MMM
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Introduction Conroe in 2 phases

  1. #1
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    291

    Introduction Conroe in 2 phases

    As title says...

    Source

    Translation of the article:
    A roadmap that intel recently showed to Tweakers.net says that Conroe will be introduced in 2 phases.
    In the Q3 this year there will be 4 flavours available with a price between $209 and $529. Later, somewhere in Q4, cheaper and more expensive CPU's will be introduced.
    Such as the Conroe XE, with 1333MHz FSB and 95W TDP, with a price tag of $1199

    Look in source for the table.

    (Sorry for my bad English, I hope it's clear)
    Last edited by Skyline GT-R; 04-01-2006 at 04:52 AM.
    intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 8x400MHz
    Asus P5E X38 bios 1201
    Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400 x2 4GB in total
    eVGA Geforece 9800GTX+ || Creative Audigy 2 ZS
    Adaptec AAR1430SA 4port Raid card
    Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 160GB 8MB SATA2 x2 (RAID0, OS drive) on Adaptec
    Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB 8MB SATA2 x2
    Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB 32MB SATA2
    Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1000GB 32MB SATA2
    Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1500GB 32MB SATA2 x4
    Coolermaster CM 690 || Corsair CMPSU-520HX
    Windows 7 Ultimate RTM x64
    Philips 200WB7ES 20" WS 1680x1050

    MacBook Pro 15" June 2009
    iPhone 3GS 16GB

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    265
    Wow, look how the conroe scales! All the way from 1.86Ghz up to 3.3GHz. This should mean that buying a lower clocked CPU should have no problem reaching atleast 3.1GHz (requires high FSB boards, i985 should do 400 easy), in other words, the performance of a FX60 @ ~3.3GHz, for the price of <$240.
    Last edited by nCrusader; 04-01-2006 at 07:08 AM.

  3. #3
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by nCrusader
    Wow, look how the conroe scales! All the way from 1.86Ghz up to 3.3GHz. This should mean that buying a lower clocked CPU should have no problem reaching atleast 3.1GHz (requires high FSB boards, i985 should do 400 easy), in other words, the performance of a FX60 @ ~3.3GHz, for the price of <$240.
    The FX60 at 3.3 wouldnt beat the conroe at 3.1. In the benchmarks, the conroe was at 2.6ghz and the FX-60 was at 2.8ghz and the FX-60 got slaughtered. I'd say they'd equal out at around 2.6 conroe and 2.9 amd.
    Main Rig: E6600, Asus Commando, Leaktek 8800GTX, X-Fi XtremeMusic, 2x Seagate 250GB 7200.10 RAID-0, Thermalright Ultra 120, HR-03+, Toughpower 1000watt.
    OC Settings: 3600mhz (400x9) 2:3, 1200mhz 5-5-5-15, 650/2000 GPU, 1.4vcore, 2.3vdimm.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    758
    Heh, everybody would be loving AMD if a 100Mhz gained 20-40%. When AMD uses MHz for speed grade variation(200MHz), maybe gains 5% on average.

  5. #5
    Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    12,338
    huh?

  6. #6
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    758
    You're going to have to do better than 'huh'.

  7. #7
    Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    12,338
    I don't understand your question/statement.

  8. #8
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    758
    Huh, you havn't read the review being referenced. Huh, you're not aware of AMD speed grades distinguished by MHz? Huh, you hadn't read what bigval wrote? Huh, what?

  9. #9
    YouTube Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Klaatu barada nikto
    Posts
    17,574
    Quote Originally Posted by keiths
    Heh, everybody would be loving AMD if a 100Mhz gained 20-40%. When AMD uses MHz for speed grade variation(200MHz), maybe gains 5% on average.
    That is the most inaccurate statement of the week.
    Fast computers breed slow, lazy programmers
    The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay.
    http://www.lighterra.com/papers/modernmicroprocessors/
    Modern Ram, makes an old overclocker miss BH-5 and the fun it was

  10. #10
    Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    12,338
    Quote Originally Posted by keiths
    Huh, you havn't read the review being referenced. Huh, you're not aware of AMD speed grades distinguished by MHz? Huh, you hadn't read what bigval wrote? Huh, what?
    I read it all about 5 times (once before I posted and four since thinking I was missing something) and still don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

    Bigval is just saying how at notably fewer MHz, it still whomps on the K8 DC CPUs.

    Conroe's architecture is, frankly, amazing.

    EDIT: I think I'm getting it....you're pointing out that the AT tests, where the FX had a 200Mhz advantage is still 20-40% slower? And that you're objecting to bigval's approximation that 2.9 would equilibrate the scores?

    I must say that your post wasn't very clear and your snippiness was unappreciated.
    Last edited by Vapor; 04-01-2006 at 11:31 AM.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    758
    I'll start with what bigval wrote: "I'd say they'd equal out at around 2.6 conroe and 2.9 amd." Rephrased, an FX at 2.9 will equal the peformance of a conroe at 2.6. From the anandtech review of the conroe, they had an FX clocked at 2.8 and the conroe was 20-40% faster, which means for bigval's comment to pan out, a 100MHz bump would need to yield a 20-40% performance improvement. The difference between speed grades of AMD chips on average is around 5%. When not using l2 cache or memory bandwidth to distinguish between speed grades, AMD uses an increased clock speed of 200MHz. From that, one can roughly calculate what it will take for an FX to match a conroe at 2.6.
    Last edited by keiths; 04-01-2006 at 11:47 AM.

  12. #12
    YouTube Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Klaatu barada nikto
    Posts
    17,574
    Quote Originally Posted by keiths
    I'll start with what bigval wrote: "I'd say they'd equal out at around 2.6 conroe and 2.9 amd." Rephrased, an FX at 2.9 will equal the peformance of a conroe at 2.6. From the anandtech review of the conroe, they had an FX clocked at 2.8 and the conroe was 20-40% faster, which means for bigval's comment to pan out, a 100MHz bump would need to yield a 20-40% performance improvement. The difference between speed grades of AMD chips on average is around 5%. When not using l2 cache or memory bandwidth to distinguish between speed grades, AMD uses an increased clock speed of 200MHz. From that, one can roughly calculate what it will take for an FX to match a conroe at 2.6.
    Dude if you think s939 is going to directly compete with Conroe you have to be on smack..
    Fast computers breed slow, lazy programmers
    The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay.
    http://www.lighterra.com/papers/modernmicroprocessors/
    Modern Ram, makes an old overclocker miss BH-5 and the fun it was

  13. #13
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    758
    Your deflection isn't going to work nn_step. Bigval was comparing FX to Conroe.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,640
    Quote Originally Posted by bigval
    The FX60 at 3.3 wouldnt beat the conroe at 3.1. In the benchmarks, the conroe was at 2.6ghz and the FX-60 was at 2.8ghz and the FX-60 got slaughtered. I'd say they'd equal out at around 2.6 conroe and 2.9 amd.
    wait, it gets slaughtered at 2.8, yet you think with a mere 100MHz boost they'll perform equally?
    DFI LANParty DK 790FX-B
    Phenom II X4 955 BE (1003GPMW) @ 3.8GHz (19x200) w/1.36v
    -cooling: Scythe Mugen 2 + AC MX-2
    XFX ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024MB
    8GB PC2-6400 G.Skill @ 800MHz (1:2) 5-5-5-15 w/1.8v
    Seagate 1TB 7200.11 Barracuda
    Corsair HX620W


    Support PC gaming. Don't pirate games.

  15. #15
    Charcoal or propane?
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    1,299
    seems someone is getting a bit too big for his britches.
    First off, no one is disagreeing with you about your view that a 2.9Ghz FX will not beat a 2.6Ghz Conroe, so stop being so defensive about it, keiths.

    Second, as far as Conroe is concerned, nn_step is correct. s939(whether is the FX line or not) is/was not the compeition for Conroe. You must remember that Conroe is still ~6months away from public release. It is nearly unheard of that a company would publicly announce and promote a chip that is over 6 months away from release. The reason Intel is doing it is b/c they know that Netburst is crap(at its current speeds) and has no future.

    Now obviously AMD has new product coming up, which may or may not be the designated competition for Conroe. It's also possible that AMD will be releasing something after Conroe that is supposed to be Conroe's competition.

    So it's senseless to even compare Conroe to a s939 FX, b/c it will be facing something completely different from AMD in 6 months.
    DFI UT X58-T3eH8 (being replaced with Giga UD5)
    Core i7 920 D0 mostly stable @ 4Ghz
    TRUE 120
    6GB OCZ Platinum 7-7-7 (still in testing
    XFX 4890 1GB @ 1050/1190
    Corsair HX850W
    CM Cosmos S

    Still testing...

  16. #16
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    758
    That's not my view/assertion/what I wrote(that other's were saying a 2.9 FX would beat a 2.6 Conroe), go reread. What Bigval said is a 2.9 FX will match a 2.6 Conroe. I respond how/why not; way to mischaracterize it as being defensive. Again, what nn_step wrote is irrelevent; bigval was comparing FX to Conroe. What AMD will respond to Conroe with has nothing to do with bigval's proposition or my response to it.

  17. #17
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    758
    ps. Conroe ETA is July. FX will be facing Conroe and will be doing so for five to six months.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •