Conroe performance claim being busted

[imported_Wreck]

Hmmm. Here's something else to argue about:

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/04/conroe-performance-claim-being-busted.html

[lonegunm4n]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

I thought something was fishy. I figured something more along the lines of the AMD box being tweaked.

[Death Merchant]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

looks like they have a good argument there

its believable as a huge corporation is always good at gimmics and tricks hopefully AMD wont be fooled

even more intersting

"Anand didn't have any chance to look inside the IDF Conroe box, he wasn't even allowed to look at the Control Panel of the IDF Conroe box. If Intel put Pentium D overclocked to 5GHZ there, Anand had no way to tell."

[lil_jimmy_norton]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

Hehehehe...

[<DV8>mrbucket]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

Sorry if im mistaken, but wasnt the AMD chip an FX60 x2 overclocked? If the Conroe was running stock, i still can see what the fuss is about. It sounds like the Conroe is faster stock than AMD big boy stock. The overclock on the fx60 was placed to show that even overclocked, the stock Intel chip holds it's own.

[imported_Wreck]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

Sorry if im mistaken, but wasnt the AMD chip an FX60 x2 overclocked? If the Conroe was running stock, i still can see what the fuss is about. It sounds like the Conroe is faster stock than AMD big boy stock. The overclock on the fx60 was placed to show that even overclocked, the stock Intel chip holds it's own.

Read the test results. Intel was faster in two test and AMD was in two others if they were theoretically both clocked at 2.8Ghz. Basically without the 4Mb L2 cache the Conroe is about the same performance as current AMD offerings.

[lil_jimmy_norton]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

Read the test results. Intel was faster in two test and AMD was in two others if they were theoretically both clocked at 2.8Ghz. Basically without the 4Mb L2 cache the Conroe is about the same performance as current AMD offerings.

*According to pleminary reports.

[SFR-MAINE]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

pffft

When the cpu is out and tested by many hardware sites legitmately and is available for purchase thats when you decide.

I have no doubt that anand did infact test conroe as best as they could, put it this way why would intel want to botch benchmarks and then release their cpus a few months later and have them beat by current AMD's? can someone say lawsuit.

That blog is pointless.

[<DV8>mrbucket]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

Read the test results. Intel was faster in two test and AMD was in two others if they were theoretically both clocked at 2.8Ghz. Basically without the 4Mb L2 cache the Conroe is about the same performance as current AMD offerings.

Well i did read the results, but my point was that the AMD chip was overclocked against a supposedly stock Intel. If you have to overclock it in order to compete, imagine what the Intel chip overclocked will do, thats all.

[imported_Wreck]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

Well i did read the results, but my point was that the AMD chip was overclocked against a supposedly stock Intel. If you have to overclock it in order to compete, imagine what the Intel chip overclocked will do, thats all.

In the 2.8 AMD vs. the 2.4 Conroe the AMD won three tests. In the 2.8 vs 2.8 theoretical test the AMD and Conroe tied with two tests each. So I don't have to imagine what it will do because the results are below:

Thus, with a 2.8GHZ Conroe, we would have

Molecular Dynamics
Athlon 64 2.8GHZ: 1872.68
Conroe 2.8GHZ : 2133.38 * 2.8/2.4 = 2489 -- 32.9% faster

Primordia (Atom)
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1506.83
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1365.85 * 2.8/2.4 = 1593.49 -- 5.7% faster

Cryptography
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1345.05 -- 8.2% faster
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1065.59 * 2.8/2.4

STREAM *
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1512.55 -- 4.3% faster
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1242.94 * 2.8/2.4 = 1450

I'm also just going to say this again. Why do you guys keep comparing a new socket to a new core? When Intel went from socket 478 to socket 775 there was actually a performance decrease in using the extreme high latency DDR2 available at the time. At least AMD is offering better performance even if it's under 5%. Just wait until AMD releases it's new cores this fall to compare something with Conroe.

[SFR-MAINE]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

In the 2.8 AMD vs. the 2.4 Conroe the AMD won three tests. In the 2.8 vs 2.8 theoretical test the AMD and Conroe tied with two tests each. So I don't have to imagine what it will do because the results are below:

Thus, with a 2.8GHZ Conroe, we would have

Molecular Dynamics
Athlon 64 2.8GHZ: 1872.68
Conroe 2.8GHZ : 2133.38 * 2.8/2.4 = 2489 -- 32.9% faster

Primordia (Atom)
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1506.83
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1365.85 * 2.8/2.4 = 1593.49 -- 5.7% faster

Cryptography
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1345.05 -- 8.2% faster
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1065.59 * 2.8/2.4

STREAM *
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1512.55 -- 4.3% faster
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1242.94 * 2.8/2.4 = 1450

I'm also just going to say this again. Why do you guys keep comparing a new socket to a new core? When Intel went from socket 478 to socket 775 there was actually a performance decrease in using the extreme high latency DDR2 available at the time. At least AMD is offering better performance even if it's under 5%. Just wait until AMD releases it's new cores this fall.

Which brings us back to square one. Who knows really if this "guy" tested the conroe CPU where is his credibility?

[<DV8>mrbucket]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

In the 2.8 AMD vs. the 2.4 Conroe the AMD won three tests. In the 2.8 vs 2.8 theoretical test the AMD and Conroe tied with two tests each. So I don't have to imagine what it will do because the results are below:

Thus, with a 2.8GHZ Conroe, we would have

Molecular Dynamics
Athlon 64 2.8GHZ: 1872.68
Conroe 2.8GHZ : 2133.38 * 2.8/2.4 = 2489 -- 32.9% faster

Primordia (Atom)
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1506.83
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1365.85 * 2.8/2.4 = 1593.49 -- 5.7% faster

Cryptography
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1345.05 -- 8.2% faster
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1065.59 * 2.8/2.4

STREAM *
Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1512.55 -- 4.3% faster
Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1242.94 * 2.8/2.4 = 1450

I'm also just going to say this again. Why do you guys keep comparing a new socket to a new core? When Intel went from socket 478 to socket 775 there was actually a performance decrease in using the extreme high latency DDR2 available at the time. At least AMD is offering better performance even if it's under 5%. Just wait until AMD releases it's new cores this fall to compare something with Conroe.

That is a "what if" comparison based on a math equation, and not the actual clock.

[imported_Wreck]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

Which brings us back to square one. Who knows really if this "guy" tested the conroe CPU where is his credibility?

Well I'd then have to say, it has to be better than Intel's.

That is a "what if" comparison based on a math equation, and not the actual clock.

Notice how I state theoretical a few times?

Read the test results. Intel was faster in two test and AMD was in two others if they were theoretically both clocked at 2.8Ghz.

In the 2.8 vs 2.8 theoretical test the AMD and Conroe tied with two tests each.

[<DV8>mrbucket]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

Notice how I state theoretical a few times?

Of course, but i really am not putting anything in this until it is actually released. By the way- Whats with the flames about this, I dont think anyone is rubbing your face in it. The truth is, this will always happen, back and forth. Who the hell cares? Everyone uses AMD, they own 70% marketshare on retail computers, big fricken whoop. Eventually it will turn the other way again, and then 2 years later, back again..........

[LoD]

Re: Conroe performance claim being busted

I'm still waiting for real life tests. Apples to apples is not 2.8ghz vs 2.8ghz, its the best chip from Intel vs best from AMD.