Printable View
Conroe E6600es on Air
Intel 975xbx v304
Leadtek 7900gtx on stock
Maxline 300G IDE
in 3Dmark05, single card, about 200scores higher if with the same GPU clk than my Yonah=3005mhz :woot:
1. conroe with 79gtx 745/1030
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1148137090
2. yonah 3G with 79gtx 745/1080
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1148133660
nice with 7900GTX SLI ?
nice but if its only a difference of 200 on the yonah and the conroe is on 333fsb.... then the conroe lacks performance increase to my opinion and its just a pumped bus speed.
oh btw what vcore and temps?
no, it's 275 on the Yonah and 333 on the Conroe.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Here's my contribution :p: Single 7900gtx, x2 on air......
http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6...000132k8au.jpg
Victor...get on MSN...I need to ask you something ;)
Tweaked OS??
i have 13015 with a64 2937MHz + x1900xtx 720/850 stock volts/cooling
but that isnt a tweaked os, and it was merely a quick test :p
If the question is directed at me...nope...no tweaks...just regular xpsp2 install ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Edit...now that I've re-read your post...I bet you're running a single core ;)
no it wasnt directed to you :)
but thx anyway :)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1929143
that my score, idd single core
not any tweak.
200score with just a SINGLE CARD in 3Dmark05 is huge !
btw .... the card was running at 745/1100 with Yonah @ 273*11 , score=13478
to steve. this hdd i'm usning now don't have a MSN, I'll talk to you tomorrow ;)
does a slow/fast HDD affects your score? maybe a silly question, but still :)
no msn => nlited OS??
Yonah system:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
pcie=115mhz
ram=455mhz 4-3-2-4
hdd= Raptor 740GD
os=winxp sp2 (newly installed)
conroe system:
pcie=109mhz
ram=345mhz 4-3-2-8
hdd=maxlineIII 300G IDE
os=winxp sp2 (used for 2month)
so... if with the same HW, the difference maybe more than 250 scores ;)
There's a big difference in the ram speed there too.
Well, I don't have GTX but here is x1900xtx 840/880 and yonah 2950Mhz
Score 14552
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1997967
xtx stock is around ~12600, maybe more, don't remember :p:
never compares x1900xtx with 79gtx in 3Dmark05.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi
3G yonah with my 1900xtx @ 792/882 , 05=143xx :p:
Can't we compare superpi? I guess I would beat you :P
Lol, those conroes are like over 1minute faster than this old celly.
http://www.home.no/kaffebord/superpi%203,3.JPG
Anyway nice overclock and a nice chip. These Conroes make my hardware heart beating faster :D
I have a 3 gig p4 northwood that does Super Pi 1M in 41 secs. I'm not bragging btw, you asked for a comparison
not any CPU available right now ( for desktop/laptop ) can beat Conroe in Super_pi.....
so... I don't wanna post that boring test :p
You should run the CPU test? That should be included if there's a point doing a comparing.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Thanks for the post.
It's the same setup and overclock target I want to do.
Was it hard to reach 1333fsb or there is still lot of room ?
very easy going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vric
room temp=25c
Tower120 cooling ( just putting on the chip but not mounted on )
stock volt.('cos now I cannot change it )
stock fsb=266mhz
Host Burnning=25% ( 333mhz ) , and sp2004 stable at 30%(345mhz)
you can see in Fugger's and FCG's treads, all stable at 400fsb with ease :toast:
XS cooling for the NB and the ChipQuote:
Originally Posted by NiCKE^
Isn't that the only way to go my friend? :D
Thanks for the info !Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
I'm a bit the black sheep of this forum. I like overclocking, but I never raise Voltage. So if this chip can handle 3Ghz everything stock, it's very good news.
Can't wait to get mine.. Waiting with credit card in hand :p
Just for the fun of comparison, my 2.8ghz Northwood running at 3Ghz do PI in 50.3 seconds :fact: :stick:
That will make a good upgrade :p
STEPHENQuote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
You running 2.6Ghz or 3.0Ghz here ? Did speedstep kick in or what.
That AMD is pretty close. :)
GPU clock ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ORCBEAST
Stephen, is there a +2 LOD in there as well?? :D
EDIT:
ARGH, Aopen YDG still aint for sale in Denmark... - But at 3200mhz with my XTX, I got 148xx marks, so I bet I can compete with ya in the 3ghz series ;)
Here's the same card steph's running, these tests only show GPU power.
His cpu is 550mhz short of mine, and he still outscores me.
This was on a tweaked OS and gpu @ 770/1920.
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8743/3156mq.jpg
Try with some good BH5 / UTT or other low lats on that.... - It'll def give you alot of marks... -Stephen's probaly running 260 2-2-2-5 and the rest very low as well :)Quote:
Originally Posted by eBoy0
Just 2.6 on the cpu....was testing for max card clocks. AMD doesn't have speedstep ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ORCBEAST
@ MBeier: Not sure what LOD I should run, but IIRC that was done with LOD +5 :p: Maybe that's a bit much though......
@ Eboy0: Should have the auto back 2morro :rolleyes: Get ready to see some 1k/1k runs as the Baker's starting to top off @ higher heat loads.......
Ahh Stephen, I dont know the first thing about nvidia clockin' but I've already told you what I think about nvidia :p:
With AIT 2 is best for 03/05, havnt used it though...
But guys, one thing I can tell ya, my CeleD 310 wont stand a chance :p: - Running the sucker 2.13@4ghz 24/7 stable on box cooler though :D (and yeah, doin' some mach II tests as soon as mach's modded)
Still not @ 3ghz :p:
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/9320/139815wt.jpg
Sexy! :D how you liking the card? Fights like a trooper!
Btw, what kinda ram you got running in that rig?
I need better cooling ;). Team PC4000 UTT BH5. This mobo is totally borked too...for some reason I can't run 265+FSB and the first pcie-slot is broken (so yes, I'm running the card @ 8x in the lower slot :rolleyes: )Quote:
Originally Posted by eBoy0
That aint good, hope you got another SLI mobo ;)
Team PC huh...
It wouldn't be so close if the GPU clocks were closer to Victor's ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ORCBEAST
That Conroe is pretty damn powerful considering 3dmark is still mostly GPU bound, for the CPU to really affect the score it must be very powerful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Why not match VIctors GPU clocks to have a fair comparisson?
745/1030
Cuz conroe vs. x2 isn't exactly a "fair" comparison :p: Also, I can't get the Vddr clocked that high....yet ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
Oh well, running 01, 03 and AM would show better comparisonQuote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
huh ! how is Conroe V X2 not a fair comparison ?Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
get a X2 clocked at 2.6 or 2.8 or whatever you can manage and get Conroe on the same clocks then we will see.
Let me ask you....do you have a Conroe right now? Can you go out to the store and buy one? Or maybe even order it online? My guess is that your answer is "No". Why? BECAUSE CONROE IS A NEXT GENERATION CPU.......Quote:
Originally Posted by IluvIntel
X2 is current technology. For a comparison to be fair, one must compare next generation cpu's to each other and not technology which is on it's way out :rolleyes:
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
look at these buddy :p:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1148126774
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1148126774
VictorWang: since the GPU tests in 3d mark are so much about the performance of the GPU, you really should run both CPU tests. That's why it's got separate CPU tests.
i can tell you that....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjaks
in 3Dmark05, cputest = 13k , for just a 3.3G conroe :p:
and.... here for you to compare :
3641mhz Yonah T2600
http://vic.expreview.com/attachment/...05+3641mhz.jpg
3375mhz Conroe E6600
http://vic.expreview.com/attachment/1148134663.jpg
Alright steph, you gatta compete w/ that :)
GOOD GOD VICTOR! :eek: Nice work there.....I'm going to pick up my autocascade today so maybe I'll be able to do a little better, but no way in hell those scores are acheivable with the setup I have running now :(
Stephen, I said to match the Clock speeds of the GPU because you know that 3dmark is a GPU intensive benchmark and we're testing the power of CPUS, not GPUS... So actually it would be a fair comparisson to see how an equally clocked GPU compares with different CPUS...
Next Gen or not... It will be available in few months anyways.
2 months from now it will be Conroe vs. Am2... and AM2 is not even next gen.
Something's wrong with that score , with the same CPU clocks for my OPty170 and MUCH lower GPU clocks :Quote:
Originally Posted by eBoy0
Opteron 170 @ 3150MHz , 1.64V , 315x10.0
Water Chilled
DFI LP UT nF4 SLI-DR Xpert
2x512Mb , 262MHz @ 2.0-2-2-5-1T , 3.41V
7900GTX PNY @ 721/951MHz ;)
WinXP Pro SP2 , FW 84.21WHQL , LOD +3
3DMark05 : 12923
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1991640
Same GPU clocks again (721/951) but with Yonah @ 3.0GHz :
T2600ES @ 3.0GHz , 1.50V
Aoper BOX Cooler :)
Aopen i975Xa-YDG unmoded
2x512Mb , 385MHz @ 4.0-4-4-12 , 2.00V
GeForce 7900GTX , 721/951MHz , LOD +3
3DMark05 : 12822
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=2004915
What's there to say? I'll be the first to admit that a Conroe should stomp on any x2 clocked @ the same speed :p: . It's like comparing apples to oranges - A Conroe is a 4mb L2 cache, 65nm chip on a DDR2 platform. An x2 is a 2mb L2 cache, 90nm chip on DDR1. By next generation I mean a more fair comparison would be a 65nm AMD cpu with the optimaztions necessary to compete with processors available @ the same time.....Quote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
There is no such thing as "fair." If score 1 > score 2 then score 1 wins. :rolleyes:
Is that why 3dmark only allows results to be published for "approved" cpu's/systems? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
AMD still holds the top spots in 3dmark06/05/and 03(unless just clicking project compare/show me the projects w/out changing anything isn't the right way to go about it)
is this purely due to motherboard support for conroe? or just more experienced gpu oc'ers on amd?
It's because the WHQL drivers have not yet been approved for Conroe.....Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
I tend to agree. It has nothing to do with AMD or Intel, the availability, or the price. It's cut and dry: highest #s win.Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
I think unfair means cheating on the software end of things.
Drivers for a CPU? No, no, no. It's because Futuremark for some reason won't get off their butts and approved Catalyst 6.4 drivers which have been WHQL approved for more than a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
I agree.
It's only fair to say fair when both items are available to general market.
If the latest from intel is for example 5th generation and latest from AMD is 3rd Generation. I would say Thats too bad... If both are available than it's fair enough...
What do you say... Wait for AMD to catch up?
So when Conroe is out.. AM2 will be out... and it would be retarded to say wait for K8L.. and so on.....
Iam a big AMD fan for yrs since they built a better mouse trap and Intel tried to sugar coats a screwup on thier part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
Conroe will rock thats not cheating and if AMD wants to release a ES of the K8L I will be happy to spend my own money on a pair of 7900s or 1900s to Crush everyone.
But there is nothing fair in benching and Conroe is soon to be king of the hill for a short 6-8month cycle which is about damn time for the LARGEST cash cow company on the planet and being whipped for 3.5 yrs by the smaller guy.
I just hope AMD speeds things up so we all benefit.
Thats a BIG Assumption. How do you know that AMD won't be lagging for next 3.5 Years? Maybe Intel did get their acts together...Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
Hmmm very interesting, thanks for those results, now i can compare better... my best guess is the card started to throttle, but its hard to say..Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorod
Quote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
Its my "opinion" That AMD will have 65 nm process going full speed and K8L should overtake Conroe in 6-8 months from the time Conroe is up and running properly.
lol, 3.5 years? I think notQuote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
netburst was still whipping on K7 back then
I know it's unfair to compare with conroe.
but... it has to be 'cos we always choose the best CPU for ourselfs.
I started the thread only to tell that... conroe, not just the King of super_pi but aslo the king of General System Performance especially in 3D.
That's why I didn't show a CPUMark score but a 3Dmark score.
You guys must know how hard it would be to increase 200+ scroe in 3Dmark05 with just a SINGLE card at the same clk, both CPU/GPU.
btw, take a look at my x1900xt crossfire ,
with a 3641mhz yonah, I can get only 20078 in 3Dmark05
but... with a 3375mhz conroe... I achieved 20541 .
almost 500 scores increase , even myself can hardly believe that.
so clock for clock, is Conroe generally better in gaming compare to AMD X2??
yes! Way better :DQuote:
Originally Posted by theteamaqua
Even yonah is better in most gaming
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
but thats only 2.6 Ghz .. even though he OC GFX card, its pretty close???
im confused :confused:
Would be good to see a comparision with same clock for Conroe & A64 DC and same GPU clocks with as "fair" mem settings as possible.
Guess no1's doing it so that the current AMD guys doesn't get nightmares or sth. :p:
and........ more coming.
what wil a 3.33G conroe's performance be ? here it is !
http://vic.expreview.com/attachment/1148217933.jpg
Is Opteron/Athlon as close as this in the CPU tests too?
This test is heavily depending on the GPU's clocks. For example:
FX-60 @ 3GHz + 7900GTX 828/1025 = 13747
FX-60 @ 3.2GHz + 7900GTX 784/1022 = 13478
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1988905
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1961272
as I said...Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
same CPU/GPU clk comparison. and You will know how strong CONROE is !
Okay I see, but wouldn't it be better to compare the CPU scores if you want to know how prowerfull Conroe is?
cpuscore is nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjaks
you can see a Intel 955EE @ 4.7Ghz about 2000scores higher than a FX60 @ 3Ghz in 3Dmark05's CPUTEST.
but... 3Dmark05 scores about 1000 lower .
the two rigs with the same card and same gpu/vram clk :D
Okay, thanks for clearing things up :)Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
I don't know what the cpu tests consists of, but I think they should include physics tests because that's what draws the most cpu power in games.
Keep up the good work!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjaks
are there any standard benchmarks that do this? It would be nice if lost coast video stress had lots of crap blowing up and stuff.
Your logic here is inherently flawed.... K8 is eighth generation AMD technology, Conroe is eighth generation Intel technology, in about 5 weeks Conroe will be available. In 5 weeks, a computer buyer will ask "what is the best CPU on the market". X2 vs Conroe is not only fair, it is necessary for the consumer to make the best choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Without question.... and someone else alluded it it earlier, Yonah, clock for clock out performs as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by theteamaqua
so can u oc the graphics card to have an even test?? i dunno, can someone with Conroe bench it with AMD X2?? i know its really hard to make a fair benchmark
but this is something i like to see, cos I dont trust Intel's setup during IDF, but i know that the Conroe is faster after reading soo many reviews, but how much faster then FX or X2? that is still unknown, Inquirer says something like 2.4G Conroe = 2.8G AMD X2 <- i forgot, it was a long time ago, or it could be 2.13G Conroe = 2.8 AMD X2
I've heard you can add 400MHz to Conroe's clock speed to get the speed of a matching X2.Quote:
Originally Posted by theteamaqua
so like 2.4G Conroe = 2.8G X2, yeah i remember reading that somewhere in Inquirer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ender17
opps my bad K8 (opteron) didn't hit the public until April 2003 which would be a 3 yr 3 month domination by AMD not 3.5 yr sorry I was off by a couple months. and athlon a64 wasn't until late summer making that a 3yr dominance.
And yes the 3.2 was doing a -2% to +8% percent faster in gaming than the Barton 3200+ depending on the game.
I think...
Conroe + 400mhz = Yonah = X2 in 3Dmark
I wouldn't bother with 400 Mhz and such measurements, because obviously 1.6 Ghz - 2.0 Ghz comparison with a 400 Mhz additive constant will give us way different results than say 3+ Ghz with a 400 Mhz additive constant.
It's better for us to use a percent, like the original 20% derived from the first performance test of Conroe. 20% holds up perfectly.
Take the 2.4 Ghz Conroe for instance, (1.2)(2.4) = 2.88 Ghz which is about what an X2 would require to match it.
And for a 3.33 Ghz Conroe (1.2)(3.33) = 4 Ghz, which is what i've been thinking and seems to fit the data.
yes, that seems the right measurement :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0