AMD Dethrowned. Intel Steps up.

[Quinton McLeod]

First of all, you need to read the benchmarks... (Provide a link next time).

1) Intel was comparing the Conroe to a processor that didn't exist. There are people thinking that the processor is an overclocked X2 2.8 or a FX-62 (which doesn't exist)

2) The BIOS in the benchmark used is old. It dates year 2003 (For AMD if you notice). The AMD processor was seriously bottlenecked because of that.

3) Cool 'n Quiet was never disabled on the motherboard

4) The video drivers on the benchmarks were modified to (according to Intel), "recognized the new processor". How many of us think video drivers need to recognize a processor. The truth is, video drivers DO NOT need to recognize the processor. They never have.

5) The Conroe isn't due out until another 6 months. That's a very long time. Intel basically compared a non-existant and even old processor to a processor that won't be released for another 6 months.

The benchmark is a joke and it's completely bias. You should never use a benchmark created by the same people who make the product they're benchmarked for. It will always be skewed.

 

[Ð88]

Thats the thing. What quinton brought up has created a lot of debate over the legitmacy of the results above. It really was not an accurate testing. Yet, despite speculations, it is still being said that the conroe is without a doubt more powerful than any current AMD processor. I'm not sure what to believe here but I all I know is that these initial tests between AMD and Intel are not accurate enough to settle with any conclusions.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Thats the thing. What quinton brought up has created a lot of debate over the legitmacy of the results above. It really was not an accurate testing. Yet, despite speculations, it is still being said that the conroe is without a doubt more powerful than any current AMD processor. I'm not sure what to believe here but I all I know is that these initial tests between AMD and Intel are not accurate enough to settle with any conclusions.

I'm telling you, it's a bias benchmark... Check this out...

- More apparent performance issues under Crossfire mode.

Next, when you take a future Intel chipset and compare it to a chipset that no enthusiast supports (RD480) with an outdated bios it's like taking a Ferrari and putting it on Bias-Ply tires. It's just not a good way to show off a “new” technology.

Had Intel taken an RD580 (Crossfire Xpress 3200) and coupled with the AMD Athlon FX-60 processor they almost certainly would have seen some better numbers just based on the bios issues alone. The ATi Xpress 3200 would have improved the overclocking and decoding performance as well. You don't need a time machine to jump over to the nearest Newegg and buy the latest parts. It's almost like Intel took their time machine 6 months ahead while throwing AMD into a time warp set a few months back in time.

If we go and check out the numbers on Anandtech we'll see the Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmark showing 160fps on the unknown AMD X2 processor while the Intel Conroe at 2.66GHz came in significantly higher at 191fps.

Though this isn't exactly conclusive, if you go back and re-read some old FX-57 reviews on Tom's Hardware you'll see a benchmark for the same game set at the same resolution (and the same color depth), the FX-57 running at 2.8GHz scored 183.4fps. The thing is it's using an Nvidia Geforce 6800 GT which seems to me that there are many variables here when it comes to benchmarking. Perhaps it's somewhere locked in the settings, but I won't know until I sit down and compare our own benchmarks with consistant settings. Note that a single core Athlon 64 4000 achieved a better score in the benchmark run by Tom (160.5fps) than the one provided by Intel (160.4) at IDF. Like I said, I don't view this as conclusive, but it shows that there are variances depending on how the benchmark is setup. Here is a link to Tom's review.

Link: http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/


It's sad that Intel would even steep this low to over hype their processor.

 

[ownage]

Anandtech is not biased. I trust Anand a lot not to make biased comments. They said it was put up against an overclocked FX-60, not an unknown processor. It says unknown because it needed a BIOS flash. Now, the Conroe is due in the fall of '06, that means they have engineering samples out. Anandtech said the video drivers were loaded on both the Intel and AMD machine, so nothing significant there. And yes, video drivers need to recognize the processor. If it doesnt, what drives the drivers? BIOSs dont bottleneck a processor. Cool 'n' Quiet is just like speed step. It doesnt matter if it wasnt disabled or not. When the AMD gets worked, itll work at the highest speed possible. The only thing i dont like about it is that they compared it to a S939 processor, it should have been AM2.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Anandtech is not biased. I trust Anand a lot not to make biased comments. They said it was put up against an overclocked FX-60, not an unknown processor. It says unknown because it needed a BIOS flash. Now, the Conroe is due in the fall of '06, that means they have engineering samples out. Anandtech said the video drivers were loaded on both the Intel and AMD machine, so nothing significant there. And yes, video drivers need to recognize the processor. If it doesnt, what drives the drivers? BIOSs dont bottleneck a processor. Cool 'n' Quiet is just like speed step. It doesnt matter if it wasnt disabled or not. When the AMD gets worked, itll work at the highest speed possible. The only thing i dont like about it is that they compared it to a S939 processor, it should have been AM2.

lol

Did you know Anandtech did not perform this benchmark? Intel did themselves at the IDF.

Anandtech is going by what Intel told them.

Also, video drivers don't need to recognize the processor. What drives the drivers? lol. The OS drives the drivers, not the processor lol!
A bios can bottleneck a processor. The bios on the motherboard was not meant to support the AMD FX-60. So, it may not be running at it's normal settings. Cool N' Quiet can slow down a processor. Everyone knows that. That is why you disable it when running a benchmark. Ownage, you should know this. I'm surprised you don't.

 

[Half Evil]

Doesnt matter. Its better then my pent 4. So I want it

 

[ownage]

Video drivers shouldnt even matter, they used the same video cards, and the same drivers. That is fair. A BIOS wont downclock the cpu, it will be running at what its supposed to run at. Cool n' Quiet only slows down a cpu when it doesnt have a load. It is used to save power. If its running a benchmark, it should be running at the specified 2.8ghz. Cn'Q changes the multiplier. AFAIK, it only hinders oc'ability, there should be no performance lost with a 200mhz oc.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Video drivers shouldnt even matter, they used the same video cards, and the same drivers. That is fair. A BIOS wont downclock the cpu, it will be running at what its supposed to run at. Cool n' Quiet only slows down a cpu when it doesnt have a load. It is used to save power. If its running a benchmark, it should be running at the specified 2.8ghz.

Video card drivers do matter! Have you ever been in Linux using ATi's drivers? You will literally see the difference in games! Drivers DO matter!

BIOs won't downclock... Maybe... But it won't run at its optimal capacity. How can it if it doesn't know the processor supports an unlocked multiplier? How could it run at its full capacity if it doesn't know the processors default settings? The answer is... It can't!

Cool n' Quiet interferes in benchmarking... Whos to say that a benchmark isn't fully utilizing the CPU's power. Cool n' Quiet could set in and have the processor run slower than it should. Everyone knows this. This is why Cool n' Quiet is always disabled in benchmarks. A lot of people say it's even a bad idea to run QNQ when overclocking. Anandtech says the processor was overclocked... So, why use QNQ? Here is a link:

http://forums.tweakguides.com/showthread.php?t=1953

 

[lhuser]

wot is the Socket AM2, wot new features has it got, i dont no much about it

I read the Socket M2 articles. When they ran it, I saw, with the benchmarks and such, Socket 939 pwns Socket AM2. Don't move there yet!

 

[ownage]

Video card drivers do matter! Have you ever been in Linux using ATi's drivers? You will literally see the difference in games! Drivers DO matter!

BIOs won't downclock... Maybe... But it won't run at its optimal capacity. How can it if it doesn't know the processor supports an unlocked multiplier? How could it run at its full capacity if it doesn't know the processors default settings? The answer is... It can't!

Cool n' Quiet interferes in benchmarking... Whos to say that a benchmark isn't fully utilizing the CPU's power. Cool n' Quiet could set in and have the processor run slower than it should. Everyone knows this. This is why Cool n' Quiet is always disabled in benchmarks. A lot of people say it's even a bad idea to run QNQ when overclocking. Anandtech says the processor was overclocked... So, why use QNQ? Here is a link:

http://forums.tweakguides.com/showthread.php?t=1953

I know drivers matter, but they used the same drivers, on the same OS. So its fair ground. Cn'Q will only affect overclocking, i dont see why itll affect performance on such a grand scale. Even if you dont think Conroe does that well, look at the benchmarks for FEAR on anandtech. It shows that Conroe actually does do better. To be honest, an unlocked processor isnt going to do anything. Sure the clock speed can be raised, but they said it was at 2.8Ghz. So thats actually 200x14 or 233x12. Either way its 2.8Ghz. The 233x12 will yield higher performance, so i dont understand the need for an unlocked multiplier.