also, this is the 316$ part, not the 1000$ one, so the extra 900Mhz of the XE might help a little :D .
Printable View
also, this is the 316$ part, not the 1000$ one, so the extra 900Mhz of the XE might help a little :D .
... or take a quick look at the Orb?Quote:
Originally Posted by nCrusader
http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/9106/cputest25jd.png
sweet results but damn 21 pages of posts in 29 or so hours is crazy i cant keep up lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by nCrusader
CPU scores in this 3D tests dont mean anything. Heck I have had the Dothan at 2.6Ghz ~800FSB and the CPU score was higher than when it was at 2.8Ghz ~930 FSB....
Alex
These are very promising results considering it's all stock and on buggy hardware/software.
Thanks for the results Victor
Quote:
Originally Posted by nCrusader
thats strange I was testing my system with my Gskill 3-4-4-8 timings which suck but my redline are fried :(
I was hitting 410/762 @ 2.86 ghz with ram at 260 mhz 3-4-4-8 *11
the revised conroe #s seems inline at 398/738 but if you take 798/389 that looks to be a multi of 2.05 which is impossible isn't it???? and my 762 score took at near 34 secs to complete too.
Just wondering if having 4 threads going makes that CPU jump in eff???
The Conroe seems to have about the same 1.85 effective increase as an AMD does with two cores vs one core in cinebench.
These results are going to kill AMD sales. In fact, its going to hurt Intel sales for the next few months, as everyone is going to want to wait for Conroe! Though I have to say I'm very happy with my Pentium D 920 (Presler). And I've seen some very fast CedarMills too.
I'm going buy some Intel stock as its at a 3 year low. By Q4 the results should be impressive.
You are talking about cinebench 2003, not 9.5 (2003 is slower than 9.5) and VictorWang has tested 9.5 version.Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
738 with Conroe @2.4 is a bit faster than a X2 @2.6 in Cinebench 9.5:
http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cb95/top.php
Look here an oced X2 3800+ @2.6: 709
as an AMD user and I have been disappointed at the P4 screwup by Intel I will have to say if the result so far from a 2.4 ghz Conroe is very impressive.
My 4400+ is basically a FX-62 when running at 2.8 ghz and Conroe is equal to that for a price of $360.00ish and is running at stock speed when my 4400+ has used nearly 50% of its overclocking headroom to catch up to the conroe.
This will be alot of pressure on AMD to ramp up some kind of equalizing CPU and if Conroe doesn't have a cold bug and can OC like the yonah cores then this should be interesting to say the least.
I haven't used an Intel chip in 6 yrs but I will be looking at a Conroe and Phase change if no cold bug appears and Intel doesn't do some kind of OCing restrictions on the chips.
Its about damn time Intel finally stepped up to the bat and maybe has hit a home run finally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
Oh my bad I will have to retest using the new bench
either way still impressive.
Hmm is it me or are there 2 diferent 3DMark05 CPU scores there? One with 6k and one with 8k?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragex
Hmmm.......I think "it's you"........:D
One is PCMark05 and the other one is 3DMark05
:stick: Hahaha, ok, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
VictorWang, can you run WinRAR 3.6 beta 1 built-in benchmark? (it's multithreaded)
http://www.rarlabs.com/download.htm
thanks!
is 1131 a good speed on that winRAR bench??? system at 2.7ghz
and got 1200 flat @ 2.85 ghz
I redid my setup cinebench to match the 2.4 conroe was 2.705 ghz with ram at a slow 245 mhz 3-4-4-8
still impressive compared to older intel CPUs
a bit low I'd say, my X2 @2.2 get about 1025.
This is so fricken nuts...I can't wait to see more results once software/hardware has had a chance to catch up and these chips are really able to stretch their legs. :cool:
why would an intel processor have a cold bug? its the IMC on the AMD's that make them do that...
conroe is extremely impressive. and you're using a 6600le, like me! haha i hate this thing :(
There must be some bug or (again?) im reading something wrong, look what I get with my CPU on 3DMark05... odd.
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/1...core4cz.th.jpg
Compared to his:
http://vic.expreview.com/attachment/...05+cputest.jpg
Dude, he fixed the test, his score is 8,320
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=505
i think i just creamed myself.
what nice pi results. :D
yonah/merom/conroe share the exact same L2's (design wise and latency wise) according to anand's coverage of IDF, so it should be 14ns for the full 4MBQuote:
Originally Posted by Willis
god i cant wait for some real results from a real mobo with OC options, better RAM, and extreme cooling (Fuggers cascade should provide us with that).
Also, I,d like to see not much MORE than real results. After following this thread for a few days, ive seen maybe 20 relevant posts. The rest are like, "OMG!!1!! thats amazing can you run ____(some damn benchie)?"even after Victor has said hes having stability problems.
"wow that looks good, but am2 will pwn intel all over again"
"can you OC?" agian, its been said... NO!
"FCG and Fugger promised results by whenever and they didnt deliver wah wah wah! Now i have to wait a few more days for results that would otherwise taken months to reach us."
Aside from my lil rant, thanks to Victor, FCG and Fugger for providing such exciting news so early :toast:
how hot is this proc??