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

[AlexanderTheGreat]

That explains it all, Core 2 is awesome. As for MadModMike, he really is irrational because he just keeps on going and going sorta like Pi.

And I spilled my wine.... grrrrr

 

[iterations]

New May 26, 2006 Records:
SuperPi_1M: 10.750 seconds <-- new world record
TAM got his hands on an E6800 (2.93GHz stock) Conroe and has overclocked it to.... 4.74GHz. And this is just the beginning.... this was in an INTEL motherboard at 1.324 Vcore, lol.
Link: http://u-san.net/c-board/file/X6800-4739_10s750.gif

 

[_Ender_]

Incredible.

Conroe looks like it will be a small chip that represents an enormous leap forward in semiconductor construction.

 

[knightrous]

It looks like Mad Mod Mike was actually right about something... 8O

According to today's THG article on the July 23rd Conroe release (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/05/26/conroe_to_debut_on_23_july/), the Conroe Extreme Edition (X6800) is only a 2.93Ghz with 1066mhz FSB, not the 3.33Ghz w/ 1333mhz FSB like many fanboys claimed. Here is the slides from the THG article (http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=604489)

**If my post is just a rehash of another post, my appologies, I couldn't find this information in a few of the other Conroe threads I looked in :? **

 

[Kougar]

Alright, this info doesn't match up. Besides the new updated pricing, all of these model#s claim to have a full 4mb cache?

Source

Also, as I pointed out in the other AMD/Conroe discussion thread... why would Intel release a XE Conroe part with a 1333FSB, when neither their current 975X chipset nor the 965 chipsets will officially support anything over 1066FSB? Intel's "Bearlake" is next years refresh of the upcoming "Broadwater" 965 chipset family, and Bearlake will introduce 1,333FSB support. But that is a ways off...

 

[Kougar]

The 1333 FSB support is a rumor and speculation translated into leaked roadmaps in my opinion, it ain't offical until it's official

It is likely Intel is holding back the 1333 MHz/3.33 GHz release to Bearlake.

However, I am abit perplexed by your statement the pricing info changed. It only changed on the E6300 and it went down 20 bucks or so. Here is what was roaming around about a month and a half ago:

Hm, you are correct. I had based my statements upon Iteration's pricing chart at the start of this thread, I assumed it had more recent into and had stopped following the chart from Dailytech. The info at the start of the thread is wrong, then.

However, what about this discrepancy between DailyTech's chart and the new one from DigiTimes? The new one lists all the processors as having 4mbs of cache, when Dailytech's lists only the E6300/E6400 parts as having 2mb L2 cache. Which one of these is wrong, is my question?

 

[AlexanderTheGreat]

I see Conroe on eBay

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZgenedesign

 

[DavidC1]

I believe its that same site or maybe somewhere else i also read that is a sample chip and when its finally in production it may only be 2MB.

I don't know. Only 2 months from launch and ES samples are ALL 4MB cache versions. The roadmaps have fault somewhere.

 

[DavidC1]

According to today's THG article on the July 23rd Conroe release (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/05/26/conroe_to_debut_on_23_july/), the Conroe Extreme Edition (X6800) is only a 2.93Ghz with 1066mhz FSB, not the 3.33Ghz w/ 1333mhz FSB like many fanboys claimed.

You know what?? I don't think that can be called a fanboy claim. There was an Inquirer article that said Conroe XE's are sampled at 3.33GHz. CPUs don't usually sample at such a high frequency!! So the rumor must have started there, if samples are 3.33GHz, actual ones WILL be 3.33GHz.

 

[tmac]

:?: :?: EE version - It there's no 3.3 Ghz processor w/ 1333 FSB.
What are you paying so much for? The extreme added something extra besides speed. - more cache last time. To add a little speed and call it the extreme version. Doesn't make sense, and from a market ploy,
it makes it a joke.

I was going to buy the EE version after a few months when the dust settle down. Does it overclock better?
Is it all one chip?

Help!!!

 

[iterations]

Updated the pricing section to the latest available info.

In my opinion, the real thing that the EE processors offer is top bin sampling, and an up and down unlocked multiplier. These chips are specifically designed for the enthusiast who plans to over clock and push the limits. People who buy the EE should only be running them at stock speed for about 10 minutes when they first get the machine to test stability. It really doesn't matter whether they ship at 2.93GHz or 3.33GHZ rating when they will be normally running at 3.8+ GHZ on Air cooling at stock Vcore....

The other Conroe chips will only have downward unlocked multipliers afaik for EIST (speedstep).

 

[AlexanderTheGreat]

Updated the pricing section to the latest available info.

In my opinion, the real thing that the EE processors offer is top bin sampling, and an up and down unlocked multiplier. These chips are specifically designed for the enthusiast who plans to over clock and push the limits. People who buy the EE should only be running them at stock speed for about 10 minutes when they first get the machine to test stability. It really doesn't matter whether they ship at 2.93GHz or 3.33GHZ rating when they will be normally running at 3.8+ GHZ on Air cooling at stock Vcore....

The other Conroe chips will only have downward unlocked multipliers afaik for EIST (speedstep).

iterations, will you help overclock? I don't intent to turn my chip into a boondogle. Like you say, 10 minutes of stock frequency then 3.8+

 

[iiiceaser]

I'm just curious. Does anyone know what kinda temps these Conroe's are running at? Stock and OCed?

 

[JonathanDeane]

About that 1333Mhz bus I have to wonder if Intel had it planned alot longer then anyone realizes. In my mobo's manual it list the FSB's it capable of and 1,333Mhz is listed. This is an Nforce4 chipset so I dont know if that has something to do with it, but its not listed on the web sites specs or in the downloadable manuel... so is it a misprint or is Intel got something up its sleeve ? I would like to see Intel bump up the bus but whats after 1,333 ? 1,667 ? that might be fast enough for quad core

 

[Action_Man]

And what makes the FX so different?

 

[mxyztplk]

Hexus has gotten their hands on a 2.6GHz Conroe system and did some benchmarking against a real AMD-supplied 2.8GHz FX-62. I've quoted the real-world benchmarks below:
Benchmark/System: % Faster/slower than AMD Athlon 64 FX-62

Hexus has corrected the relative percentage results, such that Conroe performs somewhat better than originally shown. Please correspondingly correct your summary thereof. See
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692&page=3

More specifically, the following two results you quoted should be corrected to read:
DivX encode - multithreaded: 31.20 faster
WAV conversion multithreaded: 32.46 faster

Also, you should note that the Conroe test system used had a drastically poorer memory configuration, as compared to that of the FX-62 test system. The comparative results for Conroe may well have been even better in certain of the tests, had the memory configurations been equivalent.

Finally, you should post the link to the Hexus results.

 

[mxyztplk]

JumpingJack,

Hexus' original percentage comparative results were wrong in those cases in which the test results were expressed in units of time, which is why they were corrected in the Hexus article.

The problem derives from the fact that the experimental results are expressed in different terms: some are in units of output PER (i.e., divided by) unit of time ("higher is better'), and others are in units of time ("lower is better"). The results expressed in units of time must be inverted (to express them in units of output per unit of time) before computing the relative performance. Otherwise, one is computing based on inconsistent measures in one case vs the other.

If the time figures are first inverted, a single formula can be applied to get the percentage advantage/disadvantage of Conroe vs. FX62: 100 * (Conroe / FX62 - 1)

Or, if you do not wish to invert each time figure, you can use two different formulas:
1. For results expressed in units of output PER unit of time ("higher is better"), the correct formula should be: 100 * (Conroe / FX62 - 1)
2. For results expressed in units of time ("lower is better"), the correct formula should be: 100 * (FX62 / Conroe - 1)

[In formula #2, the term "FX62/Conroe" is simply equivalent to "(1/Conroe)/(1/FX62)" ]

To give a simple (though extreme) example, if Conroe ran a benchmark in 10 seconds and FX62 ran it in 20 seconds, Conroe would be 100% faster than FX62: 100 * (FX62/Conroe - 1) = 100 * (20/10 - 1).

Alternatively, if the result were expressed in "ExampleMarks" ("higher is better"), Conroe achieves 0.1 ExampleMarks, vs FX62's .05 ExampleMarks. Applying formula #1, we get, as a percentage: 100 * (.1/.05 - 1) = 100%. This is the same result as formula #2, which is what it should be.

 

[zarooch]

:roll:

 

[jkflipflop98]

Ooop ahhh you are correct.... it was in time which is an inverse relation, this is one of those embarrassing, humbling moment 😳

JJ gets the ink dot =P

 

[PJ101]

A much needed upgrade coming this summer... what is the chance they will have enough chips at release to meet demands? Also will the prices be driven upward when the demand grows high?

 

[MasterLee]

MMM: "There will be NO 3.33GHz Conroe! You fanboys can keep dreaming."

Speaking of MMM, did he get banned again? I haven't seen any posts by him lately.
That's like asking for snow when you're laying on the beach or unlocking the door when you know the monster is on the other side.

 

[iterations]

Updated the Hexus data, (it was better for Conroe than I orginally had), and added a link to the original article.

Thanks to mxyztplk.

 

[iterations]

New May 28, 2006 Records: TAM is about to break 5GHZ!!!!
SuperPi_1M: 10.312 seconds on a Conroe E6800 @ 4.99GHz
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1478875&postcount=122

 

[ltcommander_data]

I'm finally back from my trip. I always find it ironic how things happen when you aren't there, in this case the AM2 launch, Conroe numbers from Hexus, and plenty of early Woocrest comparisons. I wonder if anybody noticed my absence.

In any case, there are now reports of a single core Celeron D replacement.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2532

The article is calling it Core 2 Duo on the cheap, although if it's single core it'll probably be the Core 2 Solo replacing the Celeron D brand name. What is up with the use of L anyways? This is the Conroe-L, AMD has the K8L, and Microsoft has DirectX 9.0L.

Conroe-L won't be ready until Q2 2007, supposedly because of difficulties uncoupling the cores. I guess it's safe to assume that the current Core Solo's are just reject Core Duo parts rather than a separate core which would explain why there isn't much of a selection.

In my opinion Intel shouldn't even bother with a single core Core 2 version. With the new C1 stepping, Netburst really isn't that bad especially for the value segment. They could just as easily release a Celeron D with all the features enabled such as HT and EIST as well as 1MB of L2 cache. The FSB could be increased to 667MHz like the mobile parts and that'll allow it to run in sync with DDR2 667 memory which the industry is progressing to now that DDR2 800 is available and AMD AM2 Semprons look to use DDR2 667. A Celeron D on the 65nm process with those features should be quite a bit faster than current parts and last until 2008 and be economic to manufacture. By having HT on Celeron Ds, Intel can also claim that their entire desktop product line is multithread capable since the 5xx and 6xx processors are reaching end of life and the only single core Core 2 variant would have been a Celeron D part. Also by having the volume budget segment be multithreaded, it'll be a strong driving force for the industry to multithread their programs. Then in 2008, when the 45nm process becomes available, the Celeron D could transistion to dual core while still keeping manufacturing costs down.

Hmm, looking back it seems to be a long post about not much. I guess I felt like blabbering after being away for a week.

 

[iterations]

By the way here is the performance curve for SuperPi_1M for Conroe/Merom: