AT conroe review updated

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Because of DDR2. If you look at straight CPU tests (Encoding) Conroe is barely ahead, which shows that Conroe is barely faster given it's new Architecture, that is a fact, not a fanboy comment. I still want to know what this "Modified ATI Driver" did and if it could have affected the AMD System, which it could have very easily.
Click to expand...

There were only 3 isolated media benchmarks done and the increase ranged between 11% and 30%. While there are many different applications out there which I'd like to see a good benchmark in (Photoshop, Premiere, etc), what has been tested shows a significant performance increase.

The ATI driver was modified to recognize the CPU because the CPU is not on the market yet. That is not surprising. I will admit there is a possibility of foul play but ATI would had to have played along and recompiled a specific Catalyst version just for Intel. They are getting along well, but I don't think that well. AMD and ATI have a relationship as well and that would be very bad for business. Time will tell.

Conroe does not have a 20% increase in CPU power, those Gaming Benchmarks are RAM related, so yes, DDR2 will give the performance crown in Gaming to a Par or to either Conroe or AM2 by <5%. But those encoding Benchmarks prove the CPU power in Conroe is not >20%.

Read my previous post, DDR2 will bring only gains in Gaming, where RAM Bandwidth is very important.
Click to expand...

Since when were gaming benchmarks RAM related? The main performance boost is from only one area--latency. The AMD processor has an integrated memory controller with a CL of 2. AMD has the advantage in gaming.

You are likely one of the same people who argued for the longest time that DDR2 was not needed, did not improve performance, etc. Justifying the fact that AMD stuck with DDR while Intel moved to DDR2 over one and a half years ago. And you were right for gaming. Every benchmark did and does still show very minor differences in gaming performance when comparing DDR2-533, 667, and 800.

In fact, I was able to find benchmarks showing lower latency DDR2-533 outperforming similar DDR2-667 modules.

But that aside, I am still eager to see more benchmarks when the AM2 processors come out using the same memory modules for both tests.

Oh, by the way, MadModMike, the reason I am focusing on you is because yesterday you jumped on that VoodooPC blog and posted it about 100 times and harassed anyone who murmured the word Intel by linking that. The BIOS had little effect on performance.

How would you like if others posted the follow up article every time you tried to post something?

Be respectful to others even when you disagree.
 
Merom is not based off Yonah and conroe and woodcrest arent derived from merom. Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are all from the same family.
Click to expand...

It is silly to argue over this, but if you contest I shall refute.

Merom was the original design. Merom was designed and codenamed before Conroe and Woodcrest were, back when Yonah was still being designed. Even the platform is nearly the same. Yonah's platform is Napa. Merom's platform is Napa Refresh. It is even expected the Merom CPUs will work in current Napa boards with just a BIOS update.

The Intel Core Microarchitecture was derived from design of Merom which was spearheaded by Intel Israel Ltd., who designed and revised the Centrino platform originally and whose job it was to continue to update the mobile architecture (Dothan, Yonah, etc.) back before Intel knew it was going to migrate it's mobile architecture to the other market segments.
 
Merom is not based off Yonah and conroe and woodcrest arent derived from merom. Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are all from the same family.
Click to expand...

It is silly to argue over this, but if you contest I shall refute.

Merom was the original design. Merom was designed and codenamed before Conroe and Woodcrest were, back when Yonah was still being designed. Even the platform is nearly the same. Yonah's platform is Napa. Merom's platform is Napa Refresh. It is even expected the Merom CPUs will work in current Napa boards with just a BIOS update.

The Intel Core Microarchitecture was derived from design of Merom which was spearheaded by Intel Israel Ltd., who designed and revised the Centrino platform originally and whose job it was to continue to update the mobile architecture (Dothan, Yonah, etc.) back before Intel knew it was going to migrate it's mobile architecture to the other market segments.


^^ that guy knows what he's talkin about.
 
Keep in mind that a lot of the stuff developed for NetBurst is being ported over to the new architecture. NetBurst may be dead, but a lot of components that were part of netburst are still alive and kicking.

Reincarnated if you will....
 
what is crazy is that they are going against a overclocked FX-60. and still the preformance....

Now i konw that wastnt the extreme edition of the Conroe...

So AMD has to release something.. Something tight.
I cant wait for the top vs top test to hit...
Click to expand...

P6 = Pentium Pro, Pentium 2 was a cheaper and refined pentium pro, pentium 3 was originally a P2 with SSE and the later P3's were the same design with the cache put back on die the the original pentium pro, then P3 tualatin came out, and pentium m was based of it.

as for the clock speed diffrence which all amd fanboys didnt notice check out my UNFAIR BENCHMARKS post http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/UNFAIR-BENCHMARKS-ftopict177575.html its a laugh but eh, its all true.
 
nothing extra ordinary about conroe...coz conroe based on pentium m/pentium iii architecture...basically they have same IPC like athlon but the different is they have more cache than athlon x2.

athlon x2 1mb can beat p4 that have more cache becoz p4 have a stupid architecture...however conroe not using that stupid netburst ...and of course conroe win coz they using 4mb x 2 cache vs 1mb x 2 cache of athlon...

so what amd need to do...is just load more cache on athlon .... done...
 
Theres more to performance then just cache, hell if it were all about cache the itanium would be owning everything and we all know how fast it is.

WTF you've posted that crap three times, go post your bs elsewhere.
 
Theres more to performance then just cache, hell if it were all about cache the itanium would be owning everything and we all know how fast it is.

WTF you've posted that crap three times, go post your bs elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Itanium is much faster with suitable compliers.
 
nothing extra ordinary about conroe...coz conroe based on pentium m/pentium iii architecture...basically they have same IPC like athlon but the different is they have more cache than athlon x2.

athlon x2 1mb can beat p4 that have more cache becoz p4 have a stupid architecture...however conroe not using that stupid netburst ...and of course conroe win coz they using 4mb x 2 cache vs 1mb x 2 cache of athlon...

so what amd need to do...is just load more cache on athlon .... done...
Click to expand...

(ALSO POSTED IN THE OTHER ONE)

P4's architecture aint stupid it took on the K7 with ease but the K8 was designed to beat it and it did the same as conroe beats the K8, and was about time it was replaced.

Conroes cache is 1x4mb shared not 2x4mb and cache doesnt matter as much depending on architecture, ram speed/location and FSB, twice the cache might translate into 10% performance at best depending on original size.

Conroe is P6 based (pentium pro -> P2 -> P3 -> pm).
 
Conroe is P6 based (pentium pro -> P2 -> P3 -> pm).
Click to expand...

LOL! ROFLMAO!

Sorry, but if you're a fan of Intel you should get your info right.

I really, REALLY hope Conroe isn't P6 based. If you remember the original pentiums; the ones that succeeded the 486DX back in the early 90's, they were P5's. The Pentium Pro was a P6. After that, Intel went with Roman Numerals 'till the PIII. They dropped Roman Numerals with the Pentium 4, branding it the P4. For obvious reasons, they had to change the next line of pentiums to Pentium D, appropriately denoting dual-core.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/cpu/fam/g6PPro-c.html

As for Itaniums, there are a LOT of reasons the Itanium crushes its competition, cache being a FACTOR and not a determinite. For one, it uses the IA64 instruction set with is, for the most part, custom-tailored to the Itanium's architecture and 64-bit computing. x86 was never really intended to be 64-bit, and while it works fine, IA64 is a better instruction set for 64-bit computing. There are more reasons why the Itanium is the king of 64-bit crunching, but really it's just architecture at this point. Itanium is also rediculously expensive compared to its x86 counterparts, which is why its dying out.

For all of those AMD fanboys out there, AMD was the first to bring 64-bit x86 computing, but Intel brought the first 64-bit computing with the IA64 Itanium.
 
Nah, intel was very late with 64bit.
The likes of DEC (alpha), SUN (SPARC),HP (PA-Risk), IBM (power) were all doing 64bit way before intel.
The Itanium is really their first real attempt at a server chip.
 
My biggest disappointment with AMD is that 3GHz barrier the average user encounters using water cooling or without.
I am saying 3GHz, because I would love for my Opteron 175 to hit it, but in particular, its barrier is around 2680MHz.
That is one of the reasons I am soon switching to the A8R32-MVP motherboard to determine if this chip will reach 3GHz.

I get enjoyment with being able to get more value and performance out of a chip, and it seems for that reason, AMD is loosing that enticement that used to come with them.
Intel, on the other hand is gaining that, now producing chips that will get over 1GHz overclock is exciting and awesome, add that to cooler and lower wattage chips... That is what is going to hurt AMD in the true enthusiasts market, imo.
Plus, the facts are Intel's chips are getting cheaper to produce due largely to the manufacturing process, which means lower cost to us and higher profits for Intel.
 
My next rig will have a custom Peltier/TEC + Liquid cooled Conroe. I'm gonna see exactly what the conroe can do 😀

I'm working on the PCI controller card for the peltier plate. It runs on an atmel uController, so it'll keep the CPU above dew-point (So I don't have to worry about condensation). The project got side-tracked when I realized I'm going to have to change my bus to PCIe 🙁

I agree that if Intel's new lineup OC's better than the AM2, they'll regain some of the enthusiest market back, especially if the OC'd processors perform really well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom