Intel Conroe Numbers compared to AMD FX60!

Please do elabourate.. From what I see, the benchmark pitches the very best AMD has to offer against mid-range next generation Intel.

David, hey :)

You said in the beginning of the article that the tests were not conducted in HEXUS labs. Did you use your own benchmarks, timedemos etc, or did Intel supply you with those? And did Intel allow you to check out the box's configurations?

Pwned... man, I feel like chucking my GX280 out the door...

Lets hope AMD puts up a better fight later...

But this sorely reminds me of XP2100 and XP3200... dont u guys agree? transition from DDR266 to DDR33 to DDR400... going from top sexxeh XP2100 to okayish XP2500 to plain waste of time land XP3200..

Anandtech also agree that the Conroe is pawnage.

I guess soon we will find out how many people buy AMD because it is AMD, or because of they currently make some of the best chip for many users.

Unless, of course, the AM2 blows our mind. Which I'd like to see.. but it seems like AMD will have 6 months to make some serious improvement over what they have now.

[Not that the current chips are slow in any way, of course]

Of course, we might expect the bench to be duffed as well.. Remember D840EE prelaunch? It was so highly acclaimed with all those +50% improvements, but look what happened...

Like the article said, its not done in HEXUS labs.. so the performnace could be duff... Or they've probably hand picked a winner chip that does 3.6Ghz on Conroe

David, the only thing thats vauge in my mind is was the Intel chip just the Intel Core, or Core Duo?.. Because if it was just the Core, AMD is screwed.

But that would be silly. I mean, the chip will probably be sent to labs for testing closer to launch, so faking result now wouldn't be a good idea.

We can expect the hypes growing every day from now. Based on what we have, it is justified. But if 1 week before the launch reviews come up that shows the Conroe to be not all that then... Ouch.

Very nice. But can I just ask: HOW?

I mean, I can understand the non-game benchmarks, and even the less demanding games. But FEAR? I thought that was well gfx card limited. How can a CPU boost give that much extra performance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conroe 2.67 vs AMD Athlon FX60 (2.8) Benchmarks

In a few months Intel will be the first to admit that the current P4 line up is running too hot and the performance is poor compared to AMDs counterparts. Intel had 2 rigs setup for us to use, the AMD Athlon FX60 (Overclocked to 2.8GHZ to simulate being an FX62) this was running on a DFI RD480 mainboard with 2 1900XT Crossfire cards, both systems had 1 GB of RAM installed (AMD running at 2-2-2/1T Timings, and the Intel running DDR2 at 4-4-4.) It had a clean install of WindowsXP and a series of applications for us to play with.

---

Has anyone bothered to read that?.. aparently not if you think the benchies were biased. If anything the Intel rig was relaxed compaired to the utlra highend AMD rig.

It is a very interesting question.

Could it be that there are no CPU right now capable of pushing the bleeding edge graphic cards to their limit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I mean, I can understand the non-game benchmarks, and even the less demanding games. But FEAR? I thought that was well gfx card limited. How can a CPU boost give that much extra performance?

---

Because X1900's are bottlenecked by current generation CPUs.

Would like to see gaming performance at high-definition, where CPU limitation really hurts the graphics card - looks like Conroe would still pull a fast one though.

HD?.. I thought graphics cards exceeded HD resolutions long before HD was thought of by stupid hollywood types.

But this is like a 2nd place boxer waiting for mohammed ali to grow old and stroke(like VERY old) and giving him a fatal KO...

dun mind me, but thats wat i think really... took intel pretty long to figure out that Netburst was crap...

Initial figures look good, how much will they be tho and will the extra performance be worth the cash outlay, personally doesnt matter for me as my home rig with its x2 3800 already has a set upgrade path with the rest of the x2 series and its not really slow as it is...

Also bare in mind that this is Intel's next gen chip vs AMD's current range, yes theres no FX62 at the minute but a simple over clock gives you the figures, anyway its about time Intel came back with something good, they really have been flogging a dead horse for the last few years on the desktop chips, laptops is obviously where they've been concentrating for a while and now we'll see how things go.

I dont expect AM2 to give AMD "that" much of a boost so we'll see if AMD have anything else up there sleeves to counter this...

Netburst served its purpose.. I'm just thankful Intel decided to focus on core efficency over shrinking semi-conductors (while scientifically admirable, it doesn't bring in the dough).