Printable View
i have strong voice inside my head telling me to forget all about conroe and i think it's the voice of reason.
my gaming rig is a opty 148 @ 3.4ghz with a single x1900xtx and my 24/7 rig is a x2 3800+ @ 2.7ghz so i think i'm pretty good for awhile. don't really feel the need to splash out on buggy boards and ddr2 just yet ;)
if i was upgrading from socket A or P4 i'd definitely think about conroe but for anyone with decent rigs already it's just e-penis extension.
Garbage..... Seriously now, I don't persay go over to Intel forms and tell someoen to switch to AMD, I don't expect someone to tell me to switch to intel from AMD... I should make the choice on my own... NOW thats garbage IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsx2
~Mike
Edit: Im just tired of all these intel guys running the AMD board... When I go over to the intel forum, I dont write something unless its positive. I don't go over thier home talking trash about Intel. I don't expect them to do that over at my home(AMD Forum)
Why compare Intel and AMD stock clock for clock? I kinda made that mistake in another thread, but i`m sure as hell now gonna do it now
Would an Intel owner in the days of P4 say it was fair for a P4 Vs 939 comparison at 3.4GHz? Just coz theres a real area of overlap in terms of physical clockspeed...doesnt mean that a direct comparison should be made.
Actually..Mike has a point I didnt really pick up on.. why are the Intel guys telling us to switch? Want me to switch to Conroe? I will..gladly..if you pay for it, coz I cant afford to right now!
Some people keep talking about as if xs is two different forums, as if it's Intel and AMD and people "in" one shouldn't go to the other or be deferential if they enter the others "turf". It doesn't work that way. I rarely browse by category. I check new posts and posts I've already posted in. No one is paying attention to your turf lines. What rules is the discussion regardless of where it's at.
Simply becuase the Intel fanboys got exactly the same grief when A64 was released. Retribution tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by K404
Can "you" not take the higher ground and rise above? I didnt know about the previous goings on..before my time but I can safely say i`m innocent :)
K
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ic3man
It makes no sense at all for anyone with a nice S939 system to upgrade to Conroe unless they feel that Futuremark greatness is a requirement for their self-esteem levels to stay up. Almost every single game available is much more GPU dependant. THe CPU hardly matters once you get over 1600X1200 resolutions. I am running 2.25GHz with C n Q enabled and notice no difference in gaming at all since dropping from a 2.9GHz OC. I do run 1600X1200 res with high AA/AF levels and max detail levels. If you have Socket A/S478 then Conroe makes sense. But watching people dump nice high end S939 systems for Conroe just to get better benchmark scores is just silly. As someone stated a few posts ago, Conroe = E-Penis pump.
He isn't telling anyone to switch to Intel. Incase you failed reading class in first grade, he stated in his post that he is completely neutral. He commented on the ignorance of some of the fanboys here denying that conroe is the fastest thing out there. I've seen mdzcpa build kick ass gaming rigs, both Intel and AMD, ATI and Nvidia. He buys what's best. He's been at XS longer than 98% of the members here and is a moderator. Show him some respect. I'm sure he doesn't want to put up with your crap, and I don't want to read it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
all this talk about 4x4 motherboards. First off, its not a truch, it isnt a 4 wheeler (hehehe) second, it only works for FX processors so I heard, so that is another huge waste. Third, that is like moving to a server style, with 2 individual processors in 1 motherboard, why not just get a woodcrest and do that, it would outperforme AMD.
Face it AMD fanboys, Intel is just at the point that its winning, it happens to all companies. The core2duo right now is being bottlenecked by the video card, so thats why they test games at lower resolution (realy low, means more cpu power needed instead of gpu) thus proving that the cpu is far supirior. (if you looked at the benchies, it obviously shows)
I am no fanboy, heck ive used VIA processors long ago for certain purposes, but it just seems Its intels time. Heck, the Yonah performes on par or greater then AMD in games and such clock for clock wise, and this is built off the core duo core, so why wouldnt it be faster?
I think people get just a tad too excited about this stuff.
Who really cares which company has a faster chip? Who really cares if you own the faster chip? You aren't going to walk into a club with your receipt for a Conroe and get laid because of it, I am sorry to say.
I'll buy whatever chip has the best performance for the price when I am ready to upgrade. I don't care what name is stamped on it. The same goes for my next video card purchase...
I agree with mdzcpa and afireinside.
Like afi said, mdzcpa isn't a fanboy or telling you to switch. I was pretty loyal to AMD for a long time, 6yrs to be exact. I've been wanting to try Intel as I use one everyday (work pc), conroe came out and blew the doors off of everything I had, instanly had to have one. Now I have one and yes, it is faster than my opteron 146 @ 2.8ghz (duh).
Conroe is making a bit stink in these forums, just like S939 did (if you guys can remember that). Obviously there is a reason for it, so let it be.
I don't really think its "fanboyism" more so, just people all hyped up over conroe.
So relax and if your an anti-intel person and can't warrant the change or have problems with playing with new hardware, chill out and wait for K8L.
I've never understood why people feel they can only run Intel or only run AMD. If you can afford it, own both. Do you wear only one brand of clothes? Do you drive only one brand of car your entire life?
If you feel comfortable with what you have now, then don't upgrade. Simple as that.
The arguments for upgrading to either Conroe or AM2 are as follows:
- DDR2 is quickly becoming the de facto standard, at least in the enthusiast community. And new DDR2 modules are being introduced practically every week. How many hot new DDR1 modules are you seeing these days? None.
- Socket 939 is gradually being phased out. DFI is no longer coming out with a hot new NF4 board every other week.
Again, if you don't want to upgrade, then don't. But you should realize that you may not see a lot of new products for your old platform.
Your saying, People that were with AMD for a long time, went over to the intel forum, and started trying to get people to switch to AMD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ic3man
~Mike
Is this a personal attack? Man.... I don't know what to say.... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
And you know this.... how?Quote:
Originally Posted by SepheronX
Im not saying thier processors are faster. I'm saying, If I wanted to read about conroe performance, I would go over to the intel forum and read... (No comment on how much faster it is) Just read..Quote:
Originally Posted by SepheronX
I've used VIA processors aswell, Actually, I am using one right now. Actually kinda cool. It looks like it is Intel's time..Quote:
Originally Posted by SepheronX
And again, In this specific forum we are talking about how we "dont" have to upgrade, and it seems that alot of people from the Intel forum are comming over saying, "Oh you should, if your an enthusist", Thats like telling each and every once of us that, "I dare you to do this, If you have testicals."
I don't know....:(
~Mike
Thanks AFI, I appreciate the support and the fact that you and a few others actually knew what i was getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
And, yes, my patience is running very thin with some of this borderline personal flaming.
Just because YOU feel the pressure to make a switch don't blame others. No one in this thread has suggested that you "switch" anything. The only thing being said is that Conroe is now the number one gaming chip, and that its pretty damn apparent when a $350 Conroe can keep up with a top of the line $1,000 AMD64 FX in gaming performance. If that fact makes you feel pressure, that's your issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
This is your number one problem. I, for one, am not from the "Intel forum." I am from XS. We ALL are. This isn't the cold war you know. Regardless of what brand kit a member runs in their rig,they are entitled to access all the XS forums and participate in all XS discussions as long as it follows forum rules. That's the way it is. If you want private chat, take it to pm.Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
This kind of zealous "US vs. THEM" thing is the exact reason I said what I did.....to point out just how silly blind brand loyalty is, and just how destructive it can be. It hurts the member as well as the community. Just because a thread in the AMD forum has a few contrary opinions doesn't mean your being attacked. Everyone's opinion has validity regardless of the kit in their rigs.
If you can sift through all the wreckage in this thread regarding what side of the iron curtain your suppose to be on, there just might still be a few good tidbits about a real discussion about Conroe upgrades. There have indeed been some valid points made in both directions. If we can keep the flames down, maybe this thread will turn towards some real analysis. I appreciate everyone's help in doing that.
You don't have to upgrade, although I totally disliked the [H]ocp benchmarks they did make a point. I've you've got a nice 939 rig and you feel the upgrade itch, then take advantage of AMD's coming price drops. You should only be buying a Conroe if you were planning on a big uprade anyway.
The other point made was 7900GTX's bottleneck a E6600 stock speed... how sad is that people?
Great point. Probably one of the best in this thread at getting to the point I was trying to make about Conroe's power. A $350 cpu getting bottlenecked by the 7900GTX.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
Whether or not it makes sense to upgrade based on your current system, budget, and intended use, is up to each individual. I've always said that. But, when it comes down to it, the fact that the E6600 keeps pace with AMD's flagship is more than a small performance statement. It completely debunks the idea that the current AMD chips can hold a candle to what intel is offering.
So everyone can argue all they want about whether their own system is good enough for what they want out if it. But that discussion should be based on individual factors (current build, budget, usage), not a blanket comment about Conroe=AMD in gaming prowess.
I will say this as my last comment on this thread. If someone does have a high end AMD rig, I would have to agree it might not make much sense to jump to Conroe. Not unless you have money to burn and/or must have the best. Let's just remember that that mindset has been the same rule of thumb for every new cpu release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
This is what im talking about, Everybody that has really been on this thread makes everybody think YOU NEED to upgrade... when in all actuallity, you don't need to "upgrade". I just think its kinda funny all this crap they are "pushing" into our heads about it. I mean, If someone is seriously thinking about upgrade, they would do the research or ask about it. This thread was made, to show people that there is really no difference between Conroe, and A64 so far, In games you wont notice a difference, regardless if On the conroe rig your running 150 FPS, and on AMD your only running 130 FPS.. Regardless to what you may have heard YOU CANNOT see the difference.
~Mike
This thread is about, the performance not being what it was said to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
Instead of it being 2 times faster, its only 15ish% faster. Not worth the upgrade in my opinion.
~Mike
I don't know where you're getting 2x faster, the claim has always been 20-40% faster, depending on the application, and it achieves that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
I completly agree with you and AFI, I do not appreciate random intel fanboys comming to the AMD forum just to flame-bait other users.
Alot of opinions have been posted in this thread, and not many (if any) hard numbers or real data.
Good summery SMa.
Personaly I am getting really annoyed by all the people that slam hardocp for doing real world tests. If benchmarking is your main goal than yes it make sence to run tests at 1024X768 and no eyecandy or AA/AF. Who in the world games at that level with a top end video carrd or two as they are testing. It is not even a bad joke it is out and out dishonist. hardocp did the other tests to and Conroe came out the same as in other sites where they stuck to desktop and non real world ones.
Yea I am getting a Conroe but I will be waiting for a good motherboard and the prices on them to come down a little most likly. But not because I need t you dont.
"Alot of opinions have been posted in this thread, and not many (if any) hard numbers or real data."
Going back over this thread disproves this assertion.
Gaming at high resolution with high settings compared at http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
Using 7900GTX. Quite interesting review. No much different between Conreo and AMD due to GPU limitation.
yeah I read this too. I've checked out other sites aswell, most of them post at low resolutions, I cant play at 1024x768, I have to play at 1600x1200, Damn 20 inch LCD w/ native 1600x1200 resolution. Anything lower than 1600x1200 just looks like crap. So I try to stick with 1600x1200, and knowing Kyle Bennett, and some of the things i've read from him, He's tired of "proclaimed" numbers. So from the last artical i read from him, in CPU magazine, He said hes going to set the record straight. Looks like thats what hes going to do.
~Mike
All in all I think it's very simple, if you feel like you need a new system/cpu in near future a Conroe is a good option especially for overclockers, as these overclocks way better than current X2's / Opterons, in tests with max clocked conroe and max clocked AMD dual core the difference is most likely bigger.
We've already seen E6600 @ 4GHz on air so I imagine at least 3.5GHz should be doable for 24/7, imagine what kinda cpu power it would be required by AMD side (3.9 - 4GHz??) and for a price of ~$316 ? Nope, there's none that can achieve that for a while.
I choose what gives most value for the money when it's time to upgrade nowadays, Intel or AMD no big deal. However I've only owned AMD cpus so far (both great and bad experiences) so I'd dislike to break the tradition as I like AMD as a company more and would choose AMD if the current Intel and AMD chips performs somewhat similiar. Conroe looks to me like offering more than "similiar" performance but I don't need to upgrade yet, if it's from AMD side I figure AMDs next new architecture after K8L might be the next possible upgrade for me which is rumored to be released sometimes year 2008. Long live Socket939! it's been a great experience and hopefully will last for me that long. :woot:
Yea with my budget I usually do major upgrades only every 3 or so but that will change in future when I get old enough and finished studies and can have a job. But until that, being a student just sux! :(
Was this a Engineering Sample, or a retail E6600?Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
Seems the retail CPU's are not doing as well as the E6600. I dont think anybody has broken the 4 ghz barrier with the Retail X6800XE or whatever its called.
~Mike
conroe might be good for somebody who has a fairly old single core, and has a dead socket like 754 or 478. for people with more recent computers, unless youre really into benchmarking or doing heavy duty video editing, theres just not much of a point for conroe. i thought i might somewhat regret getting a 170 only a few months before conroe, but i realize theres no real regrets... only high end sli/crossfire systems get a benefit from conroe.
Its not fanboyism to want the best and Conroe clearly beats A64/X2 in pretty much any CPU (if its video card limited it does not matter much) based application and overclocks a LOT better. I've had an X2 since it came out, a San Diego before that and two more AMD's before that. Its been 4-5 processors since I had an Intel system. I don't care about the name I care about the RESULTS and the Conroe results pretty much blow everything current generation out of the water.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
So what's the point? Can't talk 'bout Conroe in the Intel forum.........Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
When are you going to recognize what you've been told? XS is XS, not XS-AMD and XS-Intel.
The point is its not Intel versus AMD. We are comparing a 3-4+ year old design with a brand new one. Its not fanboyism to state the obvious and its fairly obvious the Conroe design is by far the fastest thing out there right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
Sure its not going to help with games much without SLI but not everyone plays games 24/7.
I have a answer to all posts...
Love AMD or.. GTFO!! :)
Well apparently you didn't read my previous post here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=18Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
If you had, there would have been no reason for you post regarding fanboyism! Save it, you'll have to find someone else to argue with, I'm not up for it today...
indeed :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
conroe nice and shiny in 2006 trying to get at least a bit of glory....., 2007 it wil get raped by it's real contender :)
yeah :banana:
I'm sick of hearing this "Real World Gaming" Bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:. If real world gaming is NOT CF or SLI. Then lets assume its the 25%-75% of gamers.Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkenmaster
They use 64s 4000+ - 3000+
Ati 1800XL- 9600
nvidia 7800GT - 6600 vanilla
so at a comparative price point, if this is a REAL WORLD GAMING bench, it should be E6300 E6400 vs 4000+, or 3800+
If you spend money on a FX-60 and don't use SLI or CF for gaming, you need to read a few websites.
He just "sees" it wrong every now and then. The P4 debacle, the multiple hardware "sermons," the rough feelings over [M], his heavy-handed forum tactics, the loooooooong forum downtime...........just make him someone who's opinion I take with a grain of salt. I often find he lets his emotions get in the way of the review. I want the facts--not soapbox preaching. I respect him as a person, but I don't take his hardware views to heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
Steve was cool, though.
And I pretty much agree with afireinside's analysis of the current hardware situation.
I think AMD will have a chance to control the low ground but Intel seems to be the better deal for mid to high end.Quote:
Originally Posted by r3w4
Its kind of hard to argue with the E6600 beating the FX-62 and costing way less. Not to mention the E6600 has overclocking headroom to boot.
For people buying a whole new system this matters, but for existing holders of 939 systems upgrading is a more expensive proposition since even the memory needs to be upgraded.
Exactly. That's the whole point of this thread. No one is disputing Conroe is faster, but is it worth the price to upgrade?Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verisimilitude
Just to test this, Im going to install windows XP 64 bit, and run some 64 bit benchmarks on it. I want to see how AMD in 64 bit runs against conroe in 64 bit. so I will be testing it, and then I will post results in the intel forum. I think 64 bit will give AMD its 10-15% ontop of what it is now.
~Mike
Not all Conreo reach 4GHz. Some don't even reach 3.5GHz. Just like not all retail Winchester reach 2.6GHz. However, anandtech's review sample did it at stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpriest
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunFlowerSeeds
Reverse Hyperthreading will be a fix for awhile... atlease a few months. We will probably see dual core K8L out before quad core K8L Even tho K8L is native quad core. We just gotta wait and see, Im loving the fact that K8L will work with AM2.
~Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
It has already been done; the find was AMD caught up 2-3%, still a sizable lead for the Conroes, but its always good to have Benches backing benches. Looking forward to seeing your results :)
Reverse Hyperthreading has already been "debunked" as rumor and non-existent.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
Why? Will it make your computer slower? Seriously... That's a pretty pathetic attitude. Heaven forbid competition come out with something new. You DO realize that AMD is the reason Intel got off of the Netburst arch, and brought you Conroe, right? It's called competition, and it's a beautiful thing. I don't see what part of left field you came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
Ryan
Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
hahaha, what the f**k are you babbling about?
Attitude, I said, I like the fact that I can use my current rig for K8L, then later upgrade to the AM3, with DDR3.
Your really one to talk about attitude. hahaha
~Mike
I don't know I've heard different from a friend at Microsoft. Unless hes lying to me, but I don't see why he would.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
~Mike
Hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
And you'll be the first hypocrite to go, "K8L is xx% better than Conroe at 800 x 640!" and we'll be sure to refer you back to the thread, when we all realize they're close enough not to matter. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by `odin
You hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shpoon
~Mike
Don't really feel I'm a fanboi of AMD but It looks to me like Conroe is the better processor.
What I would love to see is some good tests running a Single core Opty at 3G or so on AIR against Conroe. Not an FX62 or 5000+.
Got to be a lot of guys like me out there that have had fantastic results with a 14X 939 and wonder if an upgrade makes sense. Unless RHT materializes and does make a difference I can't see moving to AM2.
Now Conroe (even with increased cost of DDR2, new Mobo, and new processor)
may be a different story. But I doubt it.
Just a legit review/test for us poor fuggers that can't afford $1000 processors.
OT: Seems like a lot of personal attacks being posted lately. Disturbing to say the least.
If you want to compare:
AMD X2:
X2 0601TPEW @ 2.95ghz
2gig Ballistix 295
DFI Ultra-D
7900GT 650/900
Powerstream 520
Aircooled (max 3D benchable)
35k
Intel C2D:
E6600 ES step 5 B1 @ 4ghz
2gig team667 @ 900
Bad Axe 304
7900GT 650/900
Powerstream 520
Aircooled (max 3D benchable)
55k
I own both, overclocked AMD and Intel. I'm not an intel or amd fanboy. I'm a "offer the best performance" fanboy.
incase anybody is interested here is my take on the situation. any modern processor can give 60+fps for gaming in any game out there!!!! so wtf does it matter what processor you have for gaming unless for some odd reason you requre to spend hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars to get more then 60fps lol. to me 60fps is plenty for gaming and my amd 3700+ single core with a bit of ocing will give 100+ fps in any game at 640x480 so i am completely gpu bottlenecked no matter what i ever do. and that is a fact and crossfire or whatever doesnt change it.
untill i am gaming and i get less then 60fps and go wtf then turn down visuals and resolution and still get less then 60fps the processor is still fine for gaming.
gaming is all about the gpu!!!
just stay away from low clocked pentium 4 they sometimes get less then 30fps and any settings in some games lol.
gaming in 640x480 :stick:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertim0r
i dont game in 640x480 its just an example i used to show that no games are cpu limited on most any modern system.
i game at either 1280x960 or 1600x1200 depends on how bad the game taxes my gfx card.
btw i would like to say conroe is much better processor then the a-64 but it just doesnt mean squat when playing games which are always limited by the gfx card because any cpu can keep it over 60fps
if i had to buy a new system right now i would get conroe no question.
Don't forget there are lots and lots of us who do own A64 single cores (which are hardly crappy)Quote:
Originally Posted by aintz
and don't want to go out to buy a new mobo, new DDR2 and a new CPU. (even though I can afford to, I don't feel the need to)
for us buying a cheap X2 as a final (939) upgrade will be a great if not best choice.
definitely conroe? don't think so. unless I owned a slow P4 or AthlonXP and missed out on the A64, Intel would be my choice too.
You don't have to upgrade to DDR2 to get a Conroe, nor spend a lot on a board. There's even Conroe+PCIe+AGP+DDR2+DDR1 boards. So the cost of Conroe over x2 for a 939/754 owner is the cost of the Conroe board: $60-80. With that comes more performance, and drastically more the minute you overclock(just look at xbit labs e6300 review). And Conroe /w DDR1 does as well as /w DDR2(edged it out actually; page 2): http://xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=105113
Hmm that IS interesting. But aren't those like really cheap budgetboards? I never go cheap on my mobo, due to limited OCing options etc. you know what I mean.
either way, thanks for the link.
As the link shows, as well as the board manuals(they're online; pdfs), the overclocking options aren't exactly limited. There's also reviews of the boards for prior revisions(the newer revisions adding Conroe support) so those reviews should apply reasonably well to the updated boards.
Cheap is cheap... I once bought this set of speakers, that said it was 600 watts! It sounded like it was like 5 watts. So I got another set of speakers, and they claimed 25 watts per channel, best speakers I've ever had.
Claims are not what they are claimed sometimes...
~Mike
Here are some more benchies showing us we need not upgrade. Even a overclocked E6700@3.66 is not doing much better than a 3800@2.7;)
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=570&p=5
hehe looking this review i guess p4 M 3ghz has a long way ....:p: or not ! ( single =( )