Why All the Fuss about Conroe? - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-02-2006, 06:22 PM   #1 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 201
Send a message via AIM to Orayn
Default Why All the Fuss about Conroe?

I saw the benchmarks, and it usually did 20-25% better than the equivalent AMD. However, the benchmarks I saw were for the most expensive Conroe and the most expensive Athlon. Results could be very different for the chips that we'll be more likely to buy. Also, is it worth moving to the accompanying motherboard and dealing with the heat problems that plague Intel processors?
__________________

Orayn is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 07:00 PM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 640
Default

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

It was a overclocked 2.66GHz Dual Core Conroe ($530) against an overclocked 2.8GHz Athlon 64 FX60 ($1015). As for the benchmarks, Intel claimed to be 20% better than the AMD at the same clockspeeds, but the difference was more of a 30%-40% performance increase. So for roughly half the price of the FX-60, the Conroe pretty much kicked it's a$$. The most expensive Conroe will be the 3.0Ghz Extreme Edition version, probably priced around the FX-60. But ofcourse the FX-60 will appear primitive when compared to the XE Conroe. There is a small chance that Intel will manage to WORSEN it's chips from now to when they're released, so I doubt that the performance will be worse. Even better, maybe, but not worse. Too late in the game for that.

And Conroe isn't exactly designed from the ground up, but compared to the Netburst architecture, its revolutionary. The heat problems with current Pentium 4 and Pentium-D processors won't exist in Conroe.

As for moving to another motherboard, assuming you have AMD...thats what you do when you build a new system. Thats also what you get for picking a side. You picked AMD, and Intel came out with a better processor, so it was all your own doing, no need to bash one or the other.

Conroe CAN work on existing motherboards. The motherboard has to be LGA755 socket, and (here's the catch right now) has to have a Intel 975X chipset. Only Intel's high-est end motherboards currently have this chipset. After Conroe's release, Intel will obviously make Conroe-compliant budget chipsets, but if anyone wants to prepare for Conroe right now, they've gotta pay $$.

As a bit of added punch, XtremeSystems users have obtained Conroe processors. A 2.13Ghz Conroe was overclocked to ~3.3Ghz ON AIR COOLING. I emphasize the air cooling part to show how cool these processors run (they consume roughly 55W of power, a tiny amount).

You can expect to buy a 2.4Ghz Dual Core Conroe for $316 at release, and have it overclock to 3.0Ghz on the stock Intel HSF.
__________________

Green Radience is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 07:43 PM   #3 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 23
Send a message via AIM to Captain Buck
Default

amen brother
Captain Buck is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 07:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
RicoDirenzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,102
Default

And what the deal with Intel chips and heat? My 478 Prescott 3.0Ghz runs at the same temperature as my AMD 3500+ Venice both at idle and load. The AMD for Gaming and the intel for production. Where is this information coming from?
__________________
Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere!!
EVGA 680i, Dual EVGA 8800GT'S (650/950), 4 gigs OCZ DDR2 1066, Intel Q9450 at 3.8 Ghz, Koolance Water Cooled, Dual Plextor16x DL DVD+/-RW. Dual WD 250gb 16mb Cache Sata 3.0. 3DMark06 score = 19,168.
RicoDirenzo is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 07:54 PM   #5 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 640
Default

Quote:
And what the deal with Intel chips and heat? My 478 Prescott 3.0Ghz runs at the same temperature as my AMD 3500+ Venice both at idle and load. The AMD for Gaming and the intel for production. Where is this information coming from?
I'm not sure if you were takling to me or not, but Intel Pentium 4 Prescotts DO run hotter than AMD Athlon 64s. Thats a proven fact, not just at this forum, but all around the world. Ask anyone who knows anything and they know that P4s run hotter. Its just the architecture design and power leakage that comes with the P4s.

As for the information, the Conroe information is avaliable to anyone who's been paying attention.
Green Radience is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 08:03 PM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,130
Default

wow, i guess i underestimated the conroe. But i dont think its fair to compare it to a FX-60, or any AMD thats out currently. i wanna wait and see some actual benchmarks between AM2 and Conroe, btw which socket is AM2?
john3 is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 08:05 PM   #7 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
RicoDirenzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,102
Default

Must be the stock fan then. My Prescott Oc'd to 3.2 Ghz runs at 40 degress idle and 46-50 degrees under full load. The AMD 39 Degrees and 45 Degrees. Not that big of a difference....both have aftermarket Artic Air Coolers installed. However, I have no experience with Pentium D processor. I understand that the Smithfield and Presler DC CPU's do run hotter than Optys and the like.
__________________
Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere!!
EVGA 680i, Dual EVGA 8800GT'S (650/950), 4 gigs OCZ DDR2 1066, Intel Q9450 at 3.8 Ghz, Koolance Water Cooled, Dual Plextor16x DL DVD+/-RW. Dual WD 250gb 16mb Cache Sata 3.0. 3DMark06 score = 19,168.
RicoDirenzo is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 08:08 PM   #8 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 640
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by john3
wow, i guess i underestimated the conroe. But i dont think its fair to compare it to a FX-60, or any AMD thats out currently. i wanna wait and see some actual benchmarks between AM2 and Conroe, btw which socket is AM2?
AM2 is its own socket...and I totally respect your decision to wait, but let me warn you not to get your hopes up. The move to DDR2 doesn't seem to have had any effect at all on the processors' performance. There are rumors going around that AMD may simply have moved to DDR2 because, to a regular joe, DDR2 looks better than regular DDR and since Intel already uses DDR2, the regular joe would go for the Intel.
Green Radience is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 08:16 PM   #9 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 201
Send a message via AIM to Orayn
Default

I'm sorry for my fanboyism towards AMD. It's just that I've always been an AMD fan, and to me this feels like people saying how much better the new Internet Explorer will be when compared to Firefox. I need to realize that I don't really need to take sides in this.
Orayn is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 08:19 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
RicoDirenzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,102
Default

I have both AMD and Intel becasue both chips are fabulous at what they do best. AMD for Gaming and Intel for overall software productivity. Simple as that. You don't have to be a 'fanboy" at all. I'm glad I have the choice!
__________________

__________________
Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere!!
EVGA 680i, Dual EVGA 8800GT'S (650/950), 4 gigs OCZ DDR2 1066, Intel Q9450 at 3.8 Ghz, Koolance Water Cooled, Dual Plextor16x DL DVD+/-RW. Dual WD 250gb 16mb Cache Sata 3.0. 3DMark06 score = 19,168.
RicoDirenzo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.