Conroe Performance Preview Follow-Up
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 9, 2006 9:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Trade Shows
The BIOS Issue
The one item that a number of you pointed out was that the BIOS used on the DFI LANPARTY UT RDX200 (RD480) motherboard was in fact the first version released for this particular motherboard. Intel told us that the motherboard was purchased a little over two weeks ago and the BIOS used on it was what came with the motherboard, but we still agreed with you all that the system should be tested with the latest BIOS to remove all doubt of wrong doing.
There are only two BIOS files publicly available for this motherboard, one being the first release that was loaded on the system and the other being a file dated 12/23/2005. The 12/23 BIOS offers the following fixes according to DFI:
1. Fix memory Set 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 mode wrong.
2. Set Cool'n'Quiet default disable.
3. Change the description of DQDRV.
4. Fix Read Preamble Table Error.
5. Shorten the delay time during clock programming loop.
6. Add over clocks step by step.
7. Fix fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode.
8. Fix soft-reset hang on POST code F2h if enable USB mouse support.
9. Change CMOS used to fix some control item can’t save.
10. Add support K8 FX60 CPU.
11. Update SiI3112 Raid ROM.
12. Fix some SATA(DiamondMax 10 (6B160M0) HDD ) HDD detect fail at first time cool boot.
That’s a pretty long list of changes, which could definitely be responsible for a change in performance. We were able to test the impact of the new BIOS, and our results are below:
DFI LANPARTY UT RDX200 |
10/11/2005 BIOS |
12/23/2005 BIOS |
| Quake 4 - 1280 x 960 (Avg Frame Rate) | 207.5 fps |
207.6 fps |
| F.E.A.R. - 1024 x 768 (Avg Frame Rate) | 151.0 fps |
158.0 fps |
| Windows Media Encoder 9 (Encode Time) | 75 seconds |
75 seconds |
| DivX 6.1 (Encode Time) | 44 seconds |
44 seconds |
| iTunes 6.0.1.3 (Encode Time) | 73 seconds |
72 seconds |
UT2004 and Half Life 2 were absent from our testing, simply because we didn’t have the time to get them installed, but the rest of the scores here should be indicative of the full impact of the BIOS update. In the media encoding tests we saw absolutely no performance impact other than a 1 second reduction in iTunes encoding time. F.E.AR. at 1024 x 768 saw a reasonable gain of 4%. Quake 4 remained virtually unchanged.
With the new BIOS installed we confirmed that Cool’n’Quiet was disabled, so that was not impacting the performance results at all. The new BIOS also correctly identified the Athlon 64 FX-60 processor, although as you can see from the results above, the proper detection of the CPU didn’t translate into greater performance.
The new BIOS in action
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
fitten - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
Right conclusion, wrong cause. What really "halves the cache" is pointers (which have to be 64-bit now instead of 32-bit). Programs that use few pointers will show little difference in cache usage. Programs that use lots of pointers (read: written in Java, C#, and those type languages) will show increase cache usage from all the larger pointers. 64-bit and 64-bit instruction set does not imply that the instructions are actually 64-bits long, in fact, it rarely implies that (64-bit RISC processors, for example, tend to have all/mostly/many 32-bit instructions, just like their 32-bit processor counterparts, for example).Nighteye2 - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
I'm not saying it halves the cache. Just that the instructions are longer, not necessarily 64 bits long. I expect the difference to be more like a quarter, rather than half, if I'd have to make a guess at it.AlexWade - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
AMD forced Intel to make a first-rate CPU. And the good news is we win. I knew Intel couldn't stay down forever. Neither will AMD. I think it still bothers Intel, however, that they have to use AMD's 64-bit code.Am I reading this correctly that Conroe is a single-core CPU? I would like to know more about dual-core CPU's, that is the future.
fitten - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
From what I've heard in the rumor mill (nothing that anyone else can't hear), there will be no single-core Conroe chips. I'm sure marketing pressure might lead to them, though. The test system definitely had a dual-core Conroe, though.Von Matrices - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
No single core Celeron Conroes?pnyffeler - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
I have to agree. I've been building AMD rigs for many years and have always pulled for the underdog, but I have to tip my hat to the Intel man on this one. They have raised the bar after getting smacked in the forehead with it for too long.Intel had become pretty lazy over the past few years, and I think it took way too long to realize that they were peddling 2nd rate products that wasted enough heat to qualify as a space heater.
AMD also has done well in this, too. By building a no-question better product, they were able to steal a good chunk of the market share, and their momentum right now will be hard to beat. Now I'm waiting for AMD's counter punch, and from what I've seen so far, if they think it's the AM2 with DDR2, they're gonna get steam-rolled.
cscpianoman - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
This is Intel!Sorry, had to be an ostrich fan-boy for the moment. I think it interesting that Intel really upped the ante on this one. They didn't want to match AMD's next stuff, they wanted to clobber it. Unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of their hat, I see Intel holding onto this performance crown. I'm interested to see what AMD has to counter this.
psychobriggsy - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
Even I, as an AMD supporter, hope that this will shut up the extremist ostrich-like fanboys on the AMD side who can't see that Intel has finally done well.It will be interesting to see a comparison between Conroe at $x and a Pentium D at $x when they're released too.
And well done for admitting a fault with the FEAR test.
mongster - Friday, March 10, 2006 - link
Agree with you. Been an Intel supporter for many years and when it was time to upgrade my flailing Willamette system, I decided to wait for Prescott, thinking that I don't want to jump onto the AMD bandwagon. When AMD trounced Intel Prescott, I decided to wait for dual core. But when AnandTech and other sites put out convincing data on why AMD continues to be the better buy for CPU's, I decided it was high time to switch over to the other camp. That was what I did last year when I finally assembled my first AMD system (have assembled AMD systems for my friends but never for myself). Now, I am thinking, should I have waited? Conroe's numbers sure are impressive but I will wait for the architecture to mature first (and the prices to stabilize haha) and see if AMD has anything up their sleeves to counter Conroe.Just my 2 cents.
Calin - Monday, March 13, 2006 - link
Yes, if your old computer's performance was enough, you should have waited another 6 or more months for Conroe. If you were concerned about price, maybe you should have waited until early next year.When you choose to upgrade, Intel wasn't the clear cut best option, like it seems to become in half a year