• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Is the cheapest Conroe still likely to be faster than the fastest AMD?

Participant

Participant

Participant

Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
34,514
Location
Warwickshire
Ok - I'm sure it's not, but how close is the budget Conroe going to be in terms of the decent AMD chips?

I'm upgrading soon and am debating whether to go for an AMD and get the same performance for less money.
 
locutus12 said:
Go for AMD, its the moral choice at the very least ;) :p
Click to expand...


what?

The clear winner here is conroe.
Flattening the AMD counter parts.

Unless you were on a really strict budget even a Intel Core 2 DUO E6300 for 150 offers massive gains over a dual core AMD chip.

Even if the x2 3800 comes down to the 100 mark conroe is still in front by a considerable margin.
 
The E6300 is the Core 2 Duo budget cpu, it equals the performance of an X2 4800+ roughly. If you overclocked that from 1.83GHz stock to 2.4GHz, it'd beat an FX62 in most cases! Also being £500+ cheaper it's the clear winner!
 
fenderbass86 said:
The E6300 is the Core 2 Duo budget cpu, it equals the performance of an X2 4800+ roughly. If you overclocked that from 1.83GHz stock to 2.4GHz, it'd beat an FX62 in most cases! Also being £500+ cheaper it's the clear winner!
Click to expand...


yup :D
 
Mr Mister said:
conroe mobos are all expensive though so depends on budget,
Click to expand...

That's because all the 975X ones are the top of the range bunch, wait for the 965 and nForce5 versions to come out, sub £100 boards and still decent.
 
fenderbass86 said:
The E6300 is the Core 2 Duo budget cpu, it equals the performance of an X2 4800+ roughly. If you overclocked that from 1.83GHz stock to 2.4GHz, it'd beat an FX62 in most cases! Also being £500+ cheaper it's the clear winner!
Click to expand...


so can a £140 X2 3800 (oc'ed) get to 2.4Ghz and be equivelant to an X2 4800 / FX 62 and most can get to 2.5GHz+ so please dont use price as the only comparison its very misleading
 
FrankJH said:
so can a £140 X2 3800 (oc'ed) get to 2.4Ghz and be equivelant to an X2 4800 / FX 62 and most can get to 2.5GHz+ so please dont use price as the only comparison its very misleading
Click to expand...


An FX 62 runs at speeds of 2.8ghz not 2.4ghz.
A conroe running at around 2.4-2.6ghz beats an FX 62

and the E6300 is 150 quid a moderate overclock on one would beat the x2 3800 4400 and 4800 respectively.

So I dont really understand your point ? :)
 
easyrider said:
An FX 62 runs at speeds of 2.8ghz not 2.4ghz.
A conroe running at around 2.4-2.6ghz beats an FX 62

and the E6300 is 150 quid a moderate overclock on one would beat the x2 3800 4400 and 4800 respectively.

So I dont really understand your point ? :)
Click to expand...


My point was even a cheap AMD chip can get a lot nearer to the speed and power of an FX62 so he shouldnt use the price difference as a reason (as few would buy an expensive chip if a cheaper one will get to nearly the same performance - which most X2 3800's do)!!!

I wasnt saying the conroe/ allendale isnt a bad chip - evne though there are already posts suggesting retail chips may not be as good clockers - they are very good but I think its highly misleading to compare an FX 62 from the "last generation" to a new gen chip - unless you mention an Intel PIV Extremely Expensive also ( around the same price as FX series but not as fast)
 
FrankJH said:
My point was even a cheap AMD chip can get a lot nearer to the speed and power of an FX62 so he shouldnt use the price difference as a reason (as few would buy an expensive chip if a cheaper one will get to nearly the same performance - which most X2 3800's do)!!!
Click to expand...

yeah and...

the x2 3800 is around 160 quid the conroe E6300 is cheaper and faster so I still dont see your point.
 
FrankJH said:
I think its highly misleading to compare an FX 62 from the "last generation" to a new gen chip - unless you mention an Intel PIV Extremely Expensive also ( around the same price as FX series but not as fast)
Click to expand...

So its been ok for people to compare AMD's 8th Generation with intels 7th Generation Netburst processor for the last 3 years, but now its unfair to compare intels 8th gen?

Intel have been a generation behind, and very slow at getting a new chip out. Now its here, its real, and there is nothing new from AMD to compare it to, so its a perfectly valid comparison.

Intel's 9th, and 10th generation chips are already on the roadmaps, so it should be a lot easier to compare the chips when K10 come out. I guess they decided to skip K9 because it sounds too much like Dr Who.
 
You have to wait for the new prices to compare them, conroe isnt out yet and so we cant compare them all properly yet.

My guess is conroe is going to be the best for performance and price, the only reason to go amd will be because you lack the other components.



The asrock boards are cheap but I dont advise using ddr1 ram on them personally.

DFI are bringing out a nforce board in august, dont assume they will match their amd reputation though
 
DFI have been making intel boards since at least 486, possibly longer, so I see no reason why their Intel boards shouldnt be pretty nice. Think I still have a DFI board with a 486DX33 somewhere in the attic.
 
easyrider said:
An FX 62 runs at speeds of 2.8ghz not 2.4ghz.
A conroe running at around 2.4-2.6ghz beats an FX 62

and the E6300 is 150 quid a moderate overclock on one would beat the x2 3800 4400 and 4800 respectively.
Click to expand...

isn't the E6300 only 2mb L2 cache?
If so, its not gonna be as fast at 2.4-2.6ghz and so wont beat an FX62... WHat benchmarks are there out there for the E6300 that you can link to so i can see it beating the 4800+ with a "moderate overclock"?
Facts and figures please, not speculation. Save that for the K8L discussions :)
 
Kamakazie! said:
isn't the E6300 only 2mb L2 cache?
If so, its not gonna be as fast at 2.4-2.6ghz and so wont beat an FX62... WHat benchmarks are there out there for the E6300 that you can link to so i can see it beating the 4800+ with a "moderate overclock"?
Facts and figures please, not speculation. Save that for the K8L discussions :)
Click to expand...

Do a search on these very forums...

Hang on heres a link 6300 clocks etc...

Its not speculation its fact. ;)

at 2.8ghz the 6300 trounces my previous opty 170 @ 2.8ghz (fx 62 speeds)
Oh and the 6300 and the FX 62 have the same ammount of cache
 
Kamakazie! said:
isn't the E6300 only 2mb L2 cache?
If so, its not gonna be as fast at 2.4-2.6ghz and so wont beat an FX62... WHat benchmarks are there out there for the E6300 that you can link to so i can see it beating the 4800+ with a "moderate overclock"?
Facts and figures please, not speculation. Save that for the K8L discussions :)
Click to expand...

Aghh matey do some research before psoting... 6300 has same cache as FX-62 and beats it (current A64 architecture) clock for clock. No need to bring fanboyism into the debate, lets just look at this objectively shall we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom