HEXUS.reviews :: WORLD EXCLUSIVE! INTEL CONROE BENCHMARKED

[sawyen]

A few points I'd like to bring up...

The review mentioned that the original Intel benchmarks, should have been taken with a pinch of salt. Though as we later learned, there was no need. This is the review that needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Why you ask? Well...

First, the RAM used:

The Intel systems have 1GB of 667MHz RAM.
The FX62 system has 2GB of 800MHz RAM.
The FX60 system has 1GB of 400MHz RAM.

The Conroe system should have been running 800MHz RAM. Why did the FX62 system get double the amount of RAM as any other system? Why did every system except the FX62 system use Corsair RAM, and the FX62 system use Crucial RAM?


Second, the Hard Drives used:

The Intel systems had a Maxtor 300GB SATA hard drive, whereas the AMD systems had a Seagate 160GB SATA hard drive. Surely this would alter the performance of the systems? One type of hard drive for Intel, one for AMD?


Third, the monitors used:

Why different monitors? The Intel systems used a Dell 3007WFP Widescreen (2560x1600), but the AMD Systems used Dell 2405FPW Widescreen (1920x1200)


Fourth:

Why did you not state the clock speed of the Intel Conroe system, and why did you fail to mention the make of graphics card used in each system?

I find this review unfair and uncompetitive. I really would like to hear why these systems are so unfairly matched? Perhaps you couldn't get the Intel Conroe system up and running with 800MHz RAM, if so, that's fine, then why not use 667Mhz RAM with the FX62? Also why double the FX62 systems amount of RAM?


Cheers,

Paul

The key point here is that, other than the 4 sticks of Ballistix.. AMD has a slight advantage in the rest of the component..

For the monitor bit, which is oddest bit u mentioned, how would changing the monitor change any of the core results?

I agree probably we should keep eveyrthing else constant, but you can clearly see.. having the FX-62 running 667MHz will only make things worse for it. The outcome is pretty clear, having disadvantaged on the mem front, Conroe still gains the lead over FX-62.. Regardless whether the components were similar or not.. Conroe will still be faster.

, hope that helps..

Ohh.. and all systesm were using 7900GTXs, in case you missed it..

[DR]

We tested the stuff at 2 different locations (we have a lab in London) and other testing was done in the Midlands.

We normally would keep things consistant and I am sure the tech guys can answer the criticism.

The monitors - as I said 2 locations, we had in one of our locations moved to a 30" panel, for higher resolutions. However, not in another place. We can only do so much, the same for the drives but that would make nearby zero difference.

Both systems were using 7900GTX - I believe they were standard clocked XFX cards.

This is not a detailed review, this is a preview. The clock speeds of the CPUs are under NDA - however the rest for us isn't. I am sure someeone will post the clock speeds - they are not hard to work out.

[64Bit_Oddity]

I'm not trying to stir up the dust here, just putting my opinion/point across.

The fact that the systems were tested in 2 different locations add's problems into the mix, which i can understand.

My appologies if i sounded a bit harsh, but i've read too many reviews before, that have been bias, one way or another...,

[krazy_olie]

This is all great news, I got no loyalty to either company, just like to see good competition. I never really got why people where expecting much from AM2. Based on Pentium and the quality of the core I expected Conroe to be good, perhaps not this good, but good.

AMD will need a new core to keep up, just like Intel needed a new core whilst they were hanging on to Netburst.

[Hottentot]

I guess 2.4 and 2.67 Ghz for the clock speeds.

[schmunk]

[Cough] E6600 = 2.4GHz, E6700 = 2.67 GHz [/Cough]

L'inq




Edit: Damn you, Hottentot...

[DR]

Bob Crabtree adds - a Mr Green, of course, doesn't mean yes and doesn't mean no.

[thelmores]

intel stock is at $18, maybe with this new core they can get their share price up!!!!

competition is good! faster cheaper cpu's!

[Lonyo]

XBitlabs in its review of AM2 uses an FX60 vs FX62 (939 vs AM2).
The Farcry results from 1024x768 give AM2 a 14% advantage over 939, but the Hexus numbers show AM2 being about 4% SLOWER than 939.

Now I understand the test setups and benchmark runs would be different, but a 20% swing seems a bit much IMO between 2 basically similar CPU's, especially when in pretty much every test apart from that one the AM2 system is faster.

I know it's only a preview, but I personally wouldn't put the hugest amount of faith in all the numbers from this test, and obviously there will be other AM2 reviews which may shed more light on AM2 vs 939 and whether Xbit or Hexus seems more correct. Or whether the Hexus benchmark manages to heavily favour 939 somehow, or vice versa.

[DR]

Have you read our FX62 review? Rather than our Conroe sneak peek? http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5694

[yamangman]

We tested the stuff at 2 different locations (we have a lab in London) and other testing was done in the Midlands.

We normally would keep things consistant and I am sure the tech guys can answer the criticism.

The monitors - as I said 2 locations, we had in one of our locations moved to a 30" panel, for higher resolutions. However, not in another place. We can only do so much, the same for the drives but that would make nearby zero difference.

Both systems were using 7900GTX - I believe they were standard clocked XFX cards.

This is not a detailed review, this is a preview. The clock speeds of the CPUs are under NDA - however the rest for us isn't. I am sure someeone will post the clock speeds - they are not hard to work out.

You should benchmark LOMAC, possibly the most CPU limited game in the world.

[DR]

There is so many benchmarks which we can do - trouble is we have a suite and only so much time. We have to make sure we do the best spectrum of testing possible to enable us to give you a piece of editorial with buying advice/allowing you to make a decision

[Koolpc]

I would move across to 'The other side' if the price / spec was right. I have been with AMD since i was knee high to a grasshopper and i'm an old git!

[MakaveliThaDon]

I wanna know where the Nvidia drivers can be downloaded? Because the 91.27 drivers aren't available on the nvidia webby or the nzone website....................

Maka

[Rys]

And they won't be. 91.28 will be out soon.

[atomicpineapple]

Conroe pricing appears to be reasonable if the data in this link is true http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1619 . I agree thought the 975X boards are a bit pricey, and the only one out right now that supports Conroe is the Rev 304 Intel Bad Axe (note earlier revs of the bad axe will not support Conroe) all others will require a CPU power regulation re-design.