AT conroe review updated

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
but F.E.A.R's benchmark actually decreased from 36% advantage to 19% advantage, and you're telling me it doesn't change much?
ok.. maybe the bios problem we caught this time only reduces their nearly 40 % increase to 20% increase in performance.

however, intel is known to do anything, and i mean ANYTHING to destroy the credibility of the benchmark.
history:
intel is known to have used CPUID to reduce performance in other machines in benchmarks and programs, such as BAPco, Skype, and a linux compiler.
http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html
what does this tell us? intel does not have the credibility to be trusted with building their and rival's machine on their own. AT only said they found no problem with hardware configuration, but never mentioned the software benchmarks they were using. would anybody know if there are CPUID dirty tricks within their code segments?

such a big coporation, but intel has to rely on using little dirty tricks to compete with its rival. what a good model for us to learn from.
Click to expand...

If you read the update AT did on the review, you´ll see that they installed their own version of the benchmark programs...So they were not tweaked in any matter by Intel.

Btw, I´m not defending Intel, but they did show some good piece of hardware. Intel is like any other company they give a crap about us and only focus on getting their profit´s higher as they can, no matter what they have to do, after all, it´s Machiavel - The ending justifies the means (i.e., American counter-terrorism actions: do evil to end an even bigger evil). :evil:
 
Intel isnt in ANY need to do that plus why would they want to do that considering that in 3 months any hardware site could prove them wrong?
Click to expand...

Intel can do this because some of us will halt the purchase to wait for Cornoe.

Also from the Prescott benchmarks, Intel had done this before.
that's why i think intel has a better marketing strategy... by hyping the enthusiast markets with a 6 months away processor, with benchmarks that's nearly inconclusive.

oh yeh.. intel claimed that conroe has 40% decrease in power consumption. where is the fact for that? maybe they were running dual liquid cooler within the conroe case.
 
That would increase power consumption *lol*

YOU are talking about hype? YOU? I bet you are one of those no-brainers that are still hoping DDR2 will put AMD on top and YOU are talking about hype?
So funny :lol: :lol:
 
That would increase power consumption *lol*

YOU are talking about hype? YOU? I bet you are one of those no-brainers that are still hoping DDR2 will put AMD on top and YOU are talking about hype?
So funny :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Do you know the performance of a RETAIL Conroe and Windsor?

If not, please shut up.
 
The thing that get me is that this chip is 6 months away from being released. Why? If it's this good, why wait. Are they still tweaking it? My guess is that they are filling up the pipeline. Oh yeah and by the way, has anyone heard of anymore dell going to amd? I guess sooodoo or whatever his name was way off.
Click to expand...

it better this way than doing what AMD did by prematurly releaseing products and withdrawing supplies abrubtly without due explantions. Dubious and criminal if you ask me.

secondly, Anandtech is known for its objective hardware reviews, i dont see any of you "wiseguys" opening your own review website. i dont need to be an Einstein to know that they have more qualified experts than most of you. One of you even went ahead claiming that the overclock done to the AMD benchmark was rigged 8O

As i have said before, wait until there are other harware reviews that prove otherwise, until then do yourself (and us ) a favour curbing all that oral diarrohea :!: :x :x
 
Yea, I know Conroe´s and I know AM2 processor´s performance (which is pretty poor compared to S939).
And Im not the only one to know that, the whole world does but you probably just cant see it through your green eyes.
 
Yea, I know Conroe´s and I know AM2 processor´s performance (which is pretty poor compared to S939).
And Im not the only one to know that, the whole world does but you probably just cant see it through your green eyes.
Click to expand...

I REPEAT, DO YOU HAVE A RETAIL Conroe and Windsor?
 
Intel are obviously very confident about releasing the benchmarks so early, so a 20% lead may well hold true against current AMD CPUs (even overclocked ones) (I would hope so too, given that it is a new architecture with double the cache).
Toms AM2 review showed that even with a MC bug and slow DDR the AM2 was roughly on par with the current A64 chips.
So lets assume intel did fudge their own results a little (lets say by 5%)
and the AM2 may come out at 5% faster than the current A64 (at the same clock), this still gives the new intel chip a 10%-15% performance advantage.
Sounds roughly like the advantage AMD had over intel when they first released the A64. (if I can recall correctly)

However I personally think Intel have released these benchmarks far too early, this does give AMD a little time to tweak the next release to close the gap a little now intel has shown their ace card.

What I can see happening is that AMD may be forced into ramping up clockspeeds, once they have finished transitioning to 65nm (which they may have to acclerate) to keep up with intel, until they can release their next gen CPU.
Interesting times are ahead, and that can only be good for us.
 
However I personally think Intel have released these benchmarks far too early, this does give AMD a little time to tweak the next release to close the gap a little now intel has shown their ace card.

What I can see happening is that AMD may be forced into ramping up clockspeeds, once they have finished transitioning to 65nm (which they may have to acclerate) to keep up with intel, until they can release their next gen CPU.
Interesting times are ahead, and that can only be good for us.
Click to expand...

Very professional put Stimpy :wink: INTEL and AMD zealotry is just plain bull***t and we ought to look at stuff with your kind of profesionalism.


Kudos.
 
In the server space this new architecture could actaully kill their Itanium range.. In most server benchmarks (Business rather FP intensive apps)
the Opteron is already within 10-20% of Itanium results on a per core basis (on a per socket basis Opteron wins hand down).
Now if woodcrest is indeed 20% faster that will eat further into their itanium sales, unless they cripple woodcrest such that it can't work in more than 2/4 socket variations (i.e. upto 16 way with the release of quad core).
Woodcrest/Opteron benches will be interesting though when it comes to true SMP apps with 4 CPUs/(or cores) and above, as this is where the onboard MC really shines.

It makes my job harder now though, as I have to take yet another architecture into consideration when forcasting my companies future IT needs.
(we have just got 200 HP Dual socket Dual core Opteron blades running VMware, to replace our entire citrix estate, thank god)
 
lol.

This is bad, but I strangely can't resist posting.

To anyone who believes moving from DDR to DDR2 alone will improve performance: I have a muffler for your car I can sell you that will give if 100 horsepower!

Seriously, though, DDR to DDR2 increases bandwidth AND latency. I don't care if you like AMD or intel, facts are facts. The ARCHITECTURE of the memory controller has to be more tolerant of these latencies.

I'm sure AMD is making more changes than DDR2 to thier AM2 lineup.
 
One thing that must be realized ... and I say this from a completely neutral stand point between the two companies ... When AMD puts out their 65nm series on the M2 with DDR2 working with it I have a funny feeling that things will end up back the way they are now.
 
With a bigger cache (Which AM2 promises to have) and some tweaks to the memory controller we'll definately see some improvements in gaming performance and memory-intensive server apps.

I doubt that increase will be 20%, but I think the AM2 might be going for the marketing at this point over bleeding-edge performance. Marketing in terms of Performance-Per-Watt. The only market AMD can't seem to penetrate si the mobile market, depsite the fact that they've show consistent superiority in low-power.

I don't think AMD will beat Conroe in raw performance, but performance per watt. PPW will give them an edge in the mobile market as well as allowing them to market PPW to the system builders of the world.

Everyone loves the enthusiest, but admit it, we're a small part of the market. I don't think letting Intel have a 5% performance edge on AM2 will have AMD worried, especially if they can further lower power consumtion.
 
I think Intel will have Amd beat on performance per watt, since the conroe that was demoed was clocked at 2.6 and the fx was at 2.8. Raw performance wise they will be able to compete with intel, but will have to sacrifice higher wattage since they would probably have to clock up > 3.0ghz to keep up. That's until amd get 65nm going and then we'll see what happens.
 
I doubt that increase will be 20%, but I think the AM2 might be going for the marketing at this point over bleeding-edge performance. Marketing in terms of Performance-Per-Watt. The only market AMD can't seem to penetrate si the mobile market, depsite the fact that they've show consistent superiority in low-power.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is not true. In the current desktop market AMDs consume significantly less power than Intels. However in the mobile market the Intel chips perform better and consume less power. AMD is planning a dual-core version of their Turion but I am willing to bet it will use more power and perform worse than Yonah, let alone Merom which will likely be released shortly after the Turion 64 X2's.

The entire lineup of new Intel CPUs was derived off of the mobile architecture in the order P6 -> Banias -> Dothan -> Yonah -> Merom. Conroe and Woodcrest, and their derivatives, are modified versions of the original Merom design.

Back before Intel started hyping up the performance increase with their new microarchitecture, the most important thing they were marketing was low power usage and high performance per watt (PPW).

Honestly, at that time (about 6 months ago), I believe that Intel did not know if they would beat K8 architecture. I think they were afraid that they would not and so they marketed an increase in performance over their own current architecture (Netburst) in addition to their low power initiative.

Recently, Intel likely finished designing their hardware and created manufacturing samples for testing and were surprised by the jump in performance which is why they marketed the chips differently at this IDF--much like the cat that got the cream, they can't stop licking themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom