PDA

View Full Version : Conroe Question


pkirby11
06-10-06, 12:18 PM
So I noticed these two different benchmarks early this week and I got confused. I'm not trying to start a flame war as to who has the better CPU, or to say that Conroe sucks I just want your honest opinions as to what you think.

To me seeing both these benchmarks shows me that Intel really doesn't have that great of a CPU on their hands. One benchmark is taken from Anandtech showing the Conroe Extreme edition up against an FX-62 and the other comes from Firingsquad..com show the E6600 version of Conroe. Whats funny is that at the same resolution in Quake 4 both processors scoure around the same FPS and both beat the AMD FX-62. This seems a bit odd to me, I mean why would I want to buy a $1,000 CPU when the $300 does just as good a job?

Like I siad, I'm not trying to start a flame war and if that starts I would like an admin to close the thread. I won't deny that I've always stuck by AMD and I definetly could be considered a fan boy, but I'm also an enthuiast when it comes to computers and I will go with the best. So what I want to know is what do you guys think of these benchmarks? They honestly have me wanting to wait for ofical benchmarks and to be honest they have me want to wait for AMDs next big thing in early 2007. I don't see any point in upgrading to a processor that I think is very supicious looking in benchamrks right now, I mean thats a lot of money to buy new CPU, new memory, and a new motherboard.

I just think that I might end up being right in saying that, yes Intel will have the killer CPU by July, no doubt, but I really doubt that the E6600 is going to trash AMDs FX-62 and to be honest that was what was most appealing to me. But I want to know your opinions, do you think I'm wrong and if so how? What do you think of the benchmarks. Remember it's Quake 4 at the same resolution.

Anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2771&p=5

Firingsquad
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_conroe_benchmarks/page2.asp

Again please only honest insightful comments. I don't want any insults or your a fan boy crap. I already know that. :D I just want to know your opinion between the two benchmarks. I really love AMD but if an E6600 could perform as well as Firingsquad makes it out to be I'd be all over Conroe. But for now I still remain skeptical.

Toss3
06-10-06, 01:24 PM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/conroe%20preview_060606100650/12217.pnghttp://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_conroe_benchmarks/images/d31280.gif

Now how on earth can you say they perform the same? :eek2: (first graph taken from www.anandtech.com and second from www.firingsquad.com) Had to borrow them to prove a point.. :o

pkirby11
06-10-06, 01:56 PM
Well not exactly the answer I was looking for. I know the Extreme performs somewhat better than the E6600, thats not my point. Why is it that Intels Conroe always performs better than AMD's AM2? And when I say that I mean that if you look at the score, the FX-62 is running the same game on very similiar hardware and yet it scores two completely different scores. 35.2 FPS to be exact, what gives? Why does Intel no matter the chip always come out on top of AMD's FX-62? I want to know, is there something I'm truly missing?

I want to believe in Conroe as much as the next guy, but Anand's test system would be close to mine which means an E6600 is not going to beat an AMD FX-62, unless you OC it and I don't OC. Why is it that people are so quick to bash AMD now saying that the AM2 is a piece of trash and that Conroe is the god to gaming CPU's when 90% of the benchmarks hace such huge descrepnecy's between the AMD chip. Do you not agree that the FX-62 should perform closely withing a minor degree of difference within the same game?

That's what I'm stating, Anand make the Xtreme edition Conroe out to be a FX-62 destroyer and Firingsquad makes the E6600 out to be an FX-62 destroyer. Yet if Anands right and the FX-62 hits 144.1 FPS in Quake 4 then the E6600 is 31.1 FPS slower than an FX-62. Which in the end makes my CPU not that bad compared to Conroe which makes me not see the reason to go Intel. Why not just wait?

I really don't care if the two benchmarks are different, obviously there different. I want to know why there different. Why is it that Conroe always does better than an FX-62 no matter the clock speed? And why is it that AMD is always scaled down to look inferior to the Conroe processor? Answer those questions and I'll go away. In fact don't answer I don't really care. In the end I don't think Conroe is going to be as great as everyone says.

a12ctic
06-10-06, 01:58 PM
the e6600 is very simular, 4 or 5 fps is nothing... also anandtech is VERY baised towards intel chips, at least from what ive seen in the past. I was looking a performance per 100 mhz a week ago, and its NOT a big difference (although intel DOES win, at least from the current benchies.)...

Goran
06-10-06, 02:10 PM
Why is it that Intels Conroe always performs better than AMD's AM2? And when I say that I mean that if you look at the score, the FX-62 is running the same game on very similiar hardware and yet it scores two completely different scores. 35.2 FPS to be exact, what gives? Why does Intel no matter the chip always come out on top of AMD's FX-62? I want to know, is there something I'm truly missing?.


Easy, Anandtech is using GeForce 7900GTX cards on both machines while Firingsquad is using ATI's X1900XTX. No wonder the FX scores differently as well as Conroe :) The GPU makes up for 80% of the score in those benchies

sabersix1
06-10-06, 04:10 PM
What is the price of an FX62? $900-$1000 Right? What is the price of the E6600? $315 the E6700? $530 and the X6800 EE? $999

Now if you read TweakTowns Article below than You will see why most PC Enthusiasts are going for Intel Conroe CPU's this summer:


http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/1/page_1_benchmarking_intel_conroe_core_2/index.html

Here is an excerpt:

From our benchmarking, we can see that Intel’s upcoming range of Conroe processors have a lot of raw performance available. Even the X6800 Core 2 Extreme which is clocked at just 2.93GHz is able to kill the 955 Extreme Edition processor pretty much all of the time. Considering the 955 EE is clocked over half a gig higher than the X6800, it is painting a very good picture for Intel. As Intel ramp up the clock speeds of the new Conroe chips, performance will only become stronger.

Not once did AMD’s current highest performing and most expensive FX-62 processor come close to beating the Conroe. At times, the X6800 was over 50% faster. The 955 EE was able to beat the X6800 once in Quake 4 but that is because the 955 EE has a much higher clock speed. And even in Quake 4, the 955 EE was only about 3% quicker – imagine when the Core 2 Extreme hits 3.46GHz and you’ll have a processor which will destroy the old Intel CPU design.

Intel’s Conroe design makes their older Pentium chips look very, very ordinary. At times, the X6800 is able to beat the Pentium 4 631 clocked at 3GHz by as much as 180%. As far as gaming performance goes, Intel is looking very strong and as we have predicated and told many people at the Computex show throughout the week, Intel is looking like they will be the gamer CPU of choice in H2 2006 and all of 2007. The Core 2 Extreme clocked at 2.93GHz was able to beat the AMD Athlon FX-62 on average by 15% in our gaming benchmarks.

Right now is a good time to be in the industry, especially as an enthusiast and gamer. Intel are fighting back against AMD after some years of tough times as AMD become stronger and stronger and grew their market share against Intel. Now things are looking very good for Intel – they have the fastest desktop PC processor in the world just waiting to let it loose and a great chipset platform in the Intel 965P and nVidia nForce 5 series with ATI lurking around in the background with their RD600 chipset which should be launched around September 2006, apparently the same time as Intel will release their new Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors into the market.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One reason for the Conroe CPU to run faster and give better performance over the AMD AM2 Socket CPU's is that the Conroe has from Four to Five intruction executions per hop where as the AMD CPU-s and earlier P-4 CPU's only perform at 3 instruction executions per hop. Also the Core is using Memory Prefetching and Disambiguation with Micro and Macro Ops Fusion(AMD does Not) and instead of an On-die Memory Controller, Intel decided to use the circuits for a massive 4Mb of Shared L2 Cache. If You ask me, when I can pay $530 for the Intel E6700 and beat a $1000 AMD AM2 FX-62 or pay $315 for an Intel E6600 and beat the X2 5000 AM2 Socket CPU,well that is a no-brainer. I'd buy the Intel CPU's all day long. And if You can see that the benchmarks being run now are with Pre-Release CPU's and then imagine that the Retail CPU's will be even better, not to mention the release of the Conroe Extreme Edition CPU's which will have even higher Core Clock rates, then I would think you would agree with me that Intel has taken the performance crown back for the time being. ;)

pkirby11
06-10-06, 04:26 PM
What is the price of an FX62? $900-$1000 Right? What is the price of the E6600? $315 the E6700? $530 and the X6800 EE? $999 And if you read TweakTowns Article:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/1/page_1_benchmarking_intel_conroe_core_2/index.html

Here is an excerpt:

From our benchmarking, we can see that Intel’s upcoming range of Conroe processors have a lot of raw performance available. Even the X6800 Core 2 Extreme which is clocked at just 2.93GHz is able to kill the 955 Extreme Edition processor pretty much all of the time. Considering the 955 EE is clocked over half a gig higher than the X6800, it is painting a very good picture for Intel. As Intel ramp up the clock speeds of the new Conroe chips, performance will only become stronger.

Not once did AMD’s current highest performing and most expensive FX-62 processor come close to beating the Conroe. At times, the X6800 was over 50% faster. The 955 EE was able to beat the X6800 once in Quake 4 but that is because the 955 EE has a much higher clock speed. And even in Quake 4, the 955 EE was only about 3% quicker – imagine when the Core 2 Extreme hits 3.46GHz and you’ll have a processor which will destroy the old Intel CPU design.

Intel’s Conroe design makes their older Pentium chips look very, very ordinary. At times, the X6800 is able to beat the Pentium 4 631 clocked at 3GHz by as much as 180%. As far as gaming performance goes, Intel is looking very strong and as we have predicated and told many people at the Computex show throughout the week, Intel is looking like they will be the gamer CPU of choice in H2 2006 and all of 2007. The Core 2 Extreme clocked at 2.93GHz was able to beat the AMD Athlon FX-62 on average by 15% in our gaming benchmarks.

Right now is a good time to be in the industry, especially as an enthusiast and gamer. Intel are fighting back against AMD after some years of tough times as AMD become stronger and stronger and grew their market share against Intel. Now things are looking very good for Intel – they have the fastest desktop PC processor in the world just waiting to let it loose and a great chipset platform in the Intel 965P and nVidia nForce 5 series with ATI lurking around in the background with their RD600 chipset which should be launched around September 2006, apparently the same time as Intel will release their new Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors into the market.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If You ask me, when I can pay $530 for the Intel E6700 and beat a $1000 AMD AM2 FX-62 or pay $315 for an Intel E6600 and beat the X2 5000 AM2 Socket CPU,well that is a no-brainer. I'd buy the Intel CPU's all day long. And if You can see that the benchmarks being run now are with Pre-Release CPU's and then imagine that the Retail CPU's will be even better, not to mention the release of the Conroe Extreme Edition CPU's which will have even higher Core Clock rates, then I would think you would agree with me that Intel has taken the performance crown back for the time being. ;)

So if I read the article you quoted and what you posted, then your saying that the E6600 would not beat a FX-62, but would beat a X2 5000? If so I can reasonably see that happening. Don't get me wrong, I think Conroe looks amazing and while I've siad before I'm an avid AMD fan, I'm a gamer first and that means getting the best I can get for the money I wish to spend.

I just get tired of all these post trying to claim that a $300 CPU would beat a $1000 CPU. But that artice does make things sound more within reason, but they definetly make Conroe look to be the gaming CPU of choice. So lets say you had the money, would you buy a Conroe knowing that you had to buy new memory and a motherboard too? I would imagine the E6600 alone would kick the crap out of my X2 4200+, so from the performance stand point it's a no brainer. But from the money stand point, if you could do it would you upgrade to Conroe?

Thanks for the honest opinions and not being to insultive. Like I siad I'm not here to trash one processor of the other, I just still can't see what all the hype is about. And some of these benchmarks at times seem fishy to me.

sabersix1
06-10-06, 05:15 PM
:D Well You are going to have to switch to DDR2 Memory and go for a new Mainboard as well to switch to an AM2 Socket FX-62 0r an X2 5000.
One reason for the Conroe CPU to run faster and give better performance over the AMD AM2 Socket CPU's is that the Conroe has from Four to Five intruction executions per hop where as the AMD CPU-s and earlier P-4 CPU's only perform at 3 instruction executions per hop. Also the Core is using Memory Prefetching and Disambiguation with Micro and Macro Ops Fusion(AMD does Not) and instead of an On-die Memory Controller, Intel decided to use the circuits for a massive 4Mb of Shared L2 Cache. Next to the AM2 or Earlier P4's, there is a big difference in architechture. Just wait for the new Quad-Core CPU's, they will be out by end of 06 anyways.
I am going to go for a good Nforce5 590 for Intel Conroe and with it a E6700 for $530 which I think is the best bang for the buck.:D

Acid Rain
06-10-06, 08:14 PM
the e6600 is very simular, 4 or 5 fps is nothing... also anandtech is VERY baised towards intel chips, at least from what ive seen in the past. LO friggin L!!!!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2736&p=9

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2725&p=8

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=1

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2658&p=3

Older history: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249&p=9

I always have a private chuckle at others' expense when Anandtech is accused of bias.

They provide some of the most solid info on the web, in my opinion, especially when directly compared to my own real world testing. They just say it like it is, and have been doing so for as long as I can remember.

coldpower27
06-10-06, 11:25 PM
Here is my take on it.

X6800 >> Athlon FX 62.
E6700 > Athlon FX 62.
E6600 >= Athlon FX 62.

Let's just say when Intels 316US processor is matching the 1031US processor from AMD, that is an incredible achievement giving where they were before with the roles reversed, but not quite as badly.

An Athlon 64x2 3800+ is hard to be considered beating the Pentium EE 965. Perhaps in some areas but not sweepingly across the board.

The reason why Intel's new architecture is beating AMD's one is because Conroe has in spades what games currently want, Integer and SSE performance.

AMD architecture is stronger in floating point, though Conroe's improved to the point where it is at parity minimum, K8L should make AMD the Floating Point champion again.

Well for me it's a no brainer I have been waiting ages for Intel to bring a good High IPC architecture to desktop, and Conroe is the one. Not to mention the performance leap i would be getting.

Because Intel favourables have finally something to shout at the top of the mountains about, can you blame them? You have got to keep in mind AMD has held the gaming grown sicne the introduction of K8 architecture. Let them vent their frustrations, they deserve it.

bkswaney
06-11-06, 12:36 AM
Here is my take on it.



Because Intel favourables have finally something to shout at the top of the mountains about, can you blame them? You have got to keep in mind AMD has held the gaming grown sicne the introduction of K8 architecture. Let them vent their frustrations, they deserve it.



Amen... I've been using a P4 since they come out and getting my @ss kicked by AMD cpu's so long I forgot what it was like to see intel on top. "lol" :)

Intel is back in the game now so let the intel fans have some fun. ;)
I'm a intel fan myself. I'm d@mn glad to see Conroe doing so well.
I like my opteron system but I cannot wait to get my conroe rig built. :D (nana2)
Now bring on Vista.

Digital_Trans
06-11-06, 02:55 AM
Amen... I've been using a P4 since they come out and getting my @ss kicked by AMD cpu's so long I forgot what it was like to see intel on top. "lol" :)

Intel is back in the game now so let the intel fans have some fun. ;)
I'm a intel fan myself. I'm d@mn glad to see Conroe doing so well.
I like my opteron system but I cannot wait to get my conroe rig built. :D (nana2)
Now bring on Vista.

I'm 100% with you on that mate! (nana2)

Dazz
06-11-06, 09:31 AM
I was going to go AM2 but am now looking into an Core 2 system.