - but I'm willing to go mid-range because there is a noticeable difference unlike between CPUs.

The Conroe at $209 does sound interesting for overclocking purposes, I'll admit. I wouldn't mind going for that sometime after it comes out to let everyone else be guinea pigs and after a price drop or two. Hmmm, maybe by end of 2007 Intel will have a Conroe Celeron with 1MB cache for $100 that can be overclocked nicely... that would be more in line with my purchasing tastes.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: sharad
A company that is several percentages behind and then takes a 40% lead, even in one application, is a little hard to believe.

Why? Do you not recall the last shift from AthlonXP vs P4 to Athlon 64 Vs P4? Doesn't seem to be that unbelievable.

 

[palouse]

WAIT A MINUTE!

Where are the technical explanations from the reviewers as to why Conroe is doing better than high end X2?

Given the chatter about the 'earth shattering' reviews and comparisons of the Conroe chip, I am shocked that we don't discuss why it works. If Intel has not said why, then they are just doing "smoke and mirrors" until they do. Why worry about whether the AMD system is configured properly when YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE INTEL ARCHITECTURE IS!

We already know that X2 is just two processors in a single package, and that the games tested run on one processor at a time. The X2 should hold its own on multi-threaded applications. Conroe response times were 15%to 30% better. Why?

Is Conroe "SLi" for the CPU, where two processors handle one instructions set, analogous to two 7800GTs processing one video stream?
Is the engineering-prepared system that we see in the review set up so that each processor is dedicated to one of the two video cards?
Is the DDR2 memory configured with strangely high latency so that the processors can sort out instructions, and have time to avoid stepping on each other?

If so, great! We will see a package performance improvement, and potentially a price/performance improvement.
If so, a 15% to 30% performance increase over two autonomous processors is pretty inefficient.
If so, can AMD be far behind? Is that the purpose of AM2?

Is it possible to discuss the technology and benefits of the technology (even speculation) versus posting fan-boyisms, peeing contests, and other nonsense?

Excuse me if this has been discussed in another thread, but given the garbage in most threads, it is difficult to find useful information.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: palouse
WAIT A MINUTE!

Where are the technical explanations from the reviewers as to why Conroe is doing better than high end X2?

Given the chatter about the 'earth shattering' reviews and comparisons of the Conroe chip, I am shocked that we don't discuss why it works. If Intel has not said why, then they are just doing "smoke and mirrors" until they do. Why worry about whether the AMD system is configured properly when YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE INTEL ARCHITECTURE IS!

Presentation of Conroe's architecture

https://www35.cplan.com/cbi_export/PS_MATS001_278703_125-1_FIN_v1.pdf

username: idf
password: spring2006

We already know that X2 is just two processors in a single package, and that the games tested run on one processor at a time. The X2 should hold its own on multi-threaded applications. Conroe response times were 15%to 30% better. Why?

Conroe has better inter-CPU communication.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: palouse
We already know that X2 is just two processors in a single package

Wiat... two dies in 1 packages or two cores in one die?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: palouse
We already know that X2 is just two processors in a single package

Wiat... two dies in 1 packages or two cores in one die?

2 Cores in 1 die.

X2 has to communicate via a Crossbar (operating @ CPU frequency), giving cache latency on the order of 100s of ns. The Yonah and Conroe (which I am assuming) uses shared cache on the order of 10s of ns. Moreover, in single threaded operation, 1 CPU can use the entire cache whereas an X2 can only use half the total cache.

 

[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.