Print 58 comment(s) - last by zsdersw.. on Mar 11 at 7:10 AM

BIOS issues and other concerns are addressed

Anandtech was able to score a second session with Intel's Conroe and an overclocked AMD FX-60. Some concerns and issues were raised concerning the first test, so Anand addresses them with this update.

The performance picture with regards to Conroe hasn’t really changed all that much - on average we’re still seeing a bit over a 20% increase in performance over an overclocked Athlon 64 FX-60.  While it’s worth noting that these results should be taken with a grain of salt, we really were not able to determine any cause for suspicion based on Intel’s setups.  The machines were as clean as they could get, with the BIOS oversight having no tangible impact on most performance.

After this second round of tests, there doesn't appear to be anything malicious or underhanded going on Intel's part. The BIOS had little to no effect on performance and the Conroe still comes out on top. Now all we have to do is wait for AM2 Athlons.

Comments     Threshold

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

By unparalleled intellect on 3/10/2006 2:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
What do you think AMD will do about their number schemes? I understand it was meant to be in comparison to their Thunderbird or whatever it was but let's be honest here; it was meant to respond to Intel's GHz lead.

If Intel's chip really performs as advertised, then AMD would be misleading the consumer with a 5000+ or whatever they'll have.

RE: Question
By theprodigalrebel on 3/10/2006 3:34:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well, their next 2.8Ghz dual-core processor would be about 20% slower than Conroe 2.66...(Of course, this is assuming DDR2 does close to nothing to improve performance and the CPU architecture doesn't change much, like most people are saying around the Web)

How about AMD Athlon64 2128+? Maybe if it makes a difference, they can even up the rating to 2200+?;) Then, my A64 2800+ wouldn't look so bad!

RE: Question
By JumpingJack on 3/11/2006 4:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
If Intel's chip really performs as advertised, then AMD would be misleading the consumer with a 5000+ or whatever they'll have.

Good question, but if you really analyze the data out there, you will see Intel 3.0, 3.2, etc...3.6 GHz parts out performing 3800+ and 4200+ processings in many benchmarks, AMD is already "mis-leading" if they tell you "equivalent Intel GHz performance"....
Actually, they have changed their rationale on the numbers I read somewhere (if I find the link I will edit it in), that AMD was quizzed about this, and their response was they saw no reason to change because customers now understand that a 4400+ AMD part is better performing than a 3800+ AMD part. This is quite logical, and actually quite smart, as long as they don't imply "Intel GHz equivalence" any more.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings
Related Articles
Conroe Benchmark Criticisms
March 8, 2006, 4:45 PM

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

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