Disappointed by the Conroe launch

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Deeznuts, my question to you is: why are you ok with Intel comparing an old processor to a processor that won't be out in 6 months?

Within 6 months time, what we see in the Conroe may not be all that great. 6 months in the computer industry is a long time. Many things change in the computer industry, and they change very quickly. To already announce the winner would be foolish.

I never knew you can buy FX-62's now.

When reviewing the article, I saw AMD X2 2.8... I didn't see a FX-62

It was an FX-60 overclocked to where the FX-62 part (that isnt out yet) would weigh in.

 

[trader869]

Im an Intel fan, but I do find it funny that the bios run on the DFI was an older one that could potentially have crippled ,to some affect, the AMD. Intel would have still kicked butt, IMO. But maybe by not so much.

 

[robertk2012]

I want AMD to have an answer but we new this all was coming. The moment intel said they were going to stop focusing on ghz and focus on peformance you knew it wouldnt be long. We got the pentium m which runs clock for clock with the a64. Then the rumors of dell using amd processors came to an aburt end. Apple switched to intel. How could have anyone not have seen this coming. I thought it was hialrious that everyone was asking why apple didnt go with amd. Well this is why. THey had to have something better than the G5 which honestly the A64 is not. Conroe will be and will be the first intel processor in a long time that I will actually reccoment. I hated the pentium 4 as its numbers were just a marketing ploy and nothing more.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: ND40oz

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Deeznuts, my question to you is: why are you ok with Intel comparing an old processor to a processor that won't be out in 6 months?

Yes, it is ok because its the best thing AMD has available for them to compare it to. If AMD gives Intel a pre-production NDA system to bench it against, then I'm all for it as well. Should the ATI X1900 benchmarks in early Feb. be compared against the 7800GTX 512 or a unreleased 7900 GTX? I didn't see anyone complaining when the 7800GTX was compared to the X850XTPE last July. "Oh no, it's not fair to compare a new product against the competitors currently available top of the line product." You must not spend alot of time here or have never visited the video forums. Atleast Intel was kind enough to overclock the FX-60 chip to FX-62 speeds, something that may be shipping when Conroe is released.

Yeah, that's nice and all, but....
You're basically saying Intel had no choice, right? They didn't have to compare at all considering that by the time Conroe is released, it may not hold a candle to the processors of that time.

To be honest... What idiot would compare a product 6 months early in it's production cycle to an older product that won't be around when it's released? That's just as bad as comparing the PS3 to the Xbox 360. There's nothing to compare considering there's just not enough evidence of what the product is capable of! Just a bunch of PR.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: robertk2012
I want AMD to have an answer but we new this all was coming. The moment intel said they were going to stop focusing on ghz and focus on peformance you knew it wouldnt be long. We got the pentium m which runs clock for clock with the a64. Then the rumors of dell using amd processors came to an aburt end. Apple switched to intel. How could have anyone not have seen this coming. I thought it was hialrious that everyone was asking why apple didnt go with amd. Well this is why. THey had to have something better than the G5 which honestly the A64 is not. Conroe will be and will be the first intel processor in a long time that I will actually reccoment. I hated the pentium 4 as its numbers were just a marketing ploy and nothing more.

Why do you try so hard to hate AMD and praise Intel?
When Apple turned to Intel, did you know that Intel never had Dual Core? Heck, they didn't even have 64 bit chips. AMD had both.

It has nothing to do with power. Just like I said before in another post... It's all about the money.

 

[HurleyBird]

Ugh...

To those that are saying that it's unfair to compare a product six months away with one out now: Stop digging for excuses and find something better to complain about.

To those who are saying that in six months time AMD will be able to come up with something that offers competitive performance to what we saw in the preview: Step out of the reality distortion feild.

To those same people who are using the graphics chip guys as examples as why AMD can catch up: Designing a CPU is a lot different (and a lot more time consuming) than a GPU.

To those of you that actually beleive these 'benchmarks': Read the quotes of my posts that seem to be floating around everywhere.

 

[plus]

A lot sounds fishy about this comparison.

Didn't Anand run an mp3 encoding test last month and get a score about twice what INTC gets from the same FX60?

The FX60 platform was crippled, and the fear bench ran in the 4mb cache on the Conroe.

Intel is pretty desperate to have to stoop to this to try and stop their marketshare erosion.

Did you know 81% of all retail desktops are now AMD based? It was 50/50 just last October.

Plus

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: plus
A lot sounds fishy about this comparison.

Didn't Anand run an mp3 encoding test last month and get a score about twice what INTC gets from the same FX60?

No. People with FX-60's and Crossfire 1900XT's report about the same framerate as the framerate demonstrated in the demo.,

Originally posted by: plus
The FX60 platform was crippled, and the fear bench ran in the 4mb cache on the Conroe.

Intel is pretty desperate to have to stoop to this to try and stop their marketshare erosion.

Crippled? It uses 2-2-2/1T memory, something most enthusiasts in AT don't even have. The Conroe was crippled, using ancient DDR2@667.

Fear bench run inside the 4MB cache? Do you know anything about cache heirarchy? Even encoding a 1MB MP3 won't fit inside a 4MB cache.

Originally posted by: plus
Did you know 81% of all retail desktops are now AMD based? It was 50/50 just last October.

And thats relevent how? Are you saying people who buy PC's at Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Depot, Office Max, Stapes have any relevence to this? Ironic, because it was the AMD fanbois who were mocking the stupidity of customers in retail channels. Kind of an interesting flip flop.

 

[plus]

I've included links to the 32sec score that Anand got on the FX60 review, and the 73sec score INTC gets on their "overclocked" FX60 platform.
Show me where I'm wrong:

Anands own test:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%...lon%2064%20fx60_010906100124/10510.png
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=7
Finally, we have a MP3 encoding test using iTunes 6.0.1.3. For this test, we simply took a 304MB wav file and converted it to a 192kbps MP3 file, measuring the encode time in seconds. The only iTunes option that we changed was to prevent the playback of the song while encoding.

INTC's test:
Intel also had a DivX 6.1 and an iTunes 6.0.1.3 test loaded on the machine for our use. The scores speak for themselves, Conroe showed just under a 30% performance advantage in DivX encoding and 11% in MP3 encoding. Updated: Windows Media Encoder 9 with Advanced Profile, the same test that we use in our CPU reviews, is showing Conroe with a 12% advantage over the 2.8GHz AMD system.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4

Plus

 

[HurleyBird]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Crippled? It uses 2-2-2/1T memory, something most enthusiasts in AT don't even have. The Conroe was crippled, using ancient DDR2@667.

Actually, that might not be true. Remember that Intel used an older bios which had some issues reporting correct memory timings.

EDIT: And with all that cache on Conroe, a slight bump in memory frequency will probably mean not a whole lot.

 

[HurleyBird]

Plus: The question you should be asking is did they use the same file for both encoding tests? Probably not.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: plus
I've included links to the 32sec score that Anand got on the FX60 review, and the 73sec score INTC gets on their "overclocked" FX60 platform.
Show me where I'm wrong:

Anands own test:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%...lon%2064%20fx60_010906100124/10510.png
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=7
Finally, we have a MP3 encoding test using iTunes 6.0.1.3. For this test, we simply took a 304MB wav file and converted it to a 192kbps MP3 file, measuring the encode time in seconds. The only iTunes option that we changed was to prevent the playback of the song while encoding.

INTC's test:
Intel also had a DivX 6.1 and an iTunes 6.0.1.3 test loaded on the machine for our use. The scores speak for themselves, Conroe showed just under a 30% performance advantage in DivX encoding and 11% in MP3 encoding. Updated: Windows Media Encoder 9 with Advanced Profile, the same test that we use in our CPU reviews, is showing Conroe with a 12% advantage over the 2.8GHz AMD system.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4

Plus

Wrong because they don't say what WAV file they used or what parameters they used to convert them?

By your logic, a 2.8Ghz Pentium-D 820 is faster than a 2.66Ghz Conroe.

 

[plus]

Anand calls the AMD part an "Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz" yet in each of the benchmarks it's called an "AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.8ghz".

So, is it an FX or an X2?

Don't these things matter?

Plus

 

[trader869]

I cant draw any conclusions yet as to the tests being fixed or not, but after all the reading, especially Rahul Sood's blog , im inclined to believe it.

 

[kknd1967]

Are these two cases using the same song encoded into the same bit rate?
I don't see anything indicating the same song is used.

come on people, use some common sense before blaming the "Anand/Intel/ATI" conspiracy.

Originally posted by: plus
I've included links to the 32sec score that Anand got on the FX60 review, and the 73sec score INTC gets on their "overclocked" FX60 platform.
Show me where I'm wrong:

Anands own test:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%...lon%2064%20fx60_010906100124/10510.png
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=7
Finally, we have a MP3 encoding test using iTunes 6.0.1.3. For this test, we simply took a 304MB wav file and converted it to a 192kbps MP3 file, measuring the encode time in seconds. The only iTunes option that we changed was to prevent the playback of the song while encoding.

INTC's test:
Intel also had a DivX 6.1 and an iTunes 6.0.1.3 test loaded on the machine for our use. The scores speak for themselves, Conroe showed just under a 30% performance advantage in DivX encoding and 11% in MP3 encoding. Updated: Windows Media Encoder 9 with Advanced Profile, the same test that we use in our CPU reviews, is showing Conroe with a 12% advantage over the 2.8GHz AMD system.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4

Plus

 

[plus]

Well it would be real nice if Anand would tell us how big the file was on the INTC test, so we can repeat the same test on a proper FX60 platform to confirm it.

Maybe this is just where INTC wanted to go - not enough details to disprove anything.

We know the bios was whacked - it didn't even recognize the FX60... that means cool and quiet was enabled, the 2nd core prob wasn't recognized... heck we don't know if SSE3 was running...

Plus

 

[StrangerGuy]

Repeat with me: "Vaporware until September"

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: plus
Anand calls the AMD part an "Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8GHz" yet in each of the benchmarks it's called an "AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.8ghz".

So, is it an FX or an X2?

Don't these things matter?

Plus

It seems that your intelligence is below average. AMD X2s are what AMD traditionally names their dual core products. Anand was just saying that a 2.8GHZ Dual core AMD product was being benchmarked. A 2.4GHZ AMD x2 4800+ overclocked to 2.8GHZ without increasing the speed of the ram will have the same or almost the same performance as a 2.8GHZ FX-60.

If you can't understand this simple relation, I suggest that you take a few months to get your head straight.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: ND40oz

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Deeznuts, my question to you is: why are you ok with Intel comparing an old processor to a processor that won't be out in 6 months?

Yes, it is ok because its the best thing AMD has available for them to compare it to. If AMD gives Intel a pre-production NDA system to bench it against, then I'm all for it as well. Should the ATI X1900 benchmarks in early Feb. be compared against the 7800GTX 512 or a unreleased 7900 GTX? I didn't see anyone complaining when the 7800GTX was compared to the X850XTPE last July. "Oh no, it's not fair to compare a new product against the competitors currently available top of the line product." You must not spend alot of time here or have never visited the video forums. Atleast Intel was kind enough to overclock the FX-60 chip to FX-62 speeds, something that may be shipping when Conroe is released.

Yeah, that's nice and all, but....
You're basically saying Intel had no choice, right? They didn't have to compare at all considering that by the time Conroe is released, it may not hold a candle to the processors of that time.

To be honest... What idiot would compare a product 6 months early in it's production cycle to an older product that won't be around when it's released? That's just as bad as comparing the PS3 to the Xbox 360. There's nothing to compare considering there's just not enough evidence of what the product is capable of! Just a bunch of PR.

A 2.8GHZ AMD dual core might be around in 6 months. Intel is projecting that they will get to that speed in 6 months, as the projected date for the 65nm release isn't until 2007. Intel is comparing their processor to the speed of what they THINK their competition's processor will be at in 6 months.

As for no choice, well Intel can do whatever they want to do at IDF. Its like the Car shows. They always show the new techs at the car shows. Are saying that the car companies should not show the new technologies and tell them what the future cars will be capable? Intel is just basically backing up its "claims" that the Conroe processor eats up AMD's offerings. If intel just stated this, then people would be up in arms and be asking for benchmarks. Now that Intel has provided the benchmarks, people are complaining that Intel released benchmarks too early?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Repeat with me: "Vaporware until September"

Yes, so if you want to wait 6 months for a processor that has higher performance than the AMD FX-60, then go ahead and wait. If you want to purchase the system right now, well its your decision, since your basically paying full retail value for an old 2-3 year old architecture when you can get a brand new architecture in just a few months. I mean, its the customer's decision anyways.

Btw, Cpus aren't like video cards where new m-architectures come and go in 6 month-1 year cycles. once a cpu comes along, the architecture and general performance level stays for at least 2-3 years, with only small improvements like clock speed ramp ups to improve performance.

 

[BrownTown]

why does everyone keep saying 6 months?, July is 4 months away, not 6...,

 

[plus]

FX60 is a 1mb cache part at 2.8ghz.

X2 4600 is a 1/2mb cache part at 2.4ghz

If it's an FX60 overclocked, than it has 1mb cache.

They could overclock the X2 4600 to 2.8ghz, but it wouldn't run with the FX60.

I'm just trying to note what details are actually provided, since there are so few, and this test is so important to Intel.

Anand could clear all this up pretty easily by providing more detail.

Plus

 

[kknd1967]

May-June is Turion X2
July is AM2
Sep is Conroe

Originally posted by: BrownTown
why does everyone keep saying 6 months?, July is 4 months away, not 6...,

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: plus
FX60 is a 1mb cache part at 2.8ghz.

X2 4600 is a 1/2mb cache part at 2.4ghz

If it's an FX60 overclocked, than it has 1mb cache.

They could overclock the X2 4600 to 2.8ghz, but it wouldn't run with the FX60.

I'm just trying to note what details are actually provided, since there are so few, and this test is so important to Intel.

Anand could clear all this up pretty easily by providing more detail.

Plus

Ok just to clarify. It is an fx-60. Anand saw an fx-60. It was overclocked to 2.8GHZ. Anand just decided to name it an X2 in his own graphs. Other sites who also benchmarked the processors named it an fx60 overclocked to 2.8 or fx-62 or something along those lines. Can you understand now? Will you stop brining that moot point up now? Honestly, if these little points are all you have to argue on, then your arguements are pretty weak.

 

[plus]

Were you guys concerned in the least that the bios couldn't recognice the FX60?

Probably normal right?