Printable View
Its still pretty far off, according to this articleQuote:
Originally Posted by ORCBEAST
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/intel_csi_low/
and
http://www.techbuilder.org/news/60404730
I like the last part though
Quote:
One of the biggest perks about CSI for Itanium and Xeon backers is that it will allow them to slot either processor in the same server. This should save the brave few Itanic backers on system development costs and finally bring Itanium prices down.
i don't see your proof either. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Interesting quick communication:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692
looks like a E6600 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo is going toe to toe with an FX-62.
From Hexus:
But hasn't it been said that Conroe will only function with motherboards who has revised power layout?Quote:
We can also confirm that the E6700 will ship with a 65W TDP (half that of Presler 965 and practically half FX-62's) and run on an Intel 975X motherboard flashed with a Conroe-supporting BIOS - meaning that the 65nm CPUs will be released in LGA775 packaging.
-k0nsl
no surprise there and it will be alot cheaper
:banana:Quote:
There's no real need for a summary. The benchmarks tell all. Intel's Conroe simply outmuscles every currently available CPU. Would you buy an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 now? AMD must be thinking that K8-L can't come soon enough.
That is incredible. AMD is leading in some things, but games and encoding Intel has taken the lead back. And this is 2.4GHz vs 2.8GHz.. those extra stages in the conroe obviously help it a lot :D
This is the most amazing result:
174.48 162.35 125.1
If you don't know what that is, thats Farcry performance: E6700 E6600 FX-62.
50FPS is not something to sneeze at.
:slapass: :slapass: :slapass:
HEXUS Cryptography, The new AMD bench choice :D
true that.....they are really special......and certainly much better than anyone could comprehend a bunch of months ago....well done Intel.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
:worship: :worship: http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6058/conroe6va.png
Mr Popo, it is Core 2 Duo...
http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/11871.jpg
:worship::worship:
Oh my :banana: !! To say honestly - i didnt belive, that Conroe will be so good (even though i folloved Fuggers an Colalers WR fall one by one) and AMD AM2 so "bad".... 50FPS in Far CRy!! This is nuts!
Conroe ROX! :woot:
Sure, but I'm not gonna bow down to Merom... :nono:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyline GT-R
As opposed what else? :confused: :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by k0nsl
ass whooping time..
Any way i can put myself in a controlled coma and wake up in July?
Charlie, who published recent performance estimates and architecture overview on the Inquirer for Merom-derivatives, say Woodcrest's TDP may be knocked down from 80W to 65W.Quote:
Max TDP is only 80W against Dempsey`s 130W.
good one:banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
Haha maybe AMD will sue Intel because Conroe slaughter the AM2's now? :P
I can wait for K8L to decide what to buy. I surely don't want to be an early adopter now, when in the next year and half things will get so exciting once more.
Cointreau? :confused:
Make sure you put that in eye-blinding, hard to read bright lime green. (*sarcasm*) --- it is the demeaning pet names the Inquirer gives to companies or products they do not like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Popo
Is this why they focus on servers now ?
They kinda knew that had nothing to put up against "new" Intel.
no they Focus on Servers becuase they make a Hell of alot more profit from it then desktops..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
And until Intel can fight them in that section, AMD's profit margins are going to continue to grow.. even if their desktop sales plummet.
They have, just wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
.....yea just another year or so.....:)
funny how a FX-60 outperformed the 62 there. Oh well, probably just a fluke.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
The FX-62 system runs at 2T, and I think in games DDR1 has the edge unless the DDR2 is at an xtreme clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybercat
These seemed to be the interesting results:
Quake 4 - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 16x AF (higher is better) 115.8 113 111.7 107.23 108
Splinter Cell: CT - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 8x AF (higher is better) 63.87 64.01 63.31 62.33 62.05
As long as we remain GPU limited the power of the CPU is mostly irrelevant.
Well, we knew that -- no matter what the platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar81
What's interesting to me is this:
ScienceMark 2.0 memory latency (ns, lower is better) 45.37(E6700) 43.31(E6600) 44.41(FX62) 47.83(FX60) 70.11(965)
Is there something screwy with ScienceMark's way of benching memory latency? Or can Conroe's FSB approach really be that efficient?
Nice little review
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1
It's funny how all these comparison's between the "new" Intel and AMD comes out right after AMD releases it. Intel has a very very very smart marketing team.
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/cpuz-cpu.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...nsley-guts.jpg
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...ine-render.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/cine-c4d.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/povray.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...x-scanline.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/wme-ap.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/xmpeg.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...ame-cbr-ms.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...-cbr-intel.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...ame-vbr-ms.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...-vbr-intel.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/sphinx.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/picc.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...picc-indiv.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...dra-mm-int.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...ndra-mm-fp.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...uz-latency.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...power-idle.gif
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woo...power-load.gif
Quote:
It's taken some time, but Intel finally has a strong answer to the Opteron—or nearly so. The Bensley platform provides a much-improved infrastructure for low-end and mid-range servers, with vastly more bandwidth to each CPU socket—and to main memory—than previous Xeon chipsets. When they arrive, Woodcrest-based Xeons look like they will allow Intel to recapture the performance lead in server and workstations-class CPUs. We obviously haven't tested server-class applications yet, but the performance lead we've seen from Woodcrest in nearly every test we have run bodes very well indeed. So do Woodcrest's power consumption numbers, which are a revelation compared to what we've seen from Netburst processors in recent years.
Of course, when Woodcrest-derived Xeons do arrive, they may be contending with the upcoming revision-F Opterons with DDR2 memory, lower system power consumption, and perhaps higher clock speeds, as well. Will these changes be enough to keep AMD competitive against Woodcrest? That's hard to say for sure, but it certainly doesn't look like life will be easy for AMD.
good to see the new woodcrest @ 3.0 beating the old amd opteron @ 2.6, oh, not by much it seems
Is woodcrest the new 4 core CPU? Or am I getting it confused with another CPU upcoming from Intel?
I would read the article but the link isn't loading for me.
Yeah, normally companies stay hush hush about their upcoming products, you hear a little snippet here and there, but never like we've seen with Merom and Conroe.....
Intel knew they had no choice but to put conroe out everywhere. The chips in peoples hands were intentionally leaked, the benchmarks were with permission from intel. Intel had no choice, they HAD to stop the mass consumption of AMD chips over the past 6 months, no if's, and's, or but's about it.
They did what they had to, and it looks like it's going to pay off in a big way. Atleast amongst the desktop enthusiasts. Servers, where the REAL money is, will still remain all amd's game.
Finally, to the aMp, the reason for that anomoly in memory latency was the fact that the intel systems were using different ram than the FX-62(3-2-2-8 2t@667 vs 4-3-3-8 2t@ 800mhz for the amd). So yes, i'd expect lower memory latency out of the Intel,considering it's using low latency ram.
100+?Quote:
Hi everyone!
was wondering about the prices of those infinity series mobos for Conroe - any ideas how much they will cost?
Those, whom do not likes memory timings of FX-62 in this article, can go and read the appropriate article, compare it with results of Conroe and reveal that better timings for FX-62 do not change picture significantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CedricFP
WOODCREST is single die, dual core XEON from intel, based on Conroe and designed for dual socket servers, so results are form 4 core 2 processor, pre relelase server:D
For those of you who prefer a graph layout, like me, I graphed the results. See below:
http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/4...roevam22iw.jpg
Why didn't you scale it from 0 on the last two? It doesn't need to be exagerated if they're that close. The game benchmarks are mixed, but it looks like A64s should be fine with gpu intensive applications. I'll wait for 2007 and quadcore to see what cards AMD and Intel really have.
But both the Presler and Conroe ran 3-2-2-8 @ 667MHz. Same memory speed and timings, but Conroe's latency is something like 35 percent lower. That's huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
Is there some architectural difference that accounts for the difference? I wouldn't have thought that sort of improvement could be achieved without moving to an on-die mem controller.
Not trying to be a jerk. It's entirely possible that I just have no idea what I'm talking about. I'd just like to know why. :toast:
Processor speed makes a difference as well when it comes to memory bandwidth/latency, this has been shown more than a few times.
Do not also forgot, conroe has a MUCH lower latency cache than presler, which would further explain the difference.
Now to find the OC friendly server mobo :D
There gonna be 1.6, 1.8 GHz Woodcrests with 4MB L2 and 1066 FSB :slobber:
Maybe LV Woodcrests too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Wonder if anyone has heard of Asus doing another xeon workstation board.
Didn't even notice that. It has been updated.Quote:
Originally Posted by r3w4
I hope this means they will start to make new games more CPU dependant... use all this new power
cool, that's pretty fast
Thx to Xs News Team member Pinnacle for the server roadmap:
http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=833
All we need now is the Desktop roadmap.
If anyone can find updated amd or intel roadmaps extending into 2007 pm me. Thread closed until further notice.
Perkam
Looks good to me. Any word on the release date? I have $ in a savings account im not sure if I should buy the day every thing hits the market or wait a month or two for prices to drop, if they drop?
Far Cry, E6700 vs. 5000+ X2
28% faster in Volcano
22% faster in Training
29% faster in Research
@ Dave
Release July 23rd, E6700 @ 530$
E6600 will still be in the low $300's right? This is all I can affording seeing that I only got $200 towards its from my opty 148.
Well, you're gonna sell your mobo and ram towards it also right? That's another $200-$300 in your pocket, just enough to buy a E6700 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveb2012
already sold a DFI ultra-d, and 2gb pair of mushkin xp4000. I have about $650 to spend so far, not enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester FPS
Save, save, save!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveb2012
Still got 6 weeks (ish?) till it hits the shops...
:banana: I'm so excited :banana: And i just can't hide it :banana:
And I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I want you! I want you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie P
*snaps out of trance*
what just happened? :confused:
LMAO!!! :clap:
Nothing....nothing happened....
*Cough* Quickly edits post */Cough*
Looks nice.
Emulated by X6800 OCing to 3.2GHz ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackX
Yeah Ive got it but thanx anyway m8 :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
*comment reserved for normal testing*
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Difference will be close to 0% at REAL resolutions.. I don't know about you guys, but I like to play games at either 1600x1200, 1792x1344, or 1920x1440.. all of which a 1.8GHz A64 vs 3GHz A64 doesn't make a difference
Should be nice cheap crunchers for rosetta or F@h, but I dont think I'll buy one until christmas or later
Depends on GPU power you have. Running SLI/CF powerfull CPU will increase performance. Of course it also depends on gameQuote:
Originally Posted by Repoman
That's true, SLI/CF will increase, but all of us single GPU people will be fine for a while :) If you already have dual core that is
actually it gets to the point where the FSB is a major choke point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Should HTX ever make it to the masses in Graphics cards, AMD would have an unbeatable edge over Intel in EVERY game. Infact right now the FSB is actually holding Conroe back in a Huge way. most of the Bandwidth it has is just dedicated to the Memory, which leaves very little to feed the Bandwidth hungry Graphics cards.
Erm wha????? What the hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I am talking about Getting the most performance out of the Conroe Core. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hicks
and what AMD is trying to introduce that will give them a Major advantage.
Perhaps you haven`t seen coolalers comparison between Merom and Conroe on same clocks but with huge difference in FSB. Results are practicly the same ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Here`s the link
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 vs FX-62 Benchmarks
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ks/default.asp
Oh Man, im saving to, woot. Wait so when is the projected date exactly for conros relase?
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 vs FX-62
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2771
niceQuote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
24% faster in Quake4
18% faster in FEAR
21% faster in BF2
Intel Core 2 Duo Performance Update
http://www.hothardware.com/viewartic...leid=832&cid=1
Benchmarking Intel Core 2 Duo
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/
This'll be unstuck at launch.
Perkam