2.13Ghz Intel Conroe at 3.1Ghz

Durzel · 21 Apr 2006 at 19:54

I've always considered myself totally impartial when it comes to component manufacturers. I've got no allegiance to Intel, AMD, ATI or Nvidia - when I buy kit, I buy the best & fastest I can afford at the time. I believe that anyone who constrains themselves based on some false allegiance to a corporate behemoth who couldn't care less about them anyway is basically a fool.

So, I'm not a fanboy.

With that dispensed with.... OH MY GOD!

A 1Ghz overclock on a 2.13Ghz Conroe. On liquid nitrogen? Nahhh. Vapo/Mach 2? Nope. A 1Ghz overclock, ON AIR.

16 second SuperPI.

Full info here: http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=587650

Well, Intel have won this year that's for sure.

hogfather · 21 Apr 2006 at 19:55

16 second super PI?

quadboi · 21 Apr 2006 at 19:56

Erm, What are your temps? Great so far!!!

james.miller · 21 Apr 2006 at 19:58

well. 12 seconds faster than a 3ghz opteron. ouch :eek:

Durzel · 21 Apr 2006 at 20:00

sjohal2006 said:
Erm, What are your temps? Great so far!!!

No idea what the temps are, not my chip

The thing I really don't understand about this - is that since time began processor speed has ultimately been constrained by heat, hence why obviously CPUs are stable on subzero at speeds that are impossible on air. Something like this, assuming it definitely isn't fake, just blows my mind.

Maybe phase change/LN2 will be completely pointless with this chip, maybe temperatures will make no difference with it? :confused:

Agent WD40 · 21 Apr 2006 at 20:04

Is all they can do is super Pi? Come on. Lets get some gaming benchies!!

Agent.

Spyhop · 21 Apr 2006 at 20:30

Gadzooks!

Durzel · 21 Apr 2006 at 20:45

Agent WD40 said:
Is all they can do is super Pi? Come on. Lets get some gaming benchies!!

Agent.

Tell me about it, I couldn't give a damn about SuperPI myself... but it is a fair measurement of overall performance.

I'd prefer to see Sandra scores, or maybe 3DMark (although thats more a test of the graphics cards than anything)

Mul · 21 Apr 2006 at 20:46

Wow.

It says 4096kb of L2 cache. Is that per core or shared cache?

Mul

Durzel · 21 Apr 2006 at 20:53

Mul said:
Wow.

It says 4096kb of L2 cache. Is that per core or shared cache?

Mul

2MB per core.

I think this particular chip is a speed-binned E6600, because the 2.13Ghz part (E6400) isn't even supposed to have 4MB L2. :confused:

# E6700: 2.66 GHz / FSB 1066/ 4 MB shared L2 cache
# E6600: 2.40 GHz / FSB 1066/ 4 MB shared L2 cache
# E6400: 2.13 GHz / FSB 1066/ 2 MB shared L2 cache
# E6300: 1.86 GHz / FSB 1066/ 2 MB shared L2 cache
# E4200: 1.60 GHz / FSB 800/ 2 MB shared L2 cache

p4radox · 21 Apr 2006 at 20:53

Mul said:
Wow.

It says 4096kb of L2 cache. Is that per core or shared cache?

Mul

IIRC it's 2mb per core.

/edit: beaten by seconds

Mul · 21 Apr 2006 at 20:58

right ok. that's what I thought but was a bit puzzled when I saw 4096kb L2 in CPU-Z for core1 on it's own.

Looks like a nice piece of kit. wonder how much of a performance hit would occur between the 4mb and 2mb parts.

Mul

Dunky · 21 Apr 2006 at 21:12

Durzel said:
The thing I really don't understand about this - is that since time began processor speed has ultimately been constrained by heat, hence why obviously CPUs are stable on subzero at speeds that are impossible on air. Something like this, assuming it definitely isn't fake, just blows my mind.

It's probably because this chip is at 65nm, which requires a lower voltage which in turn means less heat. It is quite impressive, but should be taken which a pinch of salt as super-pi is a synthetic benchmark and that overclock might not be totally stable - but even if it is a suicide screenshot, it's a pretty amazing score

helpimcrap · 21 Apr 2006 at 21:27

Durzel said:
Tell me about it, I couldn't give a damn about SuperPI myself... but it is a fair measurement of overall performance.

I'd prefer to see Sandra scores, or maybe 3DMark (although thats more a test of the graphics cards than anything)

i've seen enough tbh. i want one.

as said it represents overall system speed and that is some speed!

Duke · 21 Apr 2006 at 21:31

Jesus that is quick!

bbreezeuk · 21 Apr 2006 at 21:32

i take it all back, everything bad i have ever said about intel CPUs, i want one

MG42Maniac · 21 Apr 2006 at 22:06

Damn, makes my 2.8GHz AMD look ultra slow

NathanE · 21 Apr 2006 at 22:13

It's 4MB shared between both cores. Not 2MB per core.

Durzel said:
The thing I really don't understand about this - is that since time began processor speed has ultimately been constrained by heat, hence why obviously CPUs are stable on subzero at speeds that are impossible on air. Something like this, assuming it definitely isn't fake, just blows my mind.

How long have you been following this industry though? I'm guessing only since the A64 or slightly before (AXP)? These types of performance jumps are not uncommon when a new architecture debuts. I can still remember the Pentium hey-days, and boy they were... The problem is that people have become "accustomed" with Intel being 2nd best and seem to think that the Pentium 4 is the only architecture they have ever released.

Energize · 21 Apr 2006 at 22:30

Any gaming benchmarks? I have no idea how seconds relate to fps

welshtom · 21 Apr 2006 at 22:49

NathanE said:
It's 4MB shared between both cores. Not 2MB per core.

How long have you been following this industry though? I'm guessing only since the A64 or slightly before (AXP)? These types of performance jumps are not uncommon when a new architecture debuts. I can still remember the Pentium hey-days, and boy they were... The problem is that people have become "accustomed" with Intel being 2nd best and seem to think that the Pentium 4 is the only architecture they have ever released.

Yea tis true. I studied most of the architectures for one of my uni modules. This conroe certainly looks good

compared to crapburst