-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
should I go x2 3800 or wait for conroe
- Thread starter Rizz
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,450
- Location
- Wiltshire
your going to get mixed responses, at the end of the day every one has there opinions.
Personaly i would save the £300 and spend it on ...say a holiday
the answer is though, if all your interested is benchmarks then the £300 is worth it. if not then no.
Personaly i would save the £300 and spend it on ...say a holiday
the answer is though, if all your interested is benchmarks then the £300 is worth it. if not then no.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,010
- Location
- MANCHESTER
I'd say stick with what you have now. Even though Conroe will be released in july, I dont believe it'll be mainstream till end of august/start september.
So, X2, yeh, Go for it
So, X2, yeh, Go for it
Rizz said:
The recent X2 appear to oc very well and as long as the motherboard has voltage options, 2.6g isnt an unrealistic goal. my own x2 gets me to 2.5 on 1.3v . 1.35v gets me to 2.6 but the crappy amd heatsink makes me burn up real quickly
I havent got a backplate yet to mount my zalman 9550 :/
dont think its worth it personally...i bought a 3800x2 that goes to 2.6 (so far) and it doesnt feel any better than my 3500 at 2.6..maybe just multitasking is a bit snappier in windows. Keep the money for the next latest and greatest thing to come.
Interesting views, hmm not sure what to do now, I can afford 600+ so might just wait and get a conroe, my bro can have my mobo and chip so it will have a good home. I like new stuff so i can pull my hair out when trying to setup bios settings and ram timings. It is going to be very hard but I am going to wait I will order some DDR2 for now. Money burning a hole in my pocket as usual.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 1,983
- Location
- Chelmsford
The thing I like best about the Conroe's is that even the low end ones will clock like mad and be on par with an FX60!
You have yet to believe I think is more accurate.easyrider said:
It's been proven over and over again what these chips are capable of, and that's just on ES versions which are typically worse than their retail counterparts (I've had ES Pentium 4s in the past and they were great for multiplier freedom, but not amazingly better at overclocking).
I think that drawing conclusions about Conroe's overclocking ceiling from such a small number of chips is somwhat premature. Almost all the previews appear to be based on the same chips (in the PCs supplied by Intel).
It does look promising, but it's far too early to tell. I'm not convinced Intel would have brought in a 1.86GHz model at all if they were all capable of much higher speeds. They could have just scaled the speed ratings up a multiplier or two, sold them at the same price and driven past AMD's HQ laughing and moonying out the car windows.
It does look promising, but it's far too early to tell. I'm not convinced Intel would have brought in a 1.86GHz model at all if they were all capable of much higher speeds. They could have just scaled the speed ratings up a multiplier or two, sold them at the same price and driven past AMD's HQ laughing and moonying out the car windows.
Overclocked the conroe will undoubtably be the fastest cheap available to me and you...im unconvinced at stock speed tbh. We havent seen a "Fair" test yet...and those on other forums that have samples work for intel so they are hardly going to slate them.
From everyhting ive been told the speed has been attribitable to the mainboard setup as well as the cpu...with most tests being done on a 'bad axe' mainboard.
Most will no doubt buy asus or another brand other than intel...so lets wait and see how they perform in the 'real' world, under "fair" test conditions by unbiased testers.
From everyhting ive been told the speed has been attribitable to the mainboard setup as well as the cpu...with most tests being done on a 'bad axe' mainboard.
Most will no doubt buy asus or another brand other than intel...so lets wait and see how they perform in the 'real' world, under "fair" test conditions by unbiased testers.
kyhoola said:
I hardly think that this is a fair comment. The people who have ES samples on other forums do not, in most cases, work for Intel they have merely been able to aquire engineering samples to test.
I don't think you can say that the tests are 'unfair' either, the benchmarks speak for themselves really.
Yeah and from what I've read over at XS most have bought their Conroe ES's from ebay sellers. Still even if Conroe is 10% to 20% faster at stock over a comparible AMD 64, it's not that much of a difference so pricing will have to be good on Conroe for the average joe to go for Intel over AMD seeing as AMD currently have the market share momentum.
Overclocking however looks like it will be very much in Intel's favour and I'm sure they are banking on winning over the enthusiast market which I'm sure Intel knows is significant to get the hype resulting in market share increases.
So yeah Conroe will most likely be an overclocking demon even at the low end and it should be priced very competitively so it isn't about ifs or buts IMHO it's just a matter of when the overclocking enthusiasts leave AMD and move over to Intel.
Overclocking however looks like it will be very much in Intel's favour and I'm sure they are banking on winning over the enthusiast market which I'm sure Intel knows is significant to get the hype resulting in market share increases.
So yeah Conroe will most likely be an overclocking demon even at the low end and it should be priced very competitively so it isn't about ifs or buts IMHO it's just a matter of when the overclocking enthusiasts leave AMD and move over to Intel.
Kesnel said:
Two people on xtremeforums have both stated they work for intel so how can this be unfair. According to a friend in distribution 90% of the samples out are to people who work for intel.
All of the tests done so far to date that I have seen have been under Intels test environment. No tweaking allowed, no changes, just an Intel engineer setting the rigs up. So how can this be a fair reflection on a Cpus capabilities?
There's some independent testing done at Anands and others very recently showing the same performance advantage as the Intel controlled testing done in the past.
Conroe has proven to be a big step for Intel because it is actually a better CPU when compared to an equivelent AMD 64 CPU but it's not so big a difference as the hype surrounding it especially at stock IMHO. Intel know that but they want to get the hype going for their CPUs so they no doubt have "engineered" it so that they will be overclocking demons and obviously more overclockable than a comparible AMD so it's looking highly likely Conroe will be a win-win for Intel.
Conroe has proven to be a big step for Intel because it is actually a better CPU when compared to an equivelent AMD 64 CPU but it's not so big a difference as the hype surrounding it especially at stock IMHO. Intel know that but they want to get the hype going for their CPUs so they no doubt have "engineered" it so that they will be overclocking demons and obviously more overclockable than a comparible AMD so it's looking highly likely Conroe will be a win-win for Intel.