Intel Frauds Woodcrest Performance Over Opteron 64

[gOJDO]

You are not smart MMM, so STFU!

 

[Parrot]

what would intel gain from that(falsifying a comparative test)???

You have obviously just landed on Earth from the planet Dumb Ignorant! 😱

 

[MaGiC_MaN]

You are not somart MMM, so STFU!

gOJDO.....you're......wow...no word to describe you..

Accord: Read my latest post, you ARE a moron, you can't even get the same set of data.

 

[gOJDO]

You are not somart MMM, so STFU!

gOJDO.....you're......wow...no word to describe you..

Accord: Read my latest post, you ARE a moron, you can't even get the same set of data.
STFU!

 

[accord99]

You're trying to compare SQL 2000 32-Bit to SQL 2005 64-Bit....this tells me that SQL 2005 is 10% faster than SQL 2000, nothing for the CPU's.

It tells me that for TPC-C, Opteron going from 32-bit to 64-bit has little impact and that it has no hope of catching Woodcrest at 2S.

I just found out more info to justify me saying you're a moron.

System 1:

32-Bit Opteron system shown at Intels website is servicing 4 clients and 8 Processors

System 2:

64-Bit Opteron system shown in your posts is servicing 8 clients and 16 processors
They're faster, so of course need more clients to maximize the load. HP isn't stupid, they're tuning these systems for the highest score possible.

I should also note the 2.2GHz Quad-Socket system is using Version 5.3, the other Quad-Socket 2.4GHz is using Version 5.5 while the one Intel displays is using Version 5.6.

That's why there isn't a large increase.

You can compare scores over different versions of TPC-C.

 

[MaGiC_MaN]

I should also point out this:

Woodcrest System (from TPC here: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106052202)

Clients: 8
Threads: 4

Opteron System (from TPC here: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106032001)

Clients: 4
Threads: 16

It may be servicing fewer clients, but it is servicing 4x the Threads.

 

[iterations]

Dude how can u call someone a fanboy when YOU have a conroe avatar.
LOL

It's easy. I call him a fanboy because that is what he clearly is: a sad AMD fanboy who spews misinformation for god knows what reason.

I do have a Conroe icon in my avatar, I am a big fan of the architecture. I am also a fan of the K8 architecture and have AMD machines in my lab and at home. Conroe clearly blows it away and so I have it in my avatar. It is not some big mystery.

 

[dvdpiddy]

IBTL !

What does that mean?


if he told you youd have to disappear into the superconciousness for knowing too much. But then how is he still here?


hes one of those,with the ancient chinese secret. What kind of secret?

 

[MaGiC_MaN]

Wow....you're so damn stubborn...read my post, it proves they are uneven testing environments buddy.

@Itty: I can't see Conroe blowing anything but Smoke.

 

[duke8989]

if my memory serves me correct Typing errors dont usually happen when someone posts benchmark results for their main productline in comparison to the other company's product line. I mean they just dont happen there checked and verified. As for this happening before *Cough Cough * Nivida*Cough*. yeah this happens alot. I believe its called cheating , i hear it happens in the olympics too.

 

[MaGiC_MaN]

You're trying to compare SQL 2000 32-Bit to SQL 2005 64-Bit....this tells me that SQL 2005 is 10% faster than SQL 2000, nothing for the CPU's.

It tells me that for TPC-C, Opteron going from 32-bit to 64-bit has little impact and that it has no hope of catching Woodcrest at 2S.

I just found out more info to justify me saying you're a moron.

System 1:

32-Bit Opteron system shown at Intels website is servicing 4 clients and 8 Processors

System 2:

64-Bit Opteron system shown in your posts is servicing 8 clients and 16 processors
They're faster, so of course need more clients to maximize the load. HP isn't stupid, they're tuning these systems for the highest score possible.

I should also note the 2.2GHz Quad-Socket system is using Version 5.3, the other Quad-Socket 2.4GHz is using Version 5.5 while the one Intel displays is using Version 5.6.

That's why there isn't a large increase.

You can compare scores over different versions of TPC-C.

Going by your logic, the Woodcret system is maxed out at 2CPU Service while the AMD can do 8? What does THAT tell you for Intel? (And your logic)

 

[iterations]

Again... why is this thread not locked?

Here is some data for you MMM, you obviously missed it:

Coolaler has gotten a newer revision of the MSI Conroe motherbord that actually has support for Vcore changes, and now he can overclock even higher using his new 2.66GHz B0 Stepping Core 2 Duo.
SuperPi_1M: 11.922 seconds <-- new world record
SuperPi_2M: 29.968 seconds <-- new world record
SuperPi_4M: 1:11.031 <-- new world record
SuperPi_8M: 2:39.906 <-- new world record
SuperPi_16M: 5:52.344 <-- new world record
SuperPi_32M: 12:44.500 <-- new world record
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1468841&postcount=33

Here VictorWang makes another appearance with his Conroe and amazing overclocking grapohics cards...
3DMark05: 21442 <-- new world record
3DMark01se: 64581 <-- new world record
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100456

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
Realstorm Raytracing 2004: 19.09 faster
DivX encode - multithreaded: 23.78 faster
WAV conversion multithreaded: 24.50 faster
CINEBENCH multi-CPU render: 15.77 faster
KribiBench v1.1 - Jetshadow model: 51.32 faster
Far Cry - 1024x768 - speed: 39.47 more
Quake 4 - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 16x AF: 3.67 more
Splinter Cell: CT - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 8x AF: 0.88 more


SuperPi_1M on a 2.66GHz B0 stepping Conroe @ 4.1GHz: 12.484 seconds <--
http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/WR/4098_1.gif
Coolaler has figured out a pin mod for his motherboard so he can start to up the voltage, showing some the potential of Conroe when it is on a motherboard where you can control the voltage. I have a feeling this (4.1GHz) is just the begining...

SuperPi_1M on a 2.66GHz B0 stepping Conroe @ 4.0GHz: 12.609 seconds <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/WR/4000_1M1.gif
Coolaler has pushed his Conroe to a stable 4.0GHz overclock at stock voltage. This chip is a beast. Imagine what will be possible with a multiplier unlocked XE on a fully conroe supporting motherboard...

SuperPi_1M (and many other) records broken by 2.66GHz B0 stepping Conroe @ 3.8-4.0GHz: 12.984 seconds SuperPi_1M <-- http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1458336&postcount=68
As promised, a 2.66GHz B0 stepping Conroe has been made available, and it is overclocking even higher. Coolaler took every single SuperPi time with his new chip. All of the records will fall, as it is clear that this stepping is much better clock for clock, and can handle mush higher stable overclocks. Such as the 3.8GHz overclock at stock 1.267 Vcore above...

SuperPi_1M (and other) records broken by 2.4GHz A1 stepping Conroe @ 3.6GHz: 13.922 seconds SuperPi_1M <-- http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=99892
So pretty much so far all of the benchmarks and records I've been collecting here are based on 2.13GHz Conroe and Merom engineering samples. FUGGER has in his possession, a 2.4GHz stock clocked Conroe, which he is now demonstrating another jump in performance. This chip, as expected, overclocks in a stable manner even higher than the 2.13GHz base chips. Follow the link to see his score for Cinebench 32-bit, CrystalMark, PiFast, 3dMark01, 3dMark06, 3dMark05, Aquamark3, and SuperPi_1M. Rumor has it that samples of some of even higher clocked stock versions of these chips will start becoming available soon. (Possible 3.33GHz Core 2 XE)

SuperPi_1M Record broken again by Merom @ 3.5GHz: 14.500 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/3552.gif

And again: Merom @ 3.6GHz: 14.313 seconds <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/3591.gif

And again: Merom @ 3.66GHz: 14.031 seconds <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/3655.gif

New World Records (re)set by 3.2-3.4GHz Core 2 Duo (Merom):
SuperPi Record broken again: 14.688 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/merompi.JPG
Aquamark3 Record broken again: 180,329 <-- http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/AM3_180329_T7400ES_3434.png
3DMark05 World Record: 20672 <-- http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/3DM05_20672_T7400ES.png

New World Records set by 3.2-3.4GHz Core 2 Duo (Merom): http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1444368&postcount=51
SuperPi_1M: 14.734 seconds <-- World Record http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/14.734s_T7400ES_3440.6.png
Hexus Pi_Fast: 27.66 seconds <-- World Record http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/hpf_27.66s_T7400ES_3408.4.png
Aquamark3: 177,543 <-- World Record http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/AM3_177543_T7400ES_3382.png
3dMark05: 20380 <--- Almost the world Record http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/3DM05_20380_T7400ES.png

Media Encoding (NEW!): http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1439079&postcount=12
Brand new data, here we see the 2.13Ghz Stock Conroe system encoding a video using TMPGEnc 3.0 Express in 20:54, while it takes an overclocked 2.9GHZ FX-60 21:06 to encode the same exact video. I'll state that again. A 2.13GHz Conroe is faster than a 2.9GHZ FX-60 in media encoding! I'm looking forward to a clock-for-clock comparison.

EDIT: here is the clock for clock comparison: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1440963&postcount=188
Recap: 2.9GHZ FX-60 takes 21:06. 2.9GHz Conroe takes 15:22 for the same encoding task.

F.E.A.R: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03/08/intel_conroe_benchmark_fear/
At this site the guys at Bit-Tech loaded their own personal FEAR benchmark from a USB thumbdrive, so that they could compare the results from their own tweaked FX-60 system outside of the control of Intel. Compared to their FX-60, with very tight memory timing that they spent days tweaking, the Conroe system get's 36% more FPS in this CPU bottlenecked gaming benchmark.

Half Life 2: Lost Cost: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98091
Here FCG has set a world record by a HUGE margin, there are no systems other than Conroe based systems that have been able to post anywhere even remotely close to 165 average fps in HL2:LC no matter what crazy overclocked graphics system they have.

Media Encoding: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4
Here a 2.6GHz Conroe is shown besting an overclocked FX-60 (@ 2.8GHz) by anywhere from 12 to 30% in various media encoding tasks.

Quake 4: http://www.hothardware.com//viewarticle.aspx?page=6&articleid=794
Here Conroe bests the FX-60 by 23-28% in Quake 4 performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=3
Here Anandtech updates the issues that they had with their first run of Quake 4, running their own in-house time demo. Conroe shows a 24-33% advantage over the overclocked FX-60.

3DMark05: http://members.cox.net/kjboughton/20200.JPG
Here FCG uses a "simulated" Conroe XE (2.13GHz ES overclocked to 3.33GHz) to obtain a 20200 score in 3DMark05.

3DMark01: http://members.cox.net/kjboughton/FCG_01details.jpg
I know it is an old benchmark, but it is still in use... don't stress. 😛
Here, FCG uses Conroe to set a new world record in the incredibly CPU intensive "Game 3 Lobby - High Detail" section of 3dMark01.

PCMark05 CPU test: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97609
In this test FCG compares a 2.6GHz Conroe to a 3.6GHz FX-57 and a 2.6GHz X-2 4400+. The Conroe beats both systems by over 23%.

3DMark05 CPU test: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97593
In this SINGLE THREADED CPU test, the Conroe beats the severely overclocked FX-57 by 23%.
This link: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=238&chart=61&model2=212 provides you tons of reference scores for practically every other processor out there. Conroe completely destroys them all.
Here is some new data: http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/XP64/4.gif

FX-57 @ 3.60GHz: 8146
Conroe @ 2.66GHz: 10038
Merom @ 3.2GHz: 11212

Aquamark3 Benchmark: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97395
In this demonstration, the air cooled 2.7GHz Conroe system sets a new world record, besting the previous record holder, a C02 single-phase cooled 3.7GHz FX-60 with liquid cooled , overclocked SLI 7900GTXs.

SuperPi 1.5: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97269
In this demonstration a 2.13GHz Conroe is overclocked to 2.9GHz with regular air cooling and gets 17.5 seconds on the 1M SuperPi run.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=587650
Now this data is iffy at best, as it does not show the checksum for the superPi result, so take it with a grain of salt. However it appears to show a Conroe chip over clocked to 3.1GHz and getting a ~16 second time on SPi1M.

New: Validated 15.937 second SuperPi_1M run @ 3.2GHz: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1440972&postcount=189
This is 0.04 seconds away from the world record.

New 2: He just tied the world record: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1441017&postcount=204

New world record! 15s has been broken! 14.984 seconds for SuperPi_1M!!!
http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/14.984s_T7400ES_3376.4.png

3DMark06: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98115
Here the 2.7GHz Conroe based system is shown getting 11411 3DMarks. Granted with very overclocked graphics cards, but it appears that the Conroe system is really unleashing the full power of the Crossfire system (and this is on a poorly supported, pre-release mobo).
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=593760
Here is the first sighting of a B0 stepping 2.67GHz STOCK Conroe. Check out the CPU score in 3dMark06! 2282 stock @ 2.6GHz!!! FYI, The overall score is very low becuase it is running the integrated motherboard graphics. I can't wait to see this with a 7900GTX or something!

3DMark06 CPU Test: http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/XP64/5.gif
FX-60 @ 3.2GHz gets 2380 3DMark06 CPU score
Merom @ 3.2GHz gets 2833 3DMark06 CPU score

Cinebench 2003 64-Bit: 1225 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/27.gif

3DMark03 64-bit: 36000 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/XP64/2.gif

 

[iterations]

Going by your logic, the Woodcret system is maxed out at 2CPU Service while the AMD can do 8? What does THAT tell you for Intel? (And your logic)

It clearly tells you that Intel has the dominant solution for 1 and 2 CPU systems, while AMD has the dominant solution for 4 and 8 CPU systems.

Intel can win some, and AMD can win some. Competition is good.

 

[dvdpiddy]

Why are you replying to me?

 

[iterations]

Why are you replying to me?

Your post was at the bottom when I replied.

 

[accord99]

I should also point out this:

Woodcrest System (from TPC here: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106052202)

Clients: 8
Threads: 4

Opteron System (from TPC here: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106032001)

Clients: 4
Threads: 16

It may be servicing fewer clients, but it is servicing 4x the Threads.

It's quite clear that this is a typo since the # of cores, processors and threads refer to a single client only. Woodcrest system used 8 clients to simulate 134,560 users while the DL385 used 4 clients to simulate 92,480 users. So it should have Clients: 8, Processors: 16, Cores: 16, Threads: 32.

 

[gOJDO]

Going by your logic, the Woodcret system is maxed out at 2CPU Service while the AMD can do 8? What does THAT tell you for Intel? (And your logic)

STFU NOOB! you are smarter when you are quiet or offline!

 

[Caboose-1]

You are not somart MMM, so STFU!

gOJDO.....you're......wow...no word to describe you..

Accord: Read my latest post, you ARE a moron, you can't even get the same set of data.

As much as you defend shi7, you would be a hero in the Army. What I don't get is that if someone every disagrees with you in the slightest, they are immediately a fanboy of the opposing company. And as to Intel frauding the test, so what? Are you are going to tell me AMD has NEVER lied or made a rigged test? Big companies lie, AMD and Intel are big companies and therefore they lie if they can't succeed. Watch everyone for his reply to this post, I bet I'm a fanboy now because I disapprove of this bullshi7. I'm not trying to justify what Intel did (if they lied), but what are you going to do about? Strap a bomb to your chest and blow up their Head Quarters? It never ceases to amaze me how much you or anyone else can defend a product. I will never forget one of the arguements you and I got into in the past something like I said that I am a fan of performance, and I buy what I can afford when the getting's good. And you told me there is no grey area, that there are only fanboys that buy their company's product. Hell, why did I say that you'll only deny it.

Guess what? I have an Intel in my midrange system and an Opteron 170 in my high end system. But I'm definitely an Intel fanboy right? Even though I didn't buy a product from the company you say I prefer, I am still an Intel fanboy because I disagree with you, right? Do you know why you got banned, Mike? Because you were trolling, as you are now. Heck, Jake even warned you in this very thread to stop. Hell, I like many others would be forgiving and accepting to you if you would just stop this nonsense, no that doesn't mean you have to like Intel like YOU say we ALL do, it just means that you use your knowledge to better this forum, instead of trying to violently disprove anyone and everyone that doesn't agree kindly correct them with things you KNOW FOR A FACT, and not just speculation. You are smart, Mike, so why don't you just give this stupid shi7 up and be a good member of these forums.

 

[joefriday]

IBTL !

IBTL won't matter if this thread is deleted, which seems to be where it is headed. Don't worry, I'm not telling dvdpiddy what it means either. :lol:

IBTL!

 

[shinigamiX]

Again... why is this thread not locked?

Here is some data for you MMM, you obviously missed it:

Coolaler has gotten a newer revision of the MSI Conroe motherbord that actually has support for Vcore changes, and now he can overclock even higher using his new 2.66GHz B0 Stepping Core 2 Duo.
SuperPi_1M: 11.922 seconds <-- new world record
SuperPi_2M: 29.968 seconds <-- new world record
SuperPi_4M: 1:11.031 <-- new world record
SuperPi_8M: 2:39.906 <-- new world record
SuperPi_16M: 5:52.344 <-- new world record
SuperPi_32M: 12:44.500 <-- new world record
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1468841&postcount=33

Here VictorWang makes another appearance with his Conroe and amazing overclocking grapohics cards...
3DMark05: 21442 <-- new world record
3DMark01se: 64581 <-- new world record
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100456

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
Realstorm Raytracing 2004: 19.09 faster
DivX encode - multithreaded: 23.78 faster
WAV conversion multithreaded: 24.50 faster
CINEBENCH multi-CPU render: 15.77 faster
KribiBench v1.1 - Jetshadow model: 51.32 faster
Far Cry - 1024x768 - speed: 39.47 more
Quake 4 - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 16x AF: 3.67 more
Splinter Cell: CT - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 8x AF: 0.88 more


SuperPi_1M on a 2.66GHz B0 stepping Conroe @ 4.1GHz: 12.484 seconds <--
http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/WR/4098_1.gif
Coolaler has figured out a pin mod for his motherboard so he can start to up the voltage, showing some the potential of Conroe when it is on a motherboard where you can control the voltage. I have a feeling this (4.1GHz) is just the begining...

SuperPi_1M on a 2.66GHz B0 stepping Conroe @ 4.0GHz: 12.609 seconds <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/WR/4000_1M1.gif
Coolaler has pushed his Conroe to a stable 4.0GHz overclock at stock voltage. This chip is a beast. Imagine what will be possible with a multiplier unlocked XE on a fully conroe supporting motherboard...

SuperPi_1M (and many other) records broken by 2.66GHz B0 stepping Conroe @ 3.8-4.0GHz: 12.984 seconds SuperPi_1M <-- http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1458336&postcount=68
As promised, a 2.66GHz B0 stepping Conroe has been made available, and it is overclocking even higher. Coolaler took every single SuperPi time with his new chip. All of the records will fall, as it is clear that this stepping is much better clock for clock, and can handle mush higher stable overclocks. Such as the 3.8GHz overclock at stock 1.267 Vcore above...

SuperPi_1M (and other) records broken by 2.4GHz A1 stepping Conroe @ 3.6GHz: 13.922 seconds SuperPi_1M <-- http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=99892
So pretty much so far all of the benchmarks and records I've been collecting here are based on 2.13GHz Conroe and Merom engineering samples. FUGGER has in his possession, a 2.4GHz stock clocked Conroe, which he is now demonstrating another jump in performance. This chip, as expected, overclocks in a stable manner even higher than the 2.13GHz base chips. Follow the link to see his score for Cinebench 32-bit, CrystalMark, PiFast, 3dMark01, 3dMark06, 3dMark05, Aquamark3, and SuperPi_1M. Rumor has it that samples of some of even higher clocked stock versions of these chips will start becoming available soon. (Possible 3.33GHz Core 2 XE)

SuperPi_1M Record broken again by Merom @ 3.5GHz: 14.500 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/3552.gif

And again: Merom @ 3.6GHz: 14.313 seconds <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/3591.gif

And again: Merom @ 3.66GHz: 14.031 seconds <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/3655.gif

New World Records (re)set by 3.2-3.4GHz Core 2 Duo (Merom):
SuperPi Record broken again: 14.688 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/merompi.JPG
Aquamark3 Record broken again: 180,329 <-- http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/AM3_180329_T7400ES_3434.png
3DMark05 World Record: 20672 <-- http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/3DM05_20672_T7400ES.png

New World Records set by 3.2-3.4GHz Core 2 Duo (Merom): http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1444368&postcount=51
SuperPi_1M: 14.734 seconds <-- World Record http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/14.734s_T7400ES_3440.6.png
Hexus Pi_Fast: 27.66 seconds <-- World Record http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/hpf_27.66s_T7400ES_3408.4.png
Aquamark3: 177,543 <-- World Record http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/AM3_177543_T7400ES_3382.png
3dMark05: 20380 <--- Almost the world Record http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/3DM05_20380_T7400ES.png

Media Encoding (NEW!): http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1439079&postcount=12
Brand new data, here we see the 2.13Ghz Stock Conroe system encoding a video using TMPGEnc 3.0 Express in 20:54, while it takes an overclocked 2.9GHZ FX-60 21:06 to encode the same exact video. I'll state that again. A 2.13GHz Conroe is faster than a 2.9GHZ FX-60 in media encoding! I'm looking forward to a clock-for-clock comparison.

EDIT: here is the clock for clock comparison: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1440963&postcount=188
Recap: 2.9GHZ FX-60 takes 21:06. 2.9GHz Conroe takes 15:22 for the same encoding task.

F.E.A.R: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03/08/intel_conroe_benchmark_fear/
At this site the guys at Bit-Tech loaded their own personal FEAR benchmark from a USB thumbdrive, so that they could compare the results from their own tweaked FX-60 system outside of the control of Intel. Compared to their FX-60, with very tight memory timing that they spent days tweaking, the Conroe system get's 36% more FPS in this CPU bottlenecked gaming benchmark.

Half Life 2: Lost Cost: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98091
Here FCG has set a world record by a HUGE margin, there are no systems other than Conroe based systems that have been able to post anywhere even remotely close to 165 average fps in HL2:LC no matter what crazy overclocked graphics system they have.

Media Encoding: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4
Here a 2.6GHz Conroe is shown besting an overclocked FX-60 (@ 2.8GHz) by anywhere from 12 to 30% in various media encoding tasks.

Quake 4: http://www.hothardware.com//viewarticle.aspx?page=6&articleid=794
Here Conroe bests the FX-60 by 23-28% in Quake 4 performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=3
Here Anandtech updates the issues that they had with their first run of Quake 4, running their own in-house time demo. Conroe shows a 24-33% advantage over the overclocked FX-60.

3DMark05: http://members.cox.net/kjboughton/20200.JPG
Here FCG uses a "simulated" Conroe XE (2.13GHz ES overclocked to 3.33GHz) to obtain a 20200 score in 3DMark05.

3DMark01: http://members.cox.net/kjboughton/FCG_01details.jpg
I know it is an old benchmark, but it is still in use... don't stress. 😛
Here, FCG uses Conroe to set a new world record in the incredibly CPU intensive "Game 3 Lobby - High Detail" section of 3dMark01.

PCMark05 CPU test: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97609
In this test FCG compares a 2.6GHz Conroe to a 3.6GHz FX-57 and a 2.6GHz X-2 4400+. The Conroe beats both systems by over 23%.

3DMark05 CPU test: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97593
In this SINGLE THREADED CPU test, the Conroe beats the severely overclocked FX-57 by 23%.
This link: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=238&chart=61&model2=212 provides you tons of reference scores for practically every other processor out there. Conroe completely destroys them all.
Here is some new data: http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/XP64/4.gif

FX-57 @ 3.60GHz: 8146
Conroe @ 2.66GHz: 10038
Merom @ 3.2GHz: 11212

Aquamark3 Benchmark: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97395
In this demonstration, the air cooled 2.7GHz Conroe system sets a new world record, besting the previous record holder, a C02 single-phase cooled 3.7GHz FX-60 with liquid cooled , overclocked SLI 7900GTXs.

SuperPi 1.5: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97269
In this demonstration a 2.13GHz Conroe is overclocked to 2.9GHz with regular air cooling and gets 17.5 seconds on the 1M SuperPi run.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=587650
Now this data is iffy at best, as it does not show the checksum for the superPi result, so take it with a grain of salt. However it appears to show a Conroe chip over clocked to 3.1GHz and getting a ~16 second time on SPi1M.

New: Validated 15.937 second SuperPi_1M run @ 3.2GHz: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1440972&postcount=189
This is 0.04 seconds away from the world record.

New 2: He just tied the world record: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1441017&postcount=204

New world record! 15s has been broken! 14.984 seconds for SuperPi_1M!!!
http://222.151.144.54/c-board/file/14.984s_T7400ES_3376.4.png

3DMark06: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98115
Here the 2.7GHz Conroe based system is shown getting 11411 3DMarks. Granted with very overclocked graphics cards, but it appears that the Conroe system is really unleashing the full power of the Crossfire system (and this is on a poorly supported, pre-release mobo).
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=593760
Here is the first sighting of a B0 stepping 2.67GHz STOCK Conroe. Check out the CPU score in 3dMark06! 2282 stock @ 2.6GHz!!! FYI, The overall score is very low becuase it is running the integrated motherboard graphics. I can't wait to see this with a 7900GTX or something!

3DMark06 CPU Test: http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/XP64/5.gif
FX-60 @ 3.2GHz gets 2380 3DMark06 CPU score
Merom @ 3.2GHz gets 2833 3DMark06 CPU score

Cinebench 2003 64-Bit: 1225 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/27.gif

3DMark03 64-bit: 36000 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/XP64/2.gif

PWNED.

 

[joefriday]

MMM you remind me of a bad 302 engine rebuild that my friend performed last summer. That engine lasted only 8 days before it self-destructed. Looks like you only made it seven! :lol:

 

[shinigamiX]

They're the new Motorola Phones!!! The newest model is the RTRD.

 

[Jake_Barnes]

Locked for Moderator review.