• 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

No offence gashman but please use full stops... as your post a few above this is possibly the longest sentence I have ever read :p.

As for it being hard to get parts, I don't believe it will be somehow. Considering this is a desktop chip unlike the dothans which were meant for laptops. While the motherboard will most likely cost around £50 more on average it seems worth it considering the speed diference between the current athlon 64 processors (this may change with AM2/K10 etc.).

Also, as someone else pointed out Intel do have a good track record for creating stable chipsets that also overclock very well so I wouldnt considerit a bad thing if you did have to have an intel based board. That doesnt mean it will be made by intel, they will just supply the chipsets.

As for lower prices, it seems the 2.4 conroe outperforms the FX-60 at about half the cost, so AMD are going to have to seriously drop prices to appeal to anybody unless they can bring something out to rival it.
 
Jokester said:
There was a benchmark review over Anandtech, that included a FEAR benchmark. The Conroe was about 20% quicker than a FX-62 equivalent.

Jokester


Yes but the conroe wasnt overclocked by 500mhz. :p And anandtechs encoding benchmarks were less than adequate, in the divx encoding one they didnt even mention how many frames the video had :confused: Its impossible to tell how fast its going to encode something if you dont know how many frames the video has. In the itunes one anandtech didnt even mention what codec they were using. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
you think thats bad, the recent hardocp review pits a 7800gtx up against a x1900xt. and guess which card is the winner in that round.

what is it with reviewers these days? they all seem to be taking bribes or something.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
you think thats bad, the recent hardocp review pits a 7800gtx up against a x1900xt. and guess which card is the winner in that round.

what is it with reviewers these days? they all seem to be taking bribes or something.

Hmm a 7800 faster than an x1900? Yeah let me smoke some of that please.
 
Some more meaningful results here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97248

CPU: Intel 2.13Ghz 4MB L2 "Conroe" ES (dual core) @ 8 x 333Mhz = 2.66Ghz stock volts (~1.15v real)
CPU Cooling: stock Intel aircooling aluminum heatsink
DDR2: Mushkin PC-4200 @ 3-2-2-8 (~2.2v) - 2x512MB
Video: ATI X1900XTX @ 720/828 (stock aircooling)
MB: Intel D975XBX "Bad Axe" stock w/BIOS 0807
OS: Windows XP Pro SP2 (absolutely NO tweaks)
3DMark05: 13588 3DMarks
3DMark01: 41210 3DMarks


Very impressive scores, but I guess it says more about the graphics card than the CPU. Gives a taster of whats to come though...

Bear in mind the above scores are on a 2.13Ghz Conroe overclocked to 2.66Ghz, which is essentially what the E6600 ($530) version will be at stock.
 
Thats more than promising, I wish they test it on 3DMark06 with crossfire enabled to see how it performs. :D

Thanks for the update Durzel ;)

The future looks promising, next time I will definatly get me a powerful, cool running CPU... :D
 
ihatelag said:
Hehe, everybody wants a Conroe it seems...
not everybody... ;) i have nothing against intels chips, i just think there an evil immoral company with no standards beyond those that allow for a greater bottom line :)
 
locutus12 said:
not everybody... ;) i have nothing against intels chips, i just think there an evil immoral company with no standards beyond those that allow for a greater bottom line :)

And your point is :D

These chips are definatly looking well worth the money, but we still need to see what AMD's chips perform like. When are they both out again?
 
Durzel said:
Some more meaningful results here:

nah, they'd be meaningful results if it was an actual retail chip as opposed to an ES chip.

personally i'm trying not to get caught up in the hype, i'm just gonna wait till there released & we can see store bought chips hitting good clocks & repeating those kinda results before i throw a wad of dosh Conroe's way.

besides i need to read up on DDR2 ram in the mean time cos i aint got a clue what's considered good stuff when it comes to DDR2 :confused:
 
There seems to be a bit of confusion about "having to use an Intel motherboard" here.

In short, the reason people are benchmarking Conroe mainly on Intel boards is because the only i975 board that supports Conroe at the moment is an Intel. You do not have to have an Intel board to run Conroe, it's simply that manufacturers haven't released boards to support it yet. In fact, the benchmark at the start of this thread was done on a Gigabyte i965 board.

Whilst everyone is aware that Intel boards have never been the best for overclocking, we can expect to see some new boards from other manufacturers based on i965 and new rev. i975 chipsets that will support Conroe come the summer.
 
Last edited:
I believe the plan has been Q3 for quite a long time now.

But I think the indications recently have been that it will be early Q3 (July?) now, instead of nearer Q4 which was when it was originally expected (I think)......
 
Back
Top Bottom