Intel Conroe

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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.

Alright. They flat out won't.

Better?

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
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.

How would it be pointless? The merom fsb's right now are "quad pumped" already. But at least you got the part on the integrated controller right, that's coming along.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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.

Alright. They flat out won't.

Better?

Umm, no. Not really a convincing argument to simply say "They won't". Good Luck finding backers for that one. Yes, as per dmens, the Merom is quad pumped already.

 

[sharad]

Can someone please explain how the Conroe manages to be so much faster?

It is based on the Pentium-M, which was still lagging A64 so what has Intel suddenly added to the Pentium-M based Conroe core that allows it to surpass K8 now? DDR2 can't be it. Even the die shrink can't bring such gains. Conroe still doesn't have onboard memory controller, so that is out of question. So what is it? Just incremental core improvements?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: sharad
Can someone please explain how the Conroe manages to be so much faster?

It is based on the Pentium-M, which was still lagging A64 so what has Intel suddenly added to the Pentium-M based Conroe core that allows it to surpass K8 now? DDR2 can't be it. Even the die shrink can't bring such gains. Conroe still doesn't have onboard memory controller, so that is out of question. So what is it? Just incremental core improvements?

Since when was the Pentium-M lagging behind the A64? The Dothan can keep up with the single core FX clock for clock in most situations (gaming, office) but slightly lag behind in others (encoding, raw FP tasks). The Yonah is basically a match for the X2 clock for clock. The reason the speed is so low is because its a laptop part, but real enthusiasts have overclocked those things to 2.6-2.7Ghz and they absolutely dominate any X2 at clock (by raising the crippling 667Mhz FSB to near Conroe levels).

The major improvement is that the Conroe is 4 issue whereas the Yonah is 3 issue (basically meaning it can execute 4 instructions per clock versus 3).

Nice little flow chart:
http://www.realworldtech.com/includes/t...m?ArticleID=RWT030906143144&mode=print

By "Core" they really mean Meron, or Conroe based chips.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
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.

How would it be pointless? The merom fsb's right now are "quad pumped" already. But at least you got the part on the integrated controller right, that's coming along.

http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=110

Bensley platform preview back in November 2005. Validation should be done somewhere this quarter, and you can do a drop in replacement for Woodcrest (Conroe based) whenever that comes out.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: sharad
Can someone please explain how the Conroe manages to be so much faster?

It is based on the Pentium-M, which was still lagging A64 so what has Intel suddenly added to the Pentium-M based Conroe core that allows it to surpass K8 now? DDR2 can't be it. Even the die shrink can't bring such gains. Conroe still doesn't have onboard memory controller, so that is out of question. So what is it? Just incremental core improvements?

Well for one thing it's a 4 IPC design instead of 3..it's not just a die shrink, there were major changes done.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: kknd1967
This thread by voodoopc CTO is quite informative.
Inte's FX60 rig is not as good, intentionally or not, by a slight margin. Still Conroe beats a "properly" configured FX60 rig from Wil Harris. If AM2 platform does not provide significant gain, Conroe is likely to be the winner.

Conroe vs FX60 vs "intel's" FX60

Plus for those doubting the benchmarks via cross-platform comparison, please understand FX60 can be quite slow sometime

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/

Yeah, and maybe you should take a gander at This

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: sharad
Can someone please explain how the Conroe manages to be so much faster?

It is based on the Pentium-M, which was still lagging A64 so what has Intel suddenly added to the Pentium-M based Conroe core that allows it to surpass K8 now? DDR2 can't be it. Even the die shrink can't bring such gains. Conroe still doesn't have onboard memory controller, so that is out of question. So what is it? Just incremental core improvements?

Pentium lags behind A64 unless o/c'd in most but gaming. Yonah closes in considerably or equals X2 clock for clock. Conroe/Merom is a new design. 4 issue wide, (waitaminute, go read the reviews for yourself)

 

[josh609]

I was really dead set on getting an AM2 based system, my how things have changed. Conroe looks to be a real thriller. Now I?m looking at getting a 2.4 GHz Conroe for $316. The only thing I?m a little weary about is that Intel likes to change their chipsets about as often as I go pee. I just don't want to have to buy a new motherboard every time Intel increases their processor speed. I like AMD for the reason that I know I can buy a new socket AM2 system, and know that I?ll be able to upgrade processors for at least a year or two.

One other thing: For AMD to stay price competitive, they will need to lower their 4800+ X2 to around $200-300 when Conroe launches. The good news is I see a price war looming, It?s going to be grand.

Second other thing: Will we see quad core processors on the AM2 socket? AMD is set to release their quad core Opterons in 2007. So I assume we?ll see an Athlon 64 X4 in 2007, but with what socket?

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: ddeder
And what happens when Intel delays Conroe by 6 - 12 months? This is a desperate Intel ploy that we have all seen before. Maybe AMD should respond with a vaporware launch of a 10GHZ 64 core Athlon that triples the performance of Conroe - to be debuted in 6 months.

That statement will be credible if they demo'ed live silicon capable of running commercial software.

QFT

 

[sharad]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Pentium lags behind A64 unless o/c'd in most but gaming. Yonah closes in considerably or equals X2 clock for clock. Conroe/Merom is a new design. 4 issue wide, (waitaminute, go read the reviews for yourself)

Thanks. After reading up the articles. I see that PM wan't bad at all against K8 and now that the it has gone from 3 to 4 issue core (IPC?) the 3 to 4 the 30% performance increase makes sense. So what is the "issue" count for AMD cores?

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

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.

Heh a lot of factories yes, but you'd still want actual stock on hand, lol. You can't really ship Dell 1,000 procs at a time lol.

I don't know if they use planes to move the chips from the factory but they might even still use boats for that matter for logistical savings (like a boatload here and there to build up supplies in an area before launch).

Of course I don't actually know how Intel runs their logistics but I'm sure a stockpile for launch is going to be involved =p

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Question:

Is Conroe based on PEntium M architecture? I havent followed CPUs since the launch of the X2s, so I kinda forgot about the roadmaps.... I'm guessing it is, because 2.66 ghz can only be this powerful if its Pentium M...

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I think it is unrealistic to expect AMD to come out with anything remarkably better than what is out now unless we see a new architecture change. That's actually quite an accomplishment if you ask me. They designed the K8 so well that things have stayed relatively the same for the past few years, adding dual-cores and increasing the clockspeed are perhaps the only real substantive improvements we have seen. I will still buy AMD parts, even if Conroe is faster, because I disapprove of Intel's business practices in general. Plus, I would assume the performance gap between Intel and AMD will be relatively close anyways when Conroe comes out making the whole issue moot.

 

[pedramrezai]

The way most of the people are thinking is just the way Intel has planned. I am a AMD fan but I can realize competition is good for customers. I was shocked by Core performance but using a handicapped AMD system really annoyed me. First, reviewers have already proven RD580 or solutions with dual 16x can deliver up to 10-15% more performance when paired with high-end, bandwith hungry vga cards. Second, we have been hearing of dual core optimizations in display drivers for some time but were unable to see something significant until we saw Conroe performance; I am quite suspicious over some hefty optimizations in intel-cooked display driver. Time will reveal. Third, this might be the beginning of a new SSEx game with unfair optimizations for a new technoogy.
I am surprized how people are trashing the current as well as future AMD64 technology.But remember that Core is not out yet and all these might be some optimizations that has granted it this performance level. Moreover, the current AMD64 technology is almost 3 years old and the new AM2 will update its specs. AMD did not like DDR2 high latency; What they are looking for is its higher frequency that can be paired with the new AM2 FSB.For Athlon 64 and Sempron a 333mhz FSB that paires with DDR2 666 and for the Fx parts a 400 mhz FSB pairing with DDR2 800. If DDR1 could reach these frequencies you could now see the real potential of AMD64. This kind of bandwith will give Core a hard time. Also remember that AMD is increasing cache (L2 and maybe L3). Shared cache is also something that will be seen in the future products and will bring huge performance gains. Based on the preliminary data of 200/266 async single channel bandwith of 3500mb/s a memory bandwith of >10k is expected in the final product and if Intel was going to compare its future platform, it was not fare to compare it with an infrastructure of >2 years old. I am sure the new AM2 will regain AMD reputation once again. But we all must remember that this competition between major players is good for the end users.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Question:

Is Conroe based on PEntium M architecture? I havent followed CPUs since the launch of the X2s, so I kinda forgot about the roadmaps.... I'm guessing it is, because 2.66 ghz can only be this powerful if its Pentium M...

It's mainly Pentium-m based, with a lot of changes. 4 IPC isnstead of 3. improved cache, can do 128bit SSE instructions in a single clock, instead of splitting it in to 2x64 bit instructions which is what was previously done. Macrofusion allowing x86 instructions to be combined in to a single instruction, those are some of the major changes.