Originally Posted by zr_ox It's going to be funny to see how the AMD fanboys respond to this.
So many shouting "AMD till I die"....they will probably be the first to adopt :)
Well, I can't speak for the rest of the AMD fanclub, but you won't see one of these in any of MY computers. My issues with Intel processors revolve around stability and reliability, not raw performance. Every Intel based computer I've had has liked to lock up at least semi-randomly. Bad luck? Perhaps.
That said, I applaud Intel for releasing what appears to be a fairly revolutionary piece of tech. They promised the moon and they seem to have come close to delivering it. Good for them. I'm already comitted to an AMD-centric upgrade path and I have faith that AMD will soon be launching comperable or better hardware. This is really nothing more than a changing of leaders in a race that is never won.
Previously people where speccing x2 amd cpu's into their new builds, but from what I have seen nearly 90% of people are going conroe. You just have to take a look over at OCUK forums to see the amount of new systems based around this new chip.
Originally Posted by zr_ox It's going to be funny to see how the AMD fanboys respond to this.
So many shouting "AMD till I die"....they will probably be the first to adopt :)
Seriously good article. Now overclock....overclock....overclock....overclock! I you dont have a menu but would it be possible to include watercooling in the overclocking update?
It would also have been nice to see a comparison of power consumption. Here it is anyway from Extremetech:
We were looking to do some power measurements. However, we were trying to find something that we were happy enough with.
The obvious choice is a power meter plugged into the wall socket, but it is impossible to accurately measure power consumption - even overall system power consumption - with a power meter from the wall. There are just too many variables when measuring, most importantly, the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the power supply is a massive factor. Obviously, efficiency decreases at idle and the numbers are even more skewed than they are when the system is loaded.
Well, AMD are beaten - we can all see that, BUT it's not a complete disaster, the gaming benchmarks aren't too far behind realistically, the only place AMD are falling down is the price differences.
What AMD will be counting on is getting the more budget-y end of the market, selling the soon to be reduced 3800+/4000+ type chips with better performance than the similarly priced Intels.
The major worry atm is that AM2 doesn't really have anything sensible coming to gain a better advantage across the performance field. There's the new dual/quad CPU thing that was bandied around, but that's not really sensible imho.
The only thing to do is wait and see what AMD can do to counter it... Interesting times. :D
Power consumption down..
That potentially means better overclocking due to greater voltage increases and less heat output, thats a nu domain for modern intels, i always found the massive power/heat output of previous P4s a massive flaw.
Cant wait for the AMD price droop though, will they only be dropping competeing duel core CPUs, or can we expect a slash acorss the range?
hmm.... i would like to see the temperature of these chips, the size and type of the coolers, the eficiency in F.E.A.R., it working on a new mobo, it overclocked the real ........ and i would like a pizza with extra E6600 :D
Originally Posted by MiNiMaL_FuSS Power consumption down..
That potentially means better overclocking due to greater voltage increases and less heat output, thats a nu domain for modern intels, i always found the massive power/heat output of previous P4s a massive flaw.
Cant wait for the AMD price droop though, will they only be dropping competeing duel core CPUs, or can we expect a slash acorss the range?
Have a read of the link that Tim posted - it's everything except the FX series.
[edit] Damn, beat me to it. :p
Nicely written article Tim, as De XS said, it'd be nice to have a few more of the classic OC benchmarks in there - a of 3dMark'05 or something and a Superpi, just to see what we might find. :)
Well, I found the review informative, but nothing out of the ordinary (the ordinary being the myriad other reviews around the net)...
So far, I thought HardOCP's review was a bit better (why didn't you guys include some real world - with max playable settings and that stuff- gaming data? you usually do with video cards review IIRC) , perhaps because they draw different conclusions that those of other sites:
* Yeah, Conroe is a beast for video encoding.
* For most other uses of a PC, there's no real usage benefit of Conroe over a X2. For Real usage I mean that in a blind test, you'd likely not notice any difference among the X2 and Conroe powered systems. That includes gaming.
* Power usage is a mixed bag. Conroe's max load PU is much better, but X2 idle usage trumps Conroe... My PC stays about 99% of time it's on idling, so X2 is a better alternative. OTOH, if you only turn your PC on to game, Conroes is a much better bet.
All in all, the only real advantage Conroe has over X2 is price. For all I'm reading, if I had to upgrade my PC now, I'd get a Conroe, no doubt (although I'd wait to see what price drops AMD has on their sleeve). For those who already have high-end X2 CPUs (and are not heavy on video editing), there's really no need to panic and grab a Conroe...you'll see little or none real usage performance.
I'm feeling that we have hit a wall in CPU power...the last and greatest from Intel (and make no mistake, I think it's a beast and I'm fighting the urge to change my X2 4200 for one of them) doesn't make your computing or gaming experience any different than the previous great one.
Iago, I see where you're coming from, but you fail to note a crucial thing. Best playable settings stuff (like we do for graphics cards) is used BECAUSE graphics cards are the key determinant in any of that.
If you want huge gaming performance increase, buy a new graphics card, not a new chip. If your system needs an overall boost, then Conroe beats the AMD line by more than 30% in cases, for a lot less money.
I guess I see what you're saying, but honestly if Tim reviewed the way you're discussing, it would be way worse and introduce considerable bias. You need to try and remove the graphics acceleration from the equation to determine how much the CPU will improve things, that won't be done by doing "best playable," all the weight will fall right back on the graphics cards. You'll also see everything bunch right back up again with little to no difference, because the graphics card makes all the difference in higher resolution or higher effects processing.
Basically, by doing what you're describing above, we'd utterly bury the CPU's performance in graphs that mean next to nothing.
Iago, I do see where you're coming from and that is why I made reference to the fact that performance in games at high resolution (i.e. GPU limited) is not necessarily going to improve when you add a faster processor into the equation.
We didn't do 'best playable' for Conroe because we think it is beyond the scope of the review... however, I did add thoughts about the gaming performance at higher resolutions, stating that it isn't going to make much difference. That's based on my experience with the real-world game testing we do for video card reviews. I'm pretty sure that the situation is different in the world of multi-GPU (which usually is CPU limited) - I'm looking forwards to doing some testing on that front.
One thing that HardOCP's review lacked was a collaborated conclusion for the four articles that were published. I think the information given was good, but it just lacked an overall conclusion rounding up all of the findings. :)
The only thing that right now is questionable is Core 2's life expectancy. I mean how long will the chip last before it just dies off like other intel chips. Atleast i know if i built an X2 rig that it would give me awhile without problems but since Core 2 is fresh new what happens after a few months of punishment from gaming a few hours a day. Im just saying dont jump into the boat before youve checked it for leaks.
Im sorry infered but I cant even understand you're argument. Are you implyinig that Intel produced CPUs are somehow of inferior build quality because I can assure you that that's not the case. Intel is arguably the worlds leading CPU manufacturer and pioneer of process technology. It also has the most FABs for making silicon globally. Basically: it'll last as long as any Intel CPU to date, unless you start pumping a lot of voltage through it for a long time, which will affect ANY CPU because of electromigration and overrated stress. As for just being at load at normal voltages: they are made to be used.
X2s werent specifically built for gaming, they are just another processor that, in comparison to netburst worked a hell of a lot better for enthusiasts and gamers.
Could I suggest an article that would be usefull in a month or so once all the mobo's start catching up.. Basically, a nice article with a range of different setups based arround the core 2 duo. Mobo, memory and each of the processors in the range. Just to help us not so technically minded people work out which bundle is best to go for with our budget and needs.
Will: When we get the boards in the labs we'll evaluate them accordingly, as always. Stress test/oc/features, the usual.
Im wondering if the 2M cache cores will oc better due to less trannies, negating the difference in cache for clock speed. Get a 2.13 up to 2.8 or whatever and you've got a £180 processor for £800 performance since they scale better than netburst and A64s.
Bindibadgi: What infered is trying to say is: "Has anyone stress tested these for extended periods of time in a high useage environment?" We all know that CPUs can fail and since core is an entirely new arcitecture there are inherantly a LOT more risks of problems.
There's some amazing overclocks appearing on ExtremeSystems.org 4Ghz on air cooling is one of the better results *drools* I seriously hope these overclocks are even half of what the retail versions manage, an E6600 at 3.4Ghz or so will be an amzing system.
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi Im sorry infered but I cant even understand you're argument. Are you implyinig that Intel produced CPUs are somehow of inferior build quality because I can assure you that that's not the case. Intel is arguably the worlds leading CPU manufacturer and pioneer of process technology. It also has the most FABs for making silicon globally. Basically: it'll last as long as any Intel CPU to date, unless you start pumping a lot of voltage through it for a long time, which will affect ANY CPU because of electromigration and overrated stress. As for just being at load at normal voltages: they are made to be used.
X2s werent specifically built for gaming, they are just another processor that, in comparison to netburst worked a hell of a lot better for enthusiasts and gamers.
YOur right i worded my argument wrong all i was trying to say is that right now this very second i would go for something i know does this. All these people are talking about INtel owning AMd and everyone shuold buy into COnroe. IM just saying i know The X2's do ok with gaming so i would buy them right now then in a few months if conroe is still on top i would go for it. Conroe and its architecture are just too new for me to think its perfect and i should right this second go and buy into it.
Comments 26 to 50 of 106
Well, I can't speak for the rest of the AMD fanclub, but you won't see one of these in any of MY computers. My issues with Intel processors revolve around stability and reliability, not raw performance. Every Intel based computer I've had has liked to lock up at least semi-randomly. Bad luck? Perhaps.
That said, I applaud Intel for releasing what appears to be a fairly revolutionary piece of tech. They promised the moon and they seem to have come close to delivering it. Good for them. I'm already comitted to an AMD-centric upgrade path and I have faith that AMD will soon be launching comperable or better hardware. This is really nothing more than a changing of leaders in a race that is never won.
nothing much would touch it for raw performace... or price........
The obvious choice is a power meter plugged into the wall socket, but it is impossible to accurately measure power consumption - even overall system power consumption - with a power meter from the wall. There are just too many variables when measuring, most importantly, the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the power supply is a massive factor. Obviously, efficiency decreases at idle and the numbers are even more skewed than they are when the system is loaded.
What AMD will be counting on is getting the more budget-y end of the market, selling the soon to be reduced 3800+/4000+ type chips with better performance than the similarly priced Intels.
The major worry atm is that AM2 doesn't really have anything sensible coming to gain a better advantage across the performance field. There's the new dual/quad CPU thing that was bandied around, but that's not really sensible imho.
The only thing to do is wait and see what AMD can do to counter it... Interesting times. :D
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2800
That potentially means better overclocking due to greater voltage increases and less heat output, thats a nu domain for modern intels, i always found the massive power/heat output of previous P4s a massive flaw.
Cant wait for the AMD price droop though, will they only be dropping competeing duel core CPUs, or can we expect a slash acorss the range?
[edit] Damn, beat me to it. :p
Nicely written article Tim, as De XS said, it'd be nice to have a few more of the classic OC benchmarks in there - a of 3dMark'05 or something and a Superpi, just to see what we might find. :)
So far, I thought HardOCP's review was a bit better (why didn't you guys include some real world - with max playable settings and that stuff- gaming data? you usually do with video cards review IIRC) , perhaps because they draw different conclusions that those of other sites:
* Yeah, Conroe is a beast for video encoding.
* For most other uses of a PC, there's no real usage benefit of Conroe over a X2. For Real usage I mean that in a blind test, you'd likely not notice any difference among the X2 and Conroe powered systems. That includes gaming.
* Power usage is a mixed bag. Conroe's max load PU is much better, but X2 idle usage trumps Conroe... My PC stays about 99% of time it's on idling, so X2 is a better alternative. OTOH, if you only turn your PC on to game, Conroes is a much better bet.
All in all, the only real advantage Conroe has over X2 is price. For all I'm reading, if I had to upgrade my PC now, I'd get a Conroe, no doubt (although I'd wait to see what price drops AMD has on their sleeve). For those who already have high-end X2 CPUs (and are not heavy on video editing), there's really no need to panic and grab a Conroe...you'll see little or none real usage performance.
I'm feeling that we have hit a wall in CPU power...the last and greatest from Intel (and make no mistake, I think it's a beast and I'm fighting the urge to change my X2 4200 for one of them) doesn't make your computing or gaming experience any different than the previous great one.
If you want huge gaming performance increase, buy a new graphics card, not a new chip. If your system needs an overall boost, then Conroe beats the AMD line by more than 30% in cases, for a lot less money.
I guess I see what you're saying, but honestly if Tim reviewed the way you're discussing, it would be way worse and introduce considerable bias. You need to try and remove the graphics acceleration from the equation to determine how much the CPU will improve things, that won't be done by doing "best playable," all the weight will fall right back on the graphics cards. You'll also see everything bunch right back up again with little to no difference, because the graphics card makes all the difference in higher resolution or higher effects processing.
Basically, by doing what you're describing above, we'd utterly bury the CPU's performance in graphs that mean next to nothing.
We didn't do 'best playable' for Conroe because we think it is beyond the scope of the review... however, I did add thoughts about the gaming performance at higher resolutions, stating that it isn't going to make much difference. That's based on my experience with the real-world game testing we do for video card reviews. I'm pretty sure that the situation is different in the world of multi-GPU (which usually is CPU limited) - I'm looking forwards to doing some testing on that front.
One thing that HardOCP's review lacked was a collaborated conclusion for the four articles that were published. I think the information given was good, but it just lacked an overall conclusion rounding up all of the findings. :)
X2s werent specifically built for gaming, they are just another processor that, in comparison to netburst worked a hell of a lot better for enthusiasts and gamers.
Im wondering if the 2M cache cores will oc better due to less trannies, negating the difference in cache for clock speed. Get a 2.13 up to 2.8 or whatever and you've got a £180 processor for £800 performance since they scale better than netburst and A64s.
Some one else as a E6600 to 4.6Ghz here
YOur right i worded my argument wrong all i was trying to say is that right now this very second i would go for something i know does this. All these people are talking about INtel owning AMd and everyone shuold buy into COnroe. IM just saying i know The X2's do ok with gaming so i would buy them right now then in a few months if conroe is still on top i would go for it. Conroe and its architecture are just too new for me to think its perfect and i should right this second go and buy into it.