Collection of Conroe Data. (Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme!)

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
1Tanker

1Tanker

Splendid
Apr 28, 2006
4,645
1
22,780
Well Dell got the new Woodcrest CPU's in their "
Dell Precision Workstation 690's" up for sale.

So lets hope Conroe is next, and SOONER than later.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you saw -- I think you responded, some pre-order sites are stating July 5 availability -- I don't believe that, but it would be cool if Intel pulled it in by 3 weeks.

It sure would be nice for even a week earlier launches ;)
But, i guess if there are no Motherboards , what point is there to launch early for Intel.You mean other than to force AMD's price drops up by a week? :wink:
 
Artmic

Artmic

Distinguished
May 27, 2002
311
0
18,780
Well Dell got the new Woodcrest CPU's in their "
Dell Precision Workstation 690's" up for sale.

So lets hope Conroe is next, and SOONER than later.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you saw -- I think you responded, some pre-order sites are stating July 5 availability -- I don't believe that, but it would be cool if Intel pulled it in by 3 weeks.

It sure would be nice for even a week earlier launches ;)
But, i guess if there are no Motherboards , what point is there to launch early for Intel.You mean other than to force AMD's price drops up by a week? :wink:
For sure, i think we all win once they start fighting on price, the cheaper the better, lol
 
Artmic

Artmic

Distinguished
May 27, 2002
311
0
18,780
I'm really starting to get stir crazy, i want to build my new PC, i can't stand my slow crap PC anymore, Someone call Intel and tell them to hurry up. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'll tell the manufacturing boys to step it up next time I use the wetlab =)

Damn, i read that the new Woodcrest workstations that Dell is selling will ship on the 17th of July.

I guess when Conroe comes out it will be 2 weeks before Dell can deliver, and probaby 4 weeks till Hardware resellers have them in stock GRRRRRRR god damn.
 
L

ltcommander_data

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2004
997
0
18,980
Wonder why no one has posted yet. It seems Coolaler is at it again. This time it's a 2.67GHz Kentsfield. I would think this is the minimum clock speed that Intel should launch at since any less and the non-multithreaded performance would fall too far behind, especially if the Conroe Extreme Edition makes it to 3.2GHz. The Kentsfield is still on stepping 4 though. (For interest, I believe the latest CPU-Z 1.35 identifies stepping 5 as B1, up from stepping 4 as B0.)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=104773

Going through the results you notice Kentsfield hitting 3.62GHz on a 1446MHz FSB. Again, I question Intel launching quad cores on a 1066MHz FSB when a 1333MHz one is perfectly achievable this early in the game. Cloverton should have it at the very least since Bensley fully supports it.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/06/27/intel_clovertown_to_be_rated_at_110w/

The concern now is that the 2.67GHz Kentsfield and Clovertons now have a 110W TDP. This is actually an improvement since the top Cloverton was supposed to have a 120W TDP, but it's still high comparatively. Kentsfield was originally targetted for a 95W TDP, but that was obviously for the 2.4GHz version (probably with the original 2MB L2 per die which has since been doubled) rather than the 2.67GHz one. 110W may be worth it for a quad core, given that it is a quad core, if it performs well. It's still lower than the 125W TDP of the FX62 and the upcoming FX64 although 65nm (which won't be coming to the FX series initially) should change things. Hopefully as Intel's 65nm process continues to mature and newer steppings (ie stepping 5) arrive the TDP can be lowered. Combined with better binning, a 100W TDP isn't that much of a stretch. (I'm crossing my fingers anyways).
 
E

ethernalite

Distinguished
May 24, 2006
215
1
18,680
Going through the results you notice Kentsfield hitting 3.62GHz on a 1446MHz FSB. Again, I question Intel launching quad cores on a 1066MHz FSB when a 1333MHz one is perfectly achievable this early in the game. Cloverton should have it at the very least since Bensley fully supports it.
Click to expand...

That's 362Mhz FSB on an enthusiast board. Take your average joe board and it would fry at anything over 300 (assuming you could change the FSB).

Certainly, it's possible to release at 1333Mhz Kentsfield, but Intel had not told mobo manufaturers to make it as part of their specifications. As such, they will be sticking with the 1066Mhz FSB.
 
L

ltcommander_data

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2004
997
0
18,980
Kentsfield is going to be released as an Extreme Edition part which means that its targetted at enthousiasts. Your average joe wouldn't know what to do with 4 cores anyways (although even enthousiasts might find it a bit hard), and the average joe wouldn't want to be spending $999 on a CPU anyways. Being an Extreme Edition the target Intel board is the i975X which is exactly what the case has been for all the previous Extreme Editions (namely the 955EE, the 965EE, the X6800, and the X6900). The RD600 is supposed to ship with 1333MHz FSB support and the nForce 590 is supposed to have a Q4 refresh with 1333MHz FSB support. The only one lagging behind is the i975X, although it actually has a 1333MHz option in the BIOS. The support for a 1333MHz FSB among the targetted Extreme Edition boards is there, it's just whether Intel decides to take advantage of it.

None of this excuses Cloverton for being on a 1066MHz FSB though. I can understand a 1333MHz FSB on servers might create some concerns in terms of stability, but tightening up the quality control and binning a bit, take the time to validate properly, and there shouldn't be a problem. Intel still has more than 6 months, so they should be able to figure this out.
 
K

Kougar

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2005
66
0
18,630
Kentsfield is going to be released as an Extreme Edition part which means that its targetted at enthousiasts. Your average joe wouldn't know what to do with 4 cores anyways (although even enthousiasts might find it a bit hard), and the average joe wouldn't want to be spending $999 on a CPU anyways. Being an Extreme Edition the target Intel board is the i975X which is exactly what the case has been for all the previous Extreme Editions (namely the 955EE, the 965EE, the X6800, and the X6900). The RD600 is supposed to ship with 1333MHz FSB support and the nForce 590 is supposed to have a Q4 refresh with 1333MHz FSB support. The only one lagging behind is the i975X, although it actually has a 1333MHz option in the BIOS. The support for a 1333MHz FSB among the targetted Extreme Edition boards is there, it's just whether Intel decides to take advantage of it.

None of this excuses Cloverton for being on a 1066MHz FSB though. I can understand a 1333MHz FSB on servers might create some concerns in terms of stability, but tightening up the quality control and binning a bit, take the time to validate properly, and there shouldn't be a problem. Intel still has more than 6 months, so they should be able to figure this out.
Click to expand...

Whoa, another Kentsfield? I wonder if I can have his old one... :eek:

Well I don't understand the 1066FSB limit anymore, because the entire Woodcrest Xeon lineup officially runs at 1333FSB. I fairly expect Intel to finally notch up the FSB... although I bet things will get even more interesting when intel begins the transition to 45nm by the 2nd half of next year...
 
iterations

iterations

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2006
428
0
18,780
June 29 2006: Tons of new Core 2 Duo info is now available and it all agrees with what we've known for the past couple months. Here is a complete gaming and media encoding/compression benchmarking suite for a few of the Intel Core 2 Duo Products, with the AMD FX-60 and FX-62 scores for comparison, and a 3.66GHz Core 2 Extreme Air cooled overclock thrown in for fun.

The data speaks for itself. Core 2 Dominates.

core2duobenchmarks3vb.png
 
S

sex_monkey

Distinguished
May 6, 2006
123
0
18,680
nice collection of data,im not getting excited about conroe that much becuase i know i cant afford it so i havent looked at many benchmarks..... but can you tell me why the difference between the 6300 and 6600 is so much??
 
Artmic

Artmic

Distinguished
May 27, 2002
311
0
18,780
I just hope the Quad CPU will be at or above 3Ghz, since if you buy dual core 2.93Ghz Cpu's and then go back a notch it will totally suck with software that has no threading/dual-cpu support.
 
S

sex_monkey

Distinguished
May 6, 2006
123
0
18,680
ok i was too lazy to read the front page,but the cache size is the same,the main thing im taking in from those graphs is that the 6300 doesnt perform very well,im trying to work out the reason why 540mhz jump is huge (6300-6600) and a 530mhz jump is not quite as large (6600-6800) becuase the graphs at the front say that the cpus scale 100 percent with mhz? or maybe i was lazy and read that wrong to
i guess im trying to say maybe they made a mistake with the 6300?
 
iterations

iterations

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2006
428
0
18,780
ok i was too lazy to read the front page,but the cache size is the same,the main thing im taking in from those graphs is that the 6300 doesnt perform very well,im trying to work out the reason why 540mhz jump is huge (6300-6600) and a 530mhz jump is not quite as large (6600-6800) becuase the graphs at the front say that the cpus scale 100 percent with mhz? or maybe i was lazy and read that wrong to
i guess im trying to say maybe they made a mistake with the 6300?
Click to expand...

If you are too lazy to read the front page, I'm not gonna take much time to explain that time based benchmarks are logarithmic.

Think about it this way... if there were not "diminishing" returns in time based benchmarks, then we would soon be able to complete them in negative time, completing them before we start.... make sense now?
 
S

sex_monkey

Distinguished
May 6, 2006
123
0
18,680
duh logarithmic,im such a muppet sometimes,anyway its hard to analise that graph properly need to add in more lines,but then i spose its not as nice to look at
 
D

DavidC1

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
494
67
18,860
thx for the info, btw how will cenroe lets say 6600(2.4) perform in single core apps? wouuld it behave similarly to a lets say pentium IV 3.4 clocked cpu?
Click to expand...

Uhh, no. The E6300 with half the cache and 1.86GHz will be faster than the Pentium 4 3.4GHz.
 
D

DavidC1

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
494
67
18,860
ok i was too lazy to read the front page,but the cache size is the same,the main thing im taking in from those graphs is that the 6300 doesnt perform very well,im trying to work out the reason why 540mhz jump is huge (6300-6600) and a 530mhz jump is not quite as large (6600-6800) becuase the graphs at the front say that the cpus scale 100 percent with mhz? or maybe i was lazy and read that wrong to
i guess im trying to say maybe they made a mistake with the 6300?
Click to expand...

No, its probably because the 2.13GHz version has HALF the cache of the E6600, which has double the cache and faster clock speed.
 
illuminatirex

illuminatirex

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2006
1,149
0
19,290
performance wise i think it kicks pentium D 950's silicon butt ( I might be mistaken theou, but even the lowest of the core 2 duos its amazing comapared to present cpu's(even the good dual core ones)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom