Intels Conroe benchmarked!

and how come that more graphically difficult games give bigger differences?

A platform/crossfire difference as opposed to only CPU?

One would expect that Fear is the hardest graphically, than HL2, than Q4, and least graphically intensive and most CPU bound is Unreal, and this is exactly the opposite of % wins for Intel platform.

Looks to me like the platform is so much faster despite utilizing the same Xfire solution, thus something fishy and not necessarily just Conroe advantage vs X2.

I would say that media encoding wins are more impressive as they should be more CPU bound. Games benches are weird.
 
I *have* a DFI RD480 board and the *are* weird - especially in XFire.
Why not run NV cards or single cards I wonder?
 
Mize said:
I *have* a DFI RD480 board and the *are* weird - especially in XFire.
Why not run NV cards or single cards I wonder?

It seems clear that intel always had a preference for ATI, that might be why it was chosen.
Maybe they chosed a Dual X1900XT because otherwise those games would have been GPU limited.

Or maybe it's just that with that configuration intel had a bigger lead, (as some users around the net are saying they had problems with crossfire on that board)
Does anyone have some scores of that fear demo with a dual x1900xt on a rd580 and FX60?
I know they used a overclocked FX60, but we could still get some informations comparing the two.
 
ANova said:
It won't change. BTX allows for better cooling in general, not just for the cpu but for the whole system. As such, even if the cpu isn't a heater that just means a much quieter computer is a better possibility.
Not much quieter, just a small edge (at most, I'd say). The more important for quiet aircooling are things like slow fans, efficient heatsinks and good airflow management (least possible obstructions near fans, etc.). The placement of the individual components is less critical, you can already get silent systems with ATX (although not a Prescott obviously).
 
Druga Runda said:
and how come that more graphically difficult games give bigger differences?

A platform/crossfire difference as opposed to only CPU?

One would expect that Fear is the hardest graphically, than HL2, than Q4, and least graphically intensive and most CPU bound is Unreal, and this is exactly the opposite of % wins for Intel platform.

Looks to me like the platform is so much faster despite utilizing the same Xfire solution, thus something fishy and not necessarily just Conroe advantage vs X2.

I would say that media encoding wins are more impressive as they should be more CPU bound. Games benches are weird.

If you look at Hexus' article, they are running all games at 1024x768 (medium quality settings), on CrossFire X1900 setups. I would say that even FEAR would be mostly CPU-bound with such at setup at that resolution
 
P4 was really a bad idea.
Probably I will revive the (not so) old times with my Tually :)

The large integrated L2 cache was really a smart move. Probably it is 8-way associative or better, and without priority between processors it means better use of the silicon real-state and much less miss rate. Also the cache coerency protocols will have to deal with only the L1 caches, which means much less overload with MESI os likes.
pcchen said:
I think macro-ops fusion can be seen as a way to "fix" some problems in the x86 ISA. Another example is "multiply and add." There is no fma instruction in x86, but a macro-ops fusion with "multiply and add" can make some x86 programs to enjoy the benefits of a fma unit without any changes.
Yes, it is a good idea too. It could be better with a new\clean RISC ISA without all this legacy (x86, mmx, etc..).
 
Those scores are REALLY impressive! Currently I'm partial to AMD mostly because they're less expensive, less hot and perform better for the tasks I need. However, if these are reasonably priced, my next upgrade in a year or two might be with one of these! I these scores are real, good job intel!

Close competition is a healthy thing, it spurrs innovation and major improvements. Too bad we can't say this is happening in the gaming soundcard industry.

Hopefully AMD will be able to keep up!
 
(offtopic.... i just grrr)

but over all, exept for gaming, very very few of us really need anything faster then the current ly cheapest chips avialable.

maybe intel and amd should work on promoting resourcehungry mainstream applications....................................

i still want the benchmarks to be true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-time-machine.html

Rahul refers to some BIOS handicapping on the AMD and some other perhaps questionable variables...anyone care to comment?


I wonder if AMD will counter these benches with a different setup? Hector seems very aggressive these days and I would assume AMD is concerned about damage control here as this next 6 months is CRITICAL to their market share gains. Perhaps a surprise showing at CEBIT?

http://www.cebit.de/homepage_e?x=1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
overclocked_enthusiasm said:
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-time-machine.html

Rahul refers to some BIOS handicapping on the AMD and some other perhaps questionable variables...anyone care to comment?


I wonder if AMD will counter these benches with a different setup? Hector seems very aggressive these days and I would assume AMD is concerned about damage control here as this next 6 months is CRITICAL to their market share gains. Perhaps a surprise showing at CEBIT?

http://www.cebit.de/homepage_e?x=1
The plot thickens.
I'm not sure how memory timings would really hurt the A64 that much... if you read some articles/forums regarding memory timings effects you'll see that it only has a large effect on memory benchmarks but in games and real apps the difference is extremely small.
 
overclocked_enthusiasm said:
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-time-machine.html

Rahul refers to some BIOS handicapping on the AMD and some other perhaps questionable variables...anyone care to comment?

That has to be expected : over the next few days, we will probably see a lot of rah-rah by Intel fans, coupled with a lot of doubting the benchmarks by AMD fans. It's obvious that Intel chose conditions that would favor their new processor, but to what extent ? Did they outright handicap the Athlon setup as your link seems to suggest, or is it just application cherry-picking ?

I wonder if AMD will counter these benches with a different setup? Hector seems very aggressive these days and I would assume AMD is concerned about damage control here as this next 6 months is CRITICAL to their market share gains. Perhaps a surprise showing at CEBIT?

AMD could probably fine-tweak a setup to show better results in the applications used by Intel, but the demos are Intel's, so it's not going to be very helpful. And I don't think Intel will send them some Conroe samples so they can setup something different.

Regarding a surprise showing of their new stuff, if it's less impressive than the Conroe results, then I would think they are better off not showing it right now, as it would both :
- undermine their current performance crown
- give a bad impression (justified or not) that their upcoming stuff will not be on par with Intel's offering
 
amdbios.jpg
I didn't even notice this "unknown processor" :rolleyes:

well hard to believe we are all so sloppy, but this "crossfire bug" is odds on responsible for the huge intel platform gain in games

Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode.
- More apparent performance issues under Crossfire mode.

regardless of the other bits where he pretty much casts a quite decent "doubt" on the whole presentation. Overall

icon13.gif


to Intel.

I am sure it is a capable chip, very likely faster than current AMD stuff given real life PM numbers but Intel PR department needs to go help us all and go on well deserved holiday.
amdbios.jpg
 
Looks like ATI wrote a special BIOS revision for Conroe on the RD480 (or was it a driver revision on Catalyst?) for the benchmarking. Intel couldn't/wouldn't have written it themsleves right? With the recent Skype handicap on any AMD core via a driver penalty that only allows Intel cores to do 10 way CC instead of 5 way CC for AMD, I am leery on Intel's motives and actions here.

Maybe everything was on the up and up and they simply built a 65 nm beast that will slay AMD. Count me in the skeptical camp for now. With DDR2 at 800 MHz does AMD have a chance based upon these benches or do they need to do some crazy cache or clock pushing?
 
question, how much would it hurt intels credibility and finances IF those benchmark numbers would later on be labled false and the systems "proven" to be unjustly modified?


wouldnt this hurt intel alot more in the end?

(i mean, if the conroe yet wouldnt be able to what they claim to, they simply could go on spending lots of $$$$ on it and release it when really ready)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
booomups said:
question, how much would it hurt intels credibility and finances IF those benchmark numbers would later on be labled false and the systems "proven" to be unjustly modified?


wouldnt this hurt intel alot more in the end?

(i mean, if the conroe yet wouldnt be able to what they claim to, they simply could go on spending lots of $$$$ on it and release it when really ready)
I bet none, if the chip still ends up a little faster than the current king of the hill, in that case any publicity is good publicity, and effectively they just handed themselves a huge coverage for little cost. Smart but
icon13.gif
. It will only cost them if the chip is indeed slower than the competition when it is released, but surely Intel is not counting on it.
 
Back
Top