Conroe Performance Update
Posted by Eric Dahl | Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:54 PM PT
If you've been following the launch of Conroe--Intel's code-name for the
Core 2 Duo desktop chips they'll be launching at the end of July--you've probably been all over the benchmarking data that's trickled out onto the web from as far back as
spring IDF and as recently as
last week. Well, Intel's Conroe benchmarking roadshow finally hit the West coast yesterday, and I took a trip down to Santa Clara to check it out.
Intel showed off 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo chips running a variety of approved benchmarks on systems with 1GB of RAM and pairs of ATI Radeon X1900 CrossFire graphics boards. Performance was impressive--the Conroe system scored 7326 on the PC Mark system test (6683 on its CPU test and 5628 on the memory test), for example, compared to an AMD FX-60-based system which came in at about 6650 on PC Mark's system test.
Those are some impressive results, and they're in line with everything we've seen from Conroe so far. But those results come with a pile of caveats. This was Intel's event, so any benchmarks we could run would have come out of a lab setup by Intel. Furthermore, Intel chose the list of benchmarks installed on the machines.
While I don't believe Intel did anything fishy to the test PCs, I doubt they'd have chosen benchmarks that make their new chip look bad, either. Core 2 Duo chips feature tons of L2 cache memory, for example, usually 4MB shared between the two cores. Will tests that don't fit inside that cache and require frequent trips to main memory favor AMDs chips with their integrated memory controllers? I don't know that answer yet.
That's one of the many reasons we'll have to wait until we can run our own tests in our own lab before rendering our final verdict when Intel formally launches Core 2 Duo near the end of July. I'm looking forward to that day, though. Conroe looks like a very exciting chip. Tons of
design changes went into boosting the speed of the Core architecture, and clearly the chip is much faster than Intel's current desktop offerings. At 65 Watts it consumes less power as well, which should allow system builders to produce smaller, quieter PCs.
We'll be hammering away at all the Conroe test systems we can get out hands on so we can bring you the full story on Conroe performance the minute Intel formally introduces the chip.
I do not understand why AMD continues to hold out on lowering prices for their older models such as the AMD X2 4800+ (best price @ $632), while the Conroe is expected to outperform their top model FX-62 (best price @ $1365) for about a third of the price. I'd love to know what they're thinking.
Conroe still is not out. It will be a while before conroe is out and available in volume. I strongly doubt Conroe will perfom as well as Intel is showing it off as, because they will always use benchmarks that show it off favorably.
people with engineering samples of conroe+woodcrest are getting similar results =P
People with engingeering samples. That just about says it all.
AMD is smart. The general public does not care as much about the price of a CPU than enthusiasts do so why cat the price for the time being? Intel isn't officially out yet with Conroe so the mass market can't get a good idea at overall performance to determine the new ?best?. Intel slashed Core Duo prices recently but do you see Apple lowering the price of their Macbooks? Consumers want the computer package and enthusiasts lust performance on a budget. When Conroe comes out AMD will probably have something sneaky to say. I'm hoping for a quad-core UMPC processor for Q4 ?06. I can dream can?t I? Back to cutting prices, when Conroe comes out Apple will get an even heftier discount from Intel. Most consumers aren?t going to know that is going on and will be hella-ripped off by Apple. Intel is still the giant but I?ve always be one for the underdog. Right now AMD has the best price/performance ratio and lowest power consumption. Intel might ?win? with Conroe, but AMD isn?t at 65nm yet?
exactly, ask any computer user about the conroe or intel core 2 duo or anything about intel vs amd and you will get a response similar to "i heard amd is better than intel now".
no reason for amd to cut prices when people (barring enthusiasts and field) are still buying and don't know what is going on.
Fine, but I'm still annoyed. I was banking on AMD cutting prices right about now; I've been planning to build a new system for the past three months. I'm actually rather turned off by AMD's specious insistance that "Intel's new chips won't affect their marketing strategy." First of all, of course the new chips will have an impact on AMD's position, and I am of the opinion that AMD should respond accordingly - instead of pretending that they don't really care. I remain a staunch fan of AMD - and to be perfectly honest, right now I'm just wishing they'd make it a bit easier for me to build my new machine.
Still I think the point stands: we haven't seen an AMD price drop in the X2 line for at least three months, and if such a drop happens to concur with the launch of the Intel chips, so what? It'd still be nice.
Go Intel... I'll be the first to buy the 6700 Conroe with Nvidea 6750 (1gig) memory video card! Watching Dell site daily! Hurry
u no that his is kinda odd that the conroe came out with so many versions.
I'm just gonna overclock some cpu(s)
Are the comments in your follwing paragraph really relevant or necessary. It makes you seem like you're an AMD supporter rather than an independent reporter:
While I don't believe Intel did anything fishy to the test PCs, I doubt they'd have chosen benchmarks that make their new chip look bad, either. Core 2 Duo chips feature tons of L2 cache memory, for example, usually 4MB shared between the two cores. Will tests that don't fit inside that cache and require frequent trips to main memory favor AMDs chips with their integrated memory controllers? I don't know that answer yet.
ok, maybe intel didn't do anything fishy. they told us all of the truth, but did they tell us all of the truth? if they cater to their chip's strengths while downplaying AMD's second in command with less favorable tests (maybe they were afraid the FX-62 would best the conroe), then their chip is almost definately going to look awesome compared to AMD's. they shove the options that would make conroe look bad (limited benchmarks) and TADA! a wonderful amazing chip. sniff sniff.... is that fish i smell?
say what you want about power efficiency, but it is about system level power consumption not only the processor. Intel is not even close to AMD.
First of all who cares weather Intel or AMD have the claim to the fastest processor, for the true enthusiest the company doesnt matter only the need for more power, whichever is faster thats the one you buy regardless of which company it comes from, and for those that dont have the money to buy the fastest you buy the fastest that suits your budget regardless of what company its from. 65nm technology is the most advanced chip producing technology in the world if the new conroe chips are made on this architecture and amds arent naturally conroe will be better, but amd will come out with something better than that after, it will always be back and forth, therefore ill say again BUY WHICH EVER ONE SUITS YOUR BUDGET & PERFORMANCE NEEDS REGARDLESS OF COMPANY.
I'm gonna get some milk
I meant Core 2 Duo whenever it comes out.