Intel Conroe

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: Tangerines
Quinton:

- Two separate pieces of silicon for once CPU doesn't mean much when it comes to CPU performance, especially Intel's, since it lacks an on-die memory controller.

What are you talking about?

- I didn't realize info had been released for Intel's quad-core processor yet. Unless you happen to work at Intel (which seems highly doubtful given your AMD bias) could you please stop passing off speculation as fact?

Do you even know what the quad core processor looks like?

- Would it kill you to admit that Intel has one-upped AMD for once?

It hasn't. There are far too many questions about the benchmark Intel gave that are unanswered. Check out this place for more info:

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/

- Read the AT article on the Presler XE.

- Judging a processor by what it looks like is almost criminally stupid.

- I highly doubt that those errors would cause a such a massive decrease in performance.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Hmm, what im interested is how a 3.33ghz Conroe XE would perform.

 

[tooltime]

sure looks interesting...will be watching for more info on it though

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Hmm, what im interested is how a 3.33ghz Conroe XE would perform.

A heard that! :thumbsup:

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Have you even seen the Quad Core pictures? It's a joke. They literally have 2 dual core dies placed in a single bed. Intel has got to be joking. It physically looks like a bottleneck. In order for the 4 cores to talk to each other, they are still going to have to go through the FSB which has yet to gain enough bandwidth to consider itself not bottlenecked.

What the heck do you think an X2 is? All it is is 2 cores linked via a higher latency crossbar. The Yonah actually has shared cache. And supposedly the Quad Core Kentsfield are 2 shared Cached dual cores. And how do you get past the FSB bottleneck? Just add more lanes.

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Any person could tell that Intel was desperate and just wanted to be ahead of AMD. We don't need Quad Core right now. We're barely utilizing Dual Core!

Yea, plenty of servers out there just don't need Quad Core. I mean geez, what kind of moron would design multi-processor servers??

Wow, aren't we behind on technology.
First of all, the way Intel boards are made, the lanes are Half Duplex. Meaning it can only send data in one direction at a time. Intel is not going to add another lane. You could suggest they do it all you want, but the fact to the matter is, Intel is too stubborn.

Shared Cache? Maybe... But the 4 cores aren't sharing the cache together. Only 2 cores are able to access a single cache at a time. It pretty much means that Core 3 and 4 share a cache and core 1 and 2 share a cache, but core 4 and 2 do not share a cache. Neither does Core 3 and 1. So, they will have to use the FSB to talk to each other.

Not only that, but what you don't realize is that if the cores use the cache to communicate, there's more data clogging the cache and thus causing another bottle neck. Correct me anytime ya want, buddy.

AMD's high latency crossbar switch?! The crossbar runs at CPU speed, you n00b.

Who are you and where did you come from. People like you annoy me much more than the people who ask questions without doing any research. At least they are trying to learn instead of pretending they know it all.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Do you even know what the quad core processor looks like?

Very similar in physical design to the IBM Multi-Core processors used in their AIX based servers.

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
It hasn't. There are far too many questions about the benchmark Intel gave that are unanswered. Check out this place for more info:

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/

And the president of VoodooPC's babblings on a blog has what relevance to this (besides being wrong)? The Anandtech Followup just pwned him:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yeah, Anand's followup benchmark put all questions to rest about the vailidty of the IDF Conroe benchmarks. They're legit(too legit to quit! hey hey!). However, it is NOT hammertime.

That E6300 is looking sweet.

If AMD sticks with the current k8 architecture, they'll probably need to hit 3.8-4 ghz on it to beat the anticipated 3 ghz Conroe-based EE part and 3.2-3.5 ghz to beat the part demoed at IDF. DDR2 and extra l2 cache won't change much.

 

[TheSlamma]

CPU speed has been playing ping pong for a long time now. Anyone who just wants to buy one company instead of the better deal/product at the time is an idiot.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: dmens

Well gee, if it is working so well right now, why not just release it right now? Take the speed crown today.

Umm... validation?

Beacuse they want to milk there P-D some more as im sure they are much cheaper to produce.

Bingo. If they say six months people will still buy new processors for the next three. Then they release conroe early. If they said it would be out in 3 why would anyone by a new system that is going to get stomped in 3 months. Apple wanted those chips early (as in now) but intel wouldnt give in. Also intel is trying to get the new 4 core processor pushed up to the end of this year. AMD is in trouble unless they have something big up their sleave.

Have you even seen the Quad Core pictures? It's a joke. They literally have 2 dual core dies placed in a single bed. Intel has got to be joking. It physically looks like a bottleneck. In order for the 4 cores to talk to each other, they are still going to have to go through the FSB which has yet to gain enough bandwidth to consider itself not bottlenecked.

Any person could tell that Intel was desperate and just wanted to be ahead of AMD. We don't need Quad Core right now. We're barely utilizing Dual Core!

CSI will arrive with clovertown.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: akers
Intel officially announced the "Conroe" today. They promise a 40% increase in performance over the current P-4. In other words, if you are willing to wait about six more months you can finally buy an Intel chip that is as fast as last years crop of Athlon 64s. And it will probably only cost twice as much as the comparable AMD chip.

Last I recall, the FX-62 isn't released. Or maybe you're posting from the future.

You don't know what AMD has up their sleeves six months from now. Unless you're posting from the future.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: ddeder
Conroe is total vaporware. AMD is stomping Intel into the ground and a desperate Intel is comparing a CPU that doesn't even exist to an AMD CPU that is hobbled by an old motherboard and bios. Anandtech must be on the Intel payroll.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why apple went with intel? What about dell sticking with intel even when it was rumored to go with AMD. Do you think this processor might have something to do with it. Just maybe?

There has been rumors of Dell considering to pick up AMD for the past couple of years. More likely it was the pressure intel put on them by threatening to raise prices if Dell also stocked AMD.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Have you even seen the Quad Core pictures? It's a joke. They literally have 2 dual core dies placed in a single bed. Intel has got to be joking. It physically looks like a bottleneck. In order for the 4 cores to talk to each other, they are still going to have to go through the FSB which has yet to gain enough bandwidth to consider itself not bottlenecked.

What the heck do you think an X2 is? All it is is 2 cores linked via a higher latency crossbar. The Yonah actually has shared cache. And supposedly the Quad Core Kentsfield are 2 shared Cached dual cores. And how do you get past the FSB bottleneck? Just add more lanes.

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Any person could tell that Intel was desperate and just wanted to be ahead of AMD. We don't need Quad Core right now. We're barely utilizing Dual Core!

Yea, plenty of servers out there just don't need Quad Core. I mean geez, what kind of moron would design multi-processor servers??

Wow, aren't we behind on technology.
First of all, the way Intel boards are made, the lanes are Half Duplex. Meaning it can only send data in one direction at a time. Intel is not going to add another lane. You could suggest they do it all you want, but the fact to the matter is, Intel is too stubborn.

Shared Cache? Maybe... But the 4 cores aren't sharing the cache together. Only 2 cores are able to access a single cache at a time. It pretty much means that Core 3 and 4 share a cache and core 1 and 2 share a cache, but core 4 and 2 do not share a cache. Neither does Core 3 and 1. So, they will have to use the FSB to talk to each other.

Not only that, but what you don't realize is that if the cores use the cache to communicate, there's more data clogging the cache and thus causing another bottle neck. Correct me anytime ya want, buddy.

AMD's high latency crossbar switch?! The crossbar runs at CPU speed, you n00b.

Who are you and where did you come from. People like you annoy me much more than the people who ask questions without doing any research. At least they are trying to learn instead of pretending they know it all.

robert - read the entire quote before you post him for being, admittedly, a little bit of a jerk. dexvx handed it out first, he had it coming.

 

[Conky]

Funny to watch the AMD fanboys cry about this new chip. I wasn't planning my next cpu/mobo/video upgrade until next fall at which point I will buy whatever is the best bang for the buck... be it Conroe or a heavily discounted X-60.. either way I win!

Sometimes it pays to wait.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: allies
There has been rumors of Dell considering to pick up AMD for the past couple of years. More likely it was the pressure intel put on them by threatening to raise prices if Dell also stocked AMD.

Do you know what business is? Theres a reason Dell gets first priority.

Originally posted by: allies
robert - read the entire quote before you post him for being, admittedly, a little bit of a jerk. dexvx handed it out first, he had it coming.

Sorry, I was not the first one to resort to name calling. He also claimed that the BIOS ID effected performance, and said I was unfit to service computers (as if I work at Best Buy servicing parts). After Anand updated his article, he got served.

Moreover, I said "And supposedly the Quad Core Kentsfield are 2 shared Cached dual cores." He just felt like re-iterating it as if I was wrong.

And about the crossbar latency, at about the mid 2Ghz's, the latency is over 200ns. Also anyone who things Quad Core is useless is just clueless about servers. And about the dual independant FSB's, thats currently in place for 2 socket servers. IBM Hurricane (which can use up to 64 Xeons per node) pretty much alleviates ANY bandwidth problems. With the Hurricane, even the lowly Paxvilles (2.8Ghz) is performance competitve with Opterons in 8core + configurations.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: allies

There has been rumors of Dell considering to pick up AMD for the past couple of years. More likely it was the pressure intel put on them by threatening to raise prices if Dell also stocked AMD.

I always saw it the other way around that unless Intel gave larger discounts, Dell would threaten to go sell more AMD systems.

 

[Dadofamunky]

I don't know my brothers, if Conroe stacks up that well, that might be my next SFF system build... in a year and a half or so. Looks like in any case Intel's making a big comeback from shooting themselves in the foot years ago with Prescott. They should get on their knees and thank God for their Israeli engineers. Looks like they pulled off a miracle.

It will also be fun to see what can of whoop' Ass AMD breaks out with as a response. 65nm should help them.

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: ddeder
"Why would you reasonably expect Conroe to be delayed beyond Q3? It was working just fine at the IDF."

Well gee, if it is working so well right now, why not just release it right now? Take the speed crown today.

Both the issue of yields and the fact that you generally want to build up a supply of parts before releasing anything.

You want to have those factories churning for a good couple of months before releasing, or you'll have no supply at all.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: TekDemon

Originally posted by: ddeder
"Why would you reasonably expect Conroe to be delayed beyond Q3? It was working just fine at the IDF."

Well gee, if it is working so well right now, why not just release it right now? Take the speed crown today.

Both the issue of yields and the fact that you generally want to build up a supply of parts before releasing anything.

You want to have those factories churning for a good couple of months before releasing, or you'll have no supply at all.

Intel has a lot of factories.

I think the next question will be which plant makes the highest overclocking chips, lol. We all knew Intel was gonna have to wake up and retake their role.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Do you even know what the quad core processor looks like?

Very similar in physical design to the IBM Multi-Core processors used in their AIX based servers.

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
It hasn't. There are far too many questions about the benchmark Intel gave that are unanswered. Check out this place for more info:

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/

And the president of VoodooPC's babblings on a blog has what relevance to this (besides being wrong)? The Anandtech Followup just pwned him:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716

Rahul answered all the data from Anandtech. In fact, what he said did not go against what Anandtech said. He mentioned the bios, and Anandtech was able to compile the new bios. Rahul mentioned other benchmarks (including Anantech, in which Anandtech apologized). He also mentioned several other things that Anandtech did not answer.

So, no ownage for you

 

[Keysplayr]

About this thread. It's inevitable that there will be a lot of bitter AMD evangelists. Unless they are cool ones like SunnyD. Intel has done a terrific job. I have been waiting very patiently for Conroe as it was Intels last chance (for me) before I jumped ship to AMD. I can wait til July for a Conroe. Not a problem.

The OP does not even take into account that this 2.66GHz Conroe is set to debut at the "Mainstream" level. And it throttled an "FX-62". A CPU that does not exist to the public yet. Last year my butt. Anyway, AMD has done remarkably well these past few years, or is it that Intel has done so badly? I kind of figured it was just a matter of time before Intel woke up.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
About this thread. It's inevitable that there will be a lot of bitter AMD evangelists. Unless they are cool ones like SunnyD. Intel has done a terrific job. I have been waiting very patiently for Conroe as it was Intels last chance (for me) before I jumped ship to AMD. I can wait til July for a Conroe. Not a problem.

The OP does not even take into account that this 2.66GHz Conroe is set to debut at the "Mainstream" level. And it throttled an "FX-62". A CPU that does not exist to the public yet. Last year my butt. Anyway, AMD has done remarkably well these past few years, or is it that Intel has done so badly? I kind of figured it was just a matter of time before Intel woke up.

Good luck waiting 6 months for your Conroe that probably will be outperformed by something else by the time it's released.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: dmens

Well gee, if it is working so well right now, why not just release it right now? Take the speed crown today.

Umm... validation?

Beacuse they want to milk there P-D some more as im sure they are much cheaper to produce.

Bingo. If they say six months people will still buy new processors for the next three. Then they release conroe early. If they said it would be out in 3 why would anyone by a new system that is going to get stomped in 3 months. Apple wanted those chips early (as in now) but intel wouldnt give in. Also intel is trying to get the new 4 core processor pushed up to the end of this year. AMD is in trouble unless they have something big up their sleave.

Have you even seen the Quad Core pictures? It's a joke. They literally have 2 dual core dies placed in a single bed. Intel has got to be joking. It physically looks like a bottleneck. In order for the 4 cores to talk to each other, they are still going to have to go through the FSB which has yet to gain enough bandwidth to consider itself not bottlenecked.

Any person could tell that Intel was desperate and just wanted to be ahead of AMD. We don't need Quad Core right now. We're barely utilizing Dual Core!

You don't keep up with anything do you? There will most likely be dual 1333 or faster FSB's for the quad cores. One bus per two cores. Intel just murdered AMD's stock ticker. Give it time and you'll see what I mean. Desperate to one person may be perceived a genius to another.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


You don't keep up with anything do you? There will most likely be dual 1333 or faster FSB's for the quad cores. One bus per two cores. Intel just murdered AMD's stock ticker. Give it time and you'll see what I mean. Desperate to one person may be perceived a genius to another.

I doubt it. Dual FSB would be pointless if Intel gets pumping the FSB (Like Quad Pump). If I give Intel anymore time, they'll have an Integrated Memory Controller.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
About this thread. It's inevitable that there will be a lot of bitter AMD evangelists. Unless they are cool ones like SunnyD. Intel has done a terrific job. I have been waiting very patiently for Conroe as it was Intels last chance (for me) before I jumped ship to AMD. I can wait til July for a Conroe. Not a problem.

The OP does not even take into account that this 2.66GHz Conroe is set to debut at the "Mainstream" level. And it throttled an "FX-62". A CPU that does not exist to the public yet. Last year my butt. Anyway, AMD has done remarkably well these past few years, or is it that Intel has done so badly? I kind of figured it was just a matter of time before Intel woke up.

Good luck waiting 6 months for your Conroe that probably will be outperformed by something else by the time it's released.

Yeah, I'm thinking by the higher clocked Conroe. So, out of these three people:

Quinton McLoud
ddeder
akers

Who do you think is the most bitter about this whole thing?
I got it pegged down to:

ddeder = damn near suicidal
Quinton McLoud = Ultra denial phase
akers = Just wigging out.

So why can't you three discuss this thing without all the BS?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


You don't keep up with anything do you? There will most likely be dual 1333 or faster FSB's for the quad cores. One bus per two cores. Intel just murdered AMD's stock ticker. Give it time and you'll see what I mean. Desperate to one person may be perceived a genius to another.

I doubt it. Dual FSB would be pointless if Intel gets pumping the FSB (Like Quad Pump). If I give Intel anymore time, they'll have an Integrated Memory Controller.

You..................doubt it? That's pretty funny. Lets all bend a knee to your doubts.