Slashdot Mirror
Intel's Conroe Resurfaces, Benchmarks Strong
MojoKid writes "Intel has been occasionally leaking performance results of their upcoming
Core 2 Duo processor for the desktop, code named Conroe. At this years IDF
select members of the press
were allowed to get hands-on access to test systems for benchmarking.
Now, coincident with this week's Computex show in Taiwan, Intel has seen fit to
show us just what their soon to be released CPU can do, yet again. Select press
members got together with Intel in New York city for another round of
testing with Conroe. HotHardware has
a performance showcase posted with scores from a Core 2 Duo E6700 machine
and a 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition X6800. The results, compared
against the backdrop of an overclocked 2.8GHz Athlon 64 FX-60 system, look very
impressive indeed for Intel."
Now that Intel has it's first non-technical CEO, all they can talk about is vaporware of furture unreleased chips, while Shares of Intel have fallen 33 percent since Otellini succeeded Craig Barrett in May last year. Should the board/shareholders really allow someone with a background like Otellini's to run a company like Intel? You see how well medieval studies people worked out at HP. IMHO they need to get the tech people back in charge at Intel if they want it to compete in a tech market. At least in the past they succesfully defended their market share with their *existing* products even when they were inferior. This new strategy of basically saying "don't by our current stuff because our roadmap is even nicer" could only come from a MBA.
These benchmarks were run on boxes that Intel built. Even the AMD box was built and configured by Intel. Trusting these benchmarks is abit like trusting a study funded by the oil industry claiming that global warming isn't real. There have been a good number of independant tests of the Conroe and these put the top of the line Conroe around 12% faster on average than a FX-62. The results from the Intel benchmarks show a much bigger performance delta, and to be quite honest, I don't trust them one bit. Somewhere around 15% is much more reasonable.
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
So, Intel could do this, but they are probably quite aware of the consequences.
With the previous Conroe benchmarks, Intel specified which benchmarks could be run. I wonder if this is also the case in this review, because noticable absent is the SYSmark benchmarks.
It is standard practice in biased tests to only include the benchmark where your product does well.
I don't think Intel is suffering from the Osborne Effect. People don't want their current products because the competition has a better offering. The only option Intel really has is to hype future products because it has become common knowledge that their current line up can't compete with AMD. The hype you're hearing is more of an effort to stop the exodus to AMD, it's yet to be seen if that will work.
Intel is selling many parts at a loss
90% of the PC's bought are sold to people who don't know the difference between Ghz and dual core. The hardware so far outstrips the software's ability to use it that it makes these comparisons kind of lame. I think both Intel and AMD need to shift to a new way to market themselves . With the exception of gamers and people that live tech no one really cares if the machine does something several milliseconds faster than something else. If they can write a letter and send email and the machine doesn't run painfully slow they are happy. Lets face it, this is where the vast majority of users of PC's are!