×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel's Conroe Previewed and Benchmarked

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the under-the-hood dept.

261

DrFishstik writes "Anandtech has a few preliminary benchmarks on Intel's new Conroe architecture. From the article: 'As far as we could tell, there was nothing fishy going on with the benchmarks or the install. Both systems [AMD 2.8Ghz OC and Conroe] were clean and used the latest versions of all of the drivers.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

261 comments

Shock news. (4, Insightful)

supersnail (106701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873876)

Next years Intel chip will run faster than last years AMD chip!

Re:Shock news. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873996)

Not really. You should have said: "this year's second fastest Intel chip will be way faster than AMD's chip which will be released in June 2006".

Let's look at the facts:
- They benchmarked 2.667GHz Conroe against 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX (FX-60 with 200MHz overclock)
- 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX will be released in June
- 2.667GHz Conroe will be released somewhere in Q3 2006
- Conroe Extreme editition clocked to at least 3.0GHz will be released somewhere in Q3 2006 (there have been rumours about 3.33GHz version)

Based on those benchmarks, fastest Athlon64 FX won't have a chance against 3.0GHz Conroe XE (which will have also faster FSB compared to Conroe benchmarked here), even if you into account that Athlon64 FX will soon support DDR2.

Re:Shock news. (5, Insightful)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874017)

THe simple fact remains that intel needed to do these tests at all, side by side. That's an admission on their part that AMD is beating them and beating them hard. I've heard AMD has some new stuff in the pipeline that'll put conroe out of its misery once and for all.

Given Intel's release date fiasco's it'll probably come out before conroe too.

Re:Shock news. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874120)

I also think AMD is the best. We have a lot in common. Let's be gay together.

Re:Shock news. (3, Funny)

supersnail (106701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874039)

Mmmm your right -- but how often do you get a first post oppertunity!
Check the facts and you lose it.

Re:Why the 200mhz OC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874217)

What's the point of OC'ing FX for that test? Maybe it wouldn't have made a big difference in numbers but showing higher clocked AMD proc get beaten by lower clocked Intel is big. I say rigged or at least tuned test to underline the speed difference with all they (Intel) could.

Re:Shock news. (3, Insightful)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874287)

Let's look at the facts:
- They benchmarked 2.667GHz Conroe against 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX (FX-60 with 200MHz overclock)


So they are taking the AMD processor out of spec which can affect performance. Also, the forthcoming AMD processors are a new core architecture and will support faster RAM with an onboard memory controller. I think benchmarks of the final products will be much different. This is the same type of dog and pony show Intel has been doing since they released the Celeron (and possibly before, but that is when I started paying attention to hardware marketing).

- 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX will be released in June
- 2.667GHz Conroe will be released somewhere in Q3 2006
- Conroe Extreme editition clocked to at least 3.0GHz will be released somewhere in Q3 2006 (there have been rumours about 3.33GHz version)


If you think those numbers mean anything, I would like to know what cave you have been living in for the past 3 years.

Re:Shock news. (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874369)

Also, the forthcoming AMD processors are a new core architecture and will support faster RAM with an onboard memory controller.
The review did address that, as best they could:
While we're still comparing to Socket-939 and only using RD480, it does seem very unlikely that AMD would be able to make up this much of a deficit with Socket-AM2 and RD580. Especially looking at titles like F.E.A.R. where Conroe's performance advantage averages over 40%, it looks like Intel's confidence has been well placed.
As for your assertion that MHz don't mean anything, that's just wrong. Within a single architecture, speed is nearly proportional to MHz. For a 2.66 GHz Intel to crush a 2.8 GHz AMD so convincingly, does not mean good things for AMD if the Intel can easily reach 3 GHz. It means AMD would have to be at about 3.8 GHz to keep pace: 2.8*(3/2.66)*1.2 = 3.7895 assuming these benchmarks show a 20% lead for Intel.

The real hope for AMD here is that these results won't hold to other benchmarks in general. Apparently this set of benchmarks was handpicked by Intel, so that's almost certainly the case to some degree.

Re:Shock news. (1, Insightful)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874419)

As far as Mhz semi-equating to speed...

Doesn't anyone else recall Intel releasing a faster processor, yet having to have the CPU idle for half of them to keep it from melting down?

Seems to me that we can speculate all you want, yet, in the end, only final numbers will be able to show what's what....

At this point it's all a big phallic comparison, and everyone who jumps on board swinging their own extensions are just blowing smoke up everyone's arses.

Re:Shock news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874344)

They benchmarked against a Athlon 64 X2, not Athlon 64 FX-60....

Re:Shock news. (1)

eshefer (12336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874004)

yup this is what I thought too.. but..

the AMD system was overclocked, and it's confirmed that AMD will not move to a 65nm process untill 2007, so the comparison has a chance of being apt. that is the competition in six months might be between very similar system from AMD and Intel.

Re:Shock news. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874271)

well at least AMD has started taking a lot of market share from Intel, and Intel has been rattled - now we're going to have more healthy competition along the lines of ATI/nVidia , rather than Intel thinking it can do whatever it wants and people will still buy its products (*cough*likeMicrosoft*cough*)

Re:Shock news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874018)

And this Intel chip comes with added hardware DRM built into it.

Re:Shock news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874174)

One thing all sides can be sure of is that this will be the biggest flame war in years.

Re:Shock news. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874198)

Dipshit.

Wait and see (5, Informative)

xming (133344) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873879)

As pointed out by Ars http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060307-6334 .html [arstechnica.com] I think we should wait and see for the more objective benchmarks. Anyway 2006 will be a good year for CPUs

Re:Wait and see (5, Interesting)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873968)

That ars technica article is denial at its best.
"intel faster? CANNOT BE!!!111"
Sorry, i am as much an AMD fanboy as anybody (hey, their stock financed the car i am driving right now), but besides dual core and adapting sse2/3, VERY little has been done to beef up the aging k8 core (which is byitself also little more than a k7 with on die memory controller).
In a race, standing still will only lead to a loss.

Amd just now is in a position where their flagship is in fact a 7 year old core design, they are one die-shrink behind, and their cache technology is about 4 years behind intel (they need twice as much space per Mbyte cache on the same process size, plus are a factor of 4 slower).

Its time for a _real_ K9 just in the same way intel needed something new after netburst.

Re:Wait and see (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874020)

And Intel's new chips are based on the Pentium-M, which is still heavily based on the Pentium-PRO that dates from the early 90s...
Intel's attempt to produce a new architecture (netburst/p4) resulted in an underperforming overheating mess, so they're going back to one that works.

Re:Wait and see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874356)

It's really pathetic when a grossly inaccurate oversimplification gets scored 5 just because it somehow reinforces AMD fanboy delusions.

Re:Wait and see (2, Informative)

acidblood (247709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874433)

And Intel's new chips are based on the Pentium-M, which is still heavily based on the Pentium-PRO that dates from the early 90s...

Never mind that the AMD K7 was a carbon copys of the P6 microarchitecture, with incremental tweaks most probably applied to account for P6 shortcomings found in the field. That's an euphemism for `AMD stole Intel's field experience.' The K8 core is only an incremental tweak of K7, the major feature being the on-die memory controller.

So really, AMD can't blame Intel for using P6-derived cores since they're doing the same (not to mention the ethics of stealing a competitor's design). Also, their incremental tweaks aren't really that significant -- process technology changes account for the larger share of performance increase.

Intel tried to raise the bar with the P4 designs, applying some risky design features like hyperpipelined design, and unfortunately the strategy didn't work out all that well, in no small part due to power issues. Moreover they had to endure fanboy cries of `designed by marketing!', but that's the price one pays for exploring new ground in computer architecture. Meanwhile AMD will be content to follow on Intel's successful footsteps as they've always done.

I'm sorry if that's not a fashionable opinion in Slashdot groupthink, but there you go.

Re:Wait and see (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874434)

You don't know what you are talking about.

Re:Wait and see (0, Flamebait)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874040)

That ars technica article is denial at its best. "intel faster? CANNOT BE!!!111"

I suggest you RTFA before that kind of statements, the Anandtech article can be summarized as "Intel's chip beat the crap out of AMD's, and even though we're going to wait til we can do our own benches we didn't find anything that could lead to thinking the testing rigs were tampered with. Conclusion, even the M2 socket probably won't be enough for AMD to keep the lead".

Re:Wait and see (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874255)

I R'd TFA and that's exactly how the Ars editorial came across. What the writer seems to ignore is the F.E.A.R. benchmark that Anandtech ran. It used their own demo instead of an Intel provided one (like the other benches) and it still trounced the AMD chip.

I agree that we should wait and see until truly independent benchmarks are done, but I don't see a reason to be as dismissive as the Ars writer.

Re:Wait and see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874303)

Umm, I suggest you RTFC (comment), as the grandparent was in fact referring to a link posted in another comment to arstechnica [arstechnica.com], not the original anandtech [anandtech.com] article.

Re:Wait and see (5, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874225)

The K8 core is as similar to the K7 core as the conroe core is to a PIII core.

I.e., at first glance there are similarities which can lead to the obvious thought that the K8 core is just a K7 core with memory controller, but actually they're completely revamped, overhauled, enhanced and redone.

I agree that it is time for AMD to get a "K9" out of the door as the K8 as it is won't compete against Intel's offerings unless AMD somehow get 3.6GHz out of 65nm at launch (which is extremely unlikely). Of course, K8L will probably put AMD back into the lead in terms of floating point anyway, but integer is going to be very weak.

Unless AMD is sandbagging - but that's a faint hope for even the most ardent AMD fanboy. I think they miscalculated Intel this time around.

Which of AMD or Intel has the most fangirls?

Re:Wait and see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874295)

Learn to read, you halfwit.

Isn't that highly dangerous?? (5, Funny)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874312)

their stock financed the car i am driving right now

Man, there's gotta be some pretty heavy laws about posting on Slashdot while in control of a moving vehicle.

Re:Wait and see (2, Informative)

adsl (595429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874366)

Here's a thought and a question: It seems top me that Intel's "new" platform CPU design can be used across most sectors. i.e. Laptops, PCs and Servers at 65 nanos. They also admit that it's as cheap to produce in dual core as the Pentium single core is at 90 nanos. So here we have excellent computing power, great power saving and MASSIVE cost savings in production. Conclusion and question: Given the above will this give Intel, what looks like, a huge price advantage in terms of production and enable them to realise much greater margins than ever? This of course would enable them to underprice anything AMD could offer..... If so, for the consumer it looks like second half 2006 will be a great time to build/buy a new PC.

Re:Wait and see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874371)

Anyway 2006 will be a good year for CPUs

I've been using PCs for about 18 years now and I have to ask... how the hell does anyone keep up with all these processors? My last PC purchase was an AMD Athlon XP 2400+ which was roughly like an Intel P4 2.4GHz CPU, but since then the whole thing has become immensely confusing. If you can even follow all the CPU code names you might be able to figure out why one Athlon clocked lower than another Athlon is actually faster, or what the hell the difference is between an Extreme Edition CPU and a dual core or why an FX2 AMD CPU is faster than a non-FX2 CPU... how the hell do you guys follow all this anymore? To upgrade my computer I'd need to spend several weeks relearning CPU architectures just to figure out what the hell is current. Apparently a 1.67GHz "Core" CPU is faster than a 3.6GHz P4 for example. Why even bother putting down the hertz rating at all anymore? Just assign it a production number with newer/faster CPUs getting a higher number.

/old fogey

Re:Wait and see (faked tests) (5, Insightful)

FirstOne (193462) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874375)

Something isn't right, from the screenshot [anandtech.com].


..Using an award bios last copyrighted in 2003 for AMD's latest FX-60 chip (2006)..
..Notice how the AMD Processor isn't correctly id'd in the Bios post.
..Even though.. DFI has distributed a new bios version to suport FX60 [dfi.com.tw]..

.. This thread [rage3d.com]indicates that there is some video defect in RD480 chipset..

These red flags indicate that something is very fishy and Intel's results should not be trusted... (rigged test)

The Conclusion (2, Insightful)

mtenhagen (450608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873889)

The conclusion from the article:

While we're still comparing to Socket-939 and only using RD480, it does seem very unlikely that AMD would be able to make up this much of a deficit with Socket-AM2 and RD580. Especially looking at titles like F.E.A.R. where Conroe's performance advantage averages over 40%, it looks like Intel's confidence has been well placed.

Also keep in mind that we are over six months away from the actual launch of Conroe, performance can go up from where it is today. We also only looked at the 2.66GHz part, the Extreme Edition version of Conroe will most likely be clocked around 3.0GHz which will extend the performance advantage even further.

AMD still does have some time to surprise us with AM2, but from what we've seen today, they are going to have to do a lot of work to close this gap. We saw performance today in the two areas that we were most concerned about with Conroe: gaming and media encoding, and in both Intel greatly exceeded our expectations. Also remember that Conroe should be lower power than the AMD offering we compared it to, although we weren't able to measure power consumption at the wall in our brief time with the systems.

Going into IDF we expected to see a good showing from Conroe, but leaving IDF, well, now we just can't wait to have it.

More from the show as we get it...

Re:The Conclusion (0, Flamebait)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873924)

I think the fact intel had to put two systems side by side to try "proving" they're faster shows their desperation. That kind of standoff where the intel can't perform just by itself without trying to compare to competition smacks of gimmickry over performance. AMD Still in the end wipes the floor with Intel and I'll bet real world benchmarks will show that yet again.

Looks like another big yawn for Intel's next generation.

Re:The Conclusion (4, Insightful)

mtenhagen (450608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873931)

Well the "new" intels are faster then the "old" amd's. This not suprising Intel has plenty of cash and had to come out with a cpu faster then amd.

The big question will be how will this compare to the next generation of AMD cpu's. And what will the price be. If amd will be faster per dollar the rise of amd will continue.

Re:The Conclusion (1)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873941)

Well the "new" intels are faster then the "old" amd's. This not suprising Intel has plenty of cash and had to come out with a cpu faster then amd.

The big question will be how will this compare to the next generation of AMD cpu's. And what will the price be. If amd will be faster per dollar the rise of amd will continue.


I've heard AMD's next generation will keep up the same improvements where AMD slaughter Intel and it looks like by the time this new intel is out, AMD should already be well and truly released. probably also embedding themselves more in Dell's good books and taking more than 80% of the market. Intel are fighting the loosing battle.

Just goes to show all the trickery in the world won't help a company that can't really "innovate". I'm surprised a sight like Anandtech didn't see it.

Re:The Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873976)

These stories are like a broken record. Year after year it's the same old story.

And then reality hits for the clowns at Intel:

1) The chip will be delayed

2) The chip will run slower in realworld benchmarks

3) The chip will run hotter in realworld situations

4) Intel will continue to 'tweak' their marketing compiler to generate even higher SPEC scores

Same old, same old from Intel.

Not that I care...I'm running a quad-970 system at home and get to work on Cell stuff at work. Bwahahahahaha....

Re:The Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874142)

What short memory we all have. Wasn't that long ago that Intel was always better than AMD. But all the geek boys here feel empowered, much like a sports fan, by thumping their chests and proclaiming how smart they are via bizzare brand loyalty.
How about some useful information instead?

Re:The Conclusion (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874022)

by the time this new intel is out, AMD should already be well and truly released. probably also embedding themselves more in Dell's good books and taking more than 80% of the market. Intel are fighting the loosing battle.

1) AMD has something like 20% of the processor market, including OEMs. They couldn't deliver 80% of the market in many years even if the market wanted it.
2) AMD has no major process/architecture shifts between now and Conroe's release.
3) The AMD chip was already overclocked (but then again, they may have gotten a golden sample from Intel).
4) It's losing, not loosing.

Re:The Conclusion (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874047)

^ AMD fans are not members of the "reality based community". Most of them just want to go online and buy some super cheap $60 CPU while convincing themselves they are getting the cadillac of processors. Even when P4 Northwood was pounding the K7, they were still taking the same old jive shit about price/performance or whatever.

Sure, the Opteron is well regarded server and workstation CPU, with slightly better performance than Xeon sysstems. But you can be assured that the people flaming Intel in these stories are limping along with some bashed together duron kit or a discontinued A64 running on a 3 year old mobo design and are entirely irrelevant to market for high-end AFX and Conroe EE systems.

Re:The Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874183)

Do you feel better now?

(Slashdot ignorance is prospering)

Prices (2, Informative)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874277)

According to this [amd.com], the Athlon FX60 was released in Jan '06 at a price of US$1031, in 1000-unit quantities. The next FX-series chip (the 2.8GHz version) will probably debut around June, at somewhere near this price.

According to this [dailytech.com], the 2.66 GHz Conroe will be released in Q3'06 at a price of US$530, in 1000-unit quantities.

With these prices, combined with the apparent performance and power differences (Conroe has a predicted TDP of 65W, compared to the FX60 at 110W), it looks to me like we'll finally see some heavy competition from Intel. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then - Intel have had manufacturing issues in the past, AMD have a new memory controller on the way and a 65nm die shrink due early next year, and can probably squeeze out two or even three speed bumps before Conroe really hits. Who knows, they might even drop their prices a bit.

Come Q3, I'll be sitting in the ringside seats with popcorn, ready to watch the fun :-)

Re:The Conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874243)

And if Intel didn't benchmark against AMD's chips, you'd just say Intel where too scared cos they knew they'd get owned, right? You're ability to twist reality to fit your deluded beliefes is actually quite scary.

Re:The Conclusion (1)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874102)

Going into IDF we expected to see a good showing from Conroe, but leaving IDF, well, now we just can't wait to have it.

Nice that this is a horse race now. Should be very good for competition going forward. Might also be a spot to short AMD and go long INTC coming up... ;-)

It also looks like Jobs made a genius move picking this point in time to go with Intel. He must have hated Netbust too. I can't wait to see the new MacMacs! (Intel PowerMacs, eh?)

Re:The Conclusion (1, Interesting)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874283)

The big question is going to be is when Intel makes a chip that runs fast AND runs cool. The Conroe is still as big of space heater as the older chips are. The AMDs are just a bit slower in everyday apps (90% of the users are not gamers and don't care about FPS) but it's a hell of a lot cooler. HEAT matters to those who run data centers.

A better competetion (5, Interesting)

poeidon1 (767457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873892)

With AMD taking the performance lead now and Intel gearing up for getting the top performer position again, I think we are going to see nicer battles now, much nicer than the GHz ones with AMD now much better in its market position and its new fabs.

Re:A better competetion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873919)

Kind of makes you wish we had such competition on the OS side. Imagine a world with a roughly equal percent of Windows, Linux, OSX, BSD,... machines. Oh, the innovation we would see...

Re:A better competetion (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873995)

> Imagine a world with a roughly equal percent of Windows, Linux, OSX, BSD,... machines.

Imagine a world where 98% of software is written Java for portability.

Re:A better competetion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874139)

Ieeeeeiiieeee! The tentacles!

Re:A better competetion (2, Interesting)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874181)

Imagine a world where 98% of software is written Java for portability.

At one point, not that long ago, I agreed 100% with this thinking. I was still drinking the "Java will have C performance" Koolaid from Sun.

I'm now of the opinion that the "managed" languages are a short-term abberation, unless they adopt an ANDF type "freeze" approach. That is where the bytecodes are pre-compiled once into machine code, just like a traditional compiler. I'm also not happy with where Java is at as a language after 10 years of evolution. No operator overloading, feh.

Lately I've been looking at D [digitalmars.com] and Dylan [opendylan.org] for some projects. Both are quite advanced compared to Java, just as portable, and from what I've seen so far both outperform it in many areas. Game and HPC programmers could really use a better language than FORTRAN/C/C++, and Java will never be it, IMO. D seems the more pragmatic of the two, while Dylan looks "better" from a pure language perspective.

If the new processor performance metric (as touted by Intel) is "performance per watt", someone should take a hard look at Java and .Net performance compared with the top compiled languages. Dylan or D would work fine as "server side" web development languages.

Re:A better competetion (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874342)

I'm now of the opinion that the "managed" languages are a short-term abberation, unless they adopt an ANDF type "freeze" approach. That is where the bytecodes are pre-compiled once into machine code, just like a traditional compiler.

.Net is at least capable of doing this, and it does give a decent performance improvement. Personally I think it should overtake the JVM - more emphasis on choice of languages (of which java is one), and it seems to be generally improved.

AMD Processor Model Unknown (4, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873907)

Did anyone else notice that the AMD motherboard didn't detect the processor correctly?

Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873949)

The AMD was being overclocked to make things a little more fair.

Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (5, Insightful)

Malenfrant (781088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14873998)

Yes, exactly. They tested it against a chip which is not listed as being as fast, overclocked so they can pretend it is as fast. Big surprise it didn't perform as well

Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (5, Informative)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874042)

The AMD was overclocked to the timings of the one that won't officially be released until June - unsurprisingly, AMD won't let them have a pre-production chip to demonstrate how their one is even faster.

Processor affinity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873915)

Does Windows have any processor affinity settings that could have been "rigged", or does the cache type between Intel's Dual Core CPUs and AMD's Dual Core CPUs differ(shared vs unique?)?

Fuck You Jobs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873930)

Fuck you for being such a fucking ass to IBM they dumped your ass last year. And now this is the garbage we Mac users are faced with.

Just fucking kill off the Mac hardware and stick to iPods. Just get it over with. I don't think I can stomach another Jobs BS fest where he demos another Intel chip "with really high SPEC score(tm)"

Who staged This? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873952)

And as you'll notice Intel Staged the test so it will be interested to see what a Third party test will learn when the do a comparison, along with the new AMD processors, not ones that are already months old.

Weird Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14873965)

'As far as we could tell, there was nothing fishy going on with the benchmarks or the install. Both systems [AMD 2.8Ghz OC and Conroe] were clean and used the latest versions of all of the drivers.'

This summary is really weird, until you rtfa and realize that the numbers are provided by Intel themselves supplied the hardware and possible even ran the tests (hard to tell exactly from the article. The submitter could have had a more meaningful summary, or were they afraid that stating the Intel connection from the get-go would bias /. readers (like that would happen, right?)

What about RAM? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874009)

The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings, while the Intel system used 1GB of DDR2-667 running at 4-4-4.

and:

Intel told us to expect an average performance advantage of around 20% across all benchmarks.

Did they really expect around 20% better performance, while using 66% faster RAM? That seems at least unfair to me... Especially the encoding tests, whose results depend heavily on RAM access.

Typical AMD fanboy rant (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874030)

Did they really expect around 20% better performance, while using 66% faster RAM? That seems at least unfair to me... Especially the encoding tests, whose results depend heavily on RAM access.

If you read the various benchmarks over the years, changing memory architecture or increasing it's speed directly does very little to increase most benchmarks more than a percentage point or two. Inceasing FSB also hasn't done much. Rather increases in processor performance are directly responsible for the disparity between the new Intel cpus coming.

Re:Typical AMD fanboy rant (1)

liliafan (454080) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874238)

Additionally it is a fair test, they are using supported technologies, in the real world people are more likely to use this configuration for their systems if you can use fast RAM you will. If AMD want to take advantage of this they need to support the technology.

Please note I am a fan of AMD I have been using their processors since the k62 400mhz, but I do believe benchmarks should take full advantage of all supported technologies.

Re:What about RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874361)

Mod parent up. The different memory systems skew the results a lot. That kind of artificial benchmarks are entirely meaningless and only show that some PR department is spending a lot on "journalism". With monopoly profits that can be done, but let's hope it will not last long.
 
On the other hand I'm a strong believer in competition and I know for sure that consumers will suffer a lot without AMD on the market. This is a perfectly rational and tremendously important reason to support the underdog. The superior tech of AMD makes it easy and stupid articles like this only reinforce the point. Oh, well, Turion, here I come...
 

Nothing to see here, move along... (-1, Troll)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874029)

Wow, so an group of benchmarks chosen by Intel show that their next generation chip is faster that their competitors current generation chip? Big f@#$ing surprise there.

Call me when there's a third party benchmark of same generation chips.

Latest chips, latest games & instant obsolesce (2, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874036)

Since you need a really high-end PC to play most new games these days, most people will miss out on the new titles and technology. The new dual-core technology is outpacing most users purchasing power and the ability to even play the game on its lowest graphics settings.

A year or two after people spend an avg. of $1000+ for a new system, most are not going to run out and buy the latest dual core chip and ATI/NVidia video card just to play the latest new game (Quake 4, Far Cry, F.E.A.R., etc.) and then keep doing that year after year.

They need to make it so the games can be played (with the lowest settings) on any system with chips from the past 5 years IMHO. Then everyone can enjoy the game, some more detailed than others. At this point, it is just better to buy an XBOX or PS2 and just buy games that they know they can play without constantly upgrading your system.

Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (2, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874075)

I got a cheapy 64 bit sempron system with crappy onboard 6100 nVidia graphics card (theres an empty pci-e slot available for the summer)

I held off playing half life 2 because I didn't think it would run (I had a 5900 agp previously than ran it really well)

I am running now at 800*600 with full details enabled and 2x AA and I've only noticed one point where it even shudders (the chimney blowing up and falling whilst in the airboat), if anything its smoother on this card than before, and the shaders are tonnes better (water, and nobbly glass doorways especially).
The only thing I'm missing is the ability to go to super resolution, but considering what I have gained I'm willing to wait.

I was very pleasantly surprised :)

Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (2, Interesting)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874108)

I have an athlon xp1500+ with a geforce fx5200 and 512MBs of RAM and i can play anything on the market as long as i turn the settings down to "my computer is a retard" levels.

even games that say they require faster CPUs dont.

Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (1)

miscz (888242) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874118)

The fact that new games have very high demands isn't not the thing that bugs me the most. I'm more angry with the fact that new games on lowest details look worse than Pong. :\

Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874171)

I guess what I was trying to say that most people can not afford to keep upgrading their PCs just to play the latest cool game (me included.)

I am all in favor of new tech, just don't forget the people who like new games, but may have old tech.

Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874427)

New motherboard/CPU/RAM every 4 years (keep the old monitor, mouse, etc), say $250. Upgrade the graphics card every 2 years (probably overkill), $100. $90 a year, the cost of 3 games - and if you don't buy 3+ games a year why upgrade anyway?
Buy not-quite-bottom end stuff, you get the best bang-for-buck and you'll be able to play anything on the market. I'm using an athlonXP 2600+ and it's still comfortably able to play anything that's around, I figure I'll do my next CPU swap when dual-core AMD gets below $120 - I might be able to use the same DDR400 RAM too, saving more cash.

Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (1)

het3 (68871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874313)

Game developers are mostly still supporting GeForce MX cards on the low end, because there's only fifty squillion of them still out there. The upper end creeps ever upward, but the baseline for most games is still very, very reasonable. It's the best of all worlds.

Nice to see a manufacturer take their time! (2, Interesting)

brucmack (572780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874041)

The thing I like the most about where Intel is going is that they really seem to be taking the time to do it right. They have been doing exactly the opposite for the past couple of years... Prescott was released with many good ideas that were just never put together in a way that gave a good final product. Then the Intel dual core chips were just two single core chips pasted together, not even sharing the cache... again, it just seemed like a "let's just get it out the door" solution.

Video cards are even worse, with the shorter dev cycles. How many times have we seen a manufacturer put out a video card that is essentially the same as their last model, but with a ridiculous overclock and cooling solution. It's not innovation, and spending the time to develop properly would put us as a technological society further ahead a year from now.

But Intel's really taken their time with this, and hopefully they will have gotten their 65 nm yield issues worked out by the time they want to ramp up production. Hopefully AMD will follow suit and give us some great innovation in 2007!

Price? (0, Troll)

insane_machine (952012) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874065)

I admit I didn't read TFA, but even if Intel does have the better processor. Most people would love to have either of these processors, though they do not have over $1000 to blow on it. In the more affordable range, AMD is still kicking tail.

Retard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874244)

The prices will eventually go fucking down. Suck it.

What about cost, ram cost, power, and heat? (2, Insightful)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874077)

There is a lot more to picking a processor than just how fast it runs. Personally, I have more bottlenecks with I/O (as I've said before) than I do with video or processor performance.

Of importance to me in addition to raw speed are are the number of concurrent threads, the power consumption and with that the heat output I have to dissapate into my office or my lap, and of course the expense of both the processor and the ram it needs to get these kinds of speeds.

Frankly, I'm looking for which allows me to build the most efficient system for my needs at the least cost.

COnRoE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874087)

Any connection? :)

TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (5, Insightful)

Alsee (515537) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874119)

Code-named Conroe... blah blah blah ...feature "security" is expected to be discussed in the framework of a technology that is based on standards set by the Trusted Computing Group and carries the code-name "LaGrande." [tgdaily.com]

Intel's new chips have a Trust Enforcer chip embedded inside the CPU itself. Each chip features a unique serial number, DRM enforcement, Sealed Storage to prohibit you from reading your own files on your hard drive, and Remote Attestation to act as a spy on your computer to log your hardware and what software you run and to securely transmit that spy report to other people over the internet. The chip has your computer's master key locked inside, and you are forbidden to know your master key to control your own computer. Other models of the Trust chip are boobytrapped to self destruct if you attempt to get you key out, and I'd wager these CPUs are boobytrapped to self destruct as well.

Evil as hell.

-

Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874242)

Maybe it is time to ask that AMD gets out of the Trusted alliance before their chips are like that?

Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (1)

ingsocsoc (807544) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874247)

Remember when we were pissed off about the Processor Serial Number on Pentium III's? Those were the days :)

Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (2, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874252)

We have been waiting for details on LaGrande for several years and according to Chapman, we will have to continue to wait and should not hope for much information on this technology this time around. This is somewhat surprising, especially if one considers the Apple-Intel deal - in which LaGrande appears to play a key part as technology that prevents MacOS to run on any PC.

They don't seem all that keen to talk about it either......... As Alan Cox said, if you don't have the key to your own hardware then it's not about security. I see stormy waters ahead...

Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874350)

So... let's take the headcount:

1) Non-geeks who'll buy a new PC not caring and/or approving of whatever "security features" the salesmen told them about.
2) Geeks who'll just bite the bullet and run TCPA/Windows anyway.
3) Geeks who'll be on the TCPA/OS X-x86 platform.
4) Geeks that'll use Linux or turn off TCPA, but will still want new and faster processors.
5) Geeks who won't buy the 'evil as hell' processor.

Oh yeah, Intel is doomed now.

4) is the final nail in the coffin. It's like trying to stop people from buying an iPod which they plan to fill up with their CD collection, because it could also play DRM-protected AACs. That battle is already lost. It only remains to see what content will succeed at DRM, and which will be rejected by the consumers. I'm not too hopeful...

Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874381)

There's surprisingly little discussion of this... I remember, about 8 years ago, hearing an Intel engineer talking about how the next step in security was going to be ensuring that a PC was secure against its owner -- along with his updates on such things as encryption from end-to-end with media. I said at the time that what Intel was planning was nothing less than a total lockdown of the previously open PC platform.

And here we are... the final step. With this hardware in a PC, it does not belong to you... you have paid for a car with the bonnet welded shut and no keys.

It's important for everyone to realise just what an enormous amount of control this hardware gives to technology companies... in simple terms: your PC will be nothing more than a set-top box. Technology companies are furiously spinning this as improved security... which is not entirely wrong. This hardware does have security benefits... but as things stand, *YOU*, the person who paid money for the machine, are not in control of it. As others have noted, trusted computing is about them not trusting you -- and not about you trusting your machine. On the contrary, the only thing you can trust is that machines with this hardware are not working for you. Hence the strong link with DRM -- this hardware will enforce DRM on a PC, not to mention allow companies to make any FOSS proprietary (see the discussions about the GPL v3 for examples). Indeed, the TCPA system was designed in conjuction with the RIAA and the MPAA. It's supported by all the technology companies. And don't think that Linux distributors are against it either -- Red Hat is busy working with IBM to produce a TCPA version of Linux... software that cannot be modified by you and continue to work as it did. How about Gstreamer - the media framework used in GNOME? the company behind that has developers who are actively welcoming the introduction of signed Linux kernels (yes, Christian Schaller, I'm talking about you) that will ensure that media is never intercepted and stored... but which will also no longer function if you modify them, or even recompile them yourself. Source code means little in a Trusted Computing world, all that matters is who digitally signed the binary... and this hardware will enforce that. Companies like Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Fluendo etc can all effectively take ownership of FOSS code. Remember: DRM is all about applications. To control data, you must control what applications can access it. DRM is about apps, not data.

You are going to have to fight for your rights on this one. Apple users have rolled over and accepted the introduction of a TPM into the new Intel-based Macs... but then, they can never be relied on to say anything critical of Apple, even when they are being lied to and sold a lemon. They are quite happy to accept this. I would hope the PC crowd is different. Read Professor Ross Anderson's TCPA FAQ [cam.ac.uk]. Read Seth Schoen's updates on what Microsoft is planning to do with this hardware -- if that doesn't scare you, nothing will. Join things like the EFF's push to ensure that the hardware you pay good money for works for you [eff.org], and not Intel/Microsoft and Hollywood. Do not assume that "someone will hack it"... this stuff is not your average dumbass security measure. Educate yourself before its too late and this technology, in its present form, becomes ubiquitous. Support the push to ensure that you, as the owner, have access to the master key... and some method of owner override. Otherwise, in five years, there will be a big brother in every single PC and no way of escaping it.

The problem with buying a new processor (3, Insightful)

InsaneLampshade (890845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874141)

This is the problem i have with deciding on which processor i want to buy for my new computer...

I keep reading all these benchmarks, but then i hear afterwards "Oh, if you think that's good, just wait and see what so-and-so is comming out with next year!", so i think, oh, ok, i'll just wait for that then. Then when the new processor gets benchmarked i just hear the same thing over again.

And so... i don't think i'll ever buy a new processor... i'm always waiting for the next version. :(

Re:The problem with buying a new processor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874209)

No my poor friend. You are just reading reviews on the wrong sites. Here [atomchip.com] is the laptop you are dreaming about. Previously covered on slashdot [slashdot.org] also. Leave these AMD and Intel Fanboy fools to drool over their new 'petty innovations'... :)

I think it's a bit early for benchmarks... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874143)

Lets actually see the processor released before we crown it the new champion. After all, I still haven't seen a 4GHz Prescott [theregister.co.uk] that they demonstrated.

FPS are GPU dependant. (1, Insightful)

Tei (520358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874179)

Often on videogames the limiter is the GPU, not the CPU.
Changes on CPU affect litte to nothing on FPS.

But maybe this will change?

If your game or engine required intense collision calculations, of phisic simulations. And this stuff its mostly poorly code with scripts. Or you need to compress/uncompress on-the-fly textures or sound. You will need that CPU horsepower.

Its also interesting how different RAM types and quantity of L1 cache affect this beckmarks. I think the information provides its too litte to really know anithing about the combo new games with new hardware.

Next gen Amd (2, Interesting)

neuromancer2701 (875843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874182)

I have a couple of question? To my knowledge the M2 AMDs are just the old 939s with the DDR controller changed to a DDR2 controller, so unless there is a massive improvement in memory management they can improve that much. I think the big change is going to happen when 1206 LGA comes out. I don't have any idea how much putting the PCIe bus in the processor will do but is got to be great for games. I don't understand why they had to do the 940 socket again they should have just jumped to 1206 but I guess they could not get that out in time. Does anyone know when the 1206 is supposed to come out? I think the Opteron is supposed to come early then the Athlon 64.


I need to upgrade my machine I am still running a socket A but at least it runs WoW. I will probably get a 939 when the 940 comes, hopefully that will be cheaper.

Re:Next gen Amd (1)

n00tz (926304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874302)

You're not the only one in that boat. My 3200+ is the weakest link in WoW now. When it's loading the instances or the world after I return from an instance... the CPU is put to full test. A recent upgrade to memory handed the baton to the CPU. I'm hoping on a good tax return this year.. New CPU/Mobo/VC and I'm seriously thinking about the 4400+ X2 Dual Core.

impressive benchmarks (4, Insightful)

bleughbleugh (957216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874201)

yep, impressive, BUT, more important than benchmarks for most Bang per buck by that I mean, if the AMD processor is 50% less than the Intel one, but only 20% slower, AMD will win it for me :-)

Faster, Cooler, Smaller, but (1)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874205)

What good is it, if I can't play copies of my DVDs, MP3s and games on it? Will it even let me install whatever OS I want on it? Don't get me wrong, I love to have 20%+ performance boost, but I don't love it that much.

Give me freedom or Give me 486 (so I can run Slack on it)!

Is it 64-bit? (1, Troll)

MWales (686969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874235)

I haven't read anywhere if it implements the 64-bit extensions, and obviously haven't heard anything about the 64-bit performance. And I _do_ care since I'm already running Fedora Core 4 x86_64 on an Athlon64 3200+.

RAM settings.... (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874276)

Am I the only one who noticed that the FSB speed on the AMD wasn't mentioned, and that the RAM settings were 2-2-2/1 for AMD and 4-4-4 for the Intel?
Call me cynical, but I would think that they could have found 2 boards somewhere that would have let them use the same RAM and FSB settings.

How many cores? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14874347)

The Conroe comes in a quad core package as well as dual core. They never mentioned which one they were comparing to.

So what (1)

octopus72 (936841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14874383)

Those chips aren't on the market (not even in 6 months) so it's very much vaporware. But if AMD won't be able to match intels performance, they will have to drop prices of their current generation CPUs and I'm looking forward to that (because cheap athlon xp's were best buy few years ago)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...