PDA

View Full Version : Conroe isn't a new design?


sillyeagle
04-18-06, 04:56 PM
Despite its expected performance, Conroe/Merom is still essentially a quick fix. Intel needs a new design, and sooner rather than later.
From here: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00950/

This is an intersting statement from overclockers. I have seen others call Conroe Intels "Next-Gen architecture", yet overclockers calls it a quick fix, and not even a "new design".

From what I have seen, clock for clock, Conroe beats A64 by 25-30%. That to me is pretty substantial considering AMDs integrated memory controller and the fact that AMDs next offering(AM2) has almost no performance increase over the current offering.

Though it might share more with the PIII than the PIV, I would certainly call a PIII at 2.6GHz with a 25% clock for clock performace lead over AMDs best a new and affective design.

Q
04-18-06, 05:04 PM
Though it might share more with the PIII than the PIV, I would certainly call a PIII at 2.6GHz with a 25% clock for clock performace lead over AMDs best a new and affective design.

Yup.

AthlonXP1800
04-18-06, 05:50 PM
From what I have seen, clock for clock, Conroe beats A64 by 25-30%. That to me is pretty substantial considering AMDs integrated memory controller and the fact that AMDs next offering(AM2) has almost no performance increase over the current offering.

Conroe beats A64 by 25-30% is based on older tests with some errors, Anandtech re-evaluated the tests showed that Conroe beated A64 by 18-30%.

JoKeRr
04-18-06, 09:12 PM
i wonder how will Overclocker define New or Revolutionary?? A complete out of the blue design?? Well, some of the designs from P4s and P3s, so why not use something tried and true, and make it better faster on top of that??

In overclockers definition, A64 is nothing revolution either: added Integrated memory controller, 64bit support, more instruction can be executed in 1 cycle, all on top of K7.

So I call BS, b/c #s speaks for itself!

coldpower27
04-18-06, 11:04 PM
i wonder how will Overclocker define New or Revolutionary?? A complete out of the blue design?? Well, some of the designs from P4s and P3s, so why not use something tried and true, and make it better faster on top of that??

In overclockers definition, A64 is nothing revolution either: added Integrated memory controller, 64bit support, more instruction can be executed in 1 cycle, all on top of K7.

So I call BS, b/c #s speaks for itself!

So true, I guess it's just going by the definition of what features in particular defines new???

Like to me the macro-ops fusion in Conrpe has never been used before to my knowledge, but AMD's IMC design has before in the past, it justwasn't used again in recent history until AMD did it on K8 in 2003.

Subtestube
04-19-06, 02:43 AM
Conroe is a new design - read the article I linked to from Ars Technica in the other AMD/Conroe thread. Every chip design now is incremental. It's true that Conroe is probably "more" drawn from the PIII than the PIV heritage, but that doesn't mean it's not a new design.

jolle
04-19-06, 03:47 AM
Well I always assumed its a evolution of Pentium M, which was a evolution of Pentium III..
How much you need to define something as "a new architecture" is I spose pretty floating.. And I dont even know how much HAS changed..
Plus, in the end it doesnt matter, the performance does.

If it is enough to warrant calling it a "new architecture" or not is pretty irrelevant, Intel has great intrest in doing so as it sounds better, but in the end it doesnt really make much difference on its worth..

nutball
04-19-06, 12:34 PM
IMO it's pretty simple how you define "new architecture".

If you're an AMD fan-boy, Conroe is the same-old-same-old we've seen before *yawn*. If you're an Intel fan-boy, it's definitely a new core from the ground-up never seens before oh boy you AMD chaps better watch out.

Seriously though, it's quite a complex issue and in many ways a silly argument. It's blatantly obvious that each generation of microprocessor will build upon the lessons learned in previous generations. Not to do so would be very stupid and piss the shareholders of very much! If you find a way to solve a problem which works well and works for the product you're designing, why the hell would you change it just for the sake of not being the same as it was before?

At some levels all microprocessors share certain attributes, does that make them all the same? At other levels they take different approaches to a given problem. Does that make them all radically different? Of course not, and it's a silly game of semantics.

Vapor Trail
04-19-06, 02:21 PM
I really don't care if its an old or new design.

Show me the performance. :)

rage10
04-20-06, 09:21 PM
I really don't care if its an old or new design.

Show me the performance. :)


ditto

watever
04-21-06, 03:54 AM
IMO it's pretty simple how you define "new architecture".

If you're an AMD fan-boy, Conroe is the same-old-same-old we've seen before *yawn*. If you're an Intel fan-boy, it's definitely a new core from the ground-up never seens before oh boy you AMD chaps better watch out.

Seriously though, it's quite a complex issue and in many ways a silly argument. It's blatantly obvious that each generation of microprocessor will build upon the lessons learned in previous generations. Not to do so would be very stupid and piss the shareholders of very much! If you find a way to solve a problem which works well and works for the product you're designing, why the hell would you change it just for the sake of not being the same as it was before?

At some levels all microprocessors share certain attributes, does that make them all the same? At other levels they take different approaches to a given problem. Does that make them all radically different? Of course not, and it's a silly game of semantics.

Exactly! Isnt it better to grab something that works good and build upon it to make it work alot better rather than just building something from the ground up which may or may not work great? eh, i dont know why people care so much on how something was designed. The end product should be what matters.

john19055
04-22-06, 02:38 AM
I don't care if the conroe is not based on new architecture even if it is based on the old PIII then it will be great,because IMO the P111 was a good design ,I only switched to AMD when Intel came out with the P4 which was a shiit desighn as far as I am concerned.