Printable View
As title says...
Source
Translation of the article:
A roadmap that intel recently showed to Tweakers.net says that Conroe will be introduced in 2 phases.
In the Q3 this year there will be 4 flavours available with a price between $209 and $529. Later, somewhere in Q4, cheaper and more expensive CPU's will be introduced.
Such as the Conroe XE, with 1333MHz FSB and 95W TDP, with a price tag of $1199
Look in source for the table. ;)
(Sorry for my bad English, I hope it's clear)
Wow, look how the conroe scales! All the way from 1.86Ghz up to 3.3GHz. This should mean that buying a lower clocked CPU should have no problem reaching atleast 3.1GHz (requires high FSB boards, i985 should do 400 easy), in other words, the performance of a FX60 @ ~3.3GHz, for the price of <$240.
The FX60 at 3.3 wouldnt beat the conroe at 3.1. In the benchmarks, the conroe was at 2.6ghz and the FX-60 was at 2.8ghz and the FX-60 got slaughtered. I'd say they'd equal out at around 2.6 conroe and 2.9 amd.Quote:
Originally Posted by nCrusader
Heh, everybody would be loving AMD if a 100Mhz gained 20-40%. When AMD uses MHz for speed grade variation(200MHz), maybe gains 5% on average.
huh?
You're going to have to do better than 'huh'.
I don't understand your question/statement. :confused:
Huh, you havn't read the review being referenced. Huh, you're not aware of AMD speed grades distinguished by MHz? Huh, you hadn't read what bigval wrote? Huh, what?
That is the most inaccurate statement of the week. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by keiths
I read it all about 5 times (once before I posted and four since thinking I was missing something) and still don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by keiths
Bigval is just saying how at notably fewer MHz, it still whomps on the K8 DC CPUs.
Conroe's architecture is, frankly, amazing.
EDIT: I think I'm getting it....you're pointing out that the AT tests, where the FX had a 200Mhz advantage is still 20-40% slower? And that you're objecting to bigval's approximation that 2.9 would equilibrate the scores?
I must say that your post wasn't very clear and your snippiness was unappreciated.
I'll start with what bigval wrote: "I'd say they'd equal out at around 2.6 conroe and 2.9 amd." Rephrased, an FX at 2.9 will equal the peformance of a conroe at 2.6. From the anandtech review of the conroe, they had an FX clocked at 2.8 and the conroe was 20-40% faster, which means for bigval's comment to pan out, a 100MHz bump would need to yield a 20-40% performance improvement. The difference between speed grades of AMD chips on average is around 5%. When not using l2 cache or memory bandwidth to distinguish between speed grades, AMD uses an increased clock speed of 200MHz. From that, one can roughly calculate what it will take for an FX to match a conroe at 2.6.
:slap: Dude if you think s939 is going to directly compete with Conroe you have to be on smack..:slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by keiths
Your deflection isn't going to work nn_step. Bigval was comparing FX to Conroe.
wait, it gets slaughtered at 2.8, yet you think with a mere 100MHz boost they'll perform equally?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigval
seems someone is getting a bit too big for his britches. :slapass:
First off, no one is disagreeing with you about your view that a 2.9Ghz FX will not beat a 2.6Ghz Conroe, so stop being so defensive about it, keiths.
Second, as far as Conroe is concerned, nn_step is correct. s939(whether is the FX line or not) is/was not the compeition for Conroe. You must remember that Conroe is still ~6months away from public release. It is nearly unheard of that a company would publicly announce and promote a chip that is over 6 months away from release. The reason Intel is doing it is b/c they know that Netburst is crap(at its current speeds) and has no future.
Now obviously AMD has new product coming up, which may or may not be the designated competition for Conroe. It's also possible that AMD will be releasing something after Conroe that is supposed to be Conroe's competition.
So it's senseless to even compare Conroe to a s939 FX, b/c it will be facing something completely different from AMD in 6 months.
That's not my view/assertion/what I wrote(that other's were saying a 2.9 FX would beat a 2.6 Conroe), go reread. What Bigval said is a 2.9 FX will match a 2.6 Conroe. I respond how/why not; way to mischaracterize it as being defensive. Again, what nn_step wrote is irrelevent; bigval was comparing FX to Conroe. What AMD will respond to Conroe with has nothing to do with bigval's proposition or my response to it.
ps. Conroe ETA is July. FX will be facing Conroe and will be doing so for five to six months.