Intel Conroe Chip crushes AMD FX-60

Anandtech has a initial quick review posted about upcoming Intel Conroe. They compared Conroe 2.66Ghz with AMD FX-60 chips oced to 2.8Ghz. Conroe leaves FX-60 far behind in all the benches, some as much as 40% more scores.

Here is the link
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=1

and here is quote

I am happy that Intel is back into game with good Processor( instead stupid marketing tricks they have being doing since last few years).
I think, now things will get hot. I do not see any thing coming from AMD at this time to stop Conroe from taking performance crown. New AMD socket AM2 with DDR2 800 may help very little, if at all. Unless AMD has something up it sleeves which it can release something by Q4 or max Q1 2007, AMD is going to have tough time, I guess.

 

Nice...I am glad to see intel and AMD turning it up a notch.

 

This looks like the exact same review as with the Conroe vs. X2, where is that review? Most of it is a word for word copy of the other review, especially the conclusion. what's up with that?

 

AMD FX-60 is Dual Core (X2) processor. So, it is shown as X2. Which review you are talking about and which link you are referring to? This is posted on anandtech.com.

 

It's not a fair comparison.

They're just doing it to demonstrate the Intel's power. We'll just have to see what happens when AMD's AM2 processors come along.

 

It is going to be a see-saw battle. I love it. Consumers win again!

 

The AM2 processors perform about the same as their S939 counterparts unless your using DDR2 800, then l think anandtech said it was a 10% lead over the S939 processors.

 

I agree. It is not fair to compare FX-60 on outdating RD480. Atleast NF4 would have done little better( but not much I guess), but again this gives a ballpark idea where Conroe will stand in comparison to todays AMD X2 processors.

 

Ah i see now, i didn't see "FX" anywhere in the diagrams.

A quote from the article: "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."

Now, since when is comparing a system with DDR PC3200 (400MHz) with another system running DDR2 PC2-5400 (667MHz), fair??? The Intel definetly has an advantage there. Again, not a fair benchmark...

 

That DDR2 5400 may help very little with those relaxed timings when compared to tight 2-2-2/1T timings of DDR400 on AMD flatform.

Do not think I am fan of Intel and trying to convince you guys.
I have both and liked both( more so my Turion over P-M).

 

Timings do make a difference. But you can't regain 267MHz worth of bandwidth difference just by making your timings tighter. Not to mention the Intel platform's memory controller really doesn't mind loose timings, DDR2 still excells.

Even if this was plain DDR667 (4-4-4) vs. DDR400 (2-2-2) you could expect to see the DDR667 winning in alot of bandwidth tests. The fact that it's DDR2 only wides the performance gap, making the comparison pretty much flawed.

I'd want to see another review with the Conroe on a platform with similiarly spec'd RAM, and the AMD with it's latest NF4 chipset. Intel will still probably win, but not by 40%, the results are going to be closer.

 

Absolutely. That is what I want. Intel or AMD does not matter. Gimme more for my Money!! whoever you are

 

I haven't read this whole thing, but the whole basis is kinda silly, except to see the potential of the new Intel chip. Actually using it to compare the future of Intel and AMD is not very smart because you're comparing NEXT generation chips with CURRENT generation chips.

 

I always go with whatever is cheaper. In the few years I have been building computers...AMD has always been cheapest for performance...so I've never had the chance to go Intel lol.

But almost all manufactured computers in my house are Intel powered, so it's pretty much even. These high-end multi-thousand dollar processor wars that go on really don't effect me, accept for the fact that when they come out, the lower end stuff goes on sale. I like that part

 

I think that the Conroe will be a good competitor for the X2. Even when AMD starts DDR2 support the difference is not going to be that great. BUTon the other hand the X2 has been on the market for a long time and is available today, while the Conroe won't be available for a while. So such results are to be expected and maybe AMD still can push their current architecture a bit further by Intel's release time.

AND I am not going to trust results on a PC set up by intel at their IDF

 

AnandTech revised/retested some of their benchmarks, esp FEAR scores were unreasonable. Now the scores look reasonable, but still intel holds 20%+ advantage.

Here is the linky
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=1

 

20%, I can see that now. I think there's room for AMD to make up with socket AM2.