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

tomos · 8 Mar 2006 at 11:49

TaKeN said:
Do you mean ATi ?

whoops, mistype. must learn not to type in a rush

Webzta · 8 Mar 2006 at 12:13

Spit said:
Reckons its stock and the extreme edition will be clocked at 3GHz!!!

3.33Ghz is set to be the top end conroe default clock speed.

Soul Rider · 8 Mar 2006 at 12:31

Good to see a bit of competition in the market place again. opefully this bodes well for AMD's switch to 65nm fabrication. As they have been faster on the last few fabrications against equivalent Intel's, it will be interesting to see if they can do it again on 65nm...

We are watching and waiting..

G.O.A.T · 8 Mar 2006 at 13:08

This is pretty exciting stuff but I wouldn't read anything into the benchmarks for another 6 months until they get some proper independant testing done.

stigggeh · 8 Mar 2006 at 13:18

edit nevermind...

vintage-x · 8 Mar 2006 at 13:22

Just read the anandtech article and I must say that even though im an AMD fanboy (havent had and intel system for 10 years except my laptop which I have now) Im actualy quite excited about this CPU. If they can bring it out a price even half of the fx 60 then this is gonna be the ultimate best of both worlds CPU.
I will be watching closley hopefully AMD can pull something out of the bag soon.

oweneades · 8 Mar 2006 at 13:27

hmmmm I think I will personally wait until some better less biased benchmarks are released.

A AMD system setup by intel is, well not a good basis for the performance of the FX60.

The scores do look impressive I must say. (Although I am not particularly biased towards either intel or AMD - Have had Athlons and p4's and now a Athlon 64).

Logan09 · 8 Mar 2006 at 13:40

Looks mighty impressive if the benchmarks are to be believed. It's about time Intel got back into the race, it seems AMD have been on top performance/efficiency wise for years.

Hopefully all the hype will be justified when these chips are finally released and some independent tests can confirm their performance. I'm also waiting to hear the price, as I still feel AMD may end up ahead on a price-per-performance ratio.

NathanE · 8 Mar 2006 at 14:35

Although the demonstrated benchmarks are pretty much in the ballpark of where I expected them to be for Conroe, I agree we must wait until the chips are available in the public domain where "proper" tests can be done.

Goksly · 8 Mar 2006 at 15:39

sr4470 said:
Historically AMD switch processes a year later than Intel. Frankly, I dont blame them, theyre a smaller company...

But AMD arent really developing the shrink... thats all IBM iirc.

Results look interesting.... cant wait to see the results on an independant machine.

Indy500 · 8 Mar 2006 at 16:01

Goksly said:
But AMD arent really developing the shrink... thats all IBM iirc.

Exactly, they need assistance...

Goksly said:
... cant wait to see the results on an independant machine.

Same here, this may prompt some interesting developments from AMD.

Cyber-Mav · 8 Mar 2006 at 20:20

this is the nail in the coffin for AMD, no way will the shift to ddr2 on socket M2 make up for the performance defecit against conroe.

FreeStream · 8 Mar 2006 at 20:23

omg if thats true, sod my X2, im going intel! Quad core :eek:

*yummy*

Otacon · 8 Mar 2006 at 20:37

Cyber-Mav said:
this is the nail in the coffin for AMD, no way will the shift to ddr2 on socket M2 make up for the performance defecit against conroe.

I don't doubt the authenticity of the results, but I wouldn't write AMD off because of these benchmarks. Wait for the independant benches at the very least.

It would hardly be the death of them anyway, just a switch at the top of the performance tower at best. It's about time we had a good competition between the two

m3csl2004 · 8 Mar 2006 at 20:37

nail in the coffin?

amd have been out perforimg intel since venices became popular

this is intels come back

tomos · 8 Mar 2006 at 21:40

Otacon said:
I don't doubt the authenticity of the results, but I wouldn't write AMD off because of these benchmarks. Wait for the independant benches at the very least.

It would hardly be the death of them anyway, just a switch at the top of the performance tower at best. It's about time we had a good competition between the two

yep, think intel will rule the roost, till AMD get 65nm up and running to take the lead - hopefully with quad core around Oct time this year according to a guesstimate i read off XS.

then of course, intel will move to 45nm and take the lead back

NathanE · 8 Mar 2006 at 22:10

tomos said:
yep, think intel will rule the roost, till AMD get 65nm up and running to take the lead - hopefully with quad core around Oct time this year according to a guesstimate i read off XS.

then of course, intel will move to 45nm and take the lead back

I doubt that. As it stands right now Intel has a higher IPC architecture than what AMD has. It will take a little bit more than just a die shrink to bring AMD64 back up to speed. I expect K10 will have some of the same ILP improvements that Conroe has seen but AMD hasn't leaked any info' on that for ages.

Explicit · 8 Mar 2006 at 22:17

Cyber-Mav said:
this is the nail in the coffin for AMD, no way will the shift to ddr2 on socket M2 make up for the performance defecit against conroe.

That's a bit of sweeping statement. You're comparing Intel's 65nm chips to AMDs 90nm chips...hardly nail in the coffin. If it was 65nm vs 65nm, then yes you could say that things look bad for AMD. I'm quite confident that AMD will pull out something special when it goes 65nm.

perplex · 8 Mar 2006 at 23:54

Bennah said:
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...

What the HELL are you smoking? You reviewed Conroe XEs yourself?

Sumanji · 9 Mar 2006 at 01:06

Explicit said:
If it was 65nm vs 65nm, then yes you could say that things look bad for AMD.

It's not really fair comparing architectures of the same process if one of them is a year older than the other. The best comparison is between chips that are released here and now. At the moment that's a 90nm FX60 vs. 65nm Presler EE. In 6 months-ish it will be a 90nm FX-65 vs. 65nm Conroe EE. Process doesn't matter, availability does!

NathanE said:
As it stands right now Intel has a higher IPC architecture than what AMD has.

Nope; see above - availability

it doesn't now but it probably will in 6 months time. No good having an amazing architecture if you can only show it off in demo boxes at trade shows!

NathanE said:
It will take a little bit more than just a die shrink to bring AMD64 back up to speed.

I think AMD will have an extremely hard time trying to equal Core's IPC with the Hammer architecture. The only hope they have is for some majorly clever core tweaks, a smooth transition to 65nm that will allow them to ramp far beyond 3GHz with good yields, and a nice boost with DDR2-800.

Hammer has already been tweaked a fair bit, and going on the THG AM2 preview, DDR2 isn't so hot... so AMD better have some magic fairy dust lying around somewhere!

Suman