-
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.
Are there any Conroe vs A64 game benchmarks?
- Thread starter juno_first
- Start date
i have to admit, the conroe's are impressive, although i'm yet to be convinced that the advantage is carried over in to games by any noticeable margin.
One thing that is evident however, is that amd are currently outselling intel in stand alone cpu sales by a long way, not with am2 but with 939, the performance available now that prices have dropped give a LIKE for LIKE performance gain (i.e. athlon 3200 to x2 4800) far in excess of any current conroe system for the average socket 939 rig owner, for very little cash outlay.
Amd would have been wiser to keep 939 going a little longer at a better price in the face of conroe, then launching am2 when there was actually a benefit to this socket (which at the moment there isnt ), only when supplies of 939 cpu's start to dry up will we see a true transition to conroe by the masses, and this could still be put under threat if amd pull something out of the hat with am2, however unlikely that may seem at the moment.
I think we're in for an interesting time over the next 12 months regarding intel and amd, as i'm sure we havent seen the best that conroe has to offer by a long chalk, and for a change the winners of this contest will ultimately be us
S
One thing that is evident however, is that amd are currently outselling intel in stand alone cpu sales by a long way, not with am2 but with 939, the performance available now that prices have dropped give a LIKE for LIKE performance gain (i.e. athlon 3200 to x2 4800) far in excess of any current conroe system for the average socket 939 rig owner, for very little cash outlay.
Amd would have been wiser to keep 939 going a little longer at a better price in the face of conroe, then launching am2 when there was actually a benefit to this socket (which at the moment there isnt ), only when supplies of 939 cpu's start to dry up will we see a true transition to conroe by the masses, and this could still be put under threat if amd pull something out of the hat with am2, however unlikely that may seem at the moment.
I think we're in for an interesting time over the next 12 months regarding intel and amd, as i'm sure we havent seen the best that conroe has to offer by a long chalk, and for a change the winners of this contest will ultimately be us
S
juno_first said:
Not a lot of readable (your grand if you can read chinese) info in this test but the graphs provide an insight to you question.
3Dmark scores
http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/evalue/evalue/cpu/0605/791941_12.html
Game benching
http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/evalue/evalue/cpu/0605/791941_13.html
Summary
http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/evalue/evalue/cpu/0605/791941_15.html
Last edited:
Not sure if this helps, some initial benchmarking of my PC (nothing really optimised yet, just testing that the card works ok)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=439817
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=439817
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 2,684
- Location
- England
I get 3dmk06 cpu score 2085 at 2.75Ghz compared to a Conroe at 3.6Ghz getting 3115.
I suppose if my AMD ran at 3.5Ghz I might get near a 3000 CPU score, though not with my old 4400
Good job my 7800's at 450/1.35 bump up my score to 8K
I've checked the 3dmk06 compare & my 7800's at the same speeds and a Conroe at 3.375 gets 9111 so my 4400 at 2.75 is not that much slower.
CPU score AMD @ 2.75 = 2085, Conroe @ 3.375 = 2895 ..= not worth upgrading
Wonder if games will show the same speed increase with Conroe?
I suppose if my AMD ran at 3.5Ghz I might get near a 3000 CPU score, though not with my old 4400
Good job my 7800's at 450/1.35 bump up my score to 8K
I've checked the 3dmk06 compare & my 7800's at the same speeds and a Conroe at 3.375 gets 9111 so my 4400 at 2.75 is not that much slower.
CPU score AMD @ 2.75 = 2085, Conroe @ 3.375 = 2895 ..= not worth upgrading
Wonder if games will show the same speed increase with Conroe?
juno_first said:I get 3dmk06 cpu score 2085 at 2.75Ghz compared to a Conroe at 3.6Ghz getting 3115.
I suppose if my AMD ran at 3.5Ghz I might get near a 3000 CPU score, though not with my old 4400
Good job my 7800's at 450/1.35 bump up my score to 8K
I've checked the 3dmk06 compare & my 7800's at the same speeds and a Conroe at 3.375 gets 9111 so my 4400 at 2.75 is not that much slower.
CPU score AMD @ 2.75 = 2085, Conroe @ 3.375 = 2895 ..= not worth upgrading
Wonder if games will show the same speed increase with Conroe?
@ higher Vid Resolutions the gap is even narrower, afaik this is caused by the Graphics card bottlenecking, this in itself is good enough reason not to dump a resonably good setup just to gain more cpu power.
stoofa said:
who said anything about the people that buy them ? im not talking about people that make an informed decision on a cpu purchase, im talking about those that relentlessly go on about conroe as if it will be the ultimate CPU for all time, and you know full well that there are quite a few on here that are doing this, i didnt say a word about those who actually buy the CPU.
read the thread that prompted mine and my thread and again.
div0 said:I WANT MY HARD EARNED TAX BACK!!
Every time I drive past I cringe with embarassment - it is incredibly ugly, tacky and cheap looking, out-of-character and out-of-place, and worst of all stupidly overpriced!
budget: 40 million, Final cost: 400 million...
teeehehe
i understand parts of the buildings glass is bomb proof too... who the heck would want to bomb the scottish parliament.
Last edited:
locutus12 said:who said anything about the people that buy them ? im not talking about people that make an informed decision on a cpu purchase, im talking about those that relentlessly go on about conroe as if it will be the ultimate CPU for all time, and you know full well that there are quite a few on here that are doing this, i didnt say a word about those who actually buy the CPU.
read the thread that prompted mine and my thread and again.
budget: 40 million, Final cost: 400 million...
teeehehe
i understand parts of the buildings glass is bomb proof too... who the heck would want to bomb the scottish parliament.
You're missing the point.
You can't be a "Fanboy" if what you are telling is the truth.
If you take all of the CPU's currently available on the market and run them all at stock then the top three Conroe models are faster than anything else available.
Taking this information I could start posting into a thread just how great Conroe CPU's are - without the need to buy or test one myself.
What I would be posting would be fact - it wouldn't be some "fanboy" rants or raves, it would be factual information.
You don't need to own, buy or to have even used a product to sing its praises - if the information exists that shows just how good a product is then you can use that information.
In you first post in this thread you've said that "Only the Intel fanboys" are classing the Conroe CPU's as "The second coming".
No - the whole industry is impressed with what Intel have released.
You then go on about how Conroe will be beaten within 12 months - well there is no surprise there really.
You are taking a dig at "Intel fanboys" when in fact your opening post indicates you are an "AMD fanboy" but hate the fact this is being pointed out to you.
I don't understand why everybody who has a Conroe and praises it is considered a fanboy (Only by AMD fanboys it seems)? I think you will find that most people who have moved to Conroe acctually had and AMD before hand. Most people just buy the best at the time and atm thats Conroe by quite a long way!
its all weird, the term fanboy is incorrect, what if there female?! and conroe is brilliant piece of kit, but its a bit pointless if your system still runs everything fine. like a pair of competing kids having to have the best thing first IMO, my system IMO doesn't need upgraded yet it still runs everything fine so why bother? 
I don't really understand all the squabling the simple fact is intels new offering is far better than anything amd have on the market, whats the problem with that its pure facts.
AMD's architecture isn't as good as intels the fact you can take a 6300 that costs £130 and overclock it too 3gig+ basically says they the best bang for buck atm.
But as said if you already have a good system there is really not much point in upgrading unless you want the best performing cpu going, and i am no fan boy i have previously used amd since the original athlons come out and have used intels too, i went for the core 2 duo as i wanted a cheap chip i could overclock for amazing performance.
AMD's architecture isn't as good as intels the fact you can take a 6300 that costs £130 and overclock it too 3gig+ basically says they the best bang for buck atm.
But as said if you already have a good system there is really not much point in upgrading unless you want the best performing cpu going, and i am no fan boy i have previously used amd since the original athlons come out and have used intels too, i went for the core 2 duo as i wanted a cheap chip i could overclock for amazing performance.
stoofa said:
i think your missing the point...
im not talking about the post such as yours that gives an informed opinion and backs up its reasoning in a logical manor...
im talking about the myriad of quotes like this...
a truth and a lie in one sentence without any reasoning behind it.
the truth being that conroe is faster,
the lie is in suggesting all AMD`s stuff is crap.
this is a tiny tiny example of the extreme views being posted all over the place.
I have had AMD cpu's ever since the K6-II chip, and have only now gone back to intel since my P75. The conroe is a very nice chip and beats my previous Opteron hands down. The 146 chip I had was great but its no conroe or allendale I guess i should say 
I have gone from stock 2.13Ghz to 3.2ghz on default vcore, not only that but at 3.2Ghz this chip gives me an extra 35fps in counter-strike source which is all down to the cpu the gfx card was the same in both systems a 7800GT. Granted my 146 was only at 2.9ghz but 300mhz isnt gonna make uop 35fps, not ground breaking and yes most likely not worth upg for a lot of ppl but still nice for Intel to bring something refreshing to the mix
I have gone from stock 2.13Ghz to 3.2ghz on default vcore, not only that but at 3.2Ghz this chip gives me an extra 35fps in counter-strike source which is all down to the cpu the gfx card was the same in both systems a 7800GT. Granted my 146 was only at 2.9ghz but 300mhz isnt gonna make uop 35fps, not ground breaking and yes most likely not worth upg for a lot of ppl but still nice for Intel to bring something refreshing to the mix
Last edited: