Is the cheapest Conroe still likely to be faster than the fastest AMD?

Participant · 14 Jul 2006 at 17:34

Ok - I'm sure it's not, but how close is the budget Conroe going to be in terms of the decent AMD chips?

I'm upgrading soon and am debating whether to go for an AMD and get the same performance for less money.

locutus12 · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:00

Go for AMD, its the moral choice at the very least

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:04

locutus12 said:
Go for AMD, its the moral choice at the very least

what?

The clear winner here is conroe.
Flattening the AMD counter parts.

Unless you were on a really strict budget even a Intel Core 2 DUO E6300 for 150 offers massive gains over a dual core AMD chip.

Even if the x2 3800 comes down to the 100 mark conroe is still in front by a considerable margin.

fenderbass86 · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:05

The E6300 is the Core 2 Duo budget cpu, it equals the performance of an X2 4800+ roughly. If you overclocked that from 1.83GHz stock to 2.4GHz, it'd beat an FX62 in most cases! Also being £500+ cheaper it's the clear winner!

Mr Mister · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:06

conroe mobos are all expensive though so depends on budget,

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:06

fenderbass86 said:
The E6300 is the Core 2 Duo budget cpu, it equals the performance of an X2 4800+ roughly. If you overclocked that from 1.83GHz stock to 2.4GHz, it'd beat an FX62 in most cases! Also being £500+ cheaper it's the clear winner!

yup

fenderbass86 · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:08

Mr Mister said:
conroe mobos are all expensive though so depends on budget,

That's because all the 975X ones are the top of the range bunch, wait for the 965 and nForce5 versions to come out, sub £100 boards and still decent.

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:08

Mr Mister said:
conroe mobos are all expensive though so depends on budget,

No they are not,

The asrock conroe sata 2 mobo is 56 quid,the Asrock 775TWINS-HDTV can be had for 40.

FrankJH · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:26

fenderbass86 said:
The E6300 is the Core 2 Duo budget cpu, it equals the performance of an X2 4800+ roughly. If you overclocked that from 1.83GHz stock to 2.4GHz, it'd beat an FX62 in most cases! Also being £500+ cheaper it's the clear winner!

so can a £140 X2 3800 (oc'ed) get to 2.4Ghz and be equivelant to an X2 4800 / FX 62 and most can get to 2.5GHz+ so please dont use price as the only comparison its very misleading

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:32

FrankJH said:
so can a £140 X2 3800 (oc'ed) get to 2.4Ghz and be equivelant to an X2 4800 / FX 62 and most can get to 2.5GHz+ so please dont use price as the only comparison its very misleading

An FX 62 runs at speeds of 2.8ghz not 2.4ghz.
A conroe running at around 2.4-2.6ghz beats an FX 62

and the E6300 is 150 quid a moderate overclock on one would beat the x2 3800 4400 and 4800 respectively.

So I dont really understand your point ?

gam3r · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:33

When are the nForce boards coming out? I'm curious as i would probably go for one of these.

FrankJH · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:41

easyrider said:
An FX 62 runs at speeds of 2.8ghz not 2.4ghz.
A conroe running at around 2.4-2.6ghz beats an FX 62

and the E6300 is 150 quid a moderate overclock on one would beat the x2 3800 4400 and 4800 respectively.

So I dont really understand your point ?

My point was even a cheap AMD chip can get a lot nearer to the speed and power of an FX62 so he shouldnt use the price difference as a reason (as few would buy an expensive chip if a cheaper one will get to nearly the same performance - which most X2 3800's do)!!!

I wasnt saying the conroe/ allendale isnt a bad chip - evne though there are already posts suggesting retail chips may not be as good clockers - they are very good but I think its highly misleading to compare an FX 62 from the "last generation" to a new gen chip - unless you mention an Intel PIV Extremely Expensive also ( around the same price as FX series but not as fast)

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:49

FrankJH said:
My point was even a cheap AMD chip can get a lot nearer to the speed and power of an FX62 so he shouldnt use the price difference as a reason (as few would buy an expensive chip if a cheaper one will get to nearly the same performance - which most X2 3800's do)!!!

yeah and...

the x2 3800 is around 160 quid the conroe E6300 is cheaper and faster so I still dont see your point.

Corasik · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:53

FrankJH said:
I think its highly misleading to compare an FX 62 from the "last generation" to a new gen chip - unless you mention an Intel PIV Extremely Expensive also ( around the same price as FX series but not as fast)

So its been ok for people to compare AMD's 8th Generation with intels 7th Generation Netburst processor for the last 3 years, but now its unfair to compare intels 8th gen?

Intel have been a generation behind, and very slow at getting a new chip out. Now its here, its real, and there is nothing new from AMD to compare it to, so its a perfectly valid comparison.

Intel's 9th, and 10th generation chips are already on the roadmaps, so it should be a lot easier to compare the chips when K10 come out. I guess they decided to skip K9 because it sounds too much like Dr Who.

silversurfer · 14 Jul 2006 at 18:56

You have to wait for the new prices to compare them, conroe isnt out yet and so we cant compare them all properly yet.

My guess is conroe is going to be the best for performance and price, the only reason to go amd will be because you lack the other components.

The asrock boards are cheap but I dont advise using ddr1 ram on them personally.

DFI are bringing out a nforce board in august, dont assume they will match their amd reputation though

Corasik · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:01

DFI have been making intel boards since at least 486, possibly longer, so I see no reason why their Intel boards shouldnt be pretty nice. Think I still have a DFI board with a 486DX33 somewhere in the attic.

Kamakazie! · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:05

easyrider said:
An FX 62 runs at speeds of 2.8ghz not 2.4ghz.
A conroe running at around 2.4-2.6ghz beats an FX 62

and the E6300 is 150 quid a moderate overclock on one would beat the x2 3800 4400 and 4800 respectively.

isn't the E6300 only 2mb L2 cache?
If so, its not gonna be as fast at 2.4-2.6ghz and so wont beat an FX62... WHat benchmarks are there out there for the E6300 that you can link to so i can see it beating the 4800+ with a "moderate overclock"?
Facts and figures please, not speculation. Save that for the K8L discussions

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:10

Kamakazie! said:
isn't the E6300 only 2mb L2 cache?
If so, its not gonna be as fast at 2.4-2.6ghz and so wont beat an FX62... WHat benchmarks are there out there for the E6300 that you can link to so i can see it beating the 4800+ with a "moderate overclock"?
Facts and figures please, not speculation. Save that for the K8L discussions

Do a search on these very forums...

Hang on heres a link 6300 clocks etc...

Its not speculation its fact.

at 2.8ghz the 6300 trounces my previous opty 170 @ 2.8ghz (fx 62 speeds)
Oh and the 6300 and the FX 62 have the same ammount of cache

Richdog · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:13

Kamakazie! said:
isn't the E6300 only 2mb L2 cache?
If so, its not gonna be as fast at 2.4-2.6ghz and so wont beat an FX62... WHat benchmarks are there out there for the E6300 that you can link to so i can see it beating the 4800+ with a "moderate overclock"?
Facts and figures please, not speculation. Save that for the K8L discussions

Aghh matey do some research before psoting... 6300 has same cache as FX-62 and beats it (current A64 architecture) clock for clock. No need to bring fanboyism into the debate, lets just look at this objectively shall we?

fenderbass86 · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:14

I'm with you on this easyrider, people need to get their facts right and do a bit of searching.