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

NathanE · 9 Mar 2006 at 01:21

Sumanji said:
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!

Yeah thanks for pointing that out, I totally didn't realise these weren't for sale yet!

BTW I think 6 months is perhaps a bit pessimistic. I'm thinking more along the lines of June/early July - at least for the lower end Conroe parts.

Explicit · 9 Mar 2006 at 01:27

Sumanji said:
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!

So you're saying the article wasn't fair because it compared an old FX-60 to a Conroe which is many months away?

NathanE · 9 Mar 2006 at 01:34

That's the thing that everybody is missing. Intel were simply using the FX60 as a benchmark of performance. They then went onto demonstrate a Conroe chip running at a lesser frequency. It's no good just showing a Conroe system running without a baseline to compare it too. People need a point of reference...

It doesn't take an expert to say the "test" that Intel performed was unfair. Nobody actually said it was in the first place... It was never intended to be... It really is irrelevant whether it is "fair" or not.

Sumanji · 9 Mar 2006 at 01:43

NathanE said:
BTW I think 6 months is perhaps a bit pessimistic. I'm thinking more along the lines of June/early July - at least for the lower end Conroe parts.

lol yeah you're right, I keep thinking it's still January... stuck in a time warp :eek:

Explicit said:
So you're saying the article wasn't fair because it compared an old FX-60 to a Conroe which is many months away?

I'm saying the article is a reasonably good indication of what to expect come Summer. Intel are proving that their future architecture can whup AMD's current architecture, which is to be expected really. But arguably AMD's 90nm AM2 chips can't be that much quicker than their current ones, which is why the benchmarks they showed are kinda "valid" (in a really twisted Intel sort of way

)

I think I misread your post though, I thought you were saying to wait until both firms are at 65nm before making comparisons, but what you mean is that AMD have more head room and a potential ace up their sleeve with 65nm, right?

Suman

Explicit · 9 Mar 2006 at 02:08

Sumanji said:
I'm saying the article is a reasonably good indication of what to expect come Summer. Intel are proving that their future architecture can whup AMD's current architecture, which is to be expected really. But arguably AMD's 90nm AM2 chips can't be that much quicker than their current ones, which is why the benchmarks they showed are kinda "valid" (in a really twisted Intel sort of way )

I think I misread your post though, I thought you were saying to wait until both firms are at 65nm before making comparisons, but what you mean is that AMD have more head room and a potential ace up their sleeve with 65nm, right?

Suman

lol, yeah that's what I was trying to get across, but it came out in an ambiguous way

Anyway, this is all speculation, and it's best if we just wait and see what happens.

beh · 9 Mar 2006 at 02:34

Looks impressive. 6 months is a long while off but if these intel benchmarks are fair it'll be difficult for AMD to rival that performance. Not given up yet though.

tomos · 9 Mar 2006 at 06:59

there is something i suppose that AMD could have done to make sure they can respond in case of something like this happening - although it might annoy some of us *slightly*

they only needed tiny speed bumps every now and then to stay ahead of intel, so who's to say that over the last few years, they havent managed to get A64's up to much higher clockspeeds than the current crop and just held back for nothing more simple than the fact they didnt need to.

If intel came out with something that challenged them like they have now, then just jump up to a higher clocked chip for AM2.

i can easily see intel doing this in the past when they had the lead before K7 came out. they had high prices, and the fastest chips and released at their own pace. or more likely, released at the pace of just staying ahead of the competition, i.e K6 comes out at say 300mhz, Intel bring out a P2 at 450? numbers are guesswork but you know what i mean. they had plenty of headroom.

hopefully what AM2 has shown us so far is just for show (especially since that THG review is hopeless and we still dont have a clue about the chips/sockets potential in reality when it comes out).

fingers crossed

Durzel · 9 Mar 2006 at 10:30

To be honest, if this chip is as good as claimed then it's gonna cost a small fortune anyway - so either way the consumer "loses".

Having said that, if it spurns AMD onto more vigorous R&D then ultimately everyone is a winner.

I'm gonna hold off on my upgrade for a while I think to see what sort of real-World performance these chips have, how they do under phase change, etc.... ...and that's coming from someone with an Intel P4 so no bias here.

Squidge · 9 Mar 2006 at 10:59

I certainly think the next 6 - 12 months will be very interesting, and although I've just spent over £1,000 on an upgrade, I'm looking forward to the new chips. In a years time, the technology should have matured enough to see who is the new speed king and probably upgrade again.

Things change I've changed · 9 Mar 2006 at 11:03

The results have been updated.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716

Otacon · 9 Mar 2006 at 11:20

Durzel said:
To be honest, if this chip is as good as claimed then it's gonna cost a small fortune anyway - so either way the consumer "loses".

Anandtech do mention the cost factor actually, and it's something worth keeping in mind. Real enthusiasts will always go where the performance can be had, but for the rest of us, there's a lot to be said for a good 'bang per buck'.

HighlandeR · 9 Mar 2006 at 15:15

Heck im still staring at the quad core one

Sir Random · 10 Mar 2006 at 01:30

Durzel said:
To be honest, if this chip is as good as claimed then it's gonna cost a small fortune anyway - so either way the consumer "loses".

I don't think it'll be that expensive, since there will be faster versions available too.

Anandtech said:
It’s also worth noting that the 2.66GHz E6700 we previewed here is simply a high end mainstream part, it is not an Extreme Edition flavor of Conroe. At 2.8 or 3.0GHz, a Conroe EE would offer even stronger performance than what we’ve seen here.

Hopefully, the 2.66Ghz core will be affordable by most people, with the 2.8 and 3.0Ghz versions catering for the big spenders.

stigggeh · 10 Mar 2006 at 01:34

i think intel would be VERY silly to price themselves out of the market... yes the conroe EE will be very expensive but so is an FX60 to me... the people that buy these can afford them.

i am sure they will bring low end models that are cheaper.... if they dont they are very foolish imo.

NathanE · 10 Mar 2006 at 01:40

The mainstream Conroe's will be set at price points similar to the Pentium D.

sja360 · 10 Mar 2006 at 08:37

looking at the performance figures there it looks like i'm going to intel come next year unless AMD pull magic tricks outta their hat

anyone know if there is still Hyperthreading with these new chips? and i assume there will be single/dual core variants?

Digital Punk · 10 Mar 2006 at 09:12

Wow, just shows how scared out of their wits Intel must be to allow the media to report benchmarks of a chip that's still months away from release.

Normally this stuff is covered by NDA until much nearer launch day.

The conroe itself does look impressive, (bout time Intel! :mad:

) but its still useless until I can actually buy one.

AWPC · 10 Mar 2006 at 09:53

Hyperthreading retired apparently as not needed with dual + quad cores.

As for pricing the EE will be the same as the current ones so around the £750 mark.

The others will probably be priced a little lower to regain market share!

div0 · 10 Mar 2006 at 11:33

Digital Punk said:
Wow, just shows how scared out of their wits Intel must be to allow the media to report benchmarks of a chip that's still months away from release.

or just that they are happy enough with its performance and stability to allow people to do early benchmarks ?!

NathanE · 10 Mar 2006 at 11:52

Or that they are chuffed with their creation and want to show the world?

Really, I wouldn't read too much into it. Times are a changing.