What's the big deal about Conroe processors?

[Fred_Pohl]

Absolutely right, at a silicon level the Core 2 Duo is 80% different to the Core Duo, let alone the Pentium 3

Excellent point! Saying that Core 2 Duo is a modified P3 because it has little in common with Netburst is like saying that K8 is a modified 386 because it shares many of the same x86 instructions.

[iterations]

every super pi score is amazing with conroe, but the 3dmark06 scores are the same as my 4800....

Sorry, but I gotta call BS on that.

Clock for clock comparison for FX-60 and a Merom Engineering Sample:

3DMark06 CPU Test: http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/merom/QLZT/XP64/5.gif

FX-60 @ 3.2GHz gets 2380 3DMark06 CPU score
Merom @ 3.2GHz gets 2833 3DMark06 CPU score

That is a 20% improvement clock for clock, and that Merom is air cooled.

[IntelUser]

Conroe is 140mm^2.
Kentsfield should be 2x Conroe , 280mm^2. Numbers of possible defects increases at least 2^2 , 4 times.So with Kentsfield you might have abysimal yeilds.

That's theory but considering how Prescott 1M is 112mm2 and Pentium D which supposed to be 224mm2 die is only 206mm2 die I disagree. The number of transistors on Prescott is 125 million but Pentium D is 230. Again not double.

Early testing of a 2-way (8 core) Cloverton system showed that it scales by a factor of 4.75X in 8 way Cinebench vs 4.8X for an 8 core Opteron system.
Wow it looks like someone got thier Asses kicked in these benchmarks.. and it isn't AMD.. FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
So even if the new Intel is 50% better perfromance than what it is replacing it can barely compete with CURRENT AMD offerings.

Wow talk about being narrow minded. Intel's performance advantage with Woodcrest over Paxville is SpecInt_Rate, which scales almost perfectly with clock speeeds(~85%), and is almost not impacted by memory bandwidth.

First of all, Woodcrest platform will be 1333MHz FSB. Second of all, Woodcrest will have TWO 1333MHz FSB. Now compare that to Paxville, which has SINGLE 800MHz FSB.

One of the Intel presentation concerning Woodcrest says it will be 52% faster than Dempsey, which is a 2MB cache per core successor to Paxville, and has 2x1066MHz FSB. Now beat that. Dempsey is alone 20-50% faster than Paxville: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...0805135916&p=6

every super pi score is amazing with conroe, but the 3dmark06 scores are the same as my 4800....

personally im a gamer and i love the latest stuff...

but so far conroe hasnt impressed me at all with 3dmark... also have u noticed how every person who tests these seems to not post 3dmark scores?

LOL, my friend wanted to submit his 3dmark score but realized that with SAME configuration, that he wasn't even close to the HDD scores posted on the internet. Funny how with same configuration, the differences in 3dmark score can be big as 30%. So yea you can't say it based on that.

ah yes the black box tests.. I was wondering when you would bring that up..
Considering the fact that Anand was not allowed to strip and fully test it.. I would take the scores with a grain of salt...

Pfft. Typical comments of a person who's always skeptical. How would you modify the system?? Do you know on the second revision of the benchmark that with THEIR OWN QUAKE 4 DEMO, it had greater differences between Conroe and A64 FX OC'ed?? How's that Intel unfairly modding Conroe to have advantage over A64, when Anand's own demo is EVEN FASTER!!??

Core has about as much in common with the P3 as the P3 does with the P2.

LOL. Then you have no more idea about computer chips than the average joe. Pentium III, all it brought is SSE instructions. Later Pentium III got faster bus and on-die L2 cache, but anyone who researched into Pentium II and Pentium III would know that mobile Pentium II's had on-die 256KB L2 cache, which is coincidentally same as Coppermine Pentium III's.

The differences between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo is like Pentium and Pentium II.

Early testing of a 2-way (8 core) Cloverton system showed that it scales by a factor of 4.75X in 8 way Cinebench vs 4.8X for an 8 core Opteron system.

That just tells that Cinebench isn't really a accurate benchmark for the entire CPU. Just look how Pentium EE is 15% faster than Pentium D, when Pentium D is half of the time faster.

The only thing I am sceptical about at the moment is the fact that all results we have seen of Conroe has been with chips with 4MB L2 Cache and the ones we will be buying will only be 2MB. I try to convince myself that doubling the cache will not impact greatly the performance!

You would know by looking at benchmarks the benefits of doubling the caches are less than 5% in most of the cases. Think the 2MB cache Core 2 Duo will be much slower?? Some people should get over the fact that Core 2 Duo isn't gonna bring mediocre 5-7% performance increase that previous Intel architectures brought.

I kinda doubt we will see the 3.33GHz part right off the bat. Most likely Intel will need some time to perfect the 65nm process. My gut tells me that is a pre-Xmas part.

You'll likely be right. The roadmaps indicating Q4 for EE should be very likely. Even though people say it should be taken with grain of salt, people also must have said that when Prescott is shown to be slower per clock than Northwood.

What I am saying here is if you can pick the right ones, the rumors are correct.

Sadly, that is true and Sarikou is just the deluded fanboy idiot for the job!

He has calculations saying Yonah will use 50W. He also says that the reason Yonah is used in desktop replacements are because its 50W. That's because initial designs for laptops for a fastest CPU will be desktop replacements. Look at now with T&L Core Duo laptops.

Enough said.

The average performance difference is between 20-25% in favor of Core 2. I researched almost 30 different benchmarks and established that X2 performance scales by 8-9% per 200MHz clock increase. This leads me to conclude that on average a dual-core AM2 cpu will need to run 400MHz faster to roughly equal the performance offered by Core 2.

400MHz difference when one is at 500MHz and 400Mhz difference when one is at 4GHz is a VAST difference.

Based on your numbers of 8-9% scaling, which isn't exactly true as games are generally 4-6% per 10%.

Core 2 Duo performance per clock will give at least 30% clock speed difference over the Athlon 64 AM2's. That's around 500-700Mhz difference.

[Direwolf]

OT- Quick stupid question- Will the soon to be released conroe motherboards all have a fsb wall at only 400fsb? Just a quickie ...

[FunkyRider]

400 x 4 = 1600 that should be high enough for a stock 1066 processor IMO

[IntelUser]

Those skeptical about Conroe rumors should look back at Prescott. Couple of weeks before release, almost every news was negative. Prescott has 25 stage pipelines... Prescott has 30 stage pipelines, Prescott performs equal to Northwood per clock... Prescott performs lower than Northwood per clock... Prescott runs hot... Prescott is delayed... Prescott is at same clock speed as Northwood. And the WORST news all came true.

Look at Conroe. There isn't bad news except the sites that are made by AMD fanboys and the ones that are skeptical. When Core 2 Duo at 2.167GHz, 2MB cache, 1066MHz FSB, is competing for dominance against AM2 Athlon 64 FX, those peeps are gonna shut up, and lose credibility.

[Fred_Pohl]

400MHz difference when one is at 500MHz and 400Mhz difference when one is at 4GHz is a VAST difference.

Based on your numbers of 8-9% scaling, which isn't exactly true as games are generally 4-6% per 10%.

Core 2 Duo performance per clock will give at least 30% clock speed difference over the Athlon 64 AM2's. That's around 500-700Mhz difference.

That's not entirely fair as there are no 500MHz or 4GHz X2s. FWIW, all I did to arrive at that 8-9% per 200MHz figure was research the THG interactive CPU comparison charts and measure the performance differences between 1MB X2s at 2.4 and 2.6G and then spot checked various BMs at 2.0-2.2GHz. The difference was consistently about 8-9% even in most games. I didn't include any BMs that showed very little or no cpu scaling, such as memory bandwidth, etc. Not very scientific but I think it's a reasonable ballpark estimate for X2 scaling between 2-2.6GHz.

You may well be correct about your 30% (500-700MHz) figures but I prefer to remain more conservative until Conroe officially launches and most likely exceeds estimates that already give AMD fanboys serious heartburn.

[savantu]

That's theory but considering how Prescott 1M is 112mm2 and Pentium D which supposed to be 224mm2 die is only 206mm2 die I disagree. The number of transistors on Prescott is 125 million but Pentium D is 230. Again not double.



...

We're talking a multichip solution , PD 9xx not the single die PD8xx.Care to revise your statements now ?

[Moonraker™]

E6600 Can practically piss all over the AMD which is almost £500 more than it. (I think it's around £440 more right now)

[Meaker]

I cant see the Core duo 2 based chips scaling aswell as the opteron since even with two fsbs thats nothing compared to 8 and the hypertransport system connecting all of them.

[Lestat]

I cant see the Core duo 2 based chips scaling aswell as the opteron since even with two fsbs thats nothing compared to 8 and the hypertransport system connecting all of them.

have you really not been reading any of the conroe threads and the performance ?

its not an amd that break the Pi records, and is still breaking them.. it was a conroe.

its not an amd making and breaking all kinds of other records,, its a conroe.

i said it before and i'll say it again. the intel Core architecture is the next step in cpu's that we have been waiting for for a very long time.

[Pandamonia]

the intel core duo is a tech based on intel pentium 4 mobile Chips, it was a tech deveoloped paralell to netburst and when netburst showed its life was coming to an end they worked on the other tech and made it alot better.

there is nothing new about core duo. its just an improved paralell tech that was deveoloped cus netburst wasnt suitable for mobile.

for a while people have known this tech was better than netburst and had more potential but they didnt want the netburst to die so fast, intel wanted to rape your wallets for a few more years.

typical intel.

they finally have a product worth purchasing.

[XS Janus]

________
Black :banana::banana::banana::banana: