Intel's Conroe Previewed and Benchmarked

DrFishstik writes "Anandtech has a few preliminary benchmarks on Intel's new Conroe architecture. From the article: 'As far as we could tell, there was nothing fishy going on with the benchmarks or the install. Both systems [AMD 2.8Ghz OC and Conroe] were clean and used the latest versions of all of the drivers.'"

Comments

Shock news.

[supersnail]

Next years Intel chip will run faster than last years AMD chip!

Re:Shock news.

[Saven Marek]

THe simple fact remains that intel needed to do these tests at all, side by side. That's an admission on their part that AMD is beating them and beating them hard. I've heard AMD has some new stuff in the pipeline that'll put conroe out of its misery once and for all.

Given Intel's release date fiasco's it'll probably come out before conroe too.

Re:Shock news.

[Ravenscall]

Let's look at the facts:
- They benchmarked 2.667GHz Conroe against 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX (FX-60 with 200MHz overclock)

So they are taking the AMD processor out of spec which can affect performance. Also, the forthcoming AMD processors are a new core architecture and will support faster RAM with an onboard memory controller. I think benchmarks of the final products will be much different. This is the same type of dog and pony show Intel has been doing since they released the Celeron (and possibly before, but that is when I started paying attention to hardware marketing).

- 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX will be released in June
- 2.667GHz Conroe will be released somewhere in Q3 2006
- Conroe Extreme editition clocked to at least 3.0GHz will be released somewhere in Q3 2006 (there have been rumours about 3.33GHz version)

If you think those numbers mean anything, I would like to know what cave you have been living in for the past 3 years.

Re:The Conclusion

[mtenhagen]

Well the "new" intels are faster then the "old" amd's. This not suprising Intel has plenty of cash and had to come out with a cpu faster then amd.

The big question will be how will this compare to the next generation of AMD cpu's. And what will the price be. If amd will be faster per dollar the rise of amd will continue.

Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown

[Malenfrant]

Yes, exactly. They tested it against a chip which is not listed as being as fast, overclocked so they can pretend it is as fast. Big surprise it didn't perform as well

What about RAM?

[Anonymous Coward]

The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings, while the Intel system used 1GB of DDR2-667 running at 4-4-4.

and:

Intel told us to expect an average performance advantage of around 20% across all benchmarks.

Did they really expect around 20% better performance, while using 66% faster RAM? That seems at least unfair to me... Especially the encoding tests, whose results depend heavily on RAM access.

Re:Wait and see

[Bert64]

And Intel's new chips are based on the Pentium-M, which is still heavily based on the Pentium-PRO that dates from the early 90s...
Intel's attempt to produce a new architecture (netburst/p4) resulted in an underperforming overheating mess, so they're going back to one that works.

TrustedComputing Inside (TM)

[Alsee]

Code-named Conroe... blah blah blah ...feature "security" is expected to be discussed in the framework of a technology that is based on standards set by the Trusted Computing Group and carries the code-name "LaGrande."

Intel's new chips have a Trust Enforcer chip embedded inside the CPU itself. Each chip features a unique serial number, DRM enforcement, Sealed Storage to prohibit you from reading your own files on your hard drive, and Remote Attestation to act as a spy on your computer to log your hardware and what software you run and to securely transmit that spy report to other people over the internet. The chip has your computer's master key locked inside, and you are forbidden to know your master key to control your own computer. Other models of the Trust chip are boobytrapped to self destruct if you attempt to get you key out, and I'd wager these CPUs are boobytrapped to self destruct as well.

Evil as hell.

-

Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM)

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Maybe it is time to ask that AMD gets out of the Trusted alliance before their chips are like that?

Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

There's surprisingly little discussion of this... I remember, about 8 years ago, hearing an Intel engineer talking about how the next step in security was going to be ensuring that a PC was secure against its owner -- along with his updates on such things as encryption from end-to-end with media. I said at the time that what Intel was planning was nothing less than a total lockdown of the previously open PC platform.

And here we are... the final step. With this hardware in a PC, it does not belong to you... you have paid for a car with the bonnet welded shut and no keys.

It's important for everyone to realise just what an enormous amount of control this hardware gives to technology companies... in simple terms: your PC will be nothing more than a set-top box. Technology companies are furiously spinning this as improved security... which is not entirely wrong. This hardware does have security benefits... but as things stand, *YOU*, the person who paid money for the machine, are not in control of it. As others have noted, trusted computing is about them not trusting you -- and not about you trusting your machine. On the contrary, the only thing you can trust is that machines with this hardware are not working for you. Hence the strong link with DRM -- this hardware will enforce DRM on a PC, not to mention allow companies to make any FOSS proprietary (see the discussions about the GPL v3 for examples). Indeed, the TCPA system was designed in conjuction with the RIAA and the MPAA. It's supported by all the technology companies. And don't think that Linux distributors are against it either -- Red Hat is busy working with IBM to produce a TCPA version of Linux... software that cannot be modified by you and continue to work as it did. How about Gstreamer - the media framework used in GNOME? the company behind that has developers who are actively welcoming the introduction of signed Linux kernels (yes, Christian Schaller, I'm talking about you) that will ensure that media is never intercepted and stored... but which will also no longer function if you modify them, or even recompile them yourself. Source code means little in a Trusted Computing world, all that matters is who digitally signed the binary... and this hardware will enforce that. Companies like Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Fluendo etc can all effectively take ownership of FOSS code. Remember: DRM is all about applications. To control data, you must control what applications can access it. DRM is about apps, not data.

You are going to have to fight for your rights on this one. Apple users have rolled over and accepted the introduction of a TPM into the new Intel-based Macs... but then, they can never be relied on to say anything critical of Apple, even when they are being lied to and sold a lemon. They are quite happy to accept this. I would hope the PC crowd is different. Read Professor Ross Anderson's TCPA FAQ. Read Seth Schoen's updates on what Microsoft is planning to do with this hardware -- if that doesn't scare you, nothing will. Join things like the EFF's push to ensure that the hardware you pay good money for works for you, and not Intel/Microsoft and Hollywood. Do not assume that "someone will hack it"... this stuff is not your average dumbass security measure. Educate yourself before its too late and this technology, in its present form, becomes ubiquitous. Support the push to ensure that you, as the owner, have access to the master key... and some method of owner override. Otherwise, in five years, there will be a big brother in every single PC and no way of escaping it.

The problem with buying a new processor

[InsaneLampshade]

This is the problem i have with deciding on which processor i want to buy for my new computer...

I keep reading all these benchmarks, but then i hear afterwards "Oh, if you think that's good, just wait and see what so-and-so is comming out with next year!", so i think, oh, ok, i'll just wait for that then. Then when the new processor gets benchmarked i just hear the same thing over again.

And so... i don't think i'll ever buy a new processor... i'm always waiting for the next version. :(

impressive benchmarks

[bleughbleugh]

yep, impressive, BUT, more important than benchmarks for most Bang per buck by that I mean, if the AMD processor is 50% less than the Intel one, but only 20% slower, AMD will win it for me :-)

Re:Wait and see (faked tests)

[FirstOne]

Something isn't right, from the screenshot.

..Using an award bios last copyrighted in 2003 for AMD's latest FX-60 chip (2006)..
..Notice how the AMD Processor isn't correctly id'd in the Bios post.
..Even though.. DFI has distributed a new bios version to suport FX60..

.. This thread indicates that there is some video defect in RD480 chipset..

These red flags indicate that something is very fishy and Intel's results should not be trusted... (rigged test)

Re:Wait and see (faked tests)

[FirstOne]

Corrected link to DFI bios update.. (using ATI's RD480) chipset..

Notice items.. 1, 2, and 10..

Re:Wait and see

[Sketch]

Never mind that the AMD K7 was a carbon copys of the P6 microarchitecture, with incremental tweaks most probably applied to account for P6 shortcomings found in the field. That's an euphemism for `AMD stole Intel's field experience.' The K8 core is only an incremental tweak of K7, the major feature being the on-die memory controller.
So really, AMD can't blame Intel for using P6-derived cores since they're doing the same (not to mention the ethics of stealing a competitor's design). Also, their incremental tweaks aren't really that significant -- process technology changes account for the larger share of performance increase.

I don't think anyone who knows much about CPU's is "blaming" Intel for going back to the P6 core. The P6 was basically the beginning of the modern x86 CPU...more RISC than CISC. As for the K7, this article has a good summary of how it's similar to, but different from, the P6. I think a better euphamism would be 'AMD decided to build a better P6'. (Which is actually what Intel has done as well. This isn't just a faster P6, it's redesign of the P6.) AMD 'stole' from Intel about as much as Intel stole from DEC and Motorola and other RISC CPUs in building the P6, and as much as they had 'stolen' from the CPUs before them. Welcome to the evolution of the CPU, where every CPU is not designed in a vacuum with no relation to anything else, but is built on previous technology and ideas.

Intel tried to raise the bar with the P4 designs, applying some risky design features like hyperpipelined design, and unfortunately the strategy didn't work out all that well, in no small part due to power issues. Moreover they had to endure fanboy cries of `designed by marketing!', but that's the price one pays for exploring new ground in computer architecture. Meanwhile AMD will be content to follow on Intel's successful footsteps as they've always done.

Too bad the superior engineers at Intel weren't smart enough to copy AMD's supposedly "minor tweaks" and bring out a competitive CPU in the last couple of years, and instead chose to stick with their risky design which essentially hit a clock speed wall that they were apparently unable to predict. Surely the geniuses at Intel could have designed a better P6 than that "copy" which was beating their P4 in less than 6 years. Or perhaps they didn't care, and thought that marketing would keep them on top?

Re:Wait and see (faked tests)

[LurkerXXX]

Wait. You are implying a hardware vendor went out of their way to give unrealistically good comparisons of their hardware compared to their competitors by mucking around with the benchmarks setup?

I hope no one tells ATI or Nvidia that this is possible. ;)

History repeats itself. Wait for the real hardware to come out and be benchmarked by independent 3rd parties before getting worked up about how great the new Intel harware is going to be, once it's not vaporware. Nothing new here folks.