all [Cinbench&PCMark&other] tests???Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Printable View
all [Cinbench&PCMark&other] tests???Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
I got 11200 with 3Ghz dothan and gtx @ 650/770 (modded bios, no throttle etc)
If I remember right 10Mhz on core gave like ~90 3dmarks
I got 11200 with a 2.82GHz Toledo, GTX256MB @ 600+50/1670, modded BIOS (*but*, with GTX-512 timings it would need 600+50/1785 to get the same score, for some perspective [remember it is 256MB]).
Considering how high of a CPU score that is, I feel this board is seriously hampering 3D performance, or something is (possibly the RAM, IDK). So, in case anyone is wondering, I see these scores as around 5-10% lower than they will be....
why is there no fx-60 on the benchmarks???
Good question ;)
Ah...God almighty...can you guy's smell that??? Yes it's the return of Intel. Like I said in another thread ; I have much love and respect for AMD. It's all I used for the past three-four years after both Northwood lines. But damn, Intel sure can create a damn good cpu when they put some effort in. :)
Welcome back Intel. :toast:
Is it possible to do the pin mod on Conroe to achieve higher fsb and higher clock? May already been disscused.
No better words were spoken in this thread apart from Victor, so very true. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
I dont understand people who are anti-Intel, anti-Conroe or whatever for the sake of it.
If Conroe is the fastest thing around when its released, which it certainly looks like it will be, then I don't care whether its Intel, AMD or Von Dutch manufacturing it.
FWIW I have an Intel P4 at the moment, was considering an AMD X2/FX, and now probably waiting for Conroe. I have no allegiances either way, allegiances to chip manufacturers is just cutting your own nose off to spite your face.
3dmark 2001 please ? :)
Regards
Andy
Hey, forums are back ;)
Damn people can complain ! Oh well..Intel guyz will be sitting with a faster cheaper system in the end of the day so whine all you like.
Im glad to see the Forums are back online!
Victor ppl wont believe ur running your conroe without a fan on that heatsink. Heck what more do they want ? Do they want to stand next to you to see the results :stick: lol Dont worrie I believe ya, you have no reason to lie.
If it wasnt for some of your hardware being under NDA we would have seen pictures of his rig. But people just dont understand it :(
ORCBEAST
How is it going with the bios issues? Vic's bios is bugging and FCG and FUGGER doesn't have a bios which supports Conroe? (yet) I hope they get everything up 'n running!
Apparently the weakness of the Intel platform is it's FSB (or whatever the Hypertransport counterpart is), and it'll constrain the performance of the otherwise impressive Conroe chip.
Because of this thread, i'm already setting aside my $500-$600 for that mid-year upgrade.. previously, it was supposed to be a s939 one (prices would drop when AM2 arrives)..
But after reading this thread since it started.. an E6600 with some good generic DDR2 + a good OCing mobo would be the best "play/hobby" rig that money could buy come Q3 2K6..
;)
Hope this is the right spot for this info. It seemed relevant to the current discussion as it involves info regarding mobo support for Conroe. I have a D975XBX rev 302 mobo, and the following is a condensed version of an e-mail exchange I had with Intel support.
My support inquiry:
Product: Intel(R) Desktop Board D975XBX
Product_id: 2205
Bios_version: BX97510J.86A.0807.2006.0314.1158
AA_Number: AAD27094-302
Processor_manufacturer: Intel(R)
Issue: I just purchased this top of the line board (my first Intel manufactured board), and now find that it will not support Conroe. This board was obsolete before I purchased it! This is completely unacceptable. Can I exchange this board for a rev AAD27094-304 that will support Conroe?
Intel's response:
Thank you for contacting Intel® Technical Support.
Unfortunately, Intel does not exchange for different product. A return or exchange like this could only be done through your point of purchase, depending on their own policies and warranty procedures. As the customer of your point of purchase, they owe you return or exchange based on your purchase agreement/return policy; however, this is not something Intel will be able to take care of for you or assist in mediating with. Our warranty is an exchange of a damaged part for a good part of the same type; it would not provide any upgrade or difference in features on the part.
I draw three conclusions from this exchange:
1. The 304 rev appears to be the 'official' mobo to support Conroe per this reference to 'difference in features on the part'.
2. This is a sideways admission that the 302 rev boards will not support Conroe.
3. Owners of the 302 rev have no recourse but to buy a new mobo.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. This may not be a difinitive take on the issue, but I would not take it as a positive for current D975XBX owners either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jermaink
Yes you have to remember that P4 is a 200FSB QUAD Pumped = 800FSB
Conroe runs 266 Quad pumped = 1066FSB
Now taking that into account. The P4 were never far off AMD if we are talking about SPEED even with there techonology and with there onboard mem controller ;)
Intel will soon go that way and then u have to tell yourself how bloody fast that will be.
ORCBEAST
@Slurr: Imho, they shouldn't be held liable..
Because in the first place. Conroe will only be available by July at least.
And you're buying the mobo now.
What's top-of-the-line now will certainly not be so come July.
I purchased (past tense) this mobo in march following the IDF benchmarks that were completed on the D975XBX. My point is that the lack of definitive information regarding mobos that support Conroe is not good, and it appears that current owners of this board are out of luck.
I see.. well, that's really what happens for prototype stuff..
Heck, even VW, FCG or Fugger have trouble making the Conroe run on any current motherboard.
Not a weakness on the desktop market. Conroe's two cores communicates over the shared L2 cache and direct L1->L1 data cache transfers, which is probably a magnitude faster than AMD's implementation for dual cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by jermaink
The fsb is the weak link in Conroe as it is the same in Netburst architecture, which cannot handle the full bandwidth of dual-channel DDR2 SDRAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Conroe uses Memory Disambiguation (part of the Smart Memory Access) and a better prefetch, branch prediction, L1/L2 Cache management and deeper buffers.
The FSB1066 is not the bottleneck.
the fsb will not be an issue for conroe in terms of bandwidth cause simply conroe is more of an amd like arc, so it does not need a whole lot of bandwidth at all. merom, on the 666 bus will most likely be just as fast.