our top got its (deleted) kicked by Intel (FX-60 @ 2.8 vs Conroe @ 2.66)

Status
Not open for further replies.
wow, the amd cpu got spanked despite higher clock speed. hopefully this will drive prices down in the long run so that when i build my new rig in january (one new rig every 2 years) i can get some good deals.
 
holy crap i dont know if i should wait now... (was going to get an opty 165)

Whats the price range on these things?
 
Remember Conroe still hasn't launched...Anandtech article lists it as several months from now? I'm guessing either late Aug/September ala beginning of Q4. Man, Intel finally got off it's ass and developed a killer chip.
 
this is what i am really afraid of

Anandtech said:
Also keep in mind that we are over six months away from the actual launch of Conroe, performance can go up from where it is today. We also only looked at the 2.66GHz part, the Extreme Edition version of Conroe will most likely be clocked around 3.0GHz which will extend the performance advantage even further.
Click to expand...
 
is it hard to upgrade a 939s system to the conroe mobo? (i know ill have to upgrade cpu, mobo, ram)
 
damn, thats awesome... lets hope competition heats things up and prices fall down :D
 
Two problems I see with this comparison:

1) "Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz on an Intel 975X motherboard."

2) "They had a handful of benchmarks preloaded that we ran ourselves, the results of those benchmarks are on the following pages."

"They" is referring to Intel.

I think I'll reserve judgement until I see some independent reviews or comparisons.

But honestly, I do hope Intel finally got it together.
 
Astral Abyss said:
Two problems I see with this comparison:

1) "Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz on an Intel 975X motherboard."

2) "They had a handful of benchmarks preloaded that we ran ourselves, the results of those benchmarks are on the following pages."

"They" is referring to Intel.

I think I'll reserve judgement until I see some independent reviews or comparisons.

But honestly, I do hope Intel finally got it together.
Click to expand...


Yay the setup might have been a bit rigged. And When I first saw the demos I was thinking.... not trust worthy, but the nthey pulled out the FEAR demo which is what Anandtech uses itself. Nah, I think AMD just got whopped. Oh well, I am not upgrading for a while anyway. Maybe AMD was getting a bit soft. I mean the last few chips were good, but nothing really over their A64 line. Lets home the AM2s are killer.
 
Astral Abyss said:
Two problems I see with this comparison:

1) "Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz on an Intel 975X motherboard."

2) "They had a handful of benchmarks preloaded that we ran ourselves, the results of those benchmarks are on the following pages."

"They" is referring to Intel.

I think I'll reserve judgement until I see some independent reviews or comparisons.

But honestly, I do hope Intel finally got it together.
Click to expand...

F.E.A.R. gets its own page for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only gaming benchmark that we're using that doesn't use an Intel provided demo. This is the same demo we use in our tests.
Click to expand...
If you had any doubts about the results on the previous page, this one should convince you. Even when running a non-Intel created demo, Conroe offers a 41% performance advantage over the 2.8GHz Athlon 64 X2.
Click to expand...

EDIT
the only 'tweak' that would swing these tests to this extent would be if Intel was runing XFire and AMD wasn't.

Yea, some may favor intel a bit. But when you're losing by 35-40 FPS in every demo, it's time to take off your hat and admit you got beat bad.
Maybe AMD closes the gap with AM2 and a new speed grade or two.
Maybe K8L hits the desktop early in 2007.
But right now Intel looks to have a winner in every respect with Conroe.
 
Don't forget that you're also comparing a 90nm chip (AMD) vs a 65nm one (Conroe). I'd be interested to see how the AMD scales down to 65nm...might be a closer matchup.
 
I personally don't trust any of those benches. Intel has been known to do this in their code....

Use the "Check for genuine Intel processor" in it's code
If it's not genuine Intel processor, turn off all optimizations (must be AMD processor)
If it's Genuine Intel, enable special optimizations...

Just look at the whole Skype incident. I'll wait to reserve judgement until systems are actually shipping and the reviews hit the net.

Also, hopefully AMD will offer chips with 2mb L2 cache/core and maybe some additional L3 along with DDR2-800 support. This may even things up.

In any regard, Intel made a good showing with the Conroe. :)
 
Frankly, I think my next PC will be an Intel. ;)

I hope AMD is working on some new stuff, because at this point, it's not looking good. Imagine how bad a low-end 3200+ is going to look compared to even a mid-range Conroe.

Intel finally produced a chip I really want to buy!
 
Bill Clo said:
Don't forget that you're also comparing a 90nm chip (AMD) vs a 65nm one (Conroe). I'd be interested to see how the AMD scales down to 65nm...might be a closer matchup.
Click to expand...

I don't see a any 65nm AMD chips. Do you? This is not looking good for AMD. For once in Intels' history they actually delivered on their claims. 30% performance over A64's. And if you think about this is the first time that Intel has actually dominated AMD. It is not looking good.
 
I will wait until I see benchmarks by independant reviewers as well as pricing.

I'm already tempted to make my next colo box intel with a pentium-D @ 2.66 for $140. Think it should kill my dual athlon-MP @ 2100+ ? I'm guessing yes.
 
Wait until 65nm chips come out and we'll see if AMD has any core optimizations up it's sleeve. We already know about the K8L. I'm assuming they'll add more cache and floating point units to the cores to even things up. In any event, AMD should start working on K9 as fast as possible. :D
 
It's an unfair comparison. Let's wait for AM2 processors before jumping to any hasty conclusions, okay? ;)
 
Bona Fide said:
It's an unfair comparison. Let's wait for AM2 processors before jumping to any hasty conclusions, okay? ;)
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right, they shouldn't have overclocked the FX-60, since they didn't OC the Conroe... ;)
 
freeloader1969 said:
I personally don't trust any of those benches. Intel has been known to do this in their code....

Use the "Check for genuine Intel processor" in it's code
If it's not genuine Intel processor, turn off all optimizations (must be AMD processor)
If it's Genuine Intel, enable special optimizations...

Just look at the whole Skype incident. I'll wait to reserve judgement until systems are actually shipping and the reviews hit the net.

Also, hopefully AMD will offer chips with 2mb L2 cache/core and maybe some additional L3 along with DDR2-800 support. This may even things up.

In any regard, Intel made a good showing with the Conroe. :)
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: The setups were identical down to the drivers. Why would Intel rig systems for benchmarks when board partners everywhere will be releasing the information then benching the systems theirselves. That would be idiotic.

Wishful thinking will not save the AM2. Read Anand's latest blog entry:

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx#279

I eventually got more boards and BIOS updates that improved performance with AM2, but it was still lower than any of the current Socket-939 systems and I felt that it wouldn't really help anyone to put out numbers that weren't representative of what we'll be seeing in June. Today performance is a lot better than when I first looked at the AM2 platform, however it is still slower than a similarly configured Socket-939 platform. We're now around 3 months away from AM2's official launch and I'm beginning to worry. But it's what I saw in my most recent tests that may shed some light on what the AM2 story will be.
Click to expand...

Note that AMD will not being releasing any 65nm this year. It is never wise to make both a manufacturing process change (90nm > 65nm) at the same time as a major architecture change, and AMD also does not yet have the fab capacity for it.
 
DDR400 vs. DDR2-677, and Intel mutiply-overclocked FX60 instead of FSB overclocking.
 
Why would Intel rig systems for benchmarks when board partners everywhere will be releasing the information then benching the systems theirselves. That would be idiotic.
Click to expand...

Lack of integrity? Like I said, look at the Skype incident. I wouldn't put it past Intel at all even if it seems far fetched or "idiotic".
 
OH man, competition is going to be sweet this fall. Everybody is getting there game on. ATI and Nvidia and Intel in the chipset market. ATI and Nvidia in the video card market and with the upcoming Direct X 10. Microsoft with Vista. AMD and Intel with these very impressive processors. Its going to be tough decisions for system builders next fall!!!
 
one important thing to notice though... intel's 28% performance lead turned into 15% when smp was enabled in quake4. if anything, intel still has some work to do in their dual core implementation :p
 
Link said:
DDR400 vs. DDR2-677, and Intel mutiply-overclocked FX60 instead of FSB overclocking.
Click to expand...

Yep, that explains it all. :rolleyes: Yet AM2 performs worse than socket-939 using the same memory.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
one important thing to notice though... intel's 28% performance lead turned into 15% when smp was enabled in quake4. if anything, intel still has some work to do in their dual core implementation :p
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you have to take into consideration they are comparing a middle of the road Intel chip to AMD's flagship chip while overclocked.

Imagine the difference we'll see when comparing chips from the same price class.
 
domoMKIV said:
damn, cant wait for upgrade time...its going to be crazy
Click to expand...

Same here.

Unlike many people, some making themselves obvious here, I have no qualms whatsoever about ditching the "camp" I've been in for several years for marginally greater performance.
 
Well this thread is already turning into a giant f an bo y food fight. I wish you guys would keep it in your pants.

In all honesty though, if those tests turn out to be anywhere near representative of real world performance at launch time, AMD is gonna go right back to the beggar barton days. They pulled a rabbit out of the hat with the A64, and if they want to save their own butts it looks like they might need to do it again.

As an admittedly long-time AMD fan, I hope these tests turn out to be greatly exaggerated. Granted either way, I'm not ditching my X2 anytime soon.
 
wow.. good stuff to be sure.. I knew this was going to happen after seeing benches of what the Dothan could do as a desktop board....

I think AMD might be out of luck on this one.. DDR2 is not going to save it, even at 800.. not enought to make up for 40%.. that's some serious architectural changes that'd have to happen to keep AMD competitive.. Hopefully they have an answer, as I'm sure this is no surprise to them.. Course if they simply just dont' have an answer, well.. better luck next year I guess..


Might have to pick up one of these things if the price is right when I build the new rig this year..
 
wow, nice read...

I would still rather have the FX60 because it pissed my intel luvin buddie off that I run AMD!
 
eh, having loyalty to a company is pointless.. go for the better product.. which is why I've run AMD for so long.. but now.. man.. I can't ignore that kind of performance.. especially since the conroe they used is supposed to be sold @ $547 per thousand chips.. and it kicked a $1000 FX's ass... by up to 40%.. and they're still trying to get AM2 rigs to be the same performance as the 939 rigs??? not looking good here..
 
I can't be sure but I'd almost take a guess that those things are damn near quad core chips. A regular intel has hyper threading so it acts like 2 processors. When going to dual they almost have 4 fully functional cores on the chip. This could be allowing them do something like processing an entire vector in a single operation.

We really need to see a benchmark that can run 4 parallel threads vs a single large thread to maybe get a feel for how the chip is handling calculations.
 
I can't ignore this, but I don't care, I can't upgrade for a long time. AMD should wait a little and pull a new rabbit out of the hat, I would wait for a newer arch. AMD really needs to get working. Although, in some ways this ordeal reminds me suspiciously much of the FX (nvidia one not AMD) vs 9700.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top