Spring IDF 2006 Conroe Preview: Intel Regains the Performance Crown
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 7, 2006 3:58 PM EST- Posted in
- Trade Shows
Intel is very excited about its new Core architecture, especially with Conroe on the desktop. It's not really news to anyone that Intel hasn't had the desktop performance crown for years now; its Pentium 4 and Pentium D processors run hotter and offer competitive or lower performance than their AMD competitors. With Conroe, Intel hopes to change all of that.
From top to bottom - Quad-core 65nm Kentsfield, dual core 65nm Conroe and 65nm Pentium D
Intel setup two identical systems: in one corner, an Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz running on a DFI RD480 motherboard. And in the other corner, a Conroe running at 2.66GHz (1067MHz FSB) on an Intel 975X motherboard.
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. Both systems had a pair of Radeon X1900 XTs running in CrossFire and as far as we could tell, the drivers and the rest of the system setup was identical. They had a handful of benchmarks preloaded that we ran ourselves, the results of those benchmarks are on the following pages. Tomorrow we'll be able to go into great depth on the architecture of Conroe, but for now enjoy the benchmarks.
As far as we could tell, there was nothing fishy going on with the benchmarks or the install. Both systems were clean and used the latest versions of all of the drivers (the ATI graphics driver was modified to recognize the Conroe CPU but that driver was loaded on both AMD and Intel systems).
Intel told us to expect an average performance advantage of around 20% across all benchmarks, some will obviously be higher and some will be lower. Honestly it doesn't make sense for Intel to rig anything here since we'll be able to test it ourselves in a handful of months. We won't say it's impossible as anything can happen, but we couldn't find anything suspicious about the setups.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
220 Comments
View All Comments
IHYLN - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
awesome marketing drivel, anand.ChronoReverse - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
Drivel? It's interesting information. It might turn out not to be accurate, but they're reporting what they do know for now.That said, when I first heard about the archictectural changes for Conroe, I already knew that it would at the very least be as fast as K8. It'll be interesting for sure when actual products come out.
JackPack - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
Leave him alone. I can already smell his perspiration from here. Any more stress, and they'll have to be taken away by men in white lab coats. ;)mfurse - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
...I can't help but think apples are not being compared to apples. I don't suspect the benchmarks but rather the generational gaps in the processor architectures. I mean AMD has had the K8 out for many years and has continually tweaked and updated it, always keeping a general performance lead over the P4 netburst, especially in dual-core and especially since Intel took the netburst and made the pipeline longer. Netburst v K8 fair match I would say - architectures of the same period in time.So AMD have showed innovation. And now, so have Intel, as they should - considering the resources and the time it took to get to Conroe! AMD might have AM2 K8's lined up, and its clear that they probably won't compare with Conroe - but AMD have been supplying samples of the AM2 chips for months now, so in comparison with Intels "Conroe - in sixth months" its still an old K8 architecture.
Congratulations Intel for finally achieving what I think they should of along time ago. Time will tell what further innovation AMD will counter with.
Hulk - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
These chips aren't released yet so AMD still sells the fastest chips you can put in your computer.mircea - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
I am an AMD fan. Only my 1st PC (1997) was a pentium II and ever since all my systems were AMD, as well as 99% of the systems I build for my friends. I'm upgrading my system right now from 3200+ to an X2 4400+.Stil I can be glad for this news. If AMD can counter this by AM2 then it's all OK. If not, then they will have to work harder on K9/K10 and when that comes out we will have even better chips. But if AMD will have nothing for a while I can still be happy cuz my next upgrade will be much cheaper. That's all AMD will be able to do. Reduce some more.
So let's see:
1. Intel has a GREAT CPU - hip hip hip hurah???!!!
2. Maybe AMD has something as great in AM2 - hip Hurah!!!!
3. Maybe AMD has nothing in AM2 so has to lower prices on curent chips to compete. I can get a better chip (then what I have) for less - hip hip Hurah!!!!
3. AMD has to work to get something better out to compete in the future so we will have even better chips than this great Conroe sometime in the future - HIP HIP HURAH!!!!!!!!
Do you upgrade because there's something faster out there, or because you need something faster? Let's see:
Short term:
See even if Intel might be better, when I upgrade my AMD system I will still get more performance than what I had. It's the same performance I would have got even if the new Intel was crap. But I might get it cheaper since AMD might lower prices to compete.
Long term:
AMD has to make an even better CPU to stay in the market - I will have a great time using that performance.
Intel keeps the performance crown over the next years - I will be able to jump platform once upgrading is necesary but stiking to AMD gives me nothing more, and have a great time using that performance.
In the end I will be much better because of Intells and AMD's fight to a better CPU.
n7 - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
I knew there was gonna be a change in performance leader when Conroe came out.However, i honestly didn't expect it to quite this big.
Very impressive i must say.
I will reserve final judgement for when both AM2 & Conroe are actually out, but it appears i might just be jumping on the Conroe bandwagon later this year!
Dubb - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
I'll be skiping a planned upgrade to 1207 opterons...will the initial woodcrest motherboards be upgradable to quad core clovertons?
gamara - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
I doubt that will occur. There will be different power requirements between 2 and 4 cores.goz314 - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
Clovertown and Woodcrest use the same socket type (i.e. socket J) and they are pin compatible. As long as a given board's VRM is designed to support both processors and a suitable BIOS is available, then I don't see why it can't be done.