• 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.

2.13Ghz Intel Conroe at 3.1Ghz

Whichever way you look at it, Conroe is blatently going to be the fastest chip out this year, even with A64 on AM2 socket (which is only meant to give a few percent increase in performance) coming out.

It will be nice to see some true gaming benchmarks to compare just how much quicker it will be though :)
 
well...upgraded to conroe and buying an opteron are two different things.

conroe will need new RAM and new motherboard, opteron will just plug in.

COnroe will also not be cheap when its new...if I was you I'd just go for the opteron, and just upgrade again come December.
 
chex said:
well...upgraded to conroe and buying an opteron are two different things.

conroe will need new RAM and new motherboard, opteron will just plug in.

COnroe will also not be cheap when its new...if I was you I'd just go for the opteron, and just upgrade again come December.
Click to expand...

thats what i am going to do. i cant afford to keep up with hardware (seems more expensive and faster moving than it used to)

i am getting an opteron now and will grab a conroe next year when they are cheaper :)
 
Energize said:
Any gaming benchmarks of this overclocked conroe or is the op going to leave everyone arguing over how super-pi affects real world performance and how multi cpu systems which cost thousands of pounds compare to a single desktop cpu costing <£500? :p
Click to expand...

There was a benchmark review over Anandtech, that included a FEAR benchmark. The Conroe was about 20% quicker than a FX-62 equivalent.

Jokester
 
It will be nice to have a real choice in what CPU to buy, you get 2x the CPU choice, 2x the Mobo's, etc... means you really can get any AMD/Intel chip and know that it's gonna be decent, and you won't feel conned because you bought a P4 running at 437.65GHz only to findout it is slower than your Centrino laptop than runs at 1.6Ghz with single channel RAM and intergrated graphics :p

Seriously though, I will no longer haver to cringe when people say 'It has to have Intel inside mind'

Roll on anything that makes systems faster, cooler and cheaper :D
 
Hehe, everybody wants a Conroe it seems...but I don't think they understand that they need a intel mobo to run it..lol :)

Are there any mobo's coming out that can take conroe processors (other than intels) ?
 
Duke said:
Source ?
Click to expand...

And more to the point, why is a motherboard with an intel chipset going to be a problem, considering historically they have been some of the most stable, and most overclockable platforms available....
 
TooNice said:
*Shrug* - Aren't "bloody" benchmarks what we normally use to form an educated opinion of how certain piece of hardware performs? I am sure you didn't pick your Venice because you happened to like that town, or it happened to be an AMD chip, or you thought 3200+ was a nice number right? Chances are, you read that they were good clockers, and at the overclocked speed, they perform well. This is backed by some benchies. Well, we have previews for both the AM2 and the Conroe. Do they provide an absolute and final verdict? Nah, I'll wait for formal reviews. But they do provide some insight.
Click to expand...

no, i didn't buy this processor by looking at benchmarks and thinking 'wow in perfect laboratory conditions this can be faster than such and such' cause that would just be daft, i bought it with advice from a friend of mine who owns the same chip but slightly older winchester core whose opinion is often much better than reviews based on ideal circumstances, it suits what i do very well, and don't for a second instantly think 'fanboy' because i upgraded from a pentium 4 northwood core, which was best processor i have ever had, but it was boned by motherboard failure, its like people who drooled over the prospect of the x-box 360, what a powerful system, pity theres nothing that really takes advantage of the power, it'll be the same with conroe, games are more GPU dependant these days anyways, and who needs a system that runs a game at 150 frames/second, since theres absolutely no difference say from 50 frames, and through personal experience there isn't, and whether you can see it or not your all still saying something WILL happen, on paper the honda F1 car is one of the best, in practice, im afraid its not, the world isn't ideal, there are no perfect circumstances, so i seriously doubt this 20% increase over AM2 (if its not improved before launch) in performance will be really noticable in gaming, but im betting AMD will remain the cheaper option all around, so what you want? pointless amounts of wasted CPU power or a reliable system that gets the job done?
 
That was a long sentence. You know that Intel currently has the cheapest Dual Core right? They are about the same price as your Venice. Not saying they are better, but it could "suit what you do" just as well. Intel still put a premium on their chip, but it is not quite what it used to be like. Plus, where does your friend get his information? A salesperson? His pinkies? With nothing else (other than your old PC) to compare with, how do you know it is a good chip/the best for your money? Thanks but no thanks, I prefer a more scientific approach. You sound like trying to justify that it is okay to have a slower chip =/
 
Last edited:
Gashman said:
no, i didn't buy this processor by looking at benchmarks and thinking 'wow in perfect laboratory conditions this can be faster than such and such' cause that would just be daft

it'll be the same with conroe, games are more GPU dependant these days anyways, and who needs a system that runs a game at 150 frames/second, since theres absolutely no difference say from 50 frames

so i seriously doubt this 20% increase over AM2 (if its not improved before launch) in performance will be really noticable in gaming, but im betting AMD will remain the cheaper option all around, so what you want? pointless amounts of wasted CPU power or a reliable system that gets the job done?
Click to expand...

1. Why would it be daft to look at benchmarks? They may well be conducted in controlled conditions, but that is so that they are a fair test. Benchmarks are exactly that, a measure of performance relative to other CPUs. Surely it is more daft to ignore such information?

2. True, games are more GPU dependant but CPUs are used for much more than gaming. Also, games are getting more and more demanding on hardware these days.

3. I think most people want a reliable system with pointless (pointlessly huge) amounts of CPU power!!! :D Not too sure if you mean an AMD or Intel system here, both can fit that particular bill. And i'm not too sure whether AMD will actually be cheaper all round, do you have some sources to back up this bet?
 
the thing is though, intel equivelents have usually costed more than there AMD counterparts, prescott and K8, AMDs 3000+ (the bottom of there 90nm line) was is less expensive than intels bottom of the line 3.0ghz prescott (since the 2.8s and below are hard to come by most of the time) so its not assured by a logical deduction to assume that AM2 will likely be less costly than conroe, since its 'supposidly' slower in everyway to conroe, meaning to keep selling them AMD have to appeal to people, low prices are always one of the greatest drives, and im not saying benchmarks don't offer some useful insight to performance, but people shouldn't view them as a holy grail, just saying its not by a long shot the faster the processor, the faster the system, benchmarks show prescotts as underperforming, when in real-life comparison between my computer and my best friends (who has a prescott) theres absolutely no difference at all in performance that we can see, except a few little number in super-pi or 3Dmark, conroe is only going to be as good as the platform features that come with it, something that made AMDs athlon 64 such a blinding success, inexpensive, high performing processors, that on average would clock faster than there stock speed, giving decent performance increase, and most importantly they have loads of features on there 939 platforms, intel really need to work on that aspect i think, im not planning on upgrading for a while, and im tempted to get a xeon system with intels new xeon cores, but it depends what AMD have to offer at the time whether i stick with that choice

as well to compare, intels dothan cores were faster than AMDs K8 clock for clock right? but buying a dothan system is way more costly and hastle than going for the much cheaper and more simple 939 setup, i just hope conroe won't turn out to be the same story
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
And more to the point, why is a motherboard with an intel chipset going to be a problem, considering historically they have been some of the most stable, and most overclockable platforms available....
Click to expand...
Indeed. The 865/875 chipsets were especially remarkable :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom