Printable View
You're waaaay too uptight. Please just relax. (all due respect).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
I have been lurking here for a short time and just wanted to say thanks to Victor, Fugger & FCG for all this. I am really looking forward to the Conroe launch. I actually just sold my entire desktop system to raise cash for my next platform upgrade. Looks like it just might be a 2.4 Conroe rig.
Keep up the good fight gents!!
Keys
for the record my 4400+ clock for clock is NOT faster than Conroe.
That should make Rocket feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
Even if the max FSB is going to be around 400-450MHz.
That's 4-4.5GHz on a chip with x10 multiplier. I don't think Conroes on regular cooling will be able to go much further if even reach these speeds at all.
I`ve been around for quite a while. I just don`t make a habit of spamming threads with unrelated and totally irrelevant info.Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
This thread is a "Breif test of the Conroe". Which, like I said is not even fully supported by any hardware yet. It wasnt started for compairision at all. It`s just here to show the base of what to expect from the Conroe.
Even Victors own compairision with the AM2 was moved by the mods and everyone was told to only post about the Conroe in this thread.
You want to show me your X2 results then make you own thread in the AMD section.
I can see the headline already ..... "MY X2 Beats a Conroe" *Film at 11* :clap:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
since you want to be an a$$ about this your wish is my command
4400+ @ 254 *9=2286mhz
winrar3.61
multi=1179
single=676
-------------------
Conroe E6600 @ 266*9 =2400mhz
winrar3.61
multi=1120
single=675
Regardless of his intention (which was as a comparison), it IS a very good comparison. At 2.4GHz, with bad timings, on premature hardware (not quite sure if that's true though....the BIOS definitely needs refining, but the hardware itself isn't premature), it does throw it down with an extremely well-tuned 2.3GHz X2 (which, due to its IMC, is insanely great in WinRAR compression).
Well, what to expect is all relative. Yes, it can get 4202348234 marks in Imagiveyoumarks '07, but how useful is that without reference? Iboomalot has given reference. Frankly, WinRAR numbers aren't something the majority of us know the significance of off the top of our heads...Quote:
It`s just here to show the base of what to expect from the Conroe.
If you only wanted Conroe results, you should have stopped at the first post.
On a side note, Victors AM2 results were moved because they deserve their own discussion.
EDIT: NiCKE^: you're kidding, right? *Below \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ post*
EDIT2: apparently not....wow apparently I'm the only one who finds comparisons between existing hardware (whether it's AMD or Intel, no matter) presented in this thread as useful......though I would bet that if Conroe were >25% faster that there would be more positive discussion
Seriously, your AMD results don't belong in the Intel section.
Nicke Iam only showing how WinRar is ram based results not CPU and Since I don't own an Intel to show this I used my AMD rig since that all I have.
Cinebench results didn't change much with the better ram which shows the Conroe Core vs AMD to be more eff. and a more reliable test even if it show Intel to be in the lead.
This isn't a thread crap or comparison between CPUs its to show that certain tests favor certain parts of the computer.
But I will not be posting any more AMD results as per your request Nicke^
Thank you ;) Maybe you and Vic could do a AMD and Conroe comparison thread when he comes back instead of posting it in this thread ;)
Isn't Cinebench a little "AMD:ish" or am I wrong?
Iam not sure which is favored if at all.
only true comparison would be taking his conroe with good DDR2-800 ram and using something similar to my rig for comparison sake.
not everyone has SLI or Crossfire setups. I think single card comparisons would be more inline with the general public.
what would be really really reallly scary would be Conroe design with AMD hyperthreading and DDR2-1000 3-3-3 ram :)
Oh I have to go un-tweak my rig and change the multi from 9 to 11 :D
Well I don't know a jack about Cinebench so I won't say anything.
What would be fun to see is a real Conroe board without bugs and such, maybe then we will have some true results for once.
I got a little burnt out on the Conroe review, hype, and speculation so I took a hiatus for a while. I checked in once in a while just to see what was up. Victor deserves our appreciation for his benchmarks. The fact that he tried to accomodate all the requests people made needs to be acknowledged. I know he's away for a while. What I was wondering was what specifically makes the motherboard he was using different than any other besides the chipset. Can Victor comment on any differences no matter how small which separate his Dell G965 motherboard from others? What makes it work on his Dell board and not on others? Is it just the chipset or are there other factors. VRM, Phaze, ect.....
Thanks Victor!:clap:
P.S. Is it possible to look up the specs for the board he used somewhere?
comparisons are good. comparisons are what we need to see how something performs.
But I don't really see any comparisons going on here. boomalot's one post comparing scores was a good reference for anyone reading this thread to see. But reiterating it and talking about the same AMD setup, how its tweaked blah blah blah isn't comparing anything and really doesn't belong here. Its VW's thread on his tests. He hasn't posted for 4-5 pages.
So how has the past page and a half been relavent?
not much more relavent to be said, already hundreds of posts and VW is off on buisiness, so nothing new for awhile. Maybe FUGGER or FCG gets theirs working this weekend, but otherwise not much new.
anything new about the albatron mb ,has anyone tried it yet?this thread is starting to get boring .we dont even know if conroe oc at all? since we havnt seen anyone oc it on a decent board. wasnt there someone who got hold of an albatron board?
freecableguy got ahold of an Albatron board, we're just waiting for him to update us with some testing info.
yeah, he got ahold of a Conroe too, but we all see how that went...;)
hopefully it works, if not im not gonna be too surprised, given that i though the other boards he tried were gonna work and they didn't...:(
Dont want to be a jerk here, but my CPU score on 3DMark06 is kinda high 200 points of diference compared to the Conroe 2.4, ofcourse Conroe is stock and this one is overclocked, BUT is it actually comparable? If I can reach a higher overclock could I expect my CPU to be at the performance of a 2.4 Conroe? Thanks.
http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?i...owscore3kq.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
What :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing good do conroe numbers do when they are not compared to what we are sitting on today?
Numbers aren´t worth :banana::banana::banana::banana: until they are compared to something, are they?
IE. weee.... the conroe breaks the 100 milestone. Uhm.. what milestone, and what are we at now? What would we get with a Pentium D @ 4Ghz?
I dont know how the Pentium D or a X2 for that matter, does in imaginaryMark06, but 100marks must be awsome, right? :slap:
How do you know that this tread wasn´t for comparison? Is this your tread? Did Viktor Wang as you to play admin?
---------
Again, thanks for the effort put into getting the good news out to us. Conroe looks promising :)
Keep up the good work :toast:
CPU scores in 3Dmarks dont mean anything... I have had higher FPS with he CPU tests and still get lower scores than when I was at certain OC configuration and even lower clock speeds.... and the overall 3Dmark was higher.... So I dont really use it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragex
Alex
Thanks, thats all I needed to know, I found it quite odd, thanks :toast: .Quote:
Originally Posted by AgonxOC
No pons intended.
What I dont understand is-why Intel giving conroe such a short life.
According to latest Intel's news on roadmap, it appears that 1Q 0f 2007 we will see yet another change. according to this article a newer architecture will be introduced in early 2007 leaving "core architecture" behind. The newer architecture will have 2m L2 instead of 4m as is conroe. This is how I read it: conroe appears to have short life if this roadmap is true.
But why? "core architecture has'nt even hit the market.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/14/intel_quad_core/
So Alandale will be a Conroe with 2MB L2? I wonder if they will use shared L2 cache or if they will have L3? Seems a little blurry to me.
"Core" isn't going anywhere. Cloverton and Kentsfield are basically 2x Conroe dual cores for a quad core proc. Not all Conroes are 4M L2 anyway...only 2.4GHz and up. There may not be enough room for 8M L2 in there or maybe they want to keep heat & cost down. AFAIK, the quad cores were originally supposed to be released in the middle of '07 on 45nm, but they moved them up to Q1 on 65nm for some reason.
Its just the usual Intel marketing BS trying to justify its own existence :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RimRam