Intel Conroe Numbers compared to AMD FX60!

[darrensen]

yes

Are you sure? I thoguht it was just the Intel duo core.

[Mike Fishcake]

Waiting for the proper benchies before I get excited either way.

Regardless of how it ends up, it's good for the consumer. If intel are charging their way up to AMD and their price/performance ratio improves, AMD are going to have to do something pretty revolutionary.

I'm in the crowd that recommends AMD at the moment, but that's purely on the price/performance aspect and nothing to do with brand loyalty

[TooNice]

Yes it does, it tells you it doesn't cause a bottleneck in real conditions, not benchmark la-la land.

Not in the real world it doesn't.

That's well "duh". However, it doesn't tell which processor is faster. For a CPU test, thats completely useless.

It is like saying, in the real Word, my Athlon XP 2500+ isn't slower than an FX60 when I type a document in Word. Hence in the real word, the XP 2500+ performs just as well as the FX60.

If you show me this alone, it'll look like Intel performs the same as AMD (1 FPS of difference hardly mean anything). Are you saying that is the case?

[Stoo]

Someone say pricing?

Intel Desktop Processor Roadmap
Processor Brand Processor No.
Clock Speed/FSB Cache Launch Date Price @ Launch
PPXE 965
3.73GHz / 1066MHz 2x2MB Q2'06 $999 (04/30)
PPXE 955
3.46GHz / 1066MHz 2z2MB Now $999 (now)
PPXE 840
3.20GHz / 1066MHz 2x1MB Now $999 (now)
Conroe E6700
2.67GHz / 1066MHz 4MB Q3'06 $530 (???)
Conroe E6600
2.40GHz / 1066MHz 4MB Q3'06 $316 (???)
Conroe E6400
2.13GHz / 1066MHz 2MB Q3'06 $241 (???)
Conroe E6300
1.86GHz / 1066MHz 2MB Q3'06 $209 (???)
Pentium D
960
3.6GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Q2'06 $530 (04/30)
Pentium D 950
3.4GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $637 (now)
Pentium D 940
3.2GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $423 (now)
Pentium D
930
3.0GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now
$316 (now)
Pentium D 920 (no VT)

3.0GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $178 (???)
Pentium D 920
2.8MHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Q3'06 $241 (now)

4MB Cache huh?

That might give a clue where some of the performance increase comes from..

TiG was correct, Conroe is dual core at least:

Intel's Conroe processor is receiving the most amount of press, is on high expectations with mainstream consumers and enthusiasts alike. Packing two cores, a next-generation architecture, and large amounts of cache, the Conroe family also comes in at significantly less than a Pentium EE.

[schrickvr6]

I've just been reading a little bit about the kentsfield quad core chips but can't find too much info.

As far as i can tell they are 2 conroe dies packaged on the same chip so effectively a dual dual core chip, and each with there own l2 cache which i guess could mean potentially 8mb cache?

edit: Or maybe the chip with 4mb l2 is the kentsfield.....

[javalord]

This is awesome for consumers. I tend to go with whatever offers good value for money. Notice how the Athlon64's have been priced closely to Intel's P4 for a long time?

Also the athlon64 does seem more like a K7 with revisions rather than a highly revised design that the conroe is. Intel had to do something, having stupidly used netburst for years with no real effect.

I could almost see this happening. This would explain why Apple are using Intel chips, their presentations clearly showed it last year that performante to power ratio was incredibly high. They must have been talking about the conroe then!

One other thing, you fanboys need to realise this is good for everyone , and that being loyal to one manufacturer these days is daft. Best tool for the job is more the way to go.

[javalord]

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.

Windows XP doesnt work with EFI based motherboards at the moment.

[TooNice]

Best tool for the job is more the way to go.

I agree. Of course, I am happy that AMD did well the last few years. Hopefully it was somewhat profitable for them and give them the strenghts to fight back.

I chose Intel during the P2 days (and prior), AMD afterwards (although some of the Northwood were very competitive performance wise - they still costed a fair bit more). If those early figures hold, its back to Intel until AMD strikes back

We win

[schmunk]

You may be interested to compare / contrast this article at Tom's.

They're testing a 2.13GHz, 667 FSB Yonah Core Duo, which in itself ain't all that. Now, obviously Yonah != Merom (Conroe) but it's a look in the right direction.

However, if you scale the PCMark memory benchmark by 1067/667 you get a similar number to the Conroe number, and likewise for the PCMark CPU benchmark scaled by 2.60/2.16 (and a little more for the extra FSB).

[merlin2001]

agree with javalord - the real winners here are us. the more competitive the CPU market, the more both companies have an incentive to spend in RnD and deliver us better performance over the long-term. if conroe does turn out to be everything promised, it's likely to put margin squeeze on AMD (read: cheaper chips) in the short-term and force them to rethink their roadmap a bit and introduce new designs more quickly in the long-run... ...can't see a downside really (unless AMD REALLY drop the ball and we end up back in the intel monopoly of the early pentiums)

[kempez]

I'm really looking forward to Intels new platform. These numbers along with some others just look awesome. AMD will have to properley pull something out of the bag to beat this

[shaithis]

Windows XP doesnt work with EFI based motherboards at the moment.

Windows MCE 2005 does support EFI and that is effectively Windows XP with a few extra little proggies. If they wanted to, they could release EFI support for XP today.

Plus, Windows XP64 has EFI support.

There are effectively no reasons NOT to release EFI board now.......in fact if more were out there it might play Microsofts hand to release the EFI with XP support.

[DR]

Numbers are all good and i'm interested to see Intel striking back. But i'm suprised Hexus didn't cover the WHY part of it.

Why is the new Intel so good, A quick read up elsewhere seemed to indicated a 14 stage pipeline, (much closer to AMD's 12 stage) meaning the huge drop in Ghz speed obtainable. But also a massive improvement in power consumption (and hence heat reduction)

There are some detailed documents out there on the new microburst architecture too, being able to handle 2 x86 instructions per cycle, is definitely an interesting concept, and i can certainly see lessons learnt from the failure of prescott, while taking the benefits of the Pentium-M series.

I'll be interested to see on futher inspection down the line where the true benefits come. I for one still feel that the integrated memory controller of the amd64 series is still one of the key components. I'm hoping the am2 will extend this nicely to make the best benefit of the ddr2 memory. Something i'm still not convinced the conroe will handle ddr2 as efficiently as amd might.

Nicely done Hexus however, well impressed to read the info you have produced

TiG

We have an article coming but I had to get this out - I am sure you can see why

[DR]

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..

Intel does run very well!

I have to say I was suprised at performance of the chip it seems to defy laws of physics in places - cooler, less power more performance....

People should not count on these until the chips are out - It was a sneak peek... I am sur eyou guys are happy to see that right?

[DR]

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!

Trust me, this has come to a huge shock to AMD..... AM2 and DDR2 will bring very little to the table - the HT increase may make a difference but not as much as is maybe needed....

[DR]

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.

I would love to see the 200/200 thing as you say - but taking the top AMD CPU and smashing it is gr8 - it works for everyone - drives inovation, performance, and pricing