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

Corasik · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:16

With 2 meg Cache Allensdale seems to be about 10% slower than Conroe. However considering a 2.4Ghz conroe performs pretty much as well as a 2.8Ghz FX62, then its not unrealistic to expect a 2.8Ghz Allensdale to be able to beat FX62 as well.

There was a french website that took the E6300 to just 2.4Ghz and it did outstandingly well. So its fact, not speculation that the E6300's can potentionally outperform FX62's.

fenderbass86 · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:18

Corasik said:
With 2 meg Cache Allensdale seems to be about 10% slower than Conroe. However considering a 2.4Ghz conroe performs pretty much as well as a 2.8Ghz FX62, then its not unrealistic to expect a 2.8Ghz Allensdale to be able to beat FX62 as well.

There was a french website that took the E6300 to just 2.4Ghz and it did outstandingly well. So its fact, not speculation that the E6300's can potentionally outperform FX62's.

I remember seeing that, the E6300 was about the same as an X2 4800+ or an FX60. Just a small overclock and it beats every AMD cpu available.

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:24

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

get more performance for the same money with conroe

Corasik · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:27

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page21.php

Google translate having trouble with that article at the moment, but you dont need to read french to understand the bar diagrams. 2Meg cache conroes are slower than 4meg cache conroes, but will still overclock and outperform Athlon64's and Opterons.

silversurfer · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:29

Corasik said:
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.

I dont doubt DFI, I was refering to the nforce chipset really since that was a real sure bet on socket A, etc but not heard the same about lga775

This chart shows maybe the worst case scenario for Intel - only the very top chip at stock can beat the fx-62, but if you assume the lowest stock chip can overclock to 2.93ghz (e6300 needs 419fsb, a 58% overclock and e6400 only 366fsb) then you can see the fx is a gonna at present prices.

Corasik · 14 Jul 2006 at 19:32

I wonder if that Cinema 4D test is limited somewhere other than the CPU, the P4's suck ok, fair enough, but the 2.4 and 2.67Ghz E6600, and E6700 both score 11 which matches the FX-62, and all the Core2's beat the X2-5000.

I think thats a very poor comparison between the processors personally, and if thats the 'worst' then its still showing a mid range Core2 is matching the performance of amd's flagship.

FrankJH · 14 Jul 2006 at 20:42

easyrider said:
yeah and...

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

Didnt realise i had to spell everything out for people - I was commenting on the "£500 cheaper" comment

locutus12 · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:00

easyrider said:
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.

did i say it wasnt ? :confused:

look at what i said and think about why i said it.

idoru66 · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:07

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

Not for real-world gaming:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

FX62 and top of the line Conroe deliver basically identical performance...

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:10

locutus12 said:
did i say it wasnt ? look at what i said and think about why i said it.

Oh yeah,

no offence

Kamakazie! · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:20

Richdog said:
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?

maybe you should read my post properly and then comment on it?
I know it has the same cache... that why i said "doesn't it have 2mb l2 cache".
I know the 4mb conroe beats the A64 clock for clock but asked for benchies of the 2mb core2 because it won't be as fast as the 4mb.
What exactly did i post that is an any way "fanboyism"?
i simply asked for the "facts and figures"

easyrider said:
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

Again, i didn't comment about the cache in comparison to the FX62, my comment was merely to highlight that the E6300 won't be as fast clock for clock as the E6600 etc.
As for the link you gave me.... errr super Pi and 3dmark, how very relevent.
Benchmarks from games and applications at usual resolutions.

Corasik said:
With 2 meg Cache Allensdale seems to be about 10% slower than Conroe. However considering a 2.4Ghz conroe performs pretty much as well as a 2.8Ghz FX62, then its not unrealistic to expect a 2.8Ghz Allensdale to be able to beat FX62 as well.

so 10% slower than something that "performs pretty much as well as a 2.8ghz FX62" is not the same as:

fenderbass86 said:
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!

see the confusion? hence why i want benchmarks. Your all speculating on different performance levels.
i want some gaming benchmarks done at resolutions that people with this kit will use. Like they did on HardOCP. That showed that for me, the best value CPU for me is gonna be the E6600. OK its only a few FPS here and there faster than the FX-62 but it is cheaper. I may still get an AMD depending on what the upgrade path with AM2 is gonna be like but thats something to look at in a few months time.

You have all made comments about doing research yet every single one of you posted some speculation. I did not, and there was certainly no element of "fanboyism" in the post. As always though, some people will infer from it whatever they like.

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:28

Kamakazie! said:
You have all made comments about doing research yet every single one of you posted some speculation. I did not, and there was certainly no element of "fanboyism" in the post. As always though, some people will infer from it whatever they like.

How did I post speculation?

I own a E6600 conroe and its faster than my opty 170 @2.8ghz it replaced.
The 6300 can be overclocked to 2.8 ghz making it faster than an FX 62.

You state "super Pi and 3dmark, how very relevent.
Benchmarks from games applications and usual resolutions."

My conroe is faster in games than an FX 62.
And it blows the amd couterparts away in encoding and all other pc tasks.

Gaming benchmarks are just as relevant as super PI scores.
It measures a CPU's performance.

it is wdely dotted around the web that conroe improves Oblivion by 100 % LOL That good enough for you?

If you are a gamer then to state that you are considering AMD now with conroe around is hard to undertand really

fenderbass86 · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:29

Well no one like [H]ardOCP has done a review including an E6300. You could head over to xtremesystems and read up on what Gorod and K.I.T.T have posted as they have the E6300.

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:37

fenderbass86 said:
Well no one like [H]ardOCP has done a review including an E6300. You could head over to xtremesystems and read up on what Gorod and K.I.T.T have posted as they have the E6300.

I have already linked him to K.I.T.T.s link in here that shows the clocking potential of the 6300 here on these very forums.

But apparantly SUPER PI and 3D mark are no good for testing the speed of a cpu lol

Kamakazie! · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:42

easyrider said:
How did I post speculation?

I own a E6600 conroe and its faster than my opty 170 @2.8ghz it replaced.
The 6300 can be overclocked to 2.8 ghz making it faster than an FX 62.

You state "super Pi and 3dmark, how very relevent.
Benchmarks from games applications and usual resolutions."

My conroe is faster in games than an FX 62.
And it blows the amd couterparts away in encoding and all other pc tasks.

Gaming benchmarks are just as relevant as super PI scores.
It measures a CPU's performance.

it is wdely dotted around the web that conroe improves Oblivion by 100 % LOL That good enough for you?

If you are a gamer then to state that you are considering AMD now with conroe around is hard to undertand really

so if i buy an E6300 and it doesn't overclock to 2.8ghz then you are gonna buy me a new one each time until it does?
pure speculation.

i appreciate your E6600 is faster than an FX-62... where have i argued that?
We are talkng about the E6300... it's a slightly different beast. Stock clock frequency aside.

super pi is not really relevent at all because no one uses it day to day (unless they are benchmarking).

100% in oblivion at what resolution?
@ 1280x1024
yeah that looks just like 100%. So no, it's no good enough for me.

Look, i am not arguing that the E6300 is currently a better buy than say a 3800+ or a 4200+. I'm merely contesting the assumptions banded about in this thread. Implying that when overclocked, it will completely outstrip an FX62 when there are no real figures, by reputable sites that say as much.
So as i said, speculation.

no fenderbass there are not, so stop stating stuff as if it is fact. Thats all i am saying.

Kamakazie! · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:44

easyrider said:
But apparantly SUPER PI and 3D mark are no good for testing the speed of a cpu lol

i never said they weren't good for testing the speed of a cpu.
i said that they weren't relevent.
maybe you should read things through properly?

fenderbass86 · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:49

Kamakazie! said:
i never said they weren't good for testing the speed of a cpu.
i said that they weren't relevent.
maybe you should read things through properly?

Of course it's relevant, it's the time it takes the CPU to calculate all those numbers of PI to reach a conclusion. The less time it takes, the faster it is.

easyrider · 14 Jul 2006 at 21:57

Kamakazie! said:
so if i buy an E6300 and it doesn't overclock to 2.8ghz then you are gonna buy me a new one each time until it does?
pure speculation..

Thats the same for any cpu,Overclocking is sometimes luck of the draw.My first 170 needed 1.55v to get to 2.6ghz my next needed 1.36v to get to 2.8ghz

If you buy a 6300 and it only clocks to 2.4ghz it will still be faster than all AMD dual core chips bar the 600 quid FX 62

i appreciate your E6600 is faster than an FX-62... where have i argued that?
We are talkng about the E6300... it's a slightly different beast. Stock clock frequency aside.

super pi is not really relevent at all because no one uses it day to day (unless they are benchmarking)...

But it still shows the speed and performance of a cpu.

Kamakazie! said:
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"?

The 4800 runs at 2.4ghz a 6300 running at this speed will be faster than it this is fact.

Sir Random · 14 Jul 2006 at 22:02

Here's a french review which compares all the latest Intel and AMD cpus. It includes benches for E6300 at stock, and at 2.4Ghz.

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page21.php

The review is in French, but you can see the results in the comparison tables.

silversurfer · 14 Jul 2006 at 22:11

I looked through that, less cache makes little difference on video encoding but upto 20% at the same clock speeds when playing games :/

At over 100fps Iam still not sure it matters enough to pay extra but at least it demonstrates what people seem to be paying for