Conroe vs. AMD FX-62

Interesting. Conroe will indeed be a serious CPU. But AMD is no slouch. I will need more independant testing before I'm convinced.
 
Decent review. Still shows that a good videocard is more important than a CPU at high IQ levels.
 
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1057259

Foir thoughts on the other review of the FX60 :)
i love how they didnt trust Intel's tests and now their own are proving otherwise - Intel isn't stupid, they know people would get these chips in their hands and find out how they perform, so why lie.

ON that review, things seem rather evened out, conroe wins in Gaming the Am2 pretty much breaks even or just ahead in all else, and almost double in memory banwidth is sandra is coded right to read those results.
 
In the Hexus link; 174 FPS vs 125 FPS for stock Conroe E6700 vs AM2 FX 62 in Far Cry speed test. (1024x) If these things do indeed easily do 3.0GHz+ overclocked they are going to rock.
 
MrGuvernment said:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1057259

Foir thoughts on the other review of the FX60 :)
i love how they didnt trust Intel's tests and now their own are proving otherwise - Intel isn't stupid, they know people would get these chips in their hands and find out how they perform, so why lie.

ON that review, things seem rather evened out, conroe wins in Gaming the Am2 pretty much breaks even or just ahead in all else, and almost double in memory banwidth is sandra is coded right to read those results.


That link is Yonah vs. FX60, not Conroe.
 
I realize this is the Intel forum, so I'll make this one post and shutup....

Those benches seem... wrong... FX60 pounds the 955... In those tests, it doesnt.... SOOOO I'm not quite sure whether to trust them or not.

It just seems to be a little off to me.
 
duby229 said:
I realize this is the Intel forum, so I'll make this one post and shutup....

Those benches seem... wrong... FX60 pounds the 955... In those tests, it doesnt.... SOOOO I'm not quite sure whether to trust them or not.

It just seems to be a little off to me.

First of all it is a 965 not a 955 and secondly it wins a few of the tests vs. FX60.What is the problem ? Are you such a *droid that you expect FX60 to win all the test compared to a 965 ?
 
Pretty sad that they can't even spell booty............."Botty" are you kidding me?
 
I want to see more detailed high-res gaming benchmarks. When I have my conroe I will finally upgrade my monitor to a large LCD. o_O
 
- 38.02% ScienceMark 2.0 memory bandwidth
- 02.16% ScienceMark 2.0 memory latency
+ 20.89% HEXUS Pifast
- 12.57% HEXUS Cryptography
+ 19.09% Realstorm Raytracing 2004
+ 23.78% DivX encode - multithreaded
+ 24.50% WAV conversion - multi-threaded
+ 15.77% CINEBENCH multi-CPU render
+ 51.32% KribiBench v1.1 - Jetshadow model
+ 39.47% Far Cry - 1024x768 - speed
+ 03.67% Quake 4 - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 16x AF
+ 00.88% Splinter Cell: CT - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 8x AF

Those scores are all over the place. I really would like to see more testing.

When you average those results one could come to the conclusion that the Conroe E6700 is around 12.22% faster than the FX-62 over all.

Assuming linear performance increase with clockspead, the FX-64 will be around 7.14% faster than the FX-62.

This puts the Conroe E6700 at around 5.08% faster than the FX-64.

----

So, in summary, Cornoe is a very impressive chip. No doubt about it. Still, will it be enough to keep Intel in the lead for long? Intel says they have moved from a 4 year design cycle to a 2 year cycle. Can conroe last them 2 whole years agains AMD's 65nm (and K8L in around 9 months)? Discuss!
 
visaris said:
- 38.02% ScienceMark 2.0 memory bandwidth
- 02.16% ScienceMark 2.0 memory latency
+ 20.89% HEXUS Pifast
- 12.57% HEXUS Cryptography
+ 19.09% Realstorm Raytracing 2004
+ 23.78% DivX encode - multithreaded
+ 24.50% WAV conversion - multi-threaded
+ 15.77% CINEBENCH multi-CPU render
+ 51.32% KribiBench v1.1 - Jetshadow model
+ 39.47% Far Cry - 1024x768 - speed
+ 03.67% Quake 4 - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 16x AF
+ 00.88% Splinter Cell: CT - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 8x AF

Those scores are all over the place. I really would like to see more testing.

When you average those results one could come to the conclusion that the Conroe E6700 is around 12.22% faster than the FX-62 over all.

Assuming linear performance increase with clockspead, the FX-64 will be around 7.14% faster than the FX-62.

This puts the Conroe E6700 at around 5.08% faster than the FX-64.

----

So, in summary, Cornoe is a very impressive chip. No doubt about it. Still, will it be enough to keep Intel in the lead for long? Intel says they have moved from a 4 year design cycle to a 2 year cycle. Can conroe last them 2 whole years agains AMD's 65nm (and K8L in around 9 months)? Discuss!
pay attention to the test like the gaming ones. This is why they are all over the place. the last two gaming tests would be probably video card limited.
 
For some reason they also gave the FX-62 system an extra gig of ram (running 2 gigs while the rest were all at 1) so that could have swayed things a bit more in that direction as well.

Also fun to note, this is the $500 E6700 trouncing a 1,000+ FX chip, just imagine what the Core 2 EE could do to the FX-62.
 
Indeed, you have to look at all of the numbers, including price, to see it's a whoopin.
 
NulloModo said:
For some reason they also gave the FX-62 system an extra gig of ram (running 2 gigs while the rest were all at 1) so that could have swayed things a bit more in that direction as well.

Also fun to note, this is the $500 E6700 trouncing a 1,000+ FX chip, just imagine what the Core 2 EE could do to the FX-62.

Dang Nullomodo, you beat me to that point, PRICE! Then it runs coolers, is faster, uses less energy. The E6600 was faster as well and is about a 3rd of the FX62's price. FX-62 costs as much as E6600 + 2GB of RAM + Motherboard.
 
It's definitely impressive. Then again, a comparison between these two isn't exactly a "fair fight." The primary similarities are they are the flagship processors. One is a "new" design, the other is... not.

In any case, it'll be nice when AMD comes out with something genuinely new in their line to compete with the Conroe because well, the fx-62 ain't cutting it.

Yay for competition :D
 
duby229 said:
I realize this is the Intel forum, so I'll make this one post and shutup....

Those benches seem... wrong... FX60 pounds the 955... In those tests, it doesnt.... SOOOO I'm not quite sure whether to trust them or not.

It just seems to be a little off to me.

Look again?

Hexus said:
Conroe - we got two!

The formal release is at least a month off but we, being an inquisitive and resourceful bunch of hacks, have managed to procure a couple of Conroe samples to test in our own (unbiased) lab.

1GByte (2x512MB) Corsair XMS2-5400UL DDR2

Hexus has trashed Intel in the past and still are some the biggest critics of Netburst on the web. 2GB of RAM would have meant an even worse spanking.

So it would be easy to skip right to the chase and miss that line but this was not your everyday test of a built by Intel rig, these guys had two Conroes, just like the Guys at Xtrememsystems as you already know.
 
Least said:
It's definitely impressive. Then again, a comparison between these two isn't exactly a "fair fight." The primary similarities are they are the flagship processors. One is a "new" design, the other is... not.

In any case, it'll be nice when AMD comes out with something genuinely new in their line to compete with the Conroe because well, the fx-62 ain't cutting it.

Yay for competition :D

Then explain to that to Kyle as he used an AM2 vs a P4EE 965 and not Yonah? The fight as you call it, is between what's ever on hand. AM2 is a change-over not an upgrade.
 
visaris said:
- 38.02% ScienceMark 2.0 memory bandwidth
- 02.16% ScienceMark 2.0 memory latency
These shouldn't be used in your average. These are the characteristics of a particular platform. Otherwise, we can throw in Conroe's L1 and L2 cache bandwidth and latencies too.

+ 03.67% Quake 4 - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 16x AF
+ 00.88% Splinter Cell: CT - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 8x AF
These are clearly GPU limited.

When you average those results one could come to the conclusion that the Conroe E6700 is around 12.22% faster than the FX-62 over all.
Using only the relevant benchmarks, it's over 20%.

Assuming linear performance increase with clockspead, the FX-64 will be around 7.14% faster than the FX-62.
100% scaling with clockspeed is unlikely in most applications
 
SLee said:
These shouldn't be used in your average. These are the characteristics of a particular platform. Otherwise, we can throw in Conroe's L1 and L2 cache bandwidth and latencies too.


These are clearly GPU limited.


Using only the relevant benchmarks, it's over 20%.


100% scaling with clockspeed is unlikely in most applications


I agree with everything this guy said :D
 
SLee said:
These shouldn't be used in your average. These are the characteristics of a particular platform. Otherwise, we can throw in Conroe's L1 and L2 cache bandwidth and latencies too.


These are clearly GPU limited.


Using only the relevant benchmarks, it's over 20%.


100% scaling with clockspeed is unlikely in most applications

Very true. Especially the memory bandwidth part. You can have 50% more bandwidth but often that only translates to a small improvement in overall performance. Thats why I've always gone for the highest CPU overclock and used memory ratios when necessary. Memory bandwidth is often overrated.
 
And wait, what's this? A new generation, new architecture chip beating a new revision of an older chip? That's unpossible!!
 
thecoldanddarkone said:
I agree with everything this guy said :D

Lol, yep, then chris said what I wanted to add. :D

There have been large bandwith disparities across platforms all the time. The numbers are used to test an aspect of the system. But the rubber needs to meet the road. A memory bandwidth benchmark is about as little real world as it gets. Just spews blocks of memory around.
 
krameriffic said:
And wait, what's this? A new generation, new architecture chip beating a new revision of an older chip? That's unpossible!!
Well, based on AMD's and Intel's numerbing system, this is Intel's 8th generation x86 core beating AMD's 8th generation core.
 
krameriffic said:
And wait, what's this? A new generation, new architecture chip beating a new revision of an older chip? That's unpossible!!

:That's unpossible!!"

Hehehe, Can I use that?
 
SLee said:
Well, based on AMD's and Intel's numerbing system, this is Intel's 8th generation x86 core beating AMD's 8th generation core.

AMD's as well, yup :)
 
chrisf6969 said:
Very true. Especially the memory bandwidth part. You can have 50% more bandwidth but often that only translates to a small improvement in overall performance. Thats why I've always gone for the highest CPU overclock and used memory ratios when necessary. Memory bandwidth is often overrated.

Yes but memory bandwdith is important to those apps that depend on Bandwidth or Latency or both, games, some compression apps and etc... Intel just figured out a way to use it better.
 
lol, btw the conroe system was running DDR2 533 while the FX-62 was running DDR2 667. and also, what is the X-2 to Pentium D series comparison? New to old....? yea, new to old. so for everyone who says that's bs, well, then so was the benchmarks of every AMD processor since 2k2. Intel's got netburst running for how long now before they've replaced it?



O, and sciencemark is an AMD only benchmark. look anywhere and you'll see AMD dominate in only that test, but look at otherse and you'll see the conroe. =)
 
The AM2 is AMD's redesign of the socket 939 Athlon to include a DDR2 controller. That pretty much sums it up.

Performance wise, if the Intel did not beat it that would be a crime. I think once AMD realizes it won't make a killing on the current AM2 CPU's it may redesign the core to beat Intel, and that core will probably be incorporated into the AM2 socket chip.

Give it a few months.
 
krameriffic said:
And wait, what's this? A new generation, new architecture chip beating a new revision of an older chip? That's unpossible!!

Can't believe people still say this. It's not an OC'd FX60 anymore, but still saying this. New platform and all, oh it's "just" a new platform. Was it a big deal when A64's emerged from the Northwood shadow? How long did that last? Maybe I'll reserve getting excited about huge boosts when they release cpu's the same day?

They don't go on NV's and ATi's release schedule and go tit for tat all the time, so this "gen" mentality is just lame. Maybe K8L will be close, maybe it takes longer than you think to come out. ;) Lots of maybe's and a hunch towards a good amount of time. At least if they are going to make that up. Ahem, common A64's didn't blow away top end northwoods quite like this. Maybe close. If we put away the ludicrousness that is AMD working a few long weekends to fix this, I doubt many a non-flag totting enthusiast can take this "unfair" BS (because that's what it is) seriously at all.
 
And of course with a little leeway we're left comparing an Athlon original to a Pentium 3. Just a tired avenue for an argument. That just flips back forth:

"it's just a P3"
"it's a K7 with a memory controller on it"

... all statements like this just shut the flippity up! Ownage matters! A bunch of non-engineer outlooks on "gens" don't. :p

No offense to those whose intent isn't to trivialize what we're seeing.
 
LOL, I love how the companies reversed, even though its no ones fault. Intel moved to the LGA 775 socket and DDR 2, and still didnt really do that good in sales. Some new processors came out and what nots, and people still really perfered AMD for the most part. AMD now switch sockets, and people care and dont care. Conroe is coming out, and alot of people are not going to care about AM2 that much, as Conroe will be the next big thing. Now the flamewars fall on AMD for about a year. Then it will reverse itself again. I love this lol.
 
It amazes me how people are still comparing a new architecture to one that's three years old now. For Intel's sake, the Conroe should be 15 to 20% faster than any current AMD chip; they've had a few years to work on it.
 
freeloader1969 said:
It amazes me how people are still comparing a new architecture to one that's three years old now. For Intel's sake, the Conroe should be 15 to 20% faster than any current AMD chip; they've had a few years to work on it.

^^^ This is the same whoopdedoo that we've had over and over each time Intel or AMD outdoes the other one. Why this is still amazing is anyones guess.

Wait I'm having a vision, I see Intel giving AMD a black eye here in the coming months, and then AMD jumps up and TKO's Intel, and then Intel wakes up and kicks AMD all over the place, and then...
 
To the "It's new, it should beat it crowd"...

We get it. Conroe is new tech, AM2/FX Flavor Of The Day is old tech. We get it.

Thing is, it's new, and it's really, really beating it. This is the largest performance gap from new tech to old tech we've seen, THAT'S what's important. The thing that users have been SO vocal about for some time now about Intel (AMD and Intel users alike) is Intel's power consumption, IPC, and price.
Fast forward to today, and Intel has significantly reduced power consumption, increased IPC, and reduced prices. They have responded to the complaints (in their own best interest to stop the market share bleeding, mind you), and people STILL complain about something. "Well, Conroe spanks the FX-Whatever, but it should, it's new tech vs. old." Ok??? Does that negate the fact that it's a cooler running, better performing, cheaper cpu? End of rant.

Anywho, Conroe is awesome, yes.
But Yonah amazes me.
 
I think what we learned here is people love to bitch on something.

Conroe is very impressive to say the least, it basically cleans up the bulk majority of categories, higher performance per clock, performance per watt, performance per dollar, great platform.

The only things I could think about for AMD and there K8 architecture right now is, greater Sciencemark performance, official SLI support on the platform of choice.
 
neither of these are comparisons, but just some info on AM2.

Xbit labs Review
Firingsquads Review

50% of me is now believing that conroe is gonna pop like a ballon, some of these results are just too good to be true. i mean really. why would they put SOO much effort into EE simply to let it die. why would they stick with the netburst architecture even when it was so obviosly flawed? why is core 2 simply so amazing? can a reduction of 25nm really do all that?
 
Back
Top