Conroe 2.4Ghz on 965G mobo, brief test...

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-14-2006, 11:17 PM
RimRam

Quote:

Originally Posted by boostedevo

"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.

Oh I didnt know that. I guess I better do my homework then :slap:
04-15-2006, 02:32 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha0ne

Its just the usual Intel marketing BS trying to justify its own existence :rolleyes:

? A new microarch is prepared for late 2007/2008 , called Nehalem , designed by Intel Oregon , 45nm and the cake on top : it has an IMC.

:woot:
04-15-2006, 03:05 AM
NiCKE^

Where did you get that info from?
04-15-2006, 03:10 AM
Thorburn

Calling something a new micro-architecture isn't the right term, the Core Microarchitecture most likely will last a few years but it will be evolved in the same way the P6 microarchitecture covered the Pentium Pro through to Tualatin Pentium 3's, or Netburst covered the range of Pentium 4 designs.
04-15-2006, 03:54 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.Beier

Stephen, 1 week, 1 week mate, then the x850 series battle continues :p:

Hehehehehehe, come and get me....these are default settings and both the cpu and card have MUCHMUCH more ;)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1953943

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1243/923dr9ll.jpg

Oh, BTW, I forgot to tell you: I'll have a t2600 yonah and aopen board within 2 days for testing :hehe:

Sorry for the OT :p:
04-15-2006, 04:17 AM
Rocket

Quote:

Originally Posted by Formann

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:

Maybe people should do a little more reading and a little less posting.

If you dont know what decent to good benchmark numbers are then you simply haven`t read enough.

Placing X2 benchmarks in a Conroe thread makes it harder for people to find out how an X2 performs...

When I look for AMD info, I look in the AMD or O/C forums, and when I look for Intel info, I look in the Intel or O/C section.
Go figure :stick:

Sad to see common sense illudes people that think they are so damn smart.
04-15-2006, 04:46 AM
alpha0ne

Time to unsubscribe, this thread has become a bad joke made so by a very few :rolleyes:
04-15-2006, 04:47 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket

Placing X2 benchmarks in a Conroe thread makes it harder for people to find out how an X2 performs...

Hmmmm........:p:

BTW, this thread won't be updated by Victor until the ~21st of this month anyways as he's away on business.....
04-15-2006, 05:35 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by NiCKE^

Where did you get that info from?

I had a dream last night...:stick:

The stuff is like this :

Intel Israel designed Banias( 1999 ) ,then Dothan ( 2001) and started Yonah.
Intel Santa Clara took over Yonah and Intel Israel was given a new job : Merom ( all this happened in early 2002 )

Intel Oregon ( which designed the P4 ) had its Nehalem project based on Netburst killed in late 2003 , together with Tejas.In early 2004 they started a new Nehalem , a brand new microarch which is set to arrive in late 2007/early 2008 and replace Merom 2 ( 45nm )

In late 2005 Intel Israel started to work on another new microarch called Gilo which will arrive around late 2009-2010 timeframe and supplant Nehalem.

Basically Intel will have 2 design bureaus fighting each other and bring new stuff every 2 years.I hope AMD can sustain the pace , altough they look very confused right now ( killed K9 , K10 , stopgap K8L, new microarch in 2007 which I hope it is not K8L :nono: ) not knowing which to target : Merom 2 on 45nm or Nehalem ?
04-15-2006, 05:48 AM
Iconyu

Quote:

Originally Posted by RimRam

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/

If this new architechture has an internal memory controller then it won't need 4mb L2. L2 cache makes up for high external memory latencies, and I think Conroe still hurts when it hits system ram, the fsb bottle necks it.
But 4mb shared should be more than enough to overcome this problem in the short term, and the transistors are cheap for Intel.
04-15-2006, 06:02 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconyu

...L2 cache makes up for high external memory latencies..

More cache always helps , especially in commercial aplication and for servers where you need scaling.

How much it helps when you increase its size depends on how well you implemented it.

For example , it is possible that AMD's poor results with DDR2 are a combination of the modified IMC* ( 2x8 wide data buses vs 1x16 on 939 ) and its L2 line size.

*It isn't yet clear they took the 2x8 way like Intel 9xx, but it looks like it.
04-15-2006, 06:15 AM
Iconyu

I came to this conclusion, after witnessing AMD's tactics with their switch to socket 939. Their 512k's did indeed perform close to the 1mb's on the 754 socket. The performance gap was very almost identical to 512k vs 1mb on the 754 at the same clocks.
I'm not saying I'm right, after all I joined this forum to learn more, and it would be foolish of me not to take each post with a open mind. There's a great depth of knowledge around here that I'd like dip into.
04-15-2006, 07:28 AM
Rovtar

this thread is 99% spammed...:nono: :nono:

why the :banana::banana::banana::banana: are you talking about amd in intel section if noone didn't ask for it..

open new thread "flame one amd vs intel" and post there
04-15-2006, 07:48 AM
P8baller07

Look at the voltage on that beast, 3volts.
04-15-2006, 07:49 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by P8baller07

Look at the voltage on that beast, 3volts.

Yeah , and it pulls 119Amps.Can you believe how hot it must be ?
04-15-2006, 07:53 AM
Iconyu

1.2 volts, not 3 volts.
04-15-2006, 08:11 AM
Haltech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rovtar

this thread is 99% spammed...:nono: :nono:

why the :banana::banana::banana::banana: are you talking about amd in intel section if noone didn't ask for it..

open new thread "flame one amd vs intel" and post there

And your purpose for even posting this bs was what again? You are grouped into the small few that have ruined this thread.

Seriously mods, erase the bs posts in here or just close it.
04-15-2006, 08:12 AM
njkid32

Ok guys this thread has gone waaay off topic.. So now its closed..

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page