Printable View
If it's rated for upto 3.2Ghz STOCK, then I'm sure even the lower binned chips can OC to at least 3.6Ghz on good air (assuming FSB doesn't become a limiting factor). Even if that's equal to ~3.4Ghz A64 in performance, I don't see how AMD's dual core 90nm process can even come close on air.
Don't get you hopes up though, AMD is going 65nm by end of 2006. Assuming some delays, Q1 2007 at the latest.
that if they are as fast as A64 clock for clock if the cache is slower and they have longer pipelines it wont be as fast as yonah or A64 perhaps it will be fast but not that fast im guessing 15~20 more than actual AMD offers until AMD gets the 65nm (or 64nm) down the road DDRII and the new process for the silicon
I think this thread is getting a little gooeey...i've stuck it so that everyone can see :)
WHOA !!! No HT On Conroe's ??? No conroe for me...i'm gonna settle down with a nice presler/cedar mill chip...or if they drop in price enough, a cheap 6xx pressy.
Perkam
Why do you even need it the only comparable chip is Presler Extreme Edition available for 999US bascially shutting out the bulk of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Allendale is already better then the Single Core Cedar Mill with Hyper Threading as it is a Dual Core processor with 2MB of cache.
Conroe and Conroe XE will have 4MB LV2 cache and 1066FSB and 1333FSB respectively. Conroe XE is doubtful to be slower then Presler XE in anything short of really heavy multitasking, though I believe the clockspeed should be enough to compensate for Conroe.
Conroe needs no HT to perform as well in Multi-Tasking than an actual Presler EE. ;)
Compare:
Conroe: 14-stage efficient pipeline; Netburst: 31-stage pipeline (Prescott and later)
Conroe: 4-issue out-of-order execution unit; Netburst: only 3-issue out-of-order
Conroe: 4 MB shared cache; Netburst: max 2x2 MB (which is slightly worse than a shared cache)
Conroe(Merom) also will have improvements in Branch Prediction, Target look-a-side Buffers, FP&SSE executions, Direct L1 to L1 Link, L2 bandwidth optimizations and a new chipset.
Netburst needed HT because of the long (inefficient) pipeline, Conroe would not really perform much besser with HT.
So Is HKpolice wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
That's with 1066Mhz FSB which is 8.5GB/s max theoretical bandwidth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosfer@tu
Current SLI setups don't show much of a improvement going from 8x PCIe (2GB/s each = 4GB/s total) to 16x PCIe (8GB/s total). So I assumed that the PCIe load on the i965 chipset would max out at around 4GB/s
OH MY GOD - NO HT :p:
Actually NetBurst while working could have some blocks unused(even 100MHz FSB CPUs has those). That`s why Intel made HT to use`em (that also explains why with HT on some apps run slower than w/o it). Conroe won`t have such blocks - so no HT for it ;)
hokay, so an i975 motherboard can cover everything but Conroe XE. I can live with that.
When they list the chipset bit though, I'm assuming that i975 can cover anything that needs i965, i955, i925 etc... If not then that's just retarded
Why is everyone worried so much about chipsets ? Third party chipsets like ATI's RC600 series and others should also be supporting Conroe architecture....and that'll be more of the one chipset for all Intel processors kind of solution.
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/4...telrdma1ll.jpg
More Info here: http://www.hardwaregate.com/intro.php?id=363 ... where it actually predicted the x600 coming as an onboard vid solution in July 2005...a story confirmed by The Inq on 29th of December: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28610 .
Though push those release dates at least 6 months ahead as it seems ATI's working to get the RD580 AMD Chipset out right after the R580 launch.
Perkam
I've never had an Intel rig, so I'm really looking forward to what Conroe can offer. My Venice 3000+ really stinks at multi- tasking (even overclocked), and I find the X2s a little expensive. But I fear Conroe cpus will be expensive too, are there any hints whatsoever about pricing? And will Presler and Cedar Mill co- exist along with Conroe, or will they be fased out?
I think Presler and Cedar Mill will fase out, because no one wants longer a Netburst CPU when Conroe is avaible. :D :banana:
I'd definitely say this is fake... If they got presler's info wrong they more than likely have conroe wrong too.
dubious roadmap in my opinion:stick:
Dudes:
Intel admitted themselves: HT sucks ass.
Experts have been saying for years (before HT was available) that HT even at optimal performance would only be a 25% increase in speed.
Intel hasn't come close to optimal, even with software compiled to perform best under HT the speed increase is only about 10-15%.
Also HT was needed to prevent pipeline stalls inherent to the netburst architecture. If one would implement HT on a short pipeline architecture the speed increase would be close to 0% and the netto speed change may even be negative.
In real life HT gives almost no speed increase (more a feeling then a measurable increase) and at dual core systems this feeling is also gone (a dual core system responds so fast to user input the feeling is fast no matter what conditions).
HT was more a futile attempt to solve some of the problems inherent to the netburst architecture and was used by the (very good) marketing department of Intel to praise their CPUs.
Conroe will kick ass, no other Intel CPU before it will come close to the performance.
As for the roadmap: Time will tell all you need to know.
argh, i misread ur post and i mixed up some :banana::banana::banana::banana: lol.....because i misread ur post lol.:slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
Intel said HT sucks ass, hey?? Intel said that??
can you link me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosfer@tu
well it looks like the pci-e connection goes to the nothbridge, doesnt it?
on topic: HT =:slapass:
thanks for the info on HT, Thorry.
Offcourse they didn't shout it from the roofs, but various sources have stated this is the idea about HT and Intel has admitted it to be less then a full succes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinnacle
Some links (if you Google I'm sure there will be a lot more about HT)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39237341,00.htm
http://arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hype...reading-1.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive...12/492119.aspx
http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_3.html
http://www.dotnet247.com/247referenc...56/284993.aspx
Obviously:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorry
I just wanted an intel paper that said, hyperthreading has no advantages
If it was so bad, as you say, why then is it on the 955 EE?
Resent benchmarks showed that their WAS an improvement with it enabled, and it did come close to matching the 4800+
Actually Hyperthreading is just the Begining.. Thread Level Parallelization is the next Big thing..
Marketing.... The EE is not that much faster but way more expensive, they throw everything they have onto that just so they can say it's uber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinnacle
I can also make a benchmark showing my new blabla feature increases total system performance 50%.
Real life improvement 0, even Microsoft says: Please turn of HT, it slows down your sh*t.
HT is a lame attempt, parallelization however is the future. Just take a look at cell processors, that's the way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorry
HT still has some performance increase.
Parallelization is, nobody is arguing that.
But Parallelization will not Hit the Mainstream for atleast another Year.. So until then It IS not a benefit but It is a Future Proof technology that has yet to prove it's worth
Some fresh info to you guys :)
The InqQuote:
Since Intel is sending out Conroe XEs at 3.33GHz to friends and people buried in NDAs until you can't find any trace of their existence, around the end of this month, we think things are in great shape.