Intel Conroe Numbers compared to AMD FX60!

[schmunk]

The reason that a benchmark like that is run at such low res is for that exact reason...so the GPU doesn't restrict the power of the CPU too much.

And because stuff like Q4 and FEAR are things we understand AND CAN RUN OUSELVES AT HOME, we can therefore have a good idea of just how much faster this CPU rips throug hthe data.

I understand why they chose the low resolution, to make the big, pretty change in the numbers, but it's still a pointless test, as it always has been and always will. Numbers for the sake of numbers mean nothing when you're actually using the PC.

(TBH, as games are almost always now GFX limited, they don't ever make for good CPU tests - anyway, bring on PhysX... )

More application tests would be better, but perhaps they don't make such big, such pretty changes in the numbers...

[crusher]

Impresive by Intel but am2 will have ht on 333mhz (now 200) and we all know taht rd480 chipset sux (in think taht he should w8 for r580 chipset...) becouse this chipset sux and on the end do you realy think that amd performance will be beter only becouse they will put ddr2 support... AM2 is not youst ddr2 suport for amd cpu... But i must say that this results are really impresive by intel.... keep up 2good work!

[badass]

ugh @ fanboys

Agreed.
All I know right now is that while I was planning on replacing my computer after AM2 is released with an AM2 based system and was going to completely ignore intel slow and pricey sytems, I've re evaluated that. I might just replace my Athlon64 with an Intel.
Time and independant benchmarks will tell.

[S_D]

Hiya guys,

Have been an Intel boy since 97, then went AMD single core late last year. The main reason I believe that AMD have owned so well recently is the price/performance in comparisson to Intel parts. Whilst this article does well to compare similarly clocked CPU's, (as before a similar clock A64 completely owned a P4) it doesn't go into prices. What's the point in comparing a 2.67Ghz conroe with an FX60 if the Conroe cost eleventy million dollars?

I'd be interested in seeing a £200 AMD part against a £200 Conroe and so on. That will be the acid test in the market place.

Other than that, good job Intel.

Simon.

[ca197]

I was just wondering if anyone had a similer setup to the FX-60 Rig? If so any chance of running comprable benchies to check the validity of Intels AMD Rig.

It will be interesting to see if the FX-60, X1900XT crossfire combo can actually hit or exceed the stated results.

[darrensen]

Jesus, that was impressive!

Not had time to read all the previous posts, but how much is that intel cpu going to cost?

Lets see how both perform once the AM2 is out. That's a fair test.

[Mattstarky]

I could have been converted if i hadnt just bought a new socket 939.
Im sure it'll be a while before all the problems are worked out anyway.
New bios', chipsets... ect

[DanceswithUnix]

I understand why they chose the low resolution

Low resolution? When I were a lad we used to dream of 1024x768. Used to have a single pixel from middle 't road

I think this is the first time I have wanted to see more synthetic bencmarks on a cpu (usually they bore me) to see just where the performance is coming from. I can only assume they have doubled the throughput of the SSE unit.

I guess we will soon see what tricks AMD have sitting on the shelf ready to go.

[sawyen]

But those numbers seemed rather extreme don't you think? Intel must have a hand in making the FX-60 look terrible.. or perhaps make their Intel run extraordinary well. We are seeing 20-30% difference here..

As an AMD fan I am, I do agree the Conroe will be good.. Considering how Dothan was a hit.. But think about it? Is this performance even economically possible? To build such an efficient chip with only 12 stages and be able to keep it under a mobile class 65W TDP + overcoming the latency problem with the external mem controller.

I wouldnt count on the benchies until the real chips out and their prices announced. If they cost as much as Pentium Ms clock for clock then its pretty pointless really.. A 1.73Ghz Dothan is already £153, a 2Ghz Dothan is £210 at least... think about the price for a 2 2.67Ghz Dothan's stuck into a die..

[MSIC]

I'd be interested in seeing a £200 AMD part against a £200 Conroe and so on. That will be the acid test in the market place.

Well put - tried to say the same earlier, but you summed it up nicely.

[shaithis]

Have been with AMD since the socket 939 first released (wasn't impressed with them before that)...

Its nice to see Intel (potentially) back in the game.

My spidey-senses are tingling though: How did they turn it around? Why are these parts not available until August?

We will have to wait and see I guess....Way way way too many variables at the moment (including AM2!) to have any good idea of wether they will be worth it or not by the time we can buy them.

Also, if these are the same CPUs that are currently shipping in the new Intel Macs, then I get a bad feeling as from what I've read the new macs aren't all that....

[schmunk]

I wouldnt count on the benchies until the real chips out and their prices announced. If they cost as much as Pentium Ms clock for clock then its pretty pointless really.. A 1.73Ghz Dothan is already £153, a 2Ghz Dothan is £210 at least... think about the price for a 2 2.67Ghz Dothan's stuck into a die..

Is a very good point, and the reason that I haven't bought an Intel platform since the P120 which was my parents first PC.

However, AMD are now not much cheaper than Intel. My next PC build will be dual core, but I can't yet justify the fortunes that AMD are charging for the X2s...

[kasavien]

Quick question is this conroe what is currently being used in the new macs?

[aidanjt]

My spidey-senses are tingling though: How did they turn it around? Why are these parts not available until August?

They are available now, buy an Intel mac.. I'm assuming Intel is waiting for EFI motherboards to come on stream before releasing it to the general market place.

[aidanjt]

Quick question is this conroe what is currently being used in the new macs?

yes

[GFiSH]

You're all wrong!! The reason all the tests were done in 1024*768 is because they only used a 15" TFT!! ;o)