Will X2 939 3800+ be faster than CONROE 1.86 GHZ

[NightlySputnik]

Yeah! Let's leave it like that I guess.

Like I said before, I respect your opinion! It make sense even if I don't totally agree.

ninjaquick, I read you and I agree also. The advantage they've got over Intel is their on-die memory controler. Why don't they sign a deal with either ATI or nVidia. I might be off track, but these guys surely know what they talk about when talking memory controler. Just think of nForce2 in the day of the Athlon (pre-64). Probably that's just wishful thinking, just like IBM buying AMD 2 years ago 😳

On the other side, that's also where Intel can hurt AMD in the mid-term. They also know their way with memory controler. Anyone remember i875X chipset. How superior it was to competition until they catch-up. And this include the like of nVidia (and ATI somehow). If they finally decide to get their act together with either CSI or HyperTransport3, they could do some serious damage. Ultrafast memory access and great memory prefetch would do a killer combo. I think that's what they'll do (have to do!!!! ) for NEHALEM. But again I'm off topic.

 

[computertech82]

Don't listen to the morons with the stupid responses. the CORRECT answer is NO. the AMD is well than DOUBLE the speed of a SLOW 1.8ghz conroe. It requires a conroe 2 (TWO) in order to be close to the speed of a AMD 3800+. And still, needs to be over 2ghz+ to be faster. The conroe 2 cpus will be limited this year, it's real launch date (full production) is actually NEXT year.

 

[rexter]

Since the given Intel's CPU is not out yet I can't really say but the reviews are promising.

Most people assumed that it is.

I guess I just have to wait and see when it's out on the market.

 

[ches111]

This is the same reason companies like Acura, Lexus, Infinity and now Lincoln exist!

I could own a Honda or an Acura. The Honda for the most part is the same vehicle (some models obviously excluded) as the Acura. The same for most Lexus/Toyota, Infinity/Nissan and of course Lincoln and Ford.

Lets take the example of the Lincoln/Ford. I could own a Ford Expedition or a Lincoln Navigator. The Expedition in Eddie Bauer form is quite a nice and pricey vehicle. The supposedly better brother of the Expedition is the Navigator which has SOME nicer items but none the less is roughly the SAME vehicle. The Lincoln (depending on how appointed) is roughly 15K more than the Eddie Bauer.

We still see people driving the Navigator. This is what you call EGO and or Brand Loyalty purchases.

Although in our case, the companies are not tightly coupled like Lincon and Ford. It is two different non-linked companies with a similar type of following.

You talk to a Lincon owner and he/she will fully justify the 15K difference even in the face of a direct on location comparison of the vehicles.

I might even get flamed because someone here has one!

People can become hostile in the defense of a purchase. As in hoping to not look like an idiot in the game of "keeping up with the Joneses".

 

[NightlySputnik]

Don't listen to the morons with the stupid responses. the CORRECT answer is NO. the AMD is well than DOUBLE the speed of a SLOW 1.8ghz conroe. It requires a conroe 2 (TWO) in order to be close to the speed of a AMD 3800+. And still, needs to be over 2ghz+ to be faster. The conroe 2 cpus will be limited this year, it's real launch date (full production) is actually NEXT year.

AH!AH!AH!AH! :lol:

Fanboyism at it's greatest!!! Ouf!! I'm exausted of laughing. Sign-up with "Just for laugh" festival here in Montreal, you'll do great.

I mean, come on! :idea: Say you think AMD is better. :!: But don't go say stupidity like that. The way you say it is like AMD is all happy with Core2Duo coming and all these "expert" (I know, who are they to proclaim themself so) on the net now with real Core2Duo testing are just lying to us. :!: Or worst, :!: getting paid by Intel. :!: And AMD raising the price of their cpu more than ever before is because Intel forced them :!: , not because they are doing what anybody would: sell for more because you've got the upper hand :twisted: . And then, lowering their price shortly is again gonna be because Intel force them to :!: , not because Intel has a better performing cpu coming, making AMD's one unattractive. :twisted:

If you want to prove your point, don't exagerate. All you do is loose all credibility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

 

[mjp1618]

Don't listen to the morons with the stupid responses. the CORRECT answer is NO. the AMD is well than DOUBLE the speed of a SLOW 1.8ghz conroe. It requires a conroe 2 (TWO) in order to be close to the speed of a AMD 3800+. And still, needs to be over 2ghz+ to be faster. The conroe 2 cpus will be limited this year, it's real launch date (full production) is actually NEXT year.

What?

 

[mjp1618]

Don't listen to the morons with the stupid responses. the CORRECT answer is NO. the AMD is well than DOUBLE the speed of a SLOW 1.8ghz conroe. It requires a conroe 2 (TWO) in order to be close to the speed of a AMD 3800+. And still, needs to be over 2ghz+ to be faster. The conroe 2 cpus will be limited this year, it's real launch date (full production) is actually NEXT year.

Have you been living under a rock since 1982?

 

[mjp1618]

Don't listen to the morons with the stupid responses. the CORRECT answer is NO. the AMD is well than DOUBLE the speed of a SLOW 1.8ghz conroe. It requires a conroe 2 (TWO) in order to be close to the speed of a AMD 3800+. And still, needs to be over 2ghz+ to be faster. The conroe 2 cpus will be limited this year, it's real launch date (full production) is actually NEXT year.

AH!AH!AH!AH! :lol:

Fanboyism at it's greatest!!! Ouf!! I'm exausted of laughing. Sign-up with "Just for laugh" festival here in Montreal, you'll do great.

I mean, come on! :idea: Say you think AMD is better. :!: But don't go say stupidity like that. The way you say it is like AMD is all happy with Core2Duo coming and all these "expert" (I know, who are they to proclaim themself so) on the net now with real Core2Duo testing are just lying to us. :!: Or worst, :!: getting paid by Intel. :!: And AMD raising the price of their cpu more than ever before is because Intel forced them :!: , not because they are doing what anybody would: sell for more because you've got the upper hand :twisted: . And then, lowering their price shortly is again gonna be because Intel force them to :!: , not because Intel has a better performing cpu coming, making AMD's one unattractive. :twisted:

If you want to prove your point, don't exagerate. All you do is loose all credibility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

I don't think the guy was being a fanboy. Not even Sharikou will post such stupid claims. I think he is just plain ignorant. Or stupid.

 

[ches111]

Comptech82,

Dude 19 posts and you are already calling people morons?

First of all some corrections. There is NOTHING called a Conroe 2 (bolded as you did), the designation of Conroe is an internal Code/Development name for the now released name of Intel "Core 2 Duo" processors. I am assuming this is where you picked up the 2 from.

Please see HERE (I know it is a Wiki reference but it is enough to get him/her started).

So in summary no "Conroe 2" by the way the name of something is always CAPITALIZED.

As an added bonus (if you wish to look up information for this product "advised" then you may also use its other designation of E6300).

Now for this one:

the AMD is well than DOUBLE the speed of a SLOW 1.8ghz conroe.

The Intel CORE 2 DUO due for release late this July in the form of an E6300 or 1.86ghz processor is in fact much faster than the X2 3800+ from AMD.

There are multiple locations (some just reported in this THREAD right here on THG) which will provide detailed information where the E6300 in some cases actually bests an x2 4800+ (HERE) but in all fairness it mostly only bests the 4000 - 4200 + versions as this is a much closer comparison. Lets not mention what is up with the AM2 products.

And finally,

The launch of the Conroe processor is planned for late July and is understood to be a limited release to MOSTLY OEMs at first. This is rumor of course and has yet to be confirmed. But given that pre-orders are being taken at other than OEM web-tailers this also might be a debunked rumor.

 

[apache_lives]

Idiots

Core Duo II's are faster clock for clock then AMD's (2.66 vs 2.8ghz anyone?) hows AMD going to match with a cpu with not even 1/2 the L2 there aswell?

That intel chip will do everything better - Cheaper, Faster, Colder, Better Overclocker.

Hello,

I want to know if 939 X2 3800+ be faster than CONROE 1.86 GHz.

I am considering it after the price drop.

Rgds,

dude, im not even going to read any further, i just have a simple and quite obvios thing to say: process technology.. the intels (conroe) are running on dies made with twice the precision (in relation to amds 90nm) (and thus one half the size) leaving more room for cache and a *larger* (more transistors in less space) core. And, according to other posts ive read and im sure you have too, AMD is going to switch to 65nm at the end of the year; this translates; more efficient cores and large caches. However if Intel is using the smaller process to make the total die size smaller then what they are infact doing is saving themselves money on waffers. (more cpus per waffer)
and finally, intel relys on a good mobo chipset to shine, since they dont have amds cool features that are one of the reasons they have the smaller cache and stuff. and third party (non intel) chipset are going to be no-where near the intel chipsets in quality (at first at least) so you are going to be forced to use intels chipsets. so what, right? this is pure speculation but it makes sense to me; intels lower end conroe compatible chipsets might have a physically limited memclock. and the cores a locked multiplier
will logically be locked, forcing overclockers to go out and buy their most expensive chips. Im prolly wrong since its pure speculation and the only way amd can come back is by re engineering their on-die features (like the memory controllers) to make them use less space (that would let them make a larger cache or maybe a larger core), and of course moving on to 65/45nm (lol itd be aweome if they simply said "what the heck, lets just go straight to 45nm")


yeah
basically poo

the intels (conroe) are running on dies made with twice the precision (in relation to amds 90nm) (and thus one half the size) leaving more room for cache and a *larger* (more transistors in less space) core.

heh - AMD (or should i say IBM) dont have it at the moment, thats too bad Intel does, its out now, so it aint "cheating" - its here.

intel relys on a good mobo chipset to shine, since they dont have amds cool features that are one of the reasons they have the smaller cache and stuff.

cool features? what like? IMC? oh you should really learn some history about Intels past, say.. intel timna - IMC for a P3? and no, infact, AMD's "cool features" (*cough* *cough*) still cant compare to a conroe? then the cool chip is conroe for beating amd without em (the IMC and HTT) - Intel still has that ace up there sleve and as for cache? I REPEAT - CACHE DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO HIGH PERFORMANCE! geez - Pentium D 9 series has 4mb (2x2mb) and u tell me how well it performs, and besides - Intel always has more cache on chip anyhow, and It seems Yonah takes AMD anyhow with 2mb total (vs AMD X2 clock for clock the exact same amounts of L2) and an even bigger point AMD HAS 128K L1 CACHE - OVER 4x THE L1 CACHE OF ANY INTEL - so what are you talking about?

 

[dvdpiddy]

It seems Yonah takes AMD anyhow with 2mb total (vs AMD X2 clock for clock the exact same amounts of L2) and an even bigger point AMD HAS 128K L1 CACHE - OVER 4x THE L1 CACHE OF ANY INTEL - so what are you talking about?

What! Dude yonah and k8 are even clock for clock in most app's.

 

[ninjaquick]

umm. dude, calm down man. you wanna know why pentiums have always had larger caches? they have smaller procesors (which is why, until now, they have always operated at higher clock speeds). Yeah. Seriously, i NEVER said that conroe was in any way, shape or form worse than any existing cores/processors. Infact I admit it will *probably* be better. However You must understand that AMD is not gonna just rollover and die. Trust AMD to, if the conroe core is actually very special at all, re engineer it. intel is risking alot by introducing a whole new design onte the market first, so they try to move or focus away from amd who is prolly hard at work cooking up a response, except amd has a small advantage, they are going to get hands on with the conroe. I also never said that the cache was what delivered the performance, Pentium D 9** series operted on the OLD intel system: High clocks, samll cores. I can name a pretty sweet feature which is all the rage right now: amd64. I could go on and on, I just wonder: how much do you actually know about what makes CPUs tick? Do you know why Intels have bigger caches? to you know what the L1 cache actually does? do you now what the process is? do you know the difference between the actual core and the cache is (yes they are the two big sectors you see on the die of any picture of an open cpu)? how long has it taken intel to beat amds imc? what exactly is HTT?


and to the dude who talked bout an amd operating at 2.66... wth? amd (754s and 939s) clockspeeds (HTT, RAM, and CPU) are all multiples of 200. and 2660 isnt quite a multiple of 200. (200 is the memclock:2x200=ddr400(ram), 13x200= 2.6ghz(cpu), 10x200=HTT)

 

[NightlySputnik]

umm. dude, calm down man. you wanna know why pentiums have always had larger caches? they have smaller procesors (which is why, until now, they have always operated at higher clock speeds). Yeah. Seriously, i NEVER said that conroe was in any way, shape or form worse than any existing cores/processors. Infact I admit it will *probably* be better. However You must understand that AMD is not gonna just rollover and die. Trust AMD to, if the conroe core is actually very special at all, re engineer it. intel is risking alot by introducing a whole new design onte the market first, so they try to move or focus away from amd who is prolly hard at work cooking up a response, except amd has a small advantage, they are going to get hands on with the conroe. I also never said that the cache was what delivered the performance, Pentium D 9** series operted on the OLD intel system: High clocks, samll cores. I can name a pretty sweet feature which is all the rage right now: amd64. I could go on and on, I just wonder: how much do you actually know about what makes CPUs tick?

Yeah! Just like I said, CONROE now, K8L after, followed by AMD new architecture in 2007/2008 and NEHALEM around the same time. That's the whole point. Who wins... US! Do you think Intel would have bother with Core architecture if not for the A64? Or that AMD would be already talking of a new architecture for end 2007/ early 2008 if not for Core2Duo? I mean, their A64 is killling the whole brand of PentiumD these days and the trend was only growing worse.

Anyway, most poeple remember the previous generation of cpu. So it might even be a reversing of trend, who knows. Poeple asking for A64X2 while Core2Duo is available beside (maybe not, but who knows). That would be funny :lol: .

 

[ches111]

Man O man,

This is some funny stuff coming out in a rage.

People forget to look at things from a systems point of view.

Clocks are better, no big cache is better, no Hypertransport is better, no the on board memory controller is better.

You are all right when looking at things from a systems perspective. The AMD X2s performed well because of many of its features integrated into a SPECIFIC architecture.

The Core 2 Duo works well because of its feature also integrated into its SPECIFIC architecture.

Design decisions are made at a system level not as an individual component (or at least they should be).

Each component designed to compliment the next upstream/downstream component.

 

[tmac]

Fortunately for the Intel fanboys No. But don't let that stop you because there are plenty of Intel chips that it is faster than.

Baron is totally right. I have an Intel P3 600 Mhz, and the 3800+
can blow me out of the water. Well, he did tell the truth.

 

[apache_lives]

It seems Yonah takes AMD anyhow with 2mb total (vs AMD X2 clock for clock the exact same amounts of L2) and an even bigger point AMD HAS 128K L1 CACHE - OVER 4x THE L1 CACHE OF ANY INTEL - so what are you talking about?

What! Dude yonah and k8 are even clock for clock in most app's.

takes as in sits right with AMD clock for clock, efficency tho yes it takes AMD.

 

[apache_lives]

umm. dude, calm down man. you wanna know why pentiums have always had larger caches? they have smaller procesors (which is why, until now, they have always operated at higher clock speeds). Yeah. Seriously, i NEVER said that conroe was in any way, shape or form worse than any existing cores/processors. Infact I admit it will *probably* be better. However You must understand that AMD is not gonna just rollover and die. Trust AMD to, if the conroe core is actually very special at all, re engineer it. intel is risking alot by introducing a whole new design onte the market first, so they try to move or focus away from amd who is prolly hard at work cooking up a response, except amd has a small advantage, they are going to get hands on with the conroe. I also never said that the cache was what delivered the performance, Pentium D 9** series operted on the OLD intel system: High clocks, samll cores. I can name a pretty sweet feature which is all the rage right now: amd64. I could go on and on, I just wonder: how much do you actually know about what makes CPUs tick? Do you know why Intels have bigger caches? to you know what the L1 cache actually does? do you now what the process is? do you know the difference between the actual core and the cache is (yes they are the two big sectors you see on the die of any picture of an open cpu)? how long has it taken intel to beat amds imc? what exactly is HTT?


and to the dude who talked bout an amd operating at 2.66... wth? amd (754s and 939s) clockspeeds (HTT, RAM, and CPU) are all multiples of 200. and 2660 isnt quite a multiple of 200. (200 is the memclock:2x200=ddr400(ram), 13x200= 2.6ghz(cpu), 10x200=HTT)

oh ffs - the P4 is the only design from intel that needed higher clock speeds from intel - EVERY OTHER CPU WAS EQUAL OR BETTER (Pentium Pro vs K6, P2 vs K6/2, P3 vs K6/3, P3 vs Athlon, Pentium M vs AMD XP/A64) :roll:

small cores? The Intel P4's are huge compared (making the originals hot and expensive) :roll:

 

[apache_lives]

Man O man,

This is some funny stuff coming out in a rage.

People forget to look at things from a systems point of view.

Clocks are better, no big cache is better, no Hypertransport is better, no the on board memory controller is better.

You are all right when looking at things from a systems perspective. The AMD X2s performed well because of many of its features integrated into a SPECIFIC architecture.

The Core 2 Duo works well because of its feature also integrated into its SPECIFIC architecture.

Design decisions are made at a system level not as an individual component (or at least they should be).

Each component designed to compliment the next upstream/downstream component.

Clocks are better, no big cache is better, no Hypertransport is better, no the on board memory controller is better.

Cache adds latency, and we've all seen Intels P4 EE
HTT is good, doesnt make the cpu good (Pentium M @ 2.5 takes a A64 @ 2.6 (4000+) in games etc)
Onboard Memory Controller is good, doesnt make the cpu good either

similar deal with Intels ageing fsb - it looks crap with a P4, but P6 tech and conroe on it makes it look... less... bad, intels yet to use AMDs tricks.

 

[ches111]

I think you are misunderstanding CACHE. A larger cache does not particularly cause latency, Please provide anything anywhere (not inq) that shows this?

In fact a larger cache DOES increase performance when implemented correctly. If you have a large cache and nothing is moved to the cache then it surely is ineffective.

However, if you have a large cache and you have a good cache hit ratio where data is moved onto the cache and managed well (aging, timeout, removal, scoring, fetch and pre-fetch) you will see incredible performance increases. I think you can attribute some of the performance gains in the Conroe to a BETTER, larger and more efficient cache (see pre-fetch notes on the Conroe).

HTT is good, FSB is good as well (although limited in comparison to the HTT backbone). The problem is again in the "SYSTEM" where and how they are used. When looking at it in a component category only the FSB would lose all the time (in Intels previous arch it did). However, in the current arch it seems to be fairing well up to 2p. It may fair well past 2p (yet to be seen).

Onboard Memory Controller is also a good design decision (although in this case it is limiting. AMD was unable to move to DDR2 until an onboard change happened. Intels design decision allows them to abstract that decision to others which removes their internal reliance.

 

[Action_Man]

This thread blows, too many noobs, idiots and fanboys.

 

[RichPLS]

Word.

 

[NightlySputnik]

Man O man,

This is some funny stuff coming out in a rage.

People forget to look at things from a systems point of view.

Clocks are better, no big cache is better, no Hypertransport is better, no the on board memory controller is better.

You are all right when looking at things from a systems perspective. The AMD X2s performed well because of many of its features integrated into a SPECIFIC architecture.

The Core 2 Duo works well because of its feature also integrated into its SPECIFIC architecture.

Design decisions are made at a system level not as an individual component (or at least they should be).

Each component designed to compliment the next upstream/downstream component.

Clocks are better, no big cache is better, no Hypertransport is better, no the on board memory controller is better.

Cache adds latency, and we've all seen Intels P4 EE
HTT is good, doesnt make the cpu good (Pentium M @ 2.5 takes a A64 @ 2.6 (4000+) in games etc)
Onboard Memory Controller is good, doesnt make the cpu good either

similar deal with Intels ageing fsb - it looks crap with a P4, but P6 tech and conroe on it makes it look... less... bad, intels yet to use AMDs tricks.

OK! First, cache doesn't add latency... waiting for memory after cache miss add latency!

For everything else I agree.

Altough, I say it's about time Intel go for HTT or CSI. It will just shine, unless it go in conflict with the new "memory disambiguation" that seem to do so well with CONROE. 😀 Otherwise, I suggest AMD use it in it's upcoming architecture for early 2008! :twisted: There is no offence 😳 in using a good idea from the competition if it make you perform :twisted: , both for AMD and Intel by the way!!!!!!

 

[ninjaquick]

Man O man,

This is some funny stuff coming out in a rage.

People forget to look at things from a systems point of view.

Clocks are better, no big cache is better, no Hypertransport is better, no the on board memory controller is better.

You are all right when looking at things from a systems perspective. The AMD X2s performed well because of many of its features integrated into a SPECIFIC architecture.

The Core 2 Duo works well because of its feature also integrated into its SPECIFIC architecture.

Design decisions are made at a system level not as an individual component (or at least they should be).

Each component designed to compliment the next upstream/downstream component.

Clocks are better, no big cache is better, no Hypertransport is better, no the on board memory controller is better.

Cache adds latency, and we've all seen Intels P4 EE
HTT is good, doesnt make the cpu good (Pentium M @ 2.5 takes a A64 @ 2.6 (4000+) in games etc)
Onboard Memory Controller is good, doesnt make the cpu good either

similar deal with Intels ageing fsb - it looks crap with a P4, but P6 tech and conroe on it makes it look... less... bad, intels yet to use AMDs tricks.

where are the benchmarks to support this? if clocks were better then why is intel dropping them way down? if cache causes latency and more is not better then why do they "waste" die space with it? on board memcontroll er takes a whole lot of load off the chipset, and runs the ram more efficiently (less watts)(downside is ddr2 which has funny clockspeeds). Hyper transport is an advanced bridge that was desiged for amds dual core processors. It links both cores at a nearly lossless speed. It functions also as a PCI-e AGP bridge with the rest of the computer. It is, in simple terms, a high bandwidth, igh efficiency Front Side Bus (AMDs (k8) do not have an FSB, they have a memclock which is standard at 200mhz).

 

[dvdpiddy]

This thread blows, too many noobs, idiots and fanboys.

Only post worth reading here.

 

[dvdpiddy]

It seems Yonah takes AMD anyhow with 2mb total (vs AMD X2 clock for clock the exact same amounts of L2) and an even bigger point AMD HAS 128K L1 CACHE - OVER 4x THE L1 CACHE OF ANY INTEL - so what are you talking about?

What! Dude yonah and k8 are even clock for clock in most app's.

takes as in sits right with AMD clock for clock, efficency tho yes it takes AMD. What apps? When you play games they are even in 3dmark yonah wins but in mem apps k8 wins they trade blows like the x1800xt and the 7900gt.