Intel's Conroe 2.66GHz beats an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz!

gary996 · 7 Mar 2006 at 22:54

Nice results there. Why is encoding lagging behind though? Wonder what these would OC too??
'The futures bright the futures Intel' (perhaps)

Jokester · 7 Mar 2006 at 22:57

gary996 said:
Why is encoding lagging behind though?

Lower is better...

Jokester

Meds · 7 Mar 2006 at 22:58

Cant wait for conroe now!!! was tempted to go down the AMD X2 route, but i think i'll definately wait now.!!!!

Bennah · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:06

When are these likely to arrive?

Of the results seem to be what they are, then AMD have a com back on thier hands from Intel.

I can see a lot of people buying the FX60's over the Conroe EE's though. EE's are plainly over priced and dont give the performance that is needed to rival the FX's in overall benchmarks.

I would if the Conroe EE would be around the £750+ mark. Lets see how many we see getting bought...

Things change I've changed · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:10

well well well, this is certainly gonna be an intresting year for intel, also a very expensive one for me, we've got vista, conroe, and next gen gfx cards all coming out around the same time

SEARCHER · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:11

Meds said:
Cant wait for conroe now!!! was tempted to go down the AMD X2 route, but i think i'll definately wait now.!!!!

Same here

Explicit · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:11

Very interesting, this is really heating up now. I wonder how AMD will respond down the line.

Indy500 · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:13

Bennah said:
When are these likely to arrive?

Of the results seem to be what they are, then AMD have a come back on thier hands from Intel.

I can see a lot of people buying the FX60's over the Conroe EE's though. EE's are plainly over priced and dont give the performance that is needed to rival the FX's in overall benchmarks.

I would if the Conroe EE would be around the £750+ mark. Lets see how many we see getting bought...

Thats a point, how much will these things cost?

Pulseammo · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:13

sr4470 said:
Both cpus managed over 60fps minimum anyway, wouldnt notice the difference.

Yeah but depending on the price point of each CPU (Amd and Intel) then for those who like to keep their systems longer 90 fps may be 90 fps one day, 60 fps the next while the other CPU may be struggling with newer games. Of course that all depends on the price. Also, gaming isn't the only thing computers do.

Meds · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:15

being a noob when it comes to hardware. But i would say with the talk about cores doubling every year or so. 2 cores, 4 cores, 8 cores etc..... Leading the pack in terms of computer power is going to become very expensive, and upgrades will have to be done more regularly. Especially if supporting software is released to make use of all the additional cores.

Things change I've changed · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:17

sr4470 said:
Both cpus managed over 60fps minimum anyway, wouldnt notice the difference.

funny that, us intel users have been saying the same for years, now the the shoes on the other foot...............

, sorry i'm just feeling a little smug with the results, surely i'm aloud.

Bennah · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:18

Explicit said:
Very interesting, this is really heating up now. I wonder how AMD will respond down the line.

Im sure they got something ready for action. Probably sitting on a AMD lab bench right now.

Heh, they brought out the socket 939 kinda by suprise. I heard someone got a 146 then bang, the next big craze to take off, like the Dothans and adapters.

Indy500 · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:19

Pulseammo said:
Yeah but depending on the price point of each CPU (Amd and Intel) then for those who like to keep their systems longer 90 fps may be 90 fps one day, 60 fps the next while the other CPU may be struggling with newer games.

By the same token I've had the same grade of A64 for some time now, and dont plan to upgrade to dual core for the forseeable future.

It'll be interesting to see what AMD release next.

Pulseammo said:
Of course that all depends on the price

I've said that just now.

Pulseammo said:
Also, gaming isn't the only thing computers do.

Yup, and for the last year AMD desktop cpus have had the best all-round performance (give or take a few exceptions).

lowrider007 said:
funny that, us intel users have been saying the same for years, now the the shoes on the other foot... , sorry i'm just feeling a little smug with the results, surely i'm aloud.

65nm appears to have done for Intel what 90nm did for AMD.

benjo plz. · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:22

sr4470 said:
I've said that just now.

He said it the same time you did.

Indy500 · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:26

Phnom_Penh said:
He said it the same time you did.

Ok, I wasnt sitting here refreshing

Jack Bauer · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:35

Must resist slagging intel off and shouting lies lies lies. naa I cant do it Lies! :mad:

Raikiri · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:37

I'll believe it when I see some more benchmarks, although competition is always good

PinkFloyd · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:39

The Next year definetly should be interesting.
Intel are looking very strng here, but I seriously think there is no way AMD will suddenly drop out in terms of performance like this, They're blatently hiding something, surely....

sr4470 said:
65nm appears to have done for Intel what 90nm did for AMD.

Should be interesting when AMD's 65nm comes out.

btw, don't call me a fan boy for what I have already said, I will buy an Intel if it is this much better at the time of release

Explicit · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:40

Does 65nm actually affect performacne or is that more to do with power consumption and heat? Surely it's better for overclocking if it produces less heat? Just imagine what AMD can do with 65nm chips.

Indy500 · 7 Mar 2006 at 23:43

Explicit said:
Does 65nm actually affect performacne or is that more to do with power consumption and heat? Surely it's better for overclocking if it produces less heat?

You can fit more onto it, its cheaper to produce, and usually less power\heat (although Intel messed up during 130nm - 90nm).

Explicit said:
Just imagine what AMD can do with 65nm chips.

Wont be around till 2007.