Conroe and X2 comparison

bbreezeuk · 27 Jun 2006 at 11:58

=assassin= said:
As far as I can tell, it's only 7x multi as the FSB is 266Mhz (1066Mhz effective quad pumped).

[EDIT] hehe, 1 minute too late replying!!!

ah well i guess i will be sticking with AMD then

=assassin= · 27 Jun 2006 at 12:11

Explicit said:
Yes, you can use a divider, but its not recommended with Intel (well, that's what everyone seems to be saying)

Ah

[EDIT] Any boards that might offer locked RAM speeds then?

While we're on the topic of Conroe, what are the coolers going to be like - are they same screamers that come with the P4's, or possibly a little quieter, given that they'll most likely be much cooler running?

Gaygle · 27 Jun 2006 at 14:07

To get a conroe i'd need to get a new motherboard, new graphics card and new memory.....i think i'll just stick with AMD and wait for the X2's to plummit in price

Mattus · 27 Jun 2006 at 14:16

I'd think Intel will put some effort into making the stock coolers a little quieter, given that it's a point on which AMD have gained the advantage over the P4?

masterk · 27 Jun 2006 at 14:24

So how is the Conroe so fast? Does it use its two cores to some advantage?

=assassin= · 27 Jun 2006 at 14:58

Mattus said:
I'd think Intel will put some effort into making the stock coolers a little quieter, given that it's a point on which AMD have gained the advantage over the P4?

Lets hope so then!

Mattus · 27 Jun 2006 at 14:58

Yes... but mainly it's a total redesign. It has a lot of technology in common with the Pentium-M mobile CPU, which needs a much lower clock speed and heat output to reach the same performance as a P4.

Pants · 27 Jun 2006 at 21:46

To people saying dividers are not reccomended for performance, surely you don't need 1066mhz memory as that is stupidly expensive?

Edit: sorry just seen here wich does help. You have to divide the clock FSB by 2 for the mhz memory you need?

Corasik · 27 Jun 2006 at 21:55

No, because its a 1066mhz 64bit bus. You run with dual channel memory, so a 128bit 533mhz memory configuration.

So by the time your up to 800mhz DDR memory, you can push the FSB all the way to 1600FSB

Pants · 27 Jun 2006 at 21:59

OK I get it, thanks for clearing that up. Been out of the "scene" for a while now!

daz.wallace · 27 Jun 2006 at 22:06

Stelly said:
wow my last intel chip was a PII 233 mmx lol

Stelly

Same here, next chip will be the E6600

juno_first · 28 Jun 2006 at 00:19

nothin rocks till its in the shops

Angilion · 28 Jun 2006 at 07:35

Stelly said:
wow my last intel chip was a PII 233 mmx lol

Stelly

Mine was a 386, back in the days when I didn't know much and bought my first PC second-hand as a complete system. I think the clock speed was 25MHz, but I might be mis-remembering that. I remember paying £500 for that second-hand PC and thinking (rightly) it was a good price. 386 CPU, 1MB of memory and two HDD (one 40MB, one 20MB)...this was good kit! Bargain at £500 second-hand.

It wasn't a deliberate decision against Intel. It's just that whenever I went to upgrade, Intel weren't the best option in terms of price and performance. Although in retrospect Intel would have been a better option than the Cyrix 5x86-100 I had at one time.

Gashman · 28 Jun 2006 at 21:27

the E6400 looks like a right little beauty, its fair bit cheaper than E6600, its not much slower clock wise and does double the cache really make that much of a difference, it hasn't ever made noticable difference in experience?

Pants · 28 Jun 2006 at 21:28

Gashman said:
the E6400 looks like a right little beauty, its fair bit cheaper than E6600, its not much slower clock wise and does double the cache really make that much of a difference, it hasn't ever made noticable difference in experience?

I think cashe might make more of an impact on Core 2 Duo because both cores share the same cashe pool. Correct me if i'm worng?

Gashman · 28 Jun 2006 at 21:32

yeah i think thats the case they have a shared cache, but how much of a difference we talking about here?

Pants · 28 Jun 2006 at 21:43

It would be good if a somebody could clock the 2 and 4 MB chip at the same speed then benchmark. *hint somebody

*

NathanE · 28 Jun 2006 at 21:49

masterk said:
So how is the Conroe so fast? Does it use its two cores to some advantage?

The three key reasons are:

- More execution units (like 3 vector units, as opposed to just the 1 on NetBurst and the A64)

- Pipeline optimisations (compresses certain instruction groups down to one instruction)

- Shared L2 cache (allows cross core communication without hitting the FSB, and hence allows threads to switch between cores with no penalty)

- Black magic that Intel won't ever disclose

Mr Jones · 28 Jun 2006 at 22:38

NathanE said:
- Black magic that Intel won't ever disclose

Pixie Dust

Gangster · 29 Jun 2006 at 09:49

Does anyone know if running a divider on the conroe is a performance killer?

G