Print 76 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Mar 8 at 9:46 PM

It is apparent that Intel is extremely excited about the upcoming Conroe architecture

AnandTech today had an hour alone with Conroe and an overclocked AMD Athlon 64 FX-60. Intel had two systems available for testing: the first computer was an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. The other system was a Conroe running at 2.66GHz on an Intel 975X motherboard. Anand compared several video games: Quake 4, Half Life 2 - Lost Coast, Unreal Tournament 2004, and F.E.A.R. Along with the video games, Windows Media Encoder 9, DivX 6.1, and iTunes were also tested.

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.

When the tests were finished, it was obvious that AMD will have a lot of work to do if it wants to try and match the performance from Conroe.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Intel FUD
By mforce2 on 3/7/2006 9:00:45 PM , Rating: 3
This looks to me like Intel FUD . Here's a quote from the article :
"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. "
Yay , way to go Anandtech , let's hear it for Intel .
Sure we trust Intel to tell us the truth and nothing but the trush . How long did the guys say there ? Well only a brief time , but just enough to see the benchmarks Intel wanted them to see .
IMO Intel si just desperate it's loosing ground fast and would do pretty much anything to stop this .
As they said the CPUs are still 6 months away so let's see them come out and tested the proper way and the we can talk .

RE: Intel FUD
By Questar on 3/7/2006 9:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Could you try writing that in english please?

RE: Intel FUD
By mforce2 on 3/7/2006 9:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Even though I'm not a native speaker I'd love to make it simple so that you can understand .
The whole thing was set up by Intel so there's no telling how objective the tests are .
While I think Conroe will have the lead I don't think it will be such a huge lead in all the fields .
The Anandtech guy were a overdoing it with all the Intel cheering based on those tests .
There are no Conroes out there and won't be for another 6 months or so .

RE: Intel FUD
By mforce2 on 3/7/2006 9:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes , I find that CPU prices are a bit high these days and I'd love to see a bit of competition .

RE: Intel FUD
By bozilla on 3/7/2006 9:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see a reason for your conspiracy theory. You have to understand that Intel is a multi-billion dollar company that has many times the engineers that AMD has. This processor is quite naturally something that was expected. It's been several years where Intel just kept perfecting the next generation of CPUs and they succeeded.

Why would Intel present set-up scenario for something that everyone can attest for themselves in several months. It doesn't make sense. Also, I don't see any setup or CPU these days that can really reach the speeds that Conroe showed with games like Fear and others included in the AT review.

You have to understand that this showcase was just a public way of Intel saying "We are back and we'll squash AMD", there's really no need for them to use false hardware to show results.

As I said before, this was naturally expected and one of the reasons why Apple went with Intel. They probably showed the Conroe prototypes way before and Apple joined in.

I'm not a fan of Intel and I think that their business practices are sometimes very questionable, but I'm definitely certain that they didn't sit on their behinds while AMD was gaining market share, and Conroe shows that.

RE: Intel FUD
By Wwhat on 3/8/2006 5:44:47 AM , Rating: 3
The reason for doubt is history, intel made tall claims before and then failed to come through.
Also the test was a comparison with an AMD system set up by intel..
Perhaps you have seen slides in the past in which intel made ridiculous claims about all their cpu's being so superior? or perhaps you did not.
I would not trust a test at AMD HQ with an intel box set up by them as comparison either btw, your argument that they are a billion dollar company only underscores how important it is for them to 'tweak' tests, they obviously have a lot to lose and gain, even a rumor can make their stock gain or drop and move many millions around.
As for the number of engineers, NASA has highly trained and wellpayed engineers too, yet the spaceshuttle can't fly and the russian spaceships have less trouble, seems then that it's not always the ammount of engineers and ammount of money but the decisions made and roads taken which make a project stand or fall.
Having said all this I do believe the conroe to become a good CPU that will do an admirable job, however the comparison to AMD I'd like to see being done on independant grounds and not in some corperate setting.

RE: Intel FUD
By bozilla on 3/8/2006 6:46:15 AM , Rating: 2
I know about their claims, but you have to understand that they have a lot more to lose by making false statements now and then underdeliver later, then ever before.

There's a lot at stake here and one of the reasons why I believe that there was nothing rigged is simply because they already have a bad rep among the enthusiast community and they are trying to regain it. Being in marketing, I can tell you that this is most likely the case, considering that they spent a lot of money for rebranding. In many cases this is done to try to change the negative face in a new light. Like a new beginning.

I wasn't there so I can't say with 100% assurance that there was no rigging, however I do believe the Anandtech crew when they say:

We won't say it's impossible as anything can happen, but we couldn't find anything suspicious about the setups.

As for your NASA comparison, it's pretty clear who is still the most advanced institution for space travel and exploration. It's definitely not Russians. So case in point, the number of engineers does make a difference, even though granted leadership and smart ideas play a major part in everything. Out of 1000 engineers at least one will have something smart on his/her's mind, don't you think so?

RE: Intel FUD
By bob661 on 3/8/2006 2:25:08 PM , Rating: 3
I wasn't there so I can't say with 100% assurance that there was no rigging, however I do believe the Anandtech crew when they say:
If you believe Intel, then go ahead and buy their products soley based on the info provided by them. If you believe AMD, then go ahead and buy their products soley based on the info provided by them. I, on the other hand, will wait for the 3rd party unbiased info before I make my decisions.

RE: Intel FUD
By masher2 on 3/8/2006 3:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "I, on the other hand, will wait for the 3rd party unbiased info..."

So now you're saying Anand works for Intel?

RE: Intel FUD
By bob661 on 3/8/2006 9:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
So now you're saying Anand works for Intel?
I guess you don't get it. Anand ran benchmarks set up by Intel on machines prepared by Intel at a conference held by Intel. What other results do you expect to get in an environment like that? Just because they let Anand run the benchmarks doesn't mean there isn't any vanilla in the chocolate. YOU can go ahead a base your purchase decisions on this if you like. I'll wait for the shipping product AND the 3rd party unbiased benchmarks from Anandtech's lab. Thank you and have a nice day.

RE: Intel FUD
By masher2 on 3/8/2006 9:46:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "YOU can go ahead a base your purchase decisions on this if you like."

In case you missed it, the product isn't out yet. So there aren't any "purchase decisions" to be made.

As for Intel 'rigging' this test, they may have bent over backwards to slant the setup and choice of benchmarks to favor themselves, but any nonsense about them secretly crippling the AMD machine or such is just that. Nonsense. The AMD server and CPU are shipping products...nothing is stopping Anand or anyone else from getting the same machine, running the same benchmark, and seeing if the results correspond.

RE: Intel FUD
By bozilla on 3/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Intel FUD
By clnee55 on 3/7/2006 9:58:47 PM , Rating: 3
Anand had 1 hour alone with the two systems. And he ran FEAR from the game not from intel pre-loaded. If you don't believe Anand, why you believed him when he reported AMD was better in the past.

RE: Intel FUD
By bob661 on 3/8/2006 2:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't believe Anand, why you believed him when he reported AMD was better in the past.
Anand didn't set up the tests. Anand didn't use his tests or testing methods.

By Supa on 3/7/2006 9:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
Impressive benchmarks by Intel, but remember Conroe is on 65nm process while AMD is still on 90nm; it means AMD still have some headroom.

We still don't know how overclockable Conroe will be, but we know the lower speed Opteron will be just as fast as any Opteron out there after overclocking.

Low clock Opteron is still the best price/performance option, in fact the coming of Conroe will only enhance it by fueling the competition.


RE: Remember
By mforce2 on 3/7/2006 9:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'll probably just buy a Sempron anyway :) .

RE: Remember
By clnee55 on 3/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Remember
By mforce2 on 3/7/2006 10:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well I would buy a Conron actually but I din't see any tests of how it too beats anything AMD has :) .

RE: Remember
By Furen on 3/7/2006 10:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think we can expect THAT much headroom from AMD's 65nm shrink. Consider that many of the old 130nm FX-55s can still out-overclock current 90nm CPUs. Of course they consume more power but the clockspeed headroom is just not there on current 90nm parts, and 65nm probably wont improve it. Remember that Dothan had a huge overclocking headroom, even at 90nm so what AMD needs is probably not just a shrink but transistor-level improvements.

RE: Remember
By BaronMatrix on 3/7/2006 10:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Impressive benchmarks by Intel, but remember Conroe is on 65nm process while AMD is still on 90nm; it means AMD still have some headroom.

Intel finally did something right. I figured they would get some good increases out of Conroe, but this may force AMD to go with the extra FP registers sooner rathe rthan later. I have PCs from both companies but until now have never used a faster comparable Intel. I'm sure AMD knew what would happen. They still have 6 months to make more tweaks to Rev F. I also heard that they WILL support 1066MHz DDR2( not that there will bemuch around).

As others have said this is good for consumers. I won't have to wait as long for my FX60.

I noticed though that Intel has changed from a Server compnay to a desktop one so it seems like they aren't doing much to hurt Opteron dual cores. Aaaah, competition

RE: Remember
By brizz on 3/7/2006 10:58:23 PM , Rating: 3
We should also remember that AMD is much more secretive about their roadmap than Intel. They now have more money than they have ever had before and have been licensing all sorts of new technologies. It would be foolish for anyone to believe that they don't have a strong answer to Conroe.

RE: Remember
By masher2 on 3/7/2006 11:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
AMD may well have an "answer" to Conroe...but they won't have it when Conroe first ships. Secretive or no, you have to telegraph major chip developments at least a few months in advance, just to prepare the channel.

RE: Remember
By brizz on 3/7/2006 11:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Even if they don't have an answer in Q3 when Conroe ships, they WILL have an answer, and that is what AMD is counting on. Previously (pre K8) they never had a real answer to anything that Intel was making. Now there is real competition between the two and we are the one who will reap the benefits.

RE: Remember
By BaronMatrix on 3/7/2006 11:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
They have gotten them out. The chips have been sampling. AM2 tests were on here I believe. It wasn't even certain if the chips that were used had the memory controller bug, so I see 30% per clock with all of the things AMD is NOT talking about. That will put them even enough that Conroe won't shine as much by June ( which is the launch date, not necessarily the availabiltiy date). Who knows the infamous Rev G may turn up sooner than anticipated if AM2 doesn't return the crown.

They ARE very secretive.

It was said that they could release 65nm if they really wanted to before the end of the year and I would bet that that is what enabled Intel to make the jumps that Conroe seems to have.

RE: Remember
By clnee55 on 3/8/2006 11:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
How do you know if they are very secretive?

"They ARE very secretive"

RE: Remember
By bob661 on 3/8/2006 2:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know if they are very secretive?
How do you know that Conroe is the new performance champ even though there is no actual consumer product to buy neither has there been any tests of actual consumer product by reliable and credible 3rd parties?

RE: Remember
By JumpingJack on 3/8/2006 1:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
....They now have more money than they have ever had before and have been licensing all sorts of new technologies....

While I will not debate that they aer not working hard to push forward, your "more money than they have ever had" is abit wierd when you look at the balance sheet...

Their current balance sheet does not bode well, a debt load of 1.37B and a cash on hand of 1.89B does not add up to a lot of dinero... , I guess you could say they are in the black with cash on hand for the first time in 10 years... last word on the street they were working to secure financing for retrofitting to 65 nm, looks like Germany will need to buy it for them.

RE: Remember
By tauron on 3/8/2006 4:05:16 AM , Rating: 3
Since we know for sure that there's ('ll be) a 3.0GHz part, at least slower Conroe's like 2.4GHz or 2.66GHz can go upto that level.

By fettaa23 on 3/7/2006 5:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
I never thought I'd see it, but the perfomance benefits of Conroe are staggering. Kudos to Intel, now for AMD to pull some fantastic R&D (and lower prices) :D

RE: Amazing...
By shaw on 3/7/2006 6:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Performance increase is respectible! Now the only question is pricing!

RE: Amazing...
By mikecel79 on 3/7/2006 6:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
These were acutally posted a few weeks ago on DT.

RE: Amazing...
By Lifted on 3/7/2006 9:46:42 PM , Rating: 1
$316? I'll take 5! We're about to see AMD prices DROP. August should be a good time to short them.

RE: Amazing...
By redbone75 on 3/8/2006 4:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
How exactly is it possible to have something posted a few weeks ago when IDF started today?

RE: Amazing...
By matthewfoley on 3/8/2006 10:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
I believe he means the prices were posted.

RE: Amazing...
By wifuzzy on 3/7/2006 6:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmmm....thats a 75%-100% gain for Intel, under controlled conditions on Intel computers. Would be good if this was 100% true...but, I think there is a little more to this story. Time will tell

RE: Amazing...
By wifuzzy on 3/7/2006 8:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ok...maybe 50%-75%, still seems a little to good to be true

RE: Amazing...
By tarv on 3/8/2006 11:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
I am a big AMD fan, but Intel is such a huge company in comparison and it was just a matter of time before they got their sh!t together. Looks like were going to have some really nice competition for while now. I hope AMD can answer back and keep the scores very close. I think this can mean alot of processing power for less money once Conroe hits.

Press Duty
By AaronAxvig on 3/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Press Duty
By deeznuts on 3/7/2006 6:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
They do, look above the links it says "Daily news by DailyTech."

the same suffix, same little upside down swoosh at the top, what more do you want?

RE: Press Duty
By KristopherKubicki on 3/7/2006 6:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
When you refer traffic to one of your affiliate sites, you really should disclose that AnandTech is related to DailyTech. Other reputable news sources do this.

Sure! DailyTech LLC is its own corporation and has nothing to do, nor will have anything to do with the company AnandTech Inc. Please let me know if this is enough disclosure.


RE: Press Duty
By PLaYaHaTeD on 3/7/2006 8:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
Kris, a company that is its own corporation does not make it immune to having affiliates. Considering that you used to work at anandtech, and their news section has been completely replaced by a news section called.....well... "Latest news by dailytech", I'd say most people would not even bat an eye if someone called dailytech a sister site.

If you wanted separation, you shouldn't be plastered all over the front page of anandtech.

RE: Press Duty
By PLaYaHaTeD on 3/7/2006 8:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Just out of curiosity, do you take this angle so that when DT breaks stories that other companies can't because of NDAs, no consequence can come to AT?

You are not required to answer that.

RE: Press Duty
By KristopherKubicki on 3/7/2006 9:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just out of curiosity, do you take this angle so that when DT breaks stories that other companies can't because of NDAs, no consequence can come to AT?

Correct. I saw a market for a news website about a year ago, and we started to put the wheels in motion then. Anand saw an opportunity to knuckle down and concentrate on reviews, while I made myself available to write about just about whatever tickled my fancy.

While we do not compete against AnandTech (its a different market, different reader), collaboration between the two sites does not extend beyond the fact that he hosts my RSS feeds as a very generous favor.


RE: Press Duty
By Questar on 3/8/2006 9:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
collaboration between the two sites does not extend beyond the fact that he hosts my RSS feeds as a very generous favor.

And your user authentication is going through AT servers using AT's user database.

Sounds like an affiliate relationship to me.

RE: Press Duty
By KristopherKubicki on 3/8/2006 1:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
DailyTech has it's own user database. We tied our authentication module against one of Anand's databases so that all of the readers accustomed to ATNews would not have to re-register.

Last I checked, AP does not need to mention the NYT sends its news to if they talk about an NYT article. The relationship between DT and AT is no different.


RE: Press Duty
By masher2 on 3/8/2006 1:50:35 PM , Rating: 3
Ignore these knuckleheads. Relationship or not, it certainly isn't one that needs to be disclosed in this case. These people are confused about journalistic ethics and what it entails.

Ethics would require you to disclose a relationship only if you were reporting upon Anandtech itself, especially in such a manner with potential financial gain.

By Wwhat on 3/7/2006 7:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, I'm going to believe an intelcontrolled test, no problem, btw, they also reported that AMD has WMD, slides at, shocking stuff.

By jrogerstn on 3/7/2006 8:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
is this a bad attempt at humor? WMD??

By Wwhat on 3/8/2006 5:30:46 AM , Rating: 3
bad attempt at humorous sarcasm.
But seriously though, who can believe a company's own test in the first place, and a company with a history of BS claims in the second place?

By PLaYaHaTeD on 3/7/2006 8:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, I'm going to believe an intelcontrolled test, no problem, btw, they also reported that AMD has WMD, slides at, shocking stuff.

they took the page down before i could See! how cAn i use google to Review these slides with their CAche? can SoMebody help?

By devolutionist on 3/8/2006 9:23:50 AM , Rating: 2

By matthewfoley on 3/8/2006 10:29:21 AM , Rating: 2

By PLaYaHaTeD on 3/8/2006 11:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
in case you missed it, take a look at all the capital letters in my post....i wonder if anyone will figure it out..

By fxyefx on 3/7/2006 9:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... that whole intel-provided-machines thing rings of oddness.
Makes me feel like waiting longer before buying my college laptop, though...

By Mithan on 3/7/2006 6:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Nice for Intel.

But really, only an idiot expected Intel to be behind forever.

They regained their performance legacy, but lets hope they don't regain their old price premium legacy as well...

RE: Nice
By zsdersw on 3/7/2006 6:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
only an idiot expected Intel to be behind forever.

True. Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots here.. and elsewhere.

RE: Nice
By ZmaxDP on 3/7/2006 10:30:03 PM , Rating: 4
You know, I was once told that if you call anyone you don't know an idot, you are only being one yourself. As such, I'll refrain from directly calling you an idot since I don't know. But I will suggest you're well on your way... Seriously, either this forum is populated by a bunch of angst ridden teenagers convinced they are the smartest humans alive, or we've got a bunch of repressed 40 something geeks in a mid-life crisis... Do we have to call everyone else dumb or can we try giving a little benefit of the doubt?

Beyond that, I can't think of anyone that didn't expect Intel to have something to show sometime soon. In fact, I think most everyone was shocked it took them so long to do it. I am as rabid an AMD fanboy as anyone, but I am not idiot enough to think that my devotion to AMD will keep them performing better than Intel for all time. I was an AMD fan before they were the fastest kid on the block, and I'll be an AMD fan still when conroe comes out.


I would remind the naysayers and Intel fanboys that AMD has held their speeds and product cycles relatively static the last year or more. The few people I know at AMD are acting rather smug even with these conroe benchmarks out. Only time will tell what they have up their sleeves, or if it is pure bravado. All I'm saying is that Conroe is still a ways away, and unlike Intel AMD remains rather secretive about their product launches and innovations. So, just don't count them out. They may not have a Conroe killer lurking in the bushes, but I imagine they at least have something that can come close planned otherwise there would be a lot more scrambling going on.

My two cents...

RE: Nice
By zsdersw on 3/8/2006 6:56:41 AM , Rating: 2
How long have you been reading/posting here? Before the relatively recent layout change on this site there were a bunch of people who appeared totally convinced that AMD would remain in the lead indefinitely. There are less since the change but there are still quite a few. And since one of the many definitions of "idiot" is someone who expects AMD to remain in the lead indefinitely and there are quite a few here who fit that definition, there are quite a few idiots here. I also said "elsewhere" because this is not their only home.

And please.. don't be so melodramatic about how we shouldn't call people "dumb". Boo hoo. This is the Internet. Anyone who takes something personally on here *really* has a problem and should probably seek in-person professional help.

RE: Nice
By bobobeastie on 3/8/2006 8:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
And since one of the many definitions of "idiot" is someone who expects AMD to remain in the lead indefinitely and there are quite a few here who fit that definition, there are quite a few idiots here.

Life must be fun when you write your own dictionary.

1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

No mention of AMD or its fans there

RE: Nice
By masher2 on 3/8/2006 9:25:13 AM , Rating: 3
> "No mention of AMD or its fans there..."

It's implicit in definition #1. Anyone who expects a dynamic situation to remain forever unchanged certainly fits the description of a "foolish or stupid person".

Ok boys...
By segagenesis on 3/8/2006 12:11:49 AM , Rating: 3
Despite somebodys low signal to noise ratio posting like a madman defending every little bad thing everyone says about Intel... I'm not yet impressed. It's not bloody out yet. I don't think I've ever witnessed such a ferver over such geek penis size comparisons since the CRAMITPAL days. I see the same person(s) posting half the content of a 145 post news comments thread like they work for Intel or AMD and know what next week numbers in the lottery will be. I've been reading Anandtech for years and I've never seen such awful mudslinging, name calling and fanboyism. Come on guys, get a grip!

Fanboi note so you dont have to guess off the bat: I paid about $300 for an Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego a month ago.

What is this going to really *cost*? Having sold computers in the past geared towards home and gamer users... the cost is a serious concern on whether if Intel really has something special here or not. I really disliked how the Pentium-M and comparable mainboards were despite thier low power consumption and great performance... out of the league for low cost at the same time. If they make a part that costs as much as an Athlon-FX and is still faster than the Athlon-FX, I still would not buy it. I would'nt (and did'nt) buy the Athlon-FX. It's just darn too much for some of us when you can have pretty good performance for less than half!

I might be kind of pissed off that I waited 4 years to upgrade my machine I play games on only to find out I should have waited another 6 months... but thats how things really go these days. If Intel brings out these parts in the $250 price range and can rape AMD in the comparable price/performance slot then I would truly be impressed. Not some $700+ toy. Until then (and despite what he who will remain un-named here says who must have drank 25 Red Bulls posting) I will be more willing to believe when it hits the streets.

Thank you

RE: Ok boys...
By smartpatrol on 3/8/2006 4:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's dishonest to compare Intel's new desktop chip to the P-M. Those Pentium M motherboards are specialty items designed for the enthusiast market. That's totally different from Conroe, which is intented to be Intel's mainstream desktop chip to replace the Pentium D/4. I would be absolutely shocked if costs weren't similar to what comparable Pentium D/4 chips cost today.

I am a big AMD fan as well, and it's sad to imagine the underdog getting beat by the 800 pound gorilla. However, to even speculate that all mainstream Conroe systems will be comparable in price to P-M desktops and Athlon 64 FX's is totally ridiculous and dishonest. Nice straw man.

RE: Ok boys...
By masher2 on 3/8/06, Rating: 0
RE: Ok boys...
By bob661 on 3/8/2006 9:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
I've ever witnessed such a ferver over such geek penis size comparisons since the CRAMITPAL days.
But you have to admit the man had style. :)

Wait a minute
By AMDZen on 3/7/2006 6:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at the BIOS screen bootup, it shows that its only running a 400 Mhz FSB. That kind of negates the fact that the processor was "overclocked" if you ask me. Not to mention, I know that AMD processors really like a higher TRAS number, 5 may actually hinder its performance when its bumped up a little, benches have shown to run better.

I still think Conroe would out perform the FX-60, but I'm sure AMD can recover most of that ground. If not, seems I'll be buying my first Intel chip for a long long time.

RE: Wait a minute
By osalcido on 3/8/2006 12:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
the frontside bus of amd64's is 400mhz... not to be confused with 1ghz hypertransport

which is why you are probably using ddr400 on your amd computer :)

RE: Wait a minute
By Jkm3141 on 3/8/2006 8:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is also true, but on all overclocked Athlon 64's and Opteron's, you must raise the HTT (the replacement for FSB), except the FX Line, which has an unlocked Multiplyer, meaning the 400 Mhz HTT (FSB) speed, is very possible, just bump the multiplyer up one.

Wrong Chip
By kristof007 on 3/8/2006 3:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
Anand's AMD chip was a A64 X2 @ 2.8Ghz .. it was not an FX-60 as the newspost states.

RE: Wrong Chip
By DarthPierce on 3/8/2006 9:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
Please explain what the difference between an x2 at 2.8 and an FX60 at 2.8 would be.

RE: Wrong Chip
By BaronMatrix on 3/8/2006 3:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
The FX is tweaked out closer to an Opteron. If you look at some comparisons between the two the FX wins at every clock speed. (overclocked) I'm interested to see what would happen if the COnroe was matched against the FX57 which is designed to run a 2.8GHz. The FX57 ALWAYS beats the FX60 in single threaded (most games) apps.

I was so ready to buy too....
By mikecel79 on 3/7/2006 6:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
I was just getting ready to put together my first AMD system to replace my aging 2.6Ghz Northwood. Now I'm waiting until later this year to pick up a Conroe. The performance increase os quite impressive.

By tedrodai on 3/8/2006 10:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
Me too. I've been planning for 3 months now to replace my old Dell Dimension 8200 (2GHz P4, 400MHz FSB, 4xAGP) sometime around September. I've been a big AMD fan for the past year, but I've had to put off building a new computer because of my budget. When I heard about the AM2 socket release date, I started worrying about whether to stick with a 939 system or not--price would be the deciding factor, but the gamer in me was screaming over giving up the slightest performance edge. I've been dreaming about the FX-60, but setting my targets on the X2 4800+.

Now, after comparing those benchmarks to the prices on the "Intel Desktop CPU Roadmap 2006" we saw a couple of weeks ago, my max CPU budget is hereby decreased by $100. I can't wait to see what happens over the next 1/2 year, but I'm FINALLY certain I'll be satisfied with the performance available within my budget. May the best man win.

It was to be expected...
By bozilla on 3/7/2006 6:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
This was definitely expected. I just didn't expect it this fast. This is the reason why Apple went with Intel. They probably showed them the future and the performance gains with Conroe and Apple was hooked.

It all makes sense now.

RE: It was to be expected...
By bupkus on 3/7/2006 7:01:59 PM , Rating: 2

Heres my WOW for Intel
By AnotherGuy on 3/7/2006 6:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
WOW... I relle didnt believe Intel would get back on track so fast.... (maybe its not that fast... what 4 years now being underdog?) And AM2 doesn't seem to have so much more to expect from... so I guess its time for Intel to own

By Regs on 3/8/2006 7:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
We all can agree that CPU speeds and performance have been growing in quick sand for the past 4 years. Only minor increases and MHz boosts. I'm glad at least Intel has something to offer us with all these games that are CPU limited. It would be a shame however to see AMD leave it's long glory sitting on the performance crown. But if growth of performance means it has to leave it's thrown then so be it. I just hope AMD can combat Intel's new architecture in considerable timing. I would be amazed if they can come back from this with something faster. Not surprised, but amazed. I want the term "CPU Limited" to be the thing of the past.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki