Beta
×

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!

Previewing the Performance of the Intel Conroe

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the speedy-little-chip dept.

114

pirate rtt writes "bit-tech has spent some time with an Intel Conroe system and has published a preview of its performance as compared to the current Intel flagship chip - the Presler 965. From the article: 'Core 2 Duo is clearly a very capable processor. We found that it was faster than the current 965 processor in most situations on the desktop, and far more proficient at gaming - an area where Intel has traditionally been weak. The added memory bandwidth that will come from having faster RAM enabled on the Core 2 Extreme chips will be an extra bonus for those looking to Conroe as a gaming platform.'"

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait for v2 (5, Funny)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467625)

Core 2 Duo is clearly a very capable processor

Version 1 of anything always sucks. I'm waiting for the Core 2 Duo II v2 Second Edition.

Re:Wait for v2 (2, Funny)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467642)

Oh... and Second Post!

Re:Wait for v2 (1, Interesting)

iezhy (623955) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467654)

shortly after relase of core duo, there was an article going around, which outlined that chip has over 30 bugs, and Intel is planning to fix only few of them...

Re:Wait for v2 (1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467698)

Do you have a link? Sounds interesting...

This is what I found by using Google:

http://www.geek.com/images/geeknews/2006Jan/core_d uo_errata__2006_01_21__full.gif [geek.com]

By the second one listed it says 'Could be exploited by a virus'. Interesting! I haven't yet heard of a virus which exploits a bug in the processor to infect systems. Some of the are marked 'Potentially Catastropihc'. I wonder what the list would look like if you made it for other processors. Most of the errors look like they will never happen in practice though.

Re:Wait for v2 (1)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468552)

Every round of processors has some sort of potentially catastrophic bug. Hyperthreading has an issue where if you fool the scheduler right you can get elevated privledges, back in the early Pentium 2/Celeron days there was flashable microcode that a virus could use to basically wipe the proc clean, and most critical to real life there was an issue in the early rounds of Pentiums (I believe; Intel proc around that time) where there was a known error in the lookup table used for division (ie, a divide on a specific pair of operands yielded the wrong value).

Most processor bugs are potentially very dangerous, but the circumstances to exploit them are exceedingly difficult to pull off. Computers are complicated machines, and regression tests against every possible state is pretty much impossible.

Re:Wait for v2 (5, Informative)

Crussy (954015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467705)

This has been brought up many times. Every chip has a sheet of bugs and the core duo is no exception. Though if you had actually read the sheet you'd notice that almost all of the bugs were found during intel testing and most involved extremely rare scenarios. The amount of bugs reported show only that intel is conducting serious testing. As for not fixing the bugs, do you think AMD is fixing all of the bugs its processors have? http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf [amd.com] There are a number of bugs still in amd processors and even a few are not planned to be fixed. However this is really negligible concern to anyone.

Re:Wait for v2 (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467707)

You probably missed the fact that every single chip has bugs, AMD's A64 have 'bout as many bugs as the Core Duos, and the bugs that aren't fixed in silicium are the ones around which workarounds exist (usually in microcode, so that devs don't even realise there is a bug in the silicium in the first place).

every chip has bugs (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467722)

Every non-trivial chip has errata.

They get fixed in microcode, or they're published in the errata of the chip so OS developers can work around them. Bugs that end up visible to userspace are very rare indeed.

Re:Wait for v2 (2, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467743)

All modern cpus have bugs. It is common practice to work around them in the compiler rather than retape the chip, an expensive and time consuming process.

Here's a link listing some of the errata known for Athlon processors (counting up to at least 154):
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf [amd.com]

Re:Wait for v2 (4, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467988)

"All modern cpus have bugs. It is common practice to work around them in the compiler rather than retape the chip, an expensive and time consuming process."

Nonsense. For compilers do not work around bugs in general purpose chips. If a chip bug can't be worked around by microcode or bios settings, or (in rare circumstances) the operating system, the chip will be binned. Compatibility is king in the general purpose CPU market. Nobody can sell a CPU that crashes on some programs that used to run perfectly well.

Re:Wait for v2 (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468136)

Completely right, my brain meant microcode and compiler came out the fingers. Typing too fast I think.

Re:Wait for v2 (2)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467843)

Gee. ALL chips have bugs. Some are fixed in the microcode* during every boot. Other flaws have to be worked around in the compiler or in the programming stages.

* Funny story. The Asus P4P-800 motherboards for Pentium 4 would not boot Windows XP SP2 because the upgrade from SP1 did not load the processor's corrective microcode before firing up the OS. The BIOS had to be updated before SP2 would boot, otherwise it would hang on a DLL.

Re:Wait for v2 (1)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467687)

"Core 2 Duo: Too duo for you-o". I should be an intel marketing exec!

Re:Wait for v2 (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468997)

Is that the new Capcom chip?

Conroe vs. FX-62 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15467652)

And now for Conroe vs. AMD's Athlon FX-62 (and presler) [hexus.net] .

Yes, the FX-62 does lose... badly in several cases..

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (4, Insightful)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467919)

1) Hexus used Intel's compilers with their synthetic benchmarks. Intel has been known to rig their compilers to ignore post-i486 instructions (SSE, etc) on non-Intel CPUs. This is suppoesd to have been corrected in later Intel compiler releases, but...

2) Some of those benchmarks, like Pifast, likely fit inside the Core 2 Duo's massive L2 cache. Intel uses all that expensive cache to compensate for their lack of on-board memory controllers and HyperTransport.

3) Curious how they chose much lower latency memory for the Intel machine than the AMD. I'm not sure that the higher bandwidth of the AMD PC's memory overcomes its higher latency.

4) Why use 1024x768 res for the FarCry benchmark and 1600x1200 with AA and AF cranked up for theother two games? Games are GPU-limited at hires, so if you wanted to spike the results where AMD is superior...

5) Despite all of that, the AMD FX62 still won the Cryptography benchmark.

6) Why are nearly all of these reviews showing up on websites outside of America? Could it be that Intel wants to keep these reviews out of reach of AMD's American lawyers?

It sure looks like Intel's playing dirty (again). Wake me up when we get reviews done outside of Intel-controlled environments.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468018)

It sure looks like we've still got some AMD fanboys wailing in denial.

Face it. Intel aren't going to be dumb enough to dig themselves into a deep hole so they'll just end up looking stupid when it's released. The chances are that the Core will outperform the Athlon in a similar fashion as predicted. Of course, there will be a handful of areas where the Athlon wins, but don't expect there to be many of them.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468415)

Uh-oh...Brian is upset! Somebody, quick -- call a waaaaambulance!

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468639)

1) Hexus used Intel's compilers with their synthetic benchmarks. Intel has been known to rig their compilers to ignore post-i486 instructions (SSE, etc) on non-Intel CPUs. This is suppoesd to have been corrected in later Intel compiler releases, but...

For which benchmarks do you claim they used special Intel compilers? The only reference in the article is that they used an "Intel HT compiler" for their "HEXUS.in-house MP3 Encoding Benchmark".

2) Some of those benchmarks, like Pifast, likely fit inside the Core 2 Duo's massive L2 cache. Intel uses all that expensive cache to compensate for their lack of on-board memory controllers and HyperTransport.

Noone's interested in Pifast scores. Conroe beating the FX-62 by almost 60% in Far Cry is much more impressing. And using a 65nm process Intel can sell Conroes with 4MB cache for very competitive prices. If you believe the leaked documents on the web a Conroe E6600 will sell for a little over $300 (in quantities of thousand) and should be on a performance level of the best AMD CPU.

3) Curious how they chose much lower latency memory for the Intel machine than the AMD. I'm not sure that the higher bandwidth of the AMD PC's memory overcomes its higher latency.

Even if there was a 5% difference, it wouldn't change the big picture.

4) Why use 1024x768 res for the FarCry benchmark and 1600x1200 with AA and AF cranked up for theother two games? Games are GPU-limited at hires, so if you wanted to spike the results where AMD is superior...

That's an interesting question indeed. But all other Conroe previews suggest that its gaming performance will be stellar.

5) Despite all of that, the AMD FX62 still won the Cryptography benchmark.

The average user doesn't use his CPU for cryptography very much.

6) Why are nearly all of these reviews showing up on websites outside of America? Could it be that Intel wants to keep these reviews out of reach of AMD's American lawyers?

Maybe because Intel makes most of its revenue outside the US?

It sure looks like Intel's playing dirty (again). Wake me up when we get reviews done outside of Intel-controlled environments.

July 23rd is rumored to be the launch date. Until then I'd definitely wait before buying a new CPU. Even if you want to buy an AMD processor, they're will be huge price drops.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (1)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469312)

July 23rd is rumored to be the launch date. Until then I'd definitely wait before buying a new CPU. Even if you want to buy an AMD processor, they're will be huge price drops.

Which is the precise objective of this Intel FUD campaign. They know their current chips are crap, so if they can use these highly controlled "benchmarks" to get people to wait it'll hurt AMD.

Even if Intel does launch the chips on July 23rd, will it be a real launch or a paper launch? How fast will they ramp production of the new chips? Will Apple get the first batch, leaving PC users to wait additional weeks? What with their 64-bit performance be? What will performance under Linux be like? Given that even Dell is starting to hedge their bets, I'm skeptical. Given that Intel is so tightly controlling the benchmarking process I'm REALLY skeptical.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469657)

Will Apple get the first batch, leaving PC users to wait additional weeks?
I sure hope so, if dogmatic whiners like you are in any way representative of the PC user demographic. Choke on beige and die, fratboy.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15470384)

choke on beige and die?
wtf!
beige??
i don't HAVE a case you queer asshole! how hardcore is that!! when i want silence i stick screwdrivers in fans' blades. you wouldn't dream of leaving the case unscrewed let alone do that to your "precious non-beige hardware"! because most probably think that your machine needs tender loving care

talk again when you become a man and restart your ups's fan by kicking it.

our boxes are beige because we WANT them beige. we want NOTHING to distract from the machine. and the more "designey" and "cute" and "omfg titanium!!!!!" you go the more lean and simple we'll become.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469877)

64-bit has already been tested some (with some of the few 64b benchmarks out there... Cinebench 9.5, for example). Core 2 did very well.

I'm not a fanboi, I buy what I think is best. That's why I have four Athlon64 machines (one is an X2) and three Athlon XP machines. I'm waiting to see reviews of Core 2, but if they turn out as good as, or better than, the previews, my next machine may very well be a Core 2. I don't care what the brand name is on the chip as long as it's the best for the money when I buy. I'm excited about Core 2 and hope that they are every bit as fast as the previews say. At the very least, the CPU market will show some competition again and that only means "faster for cheaper" for us consumers. Seriously... why are you mad at Intel? Competition between AMD and Intel can only benefit us. It's not like "if Intel wins we are all put into jail" or something. Grow up.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469517)

It sure looks like Intel's playing dirty (again). Wake me up when we get reviews done outside of Intel-controlled environments.

Maybe you should team up with Oliver Stone could put together a movie to finish connecting those dots. Fanboys are famously ridiculous in their zealotry, but you're borderline libelous. It's ironic that you cling to the memory latency whine while shunning synthetic benchmarks.

Go ahead and keep supporting AMD since they're the underdog, but Intel's back and smoking fast. And, based on the latest price moves, they're cheaper than AMD. Oh, and better performance/watt too.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469758)

3) Curious how they chose much lower latency memory for the Intel machine than the AMD. I'm not sure that the higher bandwidth of the AMD PC's memory overcomes its higher latency.
A quick Newegg check shows that 4-3-3-8 timing is the lowest latency generally available for DDR2 800 memory, and DDR2 800 support is one the biggest features of the AM2 platform. Do you think enthusiasts as buying DDR2 667 for their new AM2 motherboards?

4) Why use 1024x768 res for the FarCry benchmark and 1600x1200 with AA and AF cranked up for theother two games? Games are GPU-limited at hires, so if you wanted to spike the results where AMD is superior...
I agree that such high resolutions seem like an odd choice for those two games, especially when the results show close results (indicating that the results might be GPU-limited). If the results are that close, I think a good review must show the results at other resolutions. However, I think this is more likely to be an oversight than purposely "spiking" the results.

Your other points look like ramblings from an Intel-hating AMD fanboi. Your recent posting history [slashdot.org] backs up my theory.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62 (1)

Jay Carlson (28733) | more than 8 years ago | (#15470247)

2) Some of those benchmarks, like Pifast, likely fit inside the Core 2 Duo's massive L2 cache. Intel uses all that expensive cache to compensate for their lack of on-board memory controllers and HyperTransport.

I'm not sure I see the problem. A few years ago Intel apparently decided that maximizing headline clock speed was their priority. Oh yeah, baby. I've got a netburst for you.

IBM in mainframe mode has their own pipeline, and it primarily involves ratios of kilograms of solid steel packaging to performance delivered.

Intel screwed up so badly that the Power4 690, a mainframe chip, was the fastest machine in the world. The 690 took this title by....uh having a lot of cache it could borrow.

Today, 4MB is an insane amount of cache. But I don't care. If blowing that amount of real estate on the die makes my code get faster, Intel picked the right thing to optimize on.

A better competition (2, Insightful)

alfs boner (963844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468032)

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.

This is great news (1)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467661)

I've been holding out upgrade from my old pre-MT 2.8 GHz P4 for a while now, and the Intel Conroe was going to by my choice for my new computer. Glad to read that it's actually kicking ass for games like it's supposed to. I still haven't decided if I'm going to go with ATI or Nvidia, though.

Bruce

Re:This is great news (1)

sporadic (110921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467725)

I'm in the same boat you are, holding off upgrading until Core 2 Duo is out. My current desktop is an "ancient" NForce2 + Athlon XP 2500+, so I missed the whole Athlon 64 on Nforce3/4 upgrade cycle. I was planning on upgrading to nForce4+ Athlon X2 3800 earlier this year but the reviews of the Core Duo caused me to delay my plans until Core 2 Duo.

I'll probably go with Core 2 Duo on the nForce 570-based platforms.

This will be my first Intel based system since the Pentium III/440BX chipset.

Sporadic

Re:This is great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468441)

Sporadic, I think you should go with your Nforce4+ upgrade personally. As an outspoken Intel *only* fanboi (from CPU to mainboard chipset) for the past 15 years (in part as a hardware/software business vendor), at present, an AMDx64/Nforce4 platform is very very hard to beat.

Grab yourself some low latency memory running dual channel with an Athlon x64 and save yourself a few hundred on the top of the line procs. Use those savings for a high end vid card or multimedia boards and never look back.

Also, quite frankly, I just purchased Windows XP x64 Professional running IE7 beta. There's just no comparison for speed on a major linux distro at present. I'm thinking of moving my x64 dapper to my slower slave drive now for development only. WinXP x64 Pro is just that good, IMHO. IE7 spanks firefox in linux for speed. Kubuntu dapper is really sweet and the best DE/distro platform yet I think, but I've been so impressed by WinXP x64 Pro recently with my NForce4/AMDx64 rig, I think 'ole Billy Boy has me by the juju beans again. That says a lot coming from someone who's been using linux *exclusively* for the past 6 years with no dual boot at all. I feel dirty now. But it's the type of filth pigs enjoy while rolling around in mud. Go figure.

Re:This is great news (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468317)

Same boat here, curent machine is a P4 2.8 and 256mb Geforce FX5700 and a gig of RAM. I need my new machine for editing HD video (guaranteed to bring any PC to it's knees) and the obligatory gameagé (can't wait for spore, if it's half the game it looks), so yup, sounds good to me too :)

Are These Reviews Significant? (5, Insightful)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467701)

The article reads:
The Core 2 Duo benchmarks we ran were not completed in our own labs and we have used some unfamiliar tests in order to establish how well the new Core architecture performs. This was because we were not allowed to tweak the system or install our own benchmarks - the machine was built and configured by Intel engineers.
So if Intel provided hardware, chips, and tests themselves, isn't this more of a write-it-yourself press release from Intel than a real independent review? If they provided "some unfamiliar tests" then that would seem to indicate Intel doesn't know what common and familiar tests should be run, or (more cynically) that they didn't want potentially bad or uncontrolled results polluting their positive reviews.

Are reviews like this of any real significance?

Re:Are These Reviews Significant? (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467825)

Intel choose the benchmarks where conroe preformed better than AMD and suppressed the ones that didn't. This is standard procedure in biased tests.

Re:Are These Reviews Significant? (1)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467829)

So if Intel provided hardware, chips, and tests themselves, isn't this more of a write-it-yourself press release from Intel than a real independent review?

I don't think so... the machines were still actually running the tests. Also, from TFA, only some of the tests were unfamiliar. It specifically says that there were some standard ones there.

If they provided "some unfamiliar tests" then that would seem to indicate Intel doesn't know what common and familiar tests should be run,

Common and familiar according to who? And it doesn't neccessarily indicate that they don't know what the tests are... it just means they didn't provide them (I could think of more than a few reasons they might do this).

or (more cynically) that they didn't want potentially bad or uncontrolled results polluting their positive reviews.

This also seems like a good possibility. We'll find out soon enough.

Re:Are These Reviews Significant? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467992)

As it says in bold in the article, it's more of a performance preview at this point, that should be taken with a grain of salt until they're running their normal benchmark set on final silicon with shipping BIOS and whatnot. In Bit's own words,
Because of the outlined circumstances and the fact that the Core 2 Duo chips are not set to launch for another month or two, you should take these results 'as is' or 'preliminary'. We will reserve our final judgements on Conroe's performance (relative to AMD) until we have independently completed a full set of benchmarks in our own labs on final silicon and BIOS revisions in readiness for Intel's announcement later this summer.

Basically, it's indeed a press release from Intel on performance, but it's not Intel giving the numbers but rather a qualified reviewer that's checked to make sure they're not cheating on anything (and, as stated in the forum discussion on the article, Intel really has too much to lose at this point to risk cheating).

Re:Are These Reviews Significant? (1)

Crussy (954015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468124)

The discussion [bit-tech.net] clears up your worries.

"All benchmark settings were controlled by us - I made sure that the Catalyst driver settings were at the default setting (High Quality), and I used included timedemos/stress tests in games.

FEAR has it's own benchmark, as does Lost Coast and the three Far Cry demos used are from Ubisoft.

I think that Intel has too much to lose to 'lie' or 'fix' these benchmarks. They configured an Athlon 64 FX-60 at 2.8GHz for us, but I declined the opportunity to run comparison numbers on it. This is because I wanted to include some of our own independently-run benchmarks, rather than running benchmarks on an Intel-configured Athlon 64 FX machine."

Re:Are These Reviews Significant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469359)

This clears up nothing. They ran the benchmarks they were told to run by Intel. I could give you a dozen benchmarks that have a working set of data larger than the 4M meg cache were the Intel chip would lose to the FX 62. For that matter, run all benchmarks simultaneously to see how the Intel chip is not as efficient in multitasking as the AMD chip.

And what makes this review different? (5, Insightful)

LIGC (974596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467723)

There have been Conroe previews several sites, all of them using intel preconfigured boxes. The only way to make sure of Conroe's performance is to benchmark it once its bought. I'm sorry if I'm a bit of a sceptic, but I don't trust these boxes made by Intel to market Conroe.

Re:And what makes this review different? (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467738)

Indeed.

Skepticism is a healthy thing. The early indications are of a fast chip, but don't make any purchasing decisions unless you see reviews of a shipping product.

Re:And what makes this review different? (2, Insightful)

dusanv (256645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467783)

But this is exactly what this is about, to get you to postpone your purchasing until they acutally ship the product. This is a page out of the MS book. They are flooding the review web sites with these "reviews" where Intel supplied all the sofware/hardware and people are thinking: wait, this Conroe isn't bad, maybe I want to wait for it to finally come out. This is completely lame and I don't know why this gets posted on the Slashdot front page. Until there is an independent review this is nothing more than a press release.

Re:And what makes this review different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468198)

How about this then? http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.p hp?f=59 [xtremesystems.org]

I trust enthusiastic overclockers with engineering samples to be pretty genuine. Conroe is breaking records left and right right now.

Re:And what makes this review different? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468518)

--You are "snorreh", a well-known AMD fanboy who posts on www.aceshardware.com forums. You've openly admitted that anything Intel releases won't be good enough for you. I highly suggest any readers of your posts be "sceptical".

Re:And what makes this review different? (1)

toddestan (632714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469604)

He still makes a valid point - I would take any Intel supplied benchmarks of their own chips with a grain of salt. The benchmarks to pay attention to will be the ones performed by third parties.

Sorry but (5, Funny)

opusman (33143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467728)

I'm waiting for the 400 page Tom's Hardware review!

Re:Sorry but (1)

Aeamarth (943939) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467788)

But that will take them at least 5000 hours!!

Re:Sorry but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15467898)

400 pages on Tom's hardware is like 1/2 a page of gibberish from George "Monkey" Bush.

Gentlemen -- place your bets! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468116)

Okay, let's start the official pool for how big Tom's Hardware review will be.

I'm guessing 23 pages.

Re:Gentlemen -- place your bets! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468515)

Whaaa? They had a review on a paperclip the other day that was longer than 23 pages.

Re:Sorry but (2)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468205)

It they wouldn't spend 40% of every page as purely site navigation, I think they could knock that down to 200 pages or less. The high profile PC hardware "enthusiast" sites tend to allow at most 10% of each page as actual article. The next time I read some weenie claim that Internet articles are always better, I'll have to point to Tom's Hardware as a strong counterexample, just one sample from an entire genre of sites that excercise all the don'ts of site navigation design.

2nd Paragraph Says It All... (1)

adam31 (817930) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467740)

The Core 2 Duo benchmarks we ran were not completed in our own labs and we have used some unfamiliar tests in order to establish how well the new Core architecture performs. This was because we were not allowed to tweak the system or install our own benchmarks - the machine was built and configured by Intel engineers.

So take these results with an even smaller grain of salt. Goddamn benchmarks.

HipHop Marketing for Conroe (1)

Cartack (628620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467765)

I can see it now... snoop dogg sitting with a laptop getting his hair braided on the porch; camera pans up to his head and snoop yells, "Not that Cornrow my shizzel". The camera pans back down and focuses on the laptop. Intel Logo appears *Cha-Ching*


---------
http://akurl.com/ [akurl.com] - Long Urls Don't Stand a chance

How do they compare with P4 (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467773)

It's good they are faster than Core 1, but it's interesting to see if they've surpassed the top P4 chips in speed.

As you know Intel basically dropped the P4 architecture (netburst) in favor continuing the hardware line of Pentium III -> Pentium M (Core 1 was a mod of Pentium M, Core 2 is a more serious change adding back 64-bit, but still a development of the same architecture).

Re:How do they compare with P4 (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468751)

Points for reading TFA.... If nothing else, this proves that Intel has finally realized that there's far more to speed than MHz....

Hmm... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467797)

Both the operating system and benchmarks were installed by Intel performance engineers, so we cannot guarantee that the bit-tech configured operating system was in the same state as the one on the Intel-built Core 2 Duo machine. We were not allowed to make any changes to the Intel-built system. ...

Only half the issue (2, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467809)

The real question to most of the rest of the world is: how do these chips handle regular desktop duty? I mean, all we've seen tested is a high end chip versus a high end chip, not mid-range testing. Conroe is supposed to replace Pentium 4s almost everywhere, with single-core variants or Pentium Ds handling the low end. Where does that put us for a $1200 or $1500 computer from Dell or Gateway that everyone else is going to be buying. In my mind, the real issue is how this helps the huge mid-range of consumers and computers, not the 2% upper end that can afford ATI Crossfire X1900XTXs.

Re:Only half the issue (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468250)

They are more power-efficient. Except for that, I find it hard to see ANYTHING that the CPU can do that would matter for common customers in that way. Benchmarks for varying heavy duty scenarios will be quite characteristic for the short "bursts" where CPU power actually makes sense for a common user.

How much for a... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15467823)

.. Beowulf cluster of these?

Multithreading issues? (2, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467836)

The benchmarks show a serious drop in multi-tasking capabilities in Conroe relative to the P XE 965. In some cases, a multi-tasking Conroe was beaten by a multi-tasking PXE.

However, we have some worries about its multi-tasking performance, which doesn't appear to be quite as good as the chip that Conroe will be replacing later this year.
We found that it was faster than the current flagship Pentium Extreme Edition 965 processor in nearly every single-threaded scenario, but there were times where Conroe fell behind in multi-tasking scenarios.

That seems pretty bad if we're trying to move to a more multi-threaded and multi-tasking computer system (yes, I know the difference between the two).

Re:Multithreading issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468083)

Yes, seeing how multithreaded ran much slower in almost all tests, on both CPUs,
there appears to be some issue with multithreading.
More specifically it looks like the benchmark software is completely broken.

Re:Multithreading issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468239)

It's because Conroe doesn't have hyperthreading.

Re:Multithreading issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468360)

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Re:Multithreading issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468671)

Do you even know if you're retarded?

It's a well known fact that hyperthreading helps out (most of the time) in multithreaded environments. Guess what? Conroe doesn't have hyperthreading, P4 does.

Before you say that the Conroe doesn't need HT because it's only 14 pipeline stages, I have news for you: HT has little to do with pipeline stages. Superthreading might help that. Hyperthreading is actually executing two threads in one clock cycle to make maximum use of a CPU's execution units. In fact, Conroe would likely benefits from HT more than P4 did because it's a 4 issue core rather than a 3 issue core.

Now, the question is "do you know what you're talking about?" I doubt it.

Re:Multithreading issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469453)

Now, the question is "do you know what you're talking about?" I doubt it.

I believe Mell Brooks said it best:
"If you can't dazzle 'em with dexterity, baffle 'em with bullshit!"

Re:Multithreading issues? (1)

macentric (914166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468492)

Neither the article or the benchmark seem to actually look at multi-tasking performance. As far as I can tell from the available information the benchmarks were running multithreaded versions of the benchmark. Unless they specifically come back and show us that they were running multiple processes, doing different things, then you cannot extrapolate whether or not the multitasking performance of the chip is any good.

On the other end of the spectrum it may just be that the operating system that was used to perform the tests is lacking in multitasking performance, as the operating system is going to be the ultimate decider of when the task is handed off to the processor to be performed.

This review, it's analysis, and the resulting comments in this thread are all garbage.

Re:Multithreading issues? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469449)

The article said pretty much that they ran two benchmarks at once, and recorded one of them. The whole thing is pretty unreliable, but that much of a loss in advantage is worth looking at.

Re:Multithreading issues? (1)

macentric (914166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469620)

You are correct. The article is pretty unreliable. But there may be more reasons for the loss on the benchmark.

I noticed three differences in the hardware and software configuration of the demo. The hard drives were different, there was a slightly different version of the ATI Catalyst driver on the systems, and there was a different motherboard.

Even though the the size of the hard drives was only off by 50GB, that can throw any disk based benchmarks out the window. A rough way of estimating the the maximum throughput of a harddrive is to multiply the number of platters by the hard drive density. Even this slight difference will cause change. Who knows how much has changed in the ATI driver. The biggest factor is that despite the same chipset being in use on both motherboards, one was an Intel design and one was an Asus motherboard. How different are these motherboards???

If you are going to compare the actual processors effectively you should use a processor based benchmark that shows just the differences of the processors. I am sure that Intel could have put one their motherboards into use for the Presler chip. I am also sure that they could have picked a benchmark that ignored the rest of the system variables and only tested the performance of the processors. They could have used any of the various SPEC benchmarks or actually done some real world testing. These synthetic benchmarks tell us nothing.

I put a lot more faith in the testing that Apple did a few years back when they released the Power Mac G5. They actually used an independent testing firm to perform there test and you guys filleted them for being flawed, yet you pay any attention to this crap. It actually astounds me the ignorance that people post here these days.

gaming (4, Insightful)

ltwally (313043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467883)

"...far more proficient at gaming - an area where Intel has traditionally been weak..."
Define "traditionally." Normally that word is reserved for a long-term scope, in which case Intel has been better at gaming than the competition. Up until the Athlon, no x86 clone could compete with Intel when it game to games (2d or 3d). Think back to the K5 & K6 -- neither was good at 3D (not even the K6-3 could compete with a similarly clocked P2/P3. And the processors from previous generations of AMD, Cyrix, and IBM were much the same. The Athlon was the very first x86 clone that was better at gaming than an Intel flagship processor.

So, this isn't so much as Intel stealing the crown as re-claiming the thrown.

<shrugs>No big deal .. I just get tired of the Intel bashing crowd. "OMG INTEL IS TEH DEVIL, AMD IS OUR SAVIOR!!"

Re:gaming (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467942)

Define "traditionally." Normally that word is reserved for a long-term scope. . .

It isn't a question of time scope, per se, but the very meaning of the word, because it means "from the hand," to be passed on and not merely a historical fact.

You "get" tradition and you, in turn, "give" tradition, but it doesn't "just happen." The proper word would have been "historically,"

KFG

Re:gaming (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468619)

Tradition comes from the Latin for "passing down'.

Re:gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468167)

Athlons have been around for several years. Considering how quickly computer technology progresses, I would think the use of that word is warranted.

Re:gaming (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468217)

Think back to the K5 & K6 -- neither was good at 3D (not even the K6-3 could compete with a similarly clocked P2/P3

While this is more-or-less true if you are comparing clock-for-clock (and it wasn't for the early P2s, since they ran on a 66MHz external bus, while the K6-2 ran on a 100MHz one - mine was stable up to about 110MHz - and the memory performance gave it an edge), it is not true if you are comparing performance per dollar. AMD CPUs were significantly cheaper than Intel in those days, and most gamers that I knew went for AMD alternative since, outside the very top-end, the same amount of money spent on AMD hardware would get you a better chip.

Before I got a K6-2, I had a Cyrix P166+. This ran at 133MHz (and was stable at 166MHz), but it cost less than an Intel P133. In spite of being slower per clock, it was easily faster than a P100, which was the Intel chip in the same price bracket.

Re:gaming (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468286)

Yup and remember the times of the K6, where intel processor were overpriced because there was no real competition. Today, the price of intel's are good, but if AMD loose we are all screwed with price again!
Remember the first celerons, or how to play stupid with the low-end people. (god thanks the sempron)
They were so much piece of shit they didn't deserve the Intel brand.

Remember the RAMBUS, or how to make you pay very overpriced ram.
Remember the fast adoption of the DDR2, even if it was not better than the technology of amd hypertransport with DDR1. Duh, intel got a very bad history about their choice of memory, always choosing the more overpriced. Today DDR2 doesn't cost so much, but yesterday's..

And remember the fucking Pentium 4, worst processor architecture Intel ever made. The netburst is so bad they returned to the design of the P3.
Pentium Pro -> P3 -> p-M -> Core 1.
And now the Core 2 is a mix with modern technology plus the old Pentium pro / P3 design.

If intel got some good prices and come out with a Core 2, it's all because of AMD gaining more market-share. AMD is really our savior, if it wasn't AMD, we would be crying with overpriced Pentium 4 plus obsolete RAMBUS.
DO NOT BUY A CORE 2, YOU WILL SUPPORT THE DEATH OF AMD AND THE BEGINNING OF A VERY DARK AGE IN THE X86 WORLD.
The day Intel kick the ass of amd you'll be using the same good old piece of shit for many, many years and you'll pay the big price. $$

Re:gaming (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469044)

Define "traditionally." Normally that word is reserved for a long-term scope, in which case Intel has been better at gaming than the competition.

Then again, I've seen people write about "long term" where it refers to the current fiscal year. The first Athlon came in 1999, so that qualifies by far with me. The first real own AMD chip not cloned from Intel was the K5 in 1995, which means they've producing superior gaming chips longer than inferior chips. I call that a tradition. And I'll still wait until we get some independent benchmarks, not Intel press releases in drag.

Graphics/Rendering and Server Benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15467926)

Looking forward to seeing graphics/rendering benchmark comparisons such as with Softimage, Maya, Modo and server benchmarks testing OpenSSL, DB, etc. performance. So far I see perhaps one game benchmark that stands out while the rest are ho hum. Not impressed.

About Time (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467961)

It's great that Core 2 Duo (dumb name) will be as fast as/faster than AMD (grains of salt and all) but it's really about time Intel did this.

The Core 2 Duo chips are all x86-64 (or ia32e as Intel calls it). I can't believe that it has taken them so long to do this for (what will be) their main consumer line.

One of the things I did't like about the MacBook Pro (and that helped me decide to stick with my 1.67 GHz PB G4) was the Core Duo. I know was much faster than what I had, but I don't want to buy a new laptop just to have it be 32 bit and obsolete (as far as I'm concerned). I wanted a laptop that would last me years. I wanted something with a 64 Bit processor.

There are other little things, like the reports of how noisy they are (relative to my PowerBook) worry me some. I think Intel still has a massive heat issue.

But really. It's about time Intel started shipping 64-bit processors to everyone. I think that is the important thing here. After all, if they could find a way to clock a P4 to 6 GHz it may cream AMD but it could still be 32 bit (depeding).

Re:About Time (5, Insightful)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468084)

Why does a laptop need 64-bits? Are you addressing more than 4GB memory? I haven't seen a laptop yet that can support more physical memory than 32-bit chips can address, nor can I see someone doing heavily scientific work on a laptop as they tend to have slower, smaller hard drives. Extended memory and scientific precision are the only valid reasons I can think of needing 64-bit architecture, neither of which apply directly to laptops.

Re:About Time (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468233)

I write code on my PowerBook that is going to be deployed on either a 64-CPU IRIX box, a 40-node UltraSPARC cluster, or a 64-node dual-Xeon cluster. Some of this code mmaps large blocks of data. It doesn't matter that I don't have that much physical memory, because not all of it will be loaded at once.

Remember, it is not uncommon to use more address space than you have physical memory. This is why we have swap.

Re:About Time (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468724)

Why does a laptop need 64-bits? Are you addressing more than 4GB memory? I haven't seen a laptop yet that can support more physical memory than 32-bit chips can address, nor can I see someone doing heavily scientific work on a laptop as they tend to have slower, smaller hard drives. Extended memory and scientific precision are the only valid reasons I can think of needing 64-bit architecture, neither of which apply directly to laptops.

Why does anyone need more than 640 KB of memory? Why is there a world market for more than five computers?

Besides, if by scientific precision you refer to the ability to process 64-bit numbers, you can do that now on practically any 32-bit x86 processor. And you can use libraries like gmp if you want higher precision.

-- posted by someone who has done heavy scientific work on a laptop

Re:About Time (3, Informative)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469350)

Why does a laptop need 64-bits? Are you addressing more than 4GB memory?

You get twice as many general registers in AMD64 mode, providing a nice performance boost independent of how much memory you have. Java, cryptography, and codecs react particularly well to AMD64 environments.

2GB RAM is already pretty standard for power users. Throw in virtual memory and, voila, you're at the 4GB barrier. Being able to run the same 64-bit binaries on your notebook as on your quad processor, 8 core 64GB RAM server is kinda nice too.

Re:About Time (2, Insightful)

toddestan (632714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469637)

Well, maybe you don't need a 64bit CPU right now, but it would be nice in a couple of years if you do need a 64bit CPU to not have to buy a whole new laptop. Kind of like how Windows 3.1 didn't need a 32bit CPU, but if you had one you were able to later install Windows 95 without buying a whole new computer.

With that said, since the original poster was contemplating replacing a 1.67Ghz G4 (a fairly recent model) with a brand new MacBook Pro, it seems he doesn't have a problem with shelling out for a new laptop either.

Re:About Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468473)

> The Core 2 Duo chips are all x86-64 (or ia32e as Intel calls it). I can't believe that it has taken them so long to do this for (what will be) their main consumer line.

Intel started shipping 64-bit enabled desktop/workstation processors last year [theregister.co.uk] .
Only the mobile processors lacked this support, mostly beacause it burned power without adding any benefit, since there were no widely avaiable 64-bit software applications...

Now Core 2 adds in 64-bit support with less power increase, and just in time for Vista.

Is it really necessary? (1)

FloodSpectre (745213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467980)

Is this really necessary for gaming ? An Athlon 64 with a decent videocard and a gig of RAM is enough to run any game well and keep it looking great. Why do I need this ? High end CPUs out now are more than good enough.

Unless of course, you're one of "those" types of gamers, needing to buy the latest, greatest and most expensive tech possible in order to run your games as well as someone else who spent $1000 on their system.

Re:Is it really necessary? (0, Redundant)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468021)

Then buy this one in 2 years ;)

Re:Is it really necessary? (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468023)

Look at it this way: if you can get better performances for the same price, why wouldn't you buy a Core 2?

This is the reason why A64s are popular in the first place: they offered as good or better performances as P4's at equal or lower prices, and you couldn't cook eggs on them.

If intel manages to reverse the balance with Core 2, more power to them, it means that AMD'll have to do some more work on their procs and start working on the K9.

Re:Is it really necessary? (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468168)

AMD'll have to do some more work on their procs and start working on the K9.

And what a dog will that turn out to be...

Re:Is it really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468048)

Why does someone always have to make this comment? If we all listened to you we'd still be running 286s since they were clearly good enough at the time.

AMD is in big trouble (0, Flamebait)

alfs boner (963844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468020)

People have been waiting for Intel to destroy AMD with a better product ever since AMD came out with their Opterons, then their 'Venice' cores and then finally their 'X2' line of dual-core processors, all of which were much superior to the Intel chips. Intel already destroyed AMD a few years back when they released their Pentium 4 to compete with the original Athlon and everyone has expected the same thing again. That's probably why Dell has sat on the sidelines selling their aging, wimpy Celeron Ds and P4 systems at cheap prices.

Intel is a much bigger company, they have a lot more money, a lot of smart people, the nastiest, sleaziest marketers in the business, many more fabs, and great lawyers to fend off the AMD legal strikes too. The Intel 'Prescott' was supposed to do the job on AMD but it never came close. Now, though, the 'Conroe' looks like it is FINALLY the answer to AMDs stuff. Based on the benchmarks using Intel-supplied hardware and software, it looks like the 'Conroe' line of processors totally destroys the AMD FX-60 which is the fastest AMD processor sold today. Of course, you can't buy the 'Conroe' until September, 2006 but it will be worth the wait, based on the benchmarks anyway.

The only thing AMD has to offer is a little bit faster clock speed (aka FX62) and their upcoming AM2 socket systems which don't seem to do much of anything new other than allow DDR2 memory and a bigger cache. Looks like AMD is headed back to the bargain bin.

Re:AMD is in big trouble (2, Interesting)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468426)

AMD's technology preview day (Anandtech's report is at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2768 [anandtech.com] ) said a lot that made me wonder about the future competitivenes of AMD. I'm neutral but the kind of stuff they were talking about made me doubt my conviction that Intel are guaranteed to pwn, but I am certain that the consumer is the winner in the upcoming battle for the best desktop CPU chips (and that's already been noted in the drop in prices between the two http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/06/02/drop_in_a verage_processor_pricing/ [tomshardware.co.uk] ).

The notion of being able to put extra specialised hardware next to the CPU radically alters the way that PC's are going to be laid out and is a good lateral step along the road toward multi-threaded, multi-cored and multiple processing elements in computing. The K8L architecture and beyond are seeking to increase IPC throughput for AMD's chips as Intel has done for the Core architecture. I think that this throughput increase is the greatest asset to the Core's performance both for performance per cycle (==IPC) and performance per watt.

sex witth a 7aco (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468036)

PROPAGANDA AND

Technical Prowess of Reviewer? (3, Insightful)

macentric (914166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468440)

When I was studying Computer Science in College I took a Parrellel Programming class. One of the first things my professor taught my class was that not all tasks are well suited for parrallel processing. In many cases it is more difficult to break the task up into smaller tasks and hand off to other processors or cores. In many cases performance will be significantly degraded by parallelizing a task that is not well suited to multiprocessing.

During several of the tests, the author of the article ran single threaded and multithreaded tests. In some of these tests, the performance of both the Conroe and Pressler chips decreased. The author incorrectly states that the multitasking performance of the Conroe chip is lower than the Pressler chips. He is incorrect becuase his own graphs reference multi-threaded performance. These are two entirely different things. While the multi-threaded perfomance of Conroe is slower in some cases, the single threaded performance was faster in most cases. These tasks obviously are not tasks well suited for parallel processing, and as such should be coded to run as a single thread to keep performace high.

While the rest of the benchmark seems solid, his analyis should be brought into question as he doesn't seem to have a solid grasp on his technology vocabulary. That or his editors don't know what they are reading either. If that is the case their reviews should not be showcased.

Re:Technical Prowess of Reviewer? (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468858)

On the other hand, things like effective time needed for context switches, cache starvation behavior and other aspects are quite alike for multitasking and multithreading. After all, multitasking (if all tasks are really active) is just another name for "multithreading with very independent threads carrying quite different workloads". The user won't care if transcoding to DivX and playing a game at the same time will result in a lower total efficiency during the tims spent on both chips, all he cares about is playing a smooth game while getting what else he needs to do, done.

Of course, the lack of HyperThreading alone is one reason for this. It's also why preferred keeping it active on desktop systems, even though it generally hurted artificial performance benchmarks -- the average response time of the UI goes down. The ability to keep several threads running well, even if they don't play nicely, is actually worth something.

Re:Technical Prowess of Reviewer? (3, Informative)

macentric (914166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468974)

Hyper-Threading is a load of crap. It fooled the computer into believing that the computer has an additional processor. The reason that they removed Hyper-Threading from the dual core chips is that it is redundant and not needed. You are not going to get any greater performance gains from multithreading on a single chip than you are from a dual core chip.

On another note, it is up to the developer of the optimize his/her program for the best performance. Individual tasks inside a program can be made to run single threaded or multithreaded based on how well that part of the program performs. The programmer must make these decisions or leave them to the compiler. In many cases the programmers will understand that the compiler is building generic code that may not be suitable for their program.

These benchmarks were run as single threaded or multithreaded. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with multitasking. Multitasking is running several programs or processes simultaneously. The individual programs in these benchmarks may not have been that optimized for these tasks and may have left significant headroom for other processes to run efficiently. An example of this is that many programs that I use on a dual processor G5 will never take full utilization of the available processing power. It may take running several instances of a process to fully load up the CPU utilization on the system. This is why virtualization is being looked at as a holy grail of saving money in the data-center as it will allow those data-centers to make better use of their investments.

Next time you are encoding audio or video go check your task manager or activity monitor and look to see what your CPU utilization is. Go load your web browser and surf around a while. You will not notice the encoding stop, it may slow for a few cycles every time you load a new page. This is your computer multitasking. Multithreading is allowing an individual process or program to do more things at once instead of waiting for an invidiudal task to complete before moving on to another task. You do not need multiple processors to take advantage of multithreading, nor do you need that crap called Hyper-Threading.

I thought this was a place for geeks and nerds who knew something.

Motherboard prices (1)

GoatVomit (885506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468455)

I really hope that boards based on 965 chipset will be cheaper than current ones since a good s775 overclocking board retails here around 160 euros (955) and 180 euros (975). That's quite steep indeed. Otherwise for example celeron 356 would be ideal for budget overclocking. Anyways I'm happy to see more competition which will lower the prices and force fanboys to come up with new arguments. Funnily enough everything has worked so far no matter the brand, even the z80.

"Traditionally been weak" ? (3, Informative)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468954)

People who have only been observing the industry for a handul of years shouldn't be talking about "tradition". The Athlon was the first product AMD made that could even offer a match to intel's CPUs, let alone exceed them.

I'm sure there's more than enough people here who remember how intel poorly comparbadly the K6 ran Doom, for example.

Not to mention the atrocious record of motherboard chipsets for >K6 AMD processors that, alone, contributed more to slowing their uptake by the market than any other factor (it astounds me that VIA has managed to stay in business).

Re:"Traditionally been weak" ? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468999)

I'm sure there's more than enough people here who remember how intel poorly comparbadly the K6 ran Doom, for example.

Ugh. Must use preview. That should say:

I'm sure there's more than enough people here who remember how comparably poorly the K6 ran Doom, for example.

ORLY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469117)

Next Gen CPU faster than today's

The Conroe myth gets busted a little bit every day (3, Interesting)

Visaris (553352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469238)

We found that it was faster than the current flagship Pentium Extreme Edition 965 processor in nearly every single-threaded scenario, but there were times where Conroe fell behind in multi-tasking scenarios.

I think that's a very funny quote. This is exactly what I was expecting all along. The reason most people have been running Super-PI and other toy benchmarks is because they are single-threaded, and that is the one area where Conroe really shines.

If the Conroe can't beat the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 how is it going "own" or "destroy" an Athlon 64 FX-64? The Conroe myth gets busted a little bit every day.

Re:The Conroe myth gets busted a little bit every (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469394)

The main problem is that most benchmarks used today are really lame throwbacks to a time when all code was single threaded running on machines without any other processes. Even the recent supposed "multithreaded" benchmarks run the same code on every thread sharing the instruction cache between threads. A better benchmark would to run a dozen unrelated Linux tasks simultaneously with data sets 100 times larger than CPU cache and measure the aggregate time. This would be a better approximation of what actually goes on in a typical web server or desktop PC running all sorts of multimedia apps.

Re:The Conroe myth gets busted a little bit every (1)

Jordanis (955796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469916)

Well, the claim is that the chip they were testing wasn't a flagship chip like the Pentium EE. In other words, they were testing a chip that's supposed to debut a couple price points below (2.67 GHz clock) the top-clocked (2.93 GHz) Conroe EE.

The inference being that the new top Intel chip will totally kick the Pentium EE's butt. Or, if you like, that this chip offers the same or better performance than the Pentium EE at what will probably be something like $200-$300 less.

Of course, that's all speculation, but the fact remains that this is not the top Conroe chip that's ocasionally losing out to the fastest Intel currently offers.

Lick Intel's ass while you still can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469401)

Intel asskissers from all over the world, this is your chance. Lick Intel's ass and maybe you'll get a discount for the next version of the Celeron.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?