Intel's Conroe Resurfaces, Benchmarks Strong 152
MojoKid writes "Intel has been occasionally leaking performance results of their upcoming
Core 2 Duo processor for the desktop, code named Conroe. At this years IDF
select members of the press
were allowed to get hands-on access to test systems for benchmarking.
Now, coincident with this week's Computex show in Taiwan, Intel has seen fit to
show us just what their soon to be released CPU can do, yet again. Select press
members got together with Intel in New York city for another round of
testing with Conroe. HotHardware has
a performance showcase posted with scores from a Core 2 Duo E6700 machine
and a 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition X6800. The results, compared
against the backdrop of an overclocked 2.8GHz Athlon 64 FX-60 system, look very
impressive indeed for Intel."
Intel's a bit wierd now. (Score:2, Insightful)
Osborne Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2)
What makes you think Intel is selling parts at a loss?
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2)
In a sense, all CPU companies sell some chips at a loss. Processing a wafer costs almost the same amount no matter what chip is on it. A mess of CPUs come off of the wafer and are then binned based on their power and performance characteristics. CPUs from each bin sell for different amounts. The top bin with the best chips sell for a lot and make a nice margin. The lower bins sell for quite a bit less, and have less of a margin. Many CPU compan
I'd quit while you were ahead. (Score:1)
For Intel to fully prodcue one Pentium 4 processor at 90um costs them about 24 bucks start to finish...
So now that AMD has annouced price cuts to compete with Intel's price cuts, are they selling under cost as well?
Re:I'd quit while you were ahead. (Score:1)
If the new Intel chips in the $150-$300 range really were so monumentally better than the existing line, they'd drop the Celerons and continue making the 2.8-3.4GHz P4s as their entry level.
However, the new Intel is going to try increasing market share by focusing more on better marketing than just better engineering.
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2)
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2)
There is ALWAYS something faster coming out. Anyone who has ever bought a computer can tell you this.
It's been happening for years.
Intel is in the lead, AMD leapfrogs Intel. Intel races past AMD. Mhz is everything. No, instructions-per-Mhz is everything. AMD is faster again. Oops, Intel just released the Super-extreme-hyper-overclocked-needs-a-2-ton-air- conditioner CPU to take the lead. Wait, AMD has a brand-new architecture that uses less power and benchmarks 50% faster at an equivalent
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Intel is suffering from the Osborne Effect. People don't want their current products because the competition has a better offering. The only option Intel really has is to hype future products because it has become common knowledge that their current line up can't compete with AMD. The hype you're hearing is more of an effort to stop the exodus to AMD, it's yet to be seen if that will work.
Intel is selling many parts at a loss
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2)
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2)
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2)
AMD processors have a better I/O architecture (hypertransport) and scale properly in SMP systems.
Intel processors are only faster if you are running small, tight loops that fit in L1 cache. AMD processors are faster when doing more multitasking.
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:1)
The Conroes are also being offered at a huge discount
A Conroe 2.40GHz/4M costs $316, half the price of the equivalant Athlon (the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ cost $645)
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:1)
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2, Informative)
1) "which are comming (sic) in July/August of 2006" Woodcrest launches June 26. But you already knew that.
2) "no one wants their current products" In which alternate universe?
3) "Intel is selling many parts at a loss" Dicounts don't imply loss.
4) "Conroe...has bad yields" Source: AMD message board?
5) "Conroe...will not make up a significant portion of Intel's shipped CPUs until the end of this year." Just plain false.
6) "Conroe based chips will be 20% of produc
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:1, Interesting)
Their new motto is "Leap Ahead." They'd better shake a leg.
After several years of incremental improvements, it's starting to get fun again.
Re:Osborne Effect (Score:2)
The reason why Intel is selling parts so cheap right now is simple: they have started to massively clear their P4/Netburst inventory. In the next months it's going to degrade to their "Celeron" line of processors. Noone will want to buy a P4 in half a year.
do you have some references for this? (Score:2)
Why you think that Intel is having bad yields?
Yes, Conroe will only be 20% of Intel's production. But that's very likely sufficient. Conroe is their high-end chip. They already have Core Duo out and the remaining P4s and P4Ds (even 65nm P4s).
High-end chips make up a small amount of the market. 20% seems like plenty.
I agree that finding Core 2 Duos might be difficult for a while. But then again, when I bought my AMD X2 4200+, it wasn't easy to find, and ultimately I h
Oh right so I ran afoul of FF's password feature (Score:1)
On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Core 2 Extreme (Score:3, Informative)
Point is -- Core 2 Extreme has great specs but the map and the landscape are wholly different. Time will tell.
Re:Core 2 Extreme (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Intel could do this, but they are probably quite aware of the consequences.
Consequences (Score:2)
Where are our 10GHz Pentium 4s now? Does anyone really remember Intel's promise? Does anyone really care?
Intel can fudge benchmarks and make crazy promises all they want. In the end, everyone seems to s
Re:Consequences (Score:2)
Intel did put itself through a whole round of public humiliation over this.
And are you actually suggesting that Intel was lying when they stated they could scale NetBurst to 10Ghz? It turned out to be huge engineering and strategic mistake that's cost them dearly (see recent financial news).
Re:Consequences (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Consequences (Score:2)
Anyway, we'll know in less than two months.
Kinda Disagree, Kinda Agree (Score:1)
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said that, all of the benchmarks run were publicly available. There's nothing stopping you from configuring an AMD box yourself and seeing what numbers you get. In fact, I'm slightly surprised that the review site didn't do this.
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:3, Interesting)
AMD FX-62 sales volume: LOTS
Intel Core 2 Duo sales volume: Zero.
Not only that but how hard is it to go in the bios and make and AMD64 processor perform sub-optimally? Sure it's DDR400 but CL4-4-4-10, and you need the ECC scrubing turned on, disable the cache and
If Intel really wanted a benchmark they should ask AMD for engineering samples of next year's cores and they could pit them together.
Tom
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.pricewatch.com/memory/845489-1.htm [pricewatch.com]
If Intel really wanted a benchmark they should ask AMD for engineering samples of next year's cores and they could pit them together.
ring...ring...ring...
AMD: Hello?
Intel: Hello, AMD?
AMD: Yes?
Intel: Intel here. We've had to cut back on our industrial espionage budget this year, seems we've had an unexpected revenue shortfall and can't afford that group any more
AMD: Have you considered outsourcing it to India?
Intel: Well, no, not really. We were hoping you could just send us some samples of your lab prototypes.
AMD: Sure, sure, say no more. We'll send those over right away via courier. You'll have them on your desk first thing in the morning.
Somehow, I just don't see that happening...
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:2)
AMD has challenged Intel to duels [go to their sunnyvale lab they [used to?] have posters up in the public space that say so. I wouldn't say AMD wants to take stuff out of the lab and make it public but I suspect if Intel said "let's set up a contest with current retail parts" they MAY [see above] answer the call.
It's no big secret that AMD wants to challenge Intel [and beat them] on every front.
Intel is comparing next gen stuff to current to say "look our
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Anandtechs tests of a 4 core Woodcrest server against a Sun Niagara and 4 core Opteron sure seems to suggest otherwise: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 [anandtech.com]
Granted you may be after 8-way or higher, but that is an interesting enough test. The Woodcrest makes an extremely good showing there.
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:2)
*I* have 885s in my 2-way Tyan board at my house. That's a 400Mhz or 16% boost in CPU performance. I'm sure anandtech could get themselves some 285s for a benchmark.
Tom
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the crypto side, the results are hard to read. The graph shows more signatures/sec for AMD but the table lists otherwise. Even still, I find it hard to believe Intel has any lead on that market. AMD has a 5 cycle multiplier and three ALU pipes for bignum math [hint: this is my pas
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:2)
It seems a bit odd that they use different machines yes, however, Anandtech is typically fairly thorough with these things so I see very little reason to doubt the accuracy. At any rate it does satisfy your requirement of tests independent of Intel.
On the crypto side, the results are
Past vs Future benchmarks? (Score:2)
Re:Past vs Future benchmarks? (Score:1)
Re:Past vs Future benchmarks? (Score:3, Interesting)
AMD : 8086, 286, 386, 486, Am586, K6, K7, K8/Hammer
Comparing K8 to P4 makes sense. They're both eight generation. The P4 was Intels answer to K7 and the Hammer was AMDs answer to the P3. Comparing Conroe to K8 doesn't make sense because Conroe is a 9th generation part. It'd also make more sense once Conroe is readily available. I can go to a store and buy a 285 today. I can't say the same about Conroe. Wait till the 9th gen AMD processors are out if y
Re:Past vs Future benchmarks? (Score:2)
Basically, I don't care what generation a chip is, I care about what its specs are, including price and power consumption.
Learning about future chips might get me to hold off a purchase, but I'm still going to compare shipping, pricegrabber-able, 'real' chips, not results on engineering samples.
Re:Past vs Future benchmarks? (Score:2)
That said, I'll probably be picking up a Conroe part later this year to do benchmarking on. I'd be hard pressed to make the switch completely given that my desktop workstation is um
Anyways, all the power [or la
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:2, Informative)
I'll fix your post for ya:
AMD FX-62 sales volume: a few units (most people don't wanna spend 1500$ on a CPU)
Intel Core 2 Duo sales volume: lots starting next month (significantly faster than FX62 and at a FRACTION of the price)
Not only that but how hard is it to go in the bios and make and AMD64 processor perform sub-optimally? Sure it's DDR400 but CL4-4-4-10, and you need the ECC scrubing turned on, d
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously, if you want to make a point, don't make up numbers. Sheesh.
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:3, Interesting)
You should never take a manufacturer's claims about their product as fact. If separate, independent testing proves that the Intel offering is better than the AMD chips mentioned, then that's a different matter. In this case, the only information available is from Intel and those they chose, hence it is unlikely to be independent.
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:2)
We deal with crooked benchmarks all the time. The fact that these are Intel maintained boxes comparing next-gen stuff against RETAIL cores is stupid. Even if they release the cores in July it will be months before every corner store picks it up. Those FX-62's they comparing against were designed years ago [though the process/design has changed since] and probably fab'ed many months ago.
It isn't as if AMD is saying "Ok we made Opteron, we're done, let's go make
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes - you can dog a machine by tweaking the BIOS. Our kit was in a final bakeoff with a competitor - the cus
I don't think AM2 FX 60 is widely available yet (Score:2)
I also wondered, but my quick froogle search for available AM2 (DDR2 800) FX 60 CPUs brought up nothing. On the other hand, Socket 939 (DDR 400) FX 60 CPUs (which Intel used) are widely availablle. Therefore, the fastest available AMD Athlon platform that Intel could buy was Socket 939 FX 60, which uses DDR 400. It seems Intel made it even more fair by overclocking the FX 60 to approximate the performance of the unavailable FX
Re:I don't think AM2 FX 60 is widely available yet (Score:2)
The FX-62 sales don't appear to be lots... (Score:2)
It's not on newegg. Pricegrabber only lists it at one place, and they say it comes June 30.
http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant. mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=120987&AF FIL=pricewatch&NR=1 [monarchcomputer.com]
It appears AMD preannounced the FX-62, at least in terms of availablity to other than 1st-tier vendors.
If FX-62 really ships June 30th, that'd only be 1 week ahead of Conroe, thus making your "ask AMD for next year's cores" com
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:2)
DDR2 isn't higher latency... (Score:2)
You're getting messed up because DDR latencies are measured against the SDR clock, while DDR2 latencies are measured against the DDR clock. This is why you see things like 2.5 clocks on DDR measurements and you never do on DDR2.
Anyway, when you see a latency 5 clock DDR2, that's the same as a 2.5 clock DDR. Except that the DDR2 is very likely running at a higher clock rate and thus the absolute latency is lower.
I don't think the
Re:DDR2 isn't higher latency... (Score:2)
Re:DDR2 isn't higher latency... (Score:2)
The Intel 975X interleaves two 64 bit channels while the 875P uses both DRAM banks as one 128 bit channel. Naive benchmarking will not show any advantage in fetching simultaneously from separate interleaved banks and Intel's FSB throughput is too low to take real advan
why the talk of bandwidth? (Score:2)
I was speaking of latency, and you speak of bandwidth and burst sizes.
Neither bandwidth nor burst sizes affect latency.
The indications of AM2 performance definitely go against your idea that AMD is more prepared to take advantage of DDR2. Their performance gains are nil, when the latency stayed about the same and bandwidth increased significantly.
Re:why the talk of bandwidth? (Score:2)
I'm sure the interleave size is 64 bits (Score:2)
I do agree that configs can alter first word latency more than full burst latency. But I honestly have trouble understanding what interleaved 64-bit banks means versus 128-bit banks. Classic interleaving meant simply pulling from both banks at once, which would produce the same results
Re:I'm sure the interleave size is 64 bits (Score:2)
Each cache line fill is 64 bytes. The processor actually picks which of the 4 sets of 16 bytes it wants from the 128 bit DDR bank which then return
okay, I'm getting it now... (Score:2)
But that DDR2 chipsets might draw from A and B alternately, sharing the bus. A B A B A B A B.
The 2nd appears slower, since it takes 8 clocks, but the clocks are so fast that both fill the FSB bandwidth equally.
And you're saying that even though the 2nd is "fast enough", if they went to the first system again,
Re:okay, I'm getting it now... (Score:2)
In the second case, the 975X and other Intel DDR2 memory controllers fetch AB AB AB. They use both banks of 64 bits each simulaneously.
For the 875P and the socket 939/940 Athlons, the 64 bit DIMMs are arranged in pairs to make a single bank of RAM 128 bits wide. The memory controller fetches 4 lines of 128 bits at a time to fill the processor's cache. Note that there
I was ahead of the curve on this... (Score:2)
Hehe. Linus Torvalis was just involved in a discussion like this over at RWT. It makes PERFECT sense for AMD to have done this. It allows their fabs to produce a single basic design for multiple markets instead of dividing their effort into multiple designs. The mass production of one design lowered the cost enough to make up for any extra expense in the consumer market. This same effect has allowed x86 to overtake higher end markets from the bottom over time. Presumably Sony a
Re:I was ahead of the curve on this... (Score:2)
It is not a matter of reducing the number of chips on a motherboard for AMD or necessarily matching Intel's price. It was a matter of having a solution that would work were Intel was weak (2 to 8 cpu workstations and servers), using one design to cover both that market and the single cpu consumer mark
since you don't cover it, I will (Score:2)
It would simply cost too much because you would need to purchase an additional graphics solution chip. Apple could do that before because they were using an outdated processor (G4). Buying an up to date, dual core CPU plus GPU plus NB plus SB just costs too much (even if you can fit it in there) to make the margins Apple demands.
The complexity of chips does affect their cost. But even a simple chip with a lot of pins (an AMD NB) costs almost as muc
Re:since you don't cover it, I will (Score:2)
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:1)
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:1, Interesting)
non-Intel benchmarks... (Score:2)
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2
You're right, these show lower numbers, more like 20% in gaming and still over 15% elsewhere.
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:2)
Fanboy denial (Score:2)
A $316 Conroe can blast a $900 FX, and Conroes have been overclocking to 3.8+GHz on air.
AMD is doomed, unfortunately, which means Intel will rest on its laurels again.
Re:On Intel built and Intel controlled boxes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny that I've been watching AM2 carefully for the past month, and only agree on "less mature". AM2 is not faster by itself, but it does open the door to DDR2 memory. Which means Intel went out of their way to compare an AMD on DDR memory with an Intel chip on DDR2, when Intel could very easily have set up the "equivalent" AMD system on DDR2. When they deliberately don't match memory technologies, I'm suddenly very suspicious of Intel's benchmark.
My socket-AM2 system has been stable - except for Tomb Raider, which does seem buggy (and I'm blaming graphics drivers for that). nForce4 is a buggy chipset period, I don't see how that is any advantage at all.
I expect Intel to jump ahead with their Core design, and then AMD to make up much of the difference with K8L later this year. But on the server side, AMD is going to eat Intel's lunch for a long while yet.
went out of their way? (Score:2)
But saying they went out of their way to not use an FX-62 seems a stretch.
"..select members of the press" ?? (Score:1)
Re:"..select members of the press" ?? (Score:2)
So it seems par for the course to expect everyone is stupid; you'll be right 3 out of 4 times!
Re:"..select members of the press" ?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even a Current AMD System (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not even a Current AMD System (Score:2)
Re:Not even a Current AMD System (Score:2)
Re:Not even a Current AMD System (Score:2)
But don't take my word for it. Check out what Anandtech [anandtech.com] has to say.
Do Intel choose which benchmarks are run? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is standard practice in biased tests to only include the benchmark where your product does well.
Unbiased review, isn't it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unbiased review, isn't it? (Score:2)
benchmarks are still good (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for Sharikou, Ph. D to show up. (Score:4, Informative)
He makes the worst of the Mac, Linux or Microsoft fanboi's look a touch out of the ordinary.
Both the Woodcrest and Conroe have shown time and time again in INDEPENDENT testing, to be quite a bit faster than any of AMD's options. I've been testing a Dell 2950 with Woodcrest and it simply smokes the HP DL385 dual core setups time and time again in both SQL 2005 (mixed size transactions) and anything else I throw at it, most of the time by 30-40% real world numbers. Other testers have seen much the same.
Intel just pulled a Microsoft. Microsoft was caught napping by Netscape. Intel was caught napping by AMD. It won't happen again.
Re:I'm just waiting for Sharikou, Ph. D to show up (Score:2, Interesting)
It will be interesting to see how AMD's K8L part on 65NM will do, but that thing won't ship until next year.
Still, IMHO, Intel will never recover to its pre P4 glory days. Before the K8 chips became smash hits in the enterprise, NO ONE seriousely considered
Re:I'm just waiting for Sharikou, Ph. D to show up (Score:2)
Re:I'm just waiting for Sharikou, Ph. D to show up (Score:3)
The speed freaks will buy Intel for performance, as it gives the absolute fastest. The people that want good performance at a price that doesn't bust the bank will probably buy AMD (and that's the way it used to be with AMD & Intel for quite a while).
Then, AMD will likely make modifications
Isn't this still just hype? (Score:2)
Benchmarking (Score:1, Redundant)
Thinking is...
400/667
0.599 = 60%
That means that the DDR RAM is only 60% as fast as the DDR2 RAM they're using, and will only
Re:Benchmarking (Score:1)
Re:Benchmarking (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not an Intel fanboy or anything. I just think people need to be more objective. Intel won this round. Maybe AMD can make it up with K8L? Until then, however, I'm going to be buying myself a Core2 system.
Wow, you know nothing about RAM (Score:2)
Wait to the contest starts (Score:2)
For All You Nay-Sayers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone here is constantly saying "Oh its an Intel system, built by an Intel team, vs. an AMD system, built by an Intel team... I'll trust the reviews when independant people get them."
If you looked a little you would see, that there are already lots of people with the Conroe in their hands. And it has shattered every PI, 3DMark, world record there is. We are talking about 10s 1M SuperPi runs, and if you know anything about that benchmark you will know that is absolutely crazy. Why not read some forums, like XtremeSystems [xtremesystems.org] or more specifically some benchmarking threads [xtremesystems.org] where the world record was broken on air w/ Conroe, but now its under LN2 for some other people (including coolaler) and is holding the world record.
SuperPi benchmark (Score:2)
This is all silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice to have competition... (Score:2)
The advantage of Core 2 Duo is indeed spectacular (which is a good thing) but the competition from AMD will be fierce. I don't think AMD will soon surpass Core 2 (at least not before the K8L or K9 has matured)
Re:When's this gonna stop? (Score:1)
Re:Yawn (Score:1)
Re:In related news (Score:1)