Previewing the Performance of the Intel Conroe

pirate rtt writes "bit-tech has spent some time with an Intel Conroe system and has published a preview of its performance as compared to the current Intel flagship chip - the Presler 965. From the article: 'Core 2 Duo is clearly a very capable processor. We found that it was faster than the current 965 processor in most situations on the desktop, and far more proficient at gaming - an area where Intel has traditionally been weak. The added memory bandwidth that will come from having faster RAM enabled on the Core 2 Extreme chips will be an extra bonus for those looking to Conroe as a gaming platform.'"

Comments

Wait for v2

[MarkByers]

Core 2 Duo is clearly a very capable processor

Version 1 of anything always sucks. I'm waiting for the Core 2 Duo II v2 Second Edition.

Re:Wait for v2

[Crussy]

This has been brought up many times. Every chip has a sheet of bugs and the core duo is no exception. Though if you had actually read the sheet you'd notice that almost all of the bugs were found during intel testing and most involved extremely rare scenarios. The amount of bugs reported show only that intel is conducting serious testing. As for not fixing the bugs, do you think AMD is fixing all of the bugs its processors have? http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf There are a number of bugs still in amd processors and even a few are not planned to be fixed. However this is really negligible concern to anyone.

Re:Wait for v2

[Tough Love]

"All modern cpus have bugs. It is common practice to work around them in the compiler rather than retape the chip, an expensive and time consuming process."

Nonsense. For compilers do not work around bugs in general purpose chips. If a chip bug can't be worked around by microcode or bios settings, or (in rare circumstances) the operating system, the chip will be binned. Compatibility is king in the general purpose CPU market. Nobody can sell a CPU that crashes on some programs that used to run perfectly well.

Conroe vs. FX-62

[Anonymous Coward]

And now for Conroe vs. AMD's Athlon FX-62 (and presler).

Yes, the FX-62 does lose... badly in several cases..

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62

[Brian Stretch]

1) Hexus used Intel's compilers with their synthetic benchmarks. Intel has been known to rig their compilers to ignore post-i486 instructions (SSE, etc) on non-Intel CPUs. This is suppoesd to have been corrected in later Intel compiler releases, but...

2) Some of those benchmarks, like Pifast, likely fit inside the Core 2 Duo's massive L2 cache. Intel uses all that expensive cache to compensate for their lack of on-board memory controllers and HyperTransport.

3) Curious how they chose much lower latency memory for the Intel machine than the AMD. I'm not sure that the higher bandwidth of the AMD PC's memory overcomes its higher latency.

4) Why use 1024x768 res for the FarCry benchmark and 1600x1200 with AA and AF cranked up for theother two games? Games are GPU-limited at hires, so if you wanted to spike the results where AMD is superior...

5) Despite all of that, the AMD FX62 still won the Cryptography benchmark.

6) Why are nearly all of these reviews showing up on websites outside of America? Could it be that Intel wants to keep these reviews out of reach of AMD's American lawyers?

It sure looks like Intel's playing dirty (again). Wake me up when we get reviews done outside of Intel-controlled environments.

Re:Conroe vs. FX-62

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Hexus used Intel's compilers with their synthetic benchmarks. Intel has been known to rig their compilers to ignore post-i486 instructions (SSE, etc) on non-Intel CPUs. This is suppoesd to have been corrected in later Intel compiler releases, but...

For which benchmarks do you claim they used special Intel compilers? The only reference in the article is that they used an "Intel HT compiler" for their "HEXUS.in-house MP3 Encoding Benchmark".

2) Some of those benchmarks, like Pifast, likely fit inside the Core 2 Duo's massive L2 cache. Intel uses all that expensive cache to compensate for their lack of on-board memory controllers and HyperTransport.

Noone's interested in Pifast scores. Conroe beating the FX-62 by almost 60% in Far Cry is much more impressing. And using a 65nm process Intel can sell Conroes with 4MB cache for very competitive prices. If you believe the leaked documents on the web a Conroe E6600 will sell for a little over $300 (in quantities of thousand) and should be on a performance level of the best AMD CPU.

3) Curious how they chose much lower latency memory for the Intel machine than the AMD. I'm not sure that the higher bandwidth of the AMD PC's memory overcomes its higher latency.

Even if there was a 5% difference, it wouldn't change the big picture.

4) Why use 1024x768 res for the FarCry benchmark and 1600x1200 with AA and AF cranked up for theother two games? Games are GPU-limited at hires, so if you wanted to spike the results where AMD is superior...

That's an interesting question indeed. But all other Conroe previews suggest that its gaming performance will be stellar.

5) Despite all of that, the AMD FX62 still won the Cryptography benchmark.

The average user doesn't use his CPU for cryptography very much.

6) Why are nearly all of these reviews showing up on websites outside of America? Could it be that Intel wants to keep these reviews out of reach of AMD's American lawyers?

Maybe because Intel makes most of its revenue outside the US?

It sure looks like Intel's playing dirty (again). Wake me up when we get reviews done outside of Intel-controlled environments.

July 23rd is rumored to be the launch date. Until then I'd definitely wait before buying a new CPU. Even if you want to buy an AMD processor, they're will be huge price drops.

Are These Reviews Significant?

[buckhead_buddy]

The article reads:

The Core 2 Duo benchmarks we ran were not completed in our own labs and we have used some unfamiliar tests in order to establish how well the new Core architecture performs. This was because we were not allowed to tweak the system or install our own benchmarks - the machine was built and configured by Intel engineers.

So if Intel provided hardware, chips, and tests themselves, isn't this more of a write-it-yourself press release from Intel than a real independent review? If they provided "some unfamiliar tests" then that would seem to indicate Intel doesn't know what common and familiar tests should be run, or (more cynically) that they didn't want potentially bad or uncontrolled results polluting their positive reviews.

Are reviews like this of any real significance?

And what makes this review different?

[LIGC]

There have been Conroe previews several sites, all of them using intel preconfigured boxes. The only way to make sure of Conroe's performance is to benchmark it once its bought. I'm sorry if I'm a bit of a sceptic, but I don't trust these boxes made by Intel to market Conroe.

Sorry but

[opusman]

I'm waiting for the 400 page Tom's Hardware review!

gaming

[ltwally]

"...far more proficient at gaming - an area where Intel has traditionally been weak..."

Define "traditionally." Normally that word is reserved for a long-term scope, in which case Intel has been better at gaming than the competition. Up until the Athlon, no x86 clone could compete with Intel when it game to games (2d or 3d). Think back to the K5 & K6 -- neither was good at 3D (not even the K6-3 could compete with a similarly clocked P2/P3. And the processors from previous generations of AMD, Cyrix, and IBM were much the same. The Athlon was the very first x86 clone that was better at gaming than an Intel flagship processor.

So, this isn't so much as Intel stealing the crown as re-claiming the thrown.

<shrugs>No big deal .. I just get tired of the Intel bashing crowd. "OMG INTEL IS TEH DEVIL, AMD IS OUR SAVIOR!!"

Re:About Time

[ruiner13]

Why does a laptop need 64-bits? Are you addressing more than 4GB memory? I haven't seen a laptop yet that can support more physical memory than 32-bit chips can address, nor can I see someone doing heavily scientific work on a laptop as they tend to have slower, smaller hard drives. Extended memory and scientific precision are the only valid reasons I can think of needing 64-bit architecture, neither of which apply directly to laptops.