PROOF - Conroe Was Not Faithful

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
I did a quick check base on F.E.A.R. Since I dont care much for quake4 and I beleive(might be wrong, not really the point anyway) that its a better benchmark. Plus it wasn't pre-loaded by intel...


IDF
RIG
Anand - Conroe VS FX-60
Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz
running on a DFI RD480 motherboard.
The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings
pair of Radeon X1900 XTs

]Anand home test
RIG

ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2x 1GB DDR400 2:3:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStream PSU


Toms hardware Test
RIG
ATI Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition - Reference
ATI Xpress 200, BIOS version 02.58
ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512MB GDDR3 650MHz Core 1.55GHz Memory
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2.8GHz, 1.0GHz Bus, 1MB L2 cache
Corsair CMX1024-4400Pro
2x 1024 MB @ DDR400 (CL3.0-4-4-8)





IDF
Fx-60@ 2.8 - DFI RD480 - 1gig DDR 2-2-2-5(I think) 2X X1900XT - Avg fps in fear 1280X1024, :132

Anand Home
FX-57 2.6ghz - 2gig @ 2-3-2-8 - 133

Toms Hardware
FX-57 2.6ghz-2gig 3-4-4-8 radeon 1900XTX 145



They stated all the games that support SMP had the option disabled(or at least off on one off both Q4 demo) so the fact thats its dual or single is a non-issue. Performance is pretty identical...

Also guys, on TGDaily they reported they benched it against a 955EE Oced to 4.1 ghz and conroe whooped it.

So what they tested it against current gen and its not faire, I gues they could've ask AMD to supply so AM2 or better yet some K8L cpu.



Conroe vs 955EE

There also was a demo benchmark of Call of Duty II, in which an overclocked 4.1 GHz Pentium Extreme Edition computer tried to keep up with Conroe - and trailed its successor with 90 fps to 110 fps. Finally, a Merom CPU was compared to Core Duo within a Napa64 platform: The 2.16 GHz Core Duo achieved 106.6 fps in a Quake 4 benchmark; with a Merom processor, this notebook came in at 134 fps.
Click to expand...
 
ok trolls, listen, if the proof isn't valide because its a blog, why are your comments worth anything, since this is like a community blog. Think before you speak.
 
So anyways, I keep hearing the same thing about intel rigging the amd rig. Well I'm sure someone has already benchmarked the fx60 or whatever they used right, so we should be able to compare what anand got to those numbers. That just leaves conroes numbers which would be pretty stupid for intel to rig the numbers since they have already sent samples to the big boys, dell, hp. The only thing that is stilll not for certain is how well the am2 will perform. If am2 gives amd chips a 80% performance increase then they will regain the title.
 
intel fanboyz are really good at looking at partial facts huh...
true.. it is a blog site, but its Voodoo PC's blog site. also, in case you haven't done any research at all, rahul sood is Voodoo PC's president. he actually had a pretty good reputation.

so i wouldn't just discredit what he post on his blog site
plus unlike most intel fanboyz, he actually found what V6.00PC was lacking in the experiment.
 
take a look at this site

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/page7.html

ok.. FX-60 runs at a speed of 2.6 for both cores, that's about the same speed as FX-55.
FPS for FX-55 for UT 2004 @ 1280 X 1024 high quality is 174.5. however, that's done with one 6800GT card. even FX-55 can get this FPS with 6800 GT, and FX-60, assuming it doesn't utilitize its second core, only gets 160.4 FPS with 2x ATI 1900XTX on crossfire? doesn't that sound kind of odd?
 
I look on in an incredulous state. This is unacceptable. No offence to anyone, but how can you even post about things that haven't even come out yet? At best your comments are just educated speculation. I don't care what some CEO says, I want real-time third-party unbiased benchmarks that actually test the actual chips. Since they have not been released and tested, your comments really mean absolutely nothing! Flame me if you wish, but I speak the truth. You can't claim something that has not been released is better than something that is in the same position. Ridiculous.
 
"No offence to anyone, but how can you even post about things that haven't even come out yet?" And why not.... So what should we talk about then. OK so should we talk about what is out right now...that's no fun.
 
"No offence to anyone, but how can you even post about things that haven't even come out yet?" And why not.... So what should we talk about then. OK so should we talk about what is out right now...that's no fun.
Click to expand...
Not what I meant. I meant that you can't say something is better than something else when they haven't come out and been tested FACE TO FACE<<<<<That right there is the deciding factor.
 
it was like 4 or 8 dual cores dont quote me,but it was a wow for me.toms had the article.
Click to expand...

That thing sounds amazing, how come I never heard about this quad/octo chip. Any information would be appreciated. i.e. links, articles. Thanks.
 
You know what? You're right. Intel's numbers for the X2 may be off, but the numbers from the Conroe should not be. So all one has to do is get an X2 OC'd to 2.8 with a proper mobo BIOS and drivers and then we can compare a non-hobbled AMD chip to the Intel Conroe numbers. I bet it would be at least a little closer.

Anybody out there with a Toledo X2 OC'd to 2.8 on a Crossfire board running X1900XT's want to run a benchmark? 😀
 
Also, I tend to view graphics benchmarks as suspect, especially if the resolution is more than 640x480 as it deals more with the GPU than the CPU. If you managed to stuff a 7800GS in my old P4-2.2, it surely would beat my 4200+ with a 6200TC. So I'd like to see it benchmarked with application benchmarks as they tend to draw a lot more on the CPU than anything else.
 
Also, I tend to view graphics benchmarks as suspect, especially if the resolution is more than 640x480 as it deals more with the GPU than the CPU. If you managed to stuff a 7800GS in my old P4-2.2, it surely would beat my 4200+ with a 6200TC. So I'd like to see it benchmarked with application benchmarks as they tend to draw a lot more on the CPU than anything else.
Click to expand...
that's true. that's why i don't think this is really a geniune benchmark, and would like intel to post another benchmark that tests CPU instead of a combination of CPU + GPUs. such benchmarks are for example, office processing, video encoding, or to name a program, prime 95.

i just want to stress that i post all these on the forum is not to flame anyone or provoke any CPU wars. i'm here just to say that Conroe's test benchmark was not as authentic as it should've been, and i've listed some of the places that rose my suspicion. if you guys find any of the facts untrue or duped, feel free to add your own source to the thread
 
Well I looked at it but since its THG demo, it's not really comparable. The F.E.A.R demo was com parable since they state its the same they usually use...As you proably know, FPS will be quite different in a indoor Vs outdoor level etc...

Thats the thing, you can't exactly compare it too other benchmark since you dont really know what demo/level/whatever they used.

My stance and the one of many others here is that we're excited because Intel seams to be back in the game. I'd be totaly surprise if intel won ALL the benchmark you can throw at it... Right now I'm just wiating for other reviews like everyone elses. And anyway everything I might add has been said...

I beleive, and I could be wrong!, that nobody will really be able to come out and say I TOLD YOU when conroe gets out. Who knows, maybe AM2 will perform much better and conroe a bit worst and it'll be really even, that would be the best scenario except for flame war :?

Cant wait too see how both chip will Oc and all that I guess thats what goin to steer my decision when I buy a rig in october/novemvber
 
I think that the am2 would have to get @60% performance gain to compete with the EE conroe. As for oc, we already know that the 90nm amd is at its limit. The conroe is 65nm so we don't know if it still has headroom.
 
They're suppose to bring the TDP by a good margin on the AM2, I dont have any links but thats backable and Im too tired too look.
Lower TDP with the same cooling should improve the Ocing unless that the gates juste cant switch faster even if they're cooler, maybe.

As for the AM2 getting 60%, maybe they'll get 25% and faster clocked CPU and the conroe figure are right but are not representative of the whole picture...Who knows, we have to wait I guess.
 
I hope intel is right about those conroes, not because I want one.....well OK I do want one, but because Im losing a ton of money on the stock. Well maybe not a ton but some money.
 
lol!
They sure seam to be confident and agressive, thats usually good!
Im far from knowledgeable in this area but I think this is good stuff for their stock!
 
lolz..
well if you really care about intel's stock and their cpus, you would want intel to come up with radically new architectures, new marketing strategy (no BS). cuz with their architectures still using FSBs, and haven't come up with a real dual core architectures, their chips have very limited potential. intel claims that their new microarchitectures, Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest, are new chips designed with power consumption with mind, but their architectures are not as radical as what amd did with athlon xp and a64.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom