AMD FX60 trounced by Intel Conroe

[Boomslang]

AMD FX60 trounced by Intel Conroe

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30136

[ZWarrior]

OK, let's compare a current chip against an as yet not fully released chip.  Of course the FX60 lost, it is a different generation of chip.  Let's see... what would happen if we compared the two most current chips. Besides, what is the price difference going to be?

[Mr_Anderson]

Not only stop at cost, but lets continue with energy consumption and processing power!

[JollyRoger]

not to mention heat output

[Boomslang]

Their will not be much improvement with AMD's new chip. Says AMD. Not until the die gets smaller 65mm Q4 this year

All Socket M2 processors will be based on a common DDR2 memory controller that is validated for 333 MHz operation (DDR2-667), with only the cache size and clock speed differentiating the individual processors. There will be 2 x 1 MB or 2 x 512 KB L2 cache for the dual cores, 512 KB L2 cache for the single core Athlon 64 models and 256 KB for the Sempron series. While Intel's chipset specifications officially support 4 clock CAS latencies for DDR2-667 memory only, there is some headroom for AMD to optimize the memory interface for CAS 3. This circumstance could become significant, as the performance difference between the current Socket 939 processors and their upcoming Socket M2 counterparts will be rather small, according to sources.



[Edited on 3-10-2006 by Boomslang]

[Papa_Smurf]

I wonder if Intel has finally pulled their collective heads out of the mud hole and increased cache sizes.  I did not see any mention of what they are going to be but if they haven't gotten any bigger than the 14k - L1 / 64K L2 that they were trying to push on an unsuspecting public with their last batch of semi portable space heaters, I can't see them standing up to much actual use as a desktop or workstation CPU.

[Boomslang]

http://www.computerpoweruser.com/Editorial/daily/dailyContent.asp?guid=02715C115EA74B0281F9DD6A25EBD68F&did=2901229

lOOK ANOTHER WELL KNOW PC MAG. INTEL LAEVES AMD IN THE DUST WOW.

[Wolverine of Ambush!]

With all due respect to Intel, I'm not impressed. Perhaps I am not seeing this review correctly. Is not the Conroe Chip utilizing DDR2 memory, as well as the clock speed of the ram is faster? Wouldn't that help the benchmarks?

[Boomslang]

No the ddr2 ram is slower than ddr. look at timings. the higher the timing the slower the ram. Thats why AMD has not changed to ddr2. When they come out with their's (AM2)the ddr2 ram at that time will be the same speed as ddr 2.2.2.5, to match ddr they have to boost the..........well read for yourself http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr2-ddr.html

[Edited on 3-14-2006 by Boomslang]

[Boomslang]

Socket AM2 CPUs three to five per cent faster

CeBIT 2006 Than its DDR one brothers


By Fuad Abazovic in Hannover: Wednesday 15 March 2006, 08:30

WE HAVE seen many AM2 socket CPUs. Most of them are running at 2.4GHZ and are showcased with DDR 2 800 memory. That is the only way to show any kind of performance difference from the DDR 400 based existing 939 CPUs.
The guys that ran some benchmarks on those machines confirmed that you can expect three to five per cent performance increase and that is about it. AMD claims that those engineering samples are the final revision so you should not expect more of the performance incensement. The existing engineering samples are running at 2.4 GHz but they might end up even faster at the launch date.

However, the price of the DDR 2 will drop and will make it more accessible for the general consumers but DDR 800 wont be anywhere close to mainstream. AMD is playing an interesting game but at least it could support DDR 3 when it comes out, so that is something. µ

[Boomslang]

By: Sander Sassen
 
We’ve hinted at the arrival of AMD’s new M2-socket a few months ago in an editorial discussing upcoming AMD and Intel processors. AMD’s M2-socket will bring DDR2 memory support to the Athlon 64 processor, which will feature a DDR2-compatible on-die memory controller. Hence the new socket, as this new memory controller is not compatible with socket-939 which only supports DDR. Early reports of the performance of CPUs sporting this new socket indicate that their performance is quite a bit less than what we’re used to from a similarly configured socket-939. This is surprising since DDR2 provides more bandwidth, so should in theory also be able to offer better performance. However some report a reduction in performance by as much as 50%, that’s no small margin to be honest.

So this begs the question whether AMD will launch the new socket-M2 on schedule, or whether they’ll postpone the launch to wring more performance from it? But wait, haven’t we seen a similar situation before? Well, actually we have. Remember when Intel introduced their new DDR2 platform based on the 90-nm Prescott core Pentium 4 processors? They too saw a significant reduction in performance which resulted in many people ridiculing Intel for releasing a new platform with sub-par performance. Intel however was quick to comment that they needed DDR2 and the 90-nm Prescott core to scale up to >5GHz clockspeeds. In hindsight they gambled on the wrong horse as Prescott never scaled up that far and DDR2 did nothing to raise the performance bar until DDR2-800 became available. By then Intel had already strayed from the beaten path and had dropped out of the clockspeed race as AMD kept beating them in the performance department with lower clocked processors.

Will AMD suffer the same fate? Well, we doubt it, although they might not be able to reap the benefits of this transition until they finally manage to get their 65-nm processors shipping in volume. Despite the enthusiasm with which they announced their switch to 65-nm in the ‘near future’ we all remember what an ordeal it was for them to get to 90-nm reliably and be able to ship in volume. Nevertheless with the arrival of 65-nm dual-core AMD processors we might see the first glimpse of some of that DDR2’s untapped potential. If you’re shopping for a new AMD based PC now, don’t hold out on your purchase, these changes are still a good two years away, so it is quite safe to buy a socket-939 based PC today.

[Boomslang]

Conroe Performance Preview Follow-Up


http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716

[Boomslang]

CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwxNiwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

Good Read

[Boomslang]

Intel Conroe will slow AMD growth
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31007

[ZWarrior]

I challenge you to also find the reviews that say the opposite.  I know they are out there.

[JollyRoger]

Whats funny is you still can't get a detailed spec sheet on the conroe.
What type of crap is that. if your sport'n so much on this chip give us some detail , intel. or is it another over glorified chip that looks good  but has a really crapy design.

[Boomslang]

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=794&cid=1

Here is the specs on both next gen. intel and AMD

[Edited on 4-15-2006 by Boomslang]

[JollyRoger]

No, I mean chip specs.

what type of cache, how much caehe, and so on. is it still running 32 pipe, i want details.

[Boomslang]

see if I can find some

here is a good read on the AM2 chip

 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2741

Final Words

When the article OCZ EL PC2-8000 XTC: Low Latency PLUS DDR2-1100 was posted a couple of weeks ago, the potential of this incredibly fast DDR2 memory on the upcoming AM2 platform was clear. What was not expected was that the opportunity to run the DDR2-1000 memory through its paces on an AM2 was only a couple of weeks away. After looking more closely at DDR2 memory performance on the 4th spin of the AM2 processor it is clear AMD will definitely be able to launch AM2 with the expectation of better performance than the Socket 939 it replaces. This avoids one of the huge pratfalls that plagued Intel in their move to DDR2.

However, the memory bandwidth increases of up to 30% on AM2 and the Latency improvements of 12 to 16% compared to the fastest DDR memory on socket 939 do not yield much in real-world performance. The real-world performance increase for AM2 compared to Socket 939 will likely be very small - in the range of no increase to about 10%, depending on the application.

In normal times this would be great news! In times where previews of Intel's new Conroe architecture show solid 20%+ improvements in performance compared to AMD Socket 939, these smaller AM2 increases are reason for concern. It certainly appears that unless some unforeseen miracle happens, the move from Socket 939 DDR to AM2 DDR2 just can't generate anywhere near the performance improvement AMD really needs to combat Intel's Conroe. This article evaluated memory and gaming performance, but you can see comparisons of General Performance, multimedia and encoding in the companion article AMD Socket-AM2 Performance Preview.

Not all is gloom in the AMD camp, however, as there are certainly bright spots. AM2 IS faster than Socket 939, with even more possible DDR2 bandwidth for the future. Unfortunately, unless AMD makes revisions to the core and/or adds more cache with the 65nm die-shrink there is not much improvement from the move to AM2. The extra bandwidth and lower latency just don't translate into meaningful performance improvements with today's applications.

There are also a few general observations about using DDR2 with the new upcoming AM2. Using fast, top-line memory DDR2-533 is roughly equivalent in bandwidth to fast DDR400 memory. That observation should also hold with mainstream memory where DDR400 3-3-3 should perform about like DDR2-533 4-4-4. Most memory manufacturers will also be producing fast high-end DDR2-800 and more mainstream DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 parts for launch with AM2, so there will likely be many more memory choices when AM2 launches.

Last, the move to a unified memory specification with Intel will likely be a good development for those looking to buy new DDR2 memory. With AMD and Intel both using DDR2 there will likely be more innovation in the DDR2 market, more choices, and even better prices. Add to that the expectation that both AM2 and Conroe will launch with official DDR2-800 support and faster DDR2 memory should be much easier to find and afford in the near future.

It appears AMD will succeed in launching a faster on-processor DDR2 memory controller. The latest AM2 pre-release samples are showing significant improvements over Socket 939 DDR in both memory bandwidth and latency. Unfortunately, the current AMD architecture running current applications and games doesn't appear to need the additional bandwidth or reduced latency. This may change in the future, but for now the move to AM2 and DDR2 memory looks like it will yield far too little in performance improvements to keep AMD competitive in the upcoming marketplace.

[Boomslang]

Here are the specs

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/313
http://vision.pcvsconsole.com/?article=8



Conroe processor running at 2.66 GHz that sports 4MB of shared L2 cache


Four Conroe chips will ship initially: the E6300, E6400, E6600 and E6700, following Intel's new processor numbering scheme, introduced when the Core Duo mobile processor family arrived earlier this year. The four dual-core Conroes are clocked at 1.86, 2.13, 2.40 and 2.67GHz, respectively, run on a 1066MHz frontside bus and contain 4MB of cache shared between the two cores.

The CPUs will be priced at $209, $244, $316 and $530, respectively, at launch, the new report claims. At the same time, Intel will debut the VT-less Pentium D 925 at $178. In addition to the 960's price reduction to $316, the 950 will come down to $241 and the 940 to $209. Intel has already indicated it intends to phase out the 930 and 920. ®




[Edited on 4-15-2006 by Boomslang]

[ZWarrior]

Although the tests are showing some impressive results, we are still testing an unreleased against a released.  

Either way, what is the price point as well?  I like Intel, but my wallet (and wife) prefers AMD.  Guess who wins?

[Boomslang]

Intel at $500 amd at $1000. my wallet says intel

[JollyRoger]

Intel what for $500, compared to amd what for $1000
you're in two differnt processor classes for those prices.
That like comparing apples to oranges.

[Boomslang]

nope both are the new ones coming out. The intel has a smaller die 65nm witch makes it much cheaper to make and they are passing the savings on to us. AMD's die is 90nm it won't be until 2007 that they bring out their 65nm chip. Intel is already working on their 40nm chip to be out in 2008 i think. The road maps might change

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by Boomslang]

[Boomslang]

Conroe gave enthusiasts a bit of a double take after benchmarks from the Intel Developer Forum put the CPU 20% faster than AMD's best offerings in head to head benchmarking.  AMD has plans of its own to counter Conroe.  By the middle of 2007, AMD is expected to launch its K8L architecture.  AMD's Henri Richard claims K8L is more "evolutionary than revolutionary," but even minimal improvements on the tried and true K8 could cascade into large gains in performance.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1820

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by Boomslang]