Intel Conroe Performance Preview

Comments 1 to 25 of 41

Kipman725 4th June 2006, 16:40 Quote
Impresive games performance. I want to see a test system not built buy intell though, they could have done lots of subtle things like decreasing image quality to get a greater lead in the benchmarks.
lepre 4th June 2006, 17:11 Quote
let's wait for the cpus on the market, anyway looks really promising!
Tim S 4th June 2006, 17:13 Quote
Originally Posted by Kipman725
Impresive games performance. I want to see a test system not built buy intell though, they could have done lots of subtle things like decreasing image quality to get a greater lead in the benchmarks.
All benchmark settings were controlled by us - I made sure that the Catalyst driver settings were at the default setting (High Quality), and I used included timedemos/stress tests in games.

FEAR has it's own benchmark, as does Lost Coast and the three Far Cry demos used are from Ubisoft.

I think that Intel has too much to lose to 'lie' or 'fix' these benchmarks. They configured an Athlon 64 FX-60 at 2.8GHz for us, but I declined the opportunity to run comparison numbers on it. This is because I wanted to include some of our own independently-run benchmarks, rather than running benchmarks on an Intel-configured Athlon 64 FX machine.
atanum141 4th June 2006, 17:38 Quote
get and temp reading's?
liquid_gen 4th June 2006, 17:48 Quote
Good gaming performance but who's gonna play a game at such low detail? Also, games might start becoming multithreaded which conroe seems to suck at. And i don't trust intel to setup their own system.
lepre 4th June 2006, 17:49 Quote
Originally Posted by atanum141
get and temp reading's?

on (italian website) who were at the conference too there's a photo of the BIOS saying 51°C for the cpu and 31°C ambient temperature.
anyway they say that the cooler never get as hot as with p4 or pd.

Originally Posted by liquid_gen
Good gaming performance but who's gonna play a game at such low detail? ;)
axscpu 4th June 2006, 17:59 Quote
All I can say is tha I want one :D no truly I need to see normal benchmark, a box not setup up by intel, although it looks promising, it almost makes me feel like the age of the p3/athlon war, that was hot and cheap
customh 4th June 2006, 18:16 Quote
All i ahve to say is uh oh for amd, they better stick it in gear and hope to whatever that am2's fsb of 1000mhz and proc's at 2.8 ghz help em out...
careyd 4th June 2006, 18:28 Quote
Well, as someone who is 10 months into his AMD X2 4400+/2GB RAM/7800GTX OC (490mhz/256MB)/500GB RAID0 Machine, I'm thinking about an upgrade this fall. I'm wondering what will be the next best GPU to pair with it (and FYI I'm not an SLI/Crossfire type--just want the best single-card GPU that is reasonably affordable). Those numbers are looking darned impressive.

Since by day I need to do a lot of MPEG-2 and H.264 video encoding on the machine for my video business, as well as some 3D rendering in C4D, I'm the type that needs all the performance I can muster. The gaming--while important--only gets done when work is complete. Can't wait for self-built systems from shipping components to get benched. That will tell the more complete story. Would love to see deeper chart comparisons against the X2 family on the same benchmarks as well.
Da Dego 4th June 2006, 18:32 Quote

I want one.
customh 4th June 2006, 18:32 Quote
Agreed on more benchmarks against the X2's but if intel partnered it with an ATI Conroe must like ATI, so thats what id say for that. But liek you said, more differentiated benchmarks would be nice.
olly_lewis 4th June 2006, 19:06 Quote
Originally Posted by Da Dego

I want one.

So do I, but i doubt my bank account will allow at the moment...

Great test results and the benchmarks were impressive, covered all possibe taks and game settings, another great and thourgh review from bit-tech!
Fr4nk 4th June 2006, 19:19 Quote
Holy Sh!t, conroe just got a whole lot more appealling but the question must be asked; Since Conroe uses shared cache, is that why it preformed worse in the Encryption & Decryption tests ? Or is it just the lack in clock speed? But at the same time this is unbelivable when think about it, a 2.6ghz cpu completly thrashes a near 4Ghz CPU. Lets see intel explain that to Joe average :).

None the less, GIMME GIMME GIMME!

eddtox 4th June 2006, 19:32 Quote
Wow. It's looking interesting. Intel & ATi vs AMD & nVidia. I'm stil going to wait at least until Christmas to update my (prehistoric) rig. By then the battle should heat up, hopefully leading to some bargains.

-ed out
webchimp 4th June 2006, 19:37 Quote
So will Conroe fit in existing LGA775 boards like the ASUS P5WDG2-WS or P5WD2-E Premium?
Ramble 4th June 2006, 19:44 Quote
Originally Posted by webchimp
So will Conroe fit in existing LGA775 boards like the ASUS P5WDG2-WS or P5WD2-E Premium?

Only certain ones with a compatible northbridge, or something like that.
hitman012 4th June 2006, 19:59 Quote
Impressive, that's for sure. I'd be interested to see how that model stacked up directly against, say, an X2 4400+ rather than a NetBurst-class chip - I don't think the differences will be that large in the encoding/PCMark sections... gaming does seem to be one area where Intel are really leaping ahead, though.
Firehed 4th June 2006, 20:22 Quote
Originally Posted by Ramble
Only certain ones with a compatible northbridge, or something like that.
That's the one thing I hate about Intel's line...CPU upgrade very often means mobo upgrade too.

Still... for that kind of performance, I'd say it's probably worth it. They just need a chart of what chips work with which chipsets...
dainbrain 4th June 2006, 20:35 Quote
I like the gaming performance, but the Multi-Threading results are extremely dissapointing. I'm a game developer and I use 3dsmax, Maya, and Photoshop all day long and I like to have them all running at once. That, along with other proprietary tools, and switching into full-screen tests, I need as much Multi-Tasking as I can get. I've been awaiting these Conroe tests hoping that they would IMPROVE multi-threading, not slap it in the face with a large, wet, trout. :'(

What good are games if you don't have a decent system to develop them on? Does anyone have any news on the pricing? Hopefully this will be the basic "home-user" CPU with a much lower price-point, and Intel will develop a new CPU that developers can actually use.

On the other hand, with these numbers, I'm definately going to drop on of these babies into a gaming-only rig as soon as it hits the shelves.
Dustin 4th June 2006, 21:22 Quote
I dont think you realise this but as it seems Conroe has a really huge leap in gaming.I've never seen before 60+ fps "upgrade".its like you have 6800Ultra and get EVGA CO 7900GT with Conroe.Its in my next upgrade list.
RotoSequence 4th June 2006, 21:22 Quote
Thats a point that I was about to bring up dainbrain (welcome to bit-tech ;) ). I wasnt expecting Conroe to have such weak multi-tasking performance in comparison to the Pentium D. Even more interesting to recall is that the Athlon 64 X2 is even better at mulitasking than the Pentium D by a significant margin. So the question becomes, in comparison, why does the Core 2 Conroe core suck so much at multitasking?

As for gaming, Conroe does indeed rock. Those performance quotes are staggeringly impressive. This is definitely the processor for a gamer, but ironically, not for the multitasking worker.

This lends itself to some interesting potential long-term utilization of AMD vs Intel processors. For Gaming PCs, Conroe will inevitably be king. But what about professional workstations? Basic office PCs? Or even a user who likes to play with image editing programs while listening to music and talking to a friends?

Things are going to be very weird, competitive, and by all means very, very interesting once AMD launches K8L; after all, AM2 is not meant to be the counter in and of itself to this upcoming piece of Intel kit. Once both sides are on 65nm processes, the playing field is going to level out quite a bit. Since AMD hasnt panicked or made anything close to a knee-jerk reaction, despite all the current comparisons made, I'd say theyve either matured quite a bit, or theyve both gotten smarter and have a good counter of some sort up their sleeves.

All you doom and gloom for AMDers should wait and see what AMD has with their next architecture rather than proclaiming AMD the loser and Intel the winner when we're comparing technologies that are three years apart architecturally.
Paradigm Shifter 4th June 2006, 21:23 Quote
I'm impressed.

Intel coping rather well in an area that since the introduction of Netburst they have sucked at. I think AMD had better have something good up their sleeve, or they're gonna get a nasty shock.

Still, as much as I'd like one of these... can I really justify Conroe+new mobo+new RAM ?

Of course, once the 'final' silicon is available, if it's an overclocking monster with a good heatsink, I think I just might. :D
DXR_13KE 4th June 2006, 22:00 Quote
i looked at the front page and saw "intel conroe performance preview" and was like OMG!! i must see this.

i have a little observation here:

seen here

here you see 1280x960 benchmark with everyting exept soft shadows and AA and AF


seen here

here you have 1280x1024 benchmark with everyting exept soft shadows and AA and AF

in the first one the intel pentium XE 965 works at 63FPS and on the second one it works at 107FPS.

on the second core 2 duo E6700 works at 143FPS acording to the article it is about 35% i think it is more like 33,6% but lets consider 35%, if so if i insert the core 2 duo E670 into the first picture yu will have it working at about 85FPS and this is not their flagship cpu.

ME WANTS ONE!!!!!!!! :'(

hum....i have noticed this now, at a bigger resolution the pentium XE 965 works faster 107 VS 63. very interesting :| i blame the garden gnomes!!!!

intel can now point the finger at AMD and HEAD SHOT!!!! :p

edit: FORGOT, has the bit-tech crew any pics? what was the size and the material and the form of the cooler and waht temp was it running?

edit2: found the reason for the increase of FPS :( the grafics cards are diferent, BFGTech GeForce 7800 GT OC video card VS ATI Radeon X1900 CrossFire & Radeon X1900XTX running together in CrossFire;
eddtox 4th June 2006, 22:16 Quote
I must say I agree with rotosequence: This is far from over. Quite the opposite actually, it's just beggining! After all AMD have only launched a new socket, it remains to be seen what their plans are for the microarchitecture to go with it.

-ed out
Lo Pan 4th June 2006, 23:45 Quote
Intergrated northbridge, perhaps? oh god......I would love to see the performance on THAT. AMD has always been a follower of the efficiency>speed crowd so they have experiences at de-wasting CPUs. AMD can and will win this. Notice how they're calmly waiting, no announcements. I'll bet they're waiting until Intel Conroe's are just about to hit the shelves to release their new architecture.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums