Disappointed by the Conroe launch

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: plus
Were you guys concerned in the least that the bios couldn't recognice the FX60?

Probably normal right?

i'm sure that Anand and other Hardware reviewers would have questioned this in their articles if they thought that this had a major impact on the results.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: plus
Were you guys concerned in the least that the bios couldn't recognice the FX60?

Probably normal right?

Being unable to recognize the processor won't effect its functionality at all. All thats need is a microcode update to the BIOS, which is just an indentification string.

 

[plus]

<<<Being unable to recognize the processor won't effect its functionality at all. All thats need is a microcode update to the BIOS, which is just an indentification string.>>>

So, if you put your dual core part in a standard 939 motherboard, with a bios that was pre-dual core, it runs it just find right???

My point is simply, the latest bios would run the FX60 correctly, and certainly recognize it.

The fact that the bios does not recognize the FX60 IS an indication of a problem.

I'm confident that all of this will come out in time. Question is - IS Intel using Anand's credibility to buy them that time?

Plus

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: plus
<<<Being unable to recognize the processor won't effect its functionality at all. All thats need is a microcode update to the BIOS, which is just an indentification string.>>>

So, if you put your dual core part in a standard 939 motherboard, with a bios that was pre-dual core, it runs it just find right???

The bios came from November, 2005. The motherboard was released after the dual-core A64s arrived on the market. Seeing as it performs basically as expected, all the bios missed was probably the name of it, since it's the first dualcore FX chip.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: plus
<<<Being unable to recognize the processor won't effect its functionality at all. All thats need is a microcode update to the BIOS, which is just an indentification string.>>>

So, if you put your dual core part in a standard 939 motherboard, with a bios that was pre-dual core, it runs it just find right???

My point is simply, the latest bios would run the FX60 correctly, and certainly recognize it.

The fact that the bios does not recognize the FX60 IS an indication of a problem.

I'm confident that all of this will come out in time. Question is - IS Intel using Anand's credibility to buy them that time?

Plus

The answer to your question is NO! Your processor will not run right unless your bios can identify it correctly. Whoever says otherwise is stupid.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: plus
<<<Being unable to recognize the processor won't effect its functionality at all. All thats need is a microcode update to the BIOS, which is just an indentification string.>>>

So, if you put your dual core part in a standard 939 motherboard, with a bios that was pre-dual core, it runs it just find right???

My point is simply, the latest bios would run the FX60 correctly, and certainly recognize it.

The fact that the bios does not recognize the FX60 IS an indication of a problem.

I'm confident that all of this will come out in time. Question is - IS Intel using Anand's credibility to buy them that time?

Plus

The answer to your question is NO! Your processor will not run right unless your bios can identify it correctly. Whoever says otherwise is stupid.

Anyone who thinks the identification string of a BIOS has any relevance to performance is stupid.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: plus
<<<Being unable to recognize the processor won't effect its functionality at all. All thats need is a microcode update to the BIOS, which is just an indentification string.>>>

So, if you put your dual core part in a standard 939 motherboard, with a bios that was pre-dual core, it runs it just find right???

My point is simply, the latest bios would run the FX60 correctly, and certainly recognize it.

The fact that the bios does not recognize the FX60 IS an indication of a problem.

I'm confident that all of this will come out in time. Question is - IS Intel using Anand's credibility to buy them that time?

Plus

The answer to your question is NO! Your processor will not run right unless your bios can identify it correctly. Whoever says otherwise is stupid.

Anyone who thinks the identification string of a BIOS has any relevance to performance is stupid.

Quit kidding yourself. The bios takes more than just identification for a processor. It also checks the default multipliers from the processor. It also checks and sees what it supports (Cool 'n Quiet and etc.). If you honestly think your performance wouldn't change if your bios couldn't identify your processor, then you're seriously in the dark. I also wouldn't want you working on the general public's computers. You might blow them up.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Tanclearas
What Intel has done is disgusting. They have cast shadow over the fact that the fastest x86 CPU you can buy today, and for the next six months, is from a competitor. Six months is a very long time in this industry, and Intel may have likely cost AMD a lot of money with this little stunt. I can already tell that some people have decided to put off upgrades until Conroe.

Whys it disgusting?? Its a perfectly valid marketing tactic. Also informing the people about how a 2.67ghz conroe performs against an FX-62 equivilent is an excellent idea. The masses have a right to be informed that their newly planned rig will not simply be outdated by a newer processor 6 months down the line, it will be pulverised by an entirely new architecture processor.

Besides, people werent thinking much of conroe and were basing their performance estimates on yonah, which while being a decent cpu it isnt amazing or anything. Your critisizing Intel for telling the truth? For trying to hurt the competition? Isnt it lucky you dont run your own buisness.

 

[tooltime]

i've read a few sites reviewing the bench marks...if you can call them bench marks...and the conclusion is to hold off on upgrading to a high end system...i am sure this is going to get amd to respond and i believe it'll be a strong response

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: tooltime
i've read a few sites reviewing the bench marks...if you can call them bench marks...and the conclusion is to hold off on upgrading to a high end system...i am sure this is going to get amd to respond and i believe it'll be a strong response

Yea... they tell me this ONE DAY too late for me :frown:

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: plus
Were you guys concerned in the least that the bios couldn't recognice the FX60?

Probably normal right?

This was already discussed. THe motherboard couldn't recognized the CPU because it was OCed

 

[liebremx]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Quit kidding yourself. The bios takes more than just identification for a processor. It also checks the default multipliers from the processor. It also checks and sees what it supports (Cool 'n Quiet and etc.). If you honestly think your performance wouldn't change if your bios couldn't identify your processor, then you're seriously in the dark. I also wouldn't want you working on the general public's computers. You might blow them up.

The correct answer is : it MAY affect but probably isn't the case.
Let me explain:
Usually the BIOS uses the (model,family) to decide lots of stuff. Stepping is usually ignored unless there's a particular feature/workaround that shows up in a particular stepping. Also usually processor families share many features (hence the 'family' concept) which means that the BIOS execution path for a given family does not varies much.
Besides, many CPU-centric stuff is retrieved using the CPUID instruction (ignoring the CPU signature) and MSR's that are, guess what, MODEL specific (not family nor stepping specific). Furthermore, as mentioned already, microcode updates shouldn't depend on whether the BIOS 'fully recognizes' the CPU or not.

 

[trader869]

Anyone who thinks the outdated bios affects only the identifications string is an IDIOT! The later bios releases fixed a couple of problems, such as setting Cool N Quiet disabled as default. With CNQ enabled in the outdated bios, the AMD could throttle lowering results. Also fix fill 3114 SVID&SSID which affects Crossfire. Fix Memory Timings 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table Error. Add Support for AMD Athlon 64 FX60 CPU , in which DFI states is paramount to the FX60 working correctly. All this was taken from the blog of Rahul Sood, President of VoodooPC.

 

[kknd1967]

Wong. It does not because it is not updated. DFI fixed that later. "good" FX60 should be a little faster, but at 2.8GHz still not enough to beat Conroe, with fake or not performance.

read This and This.

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: plus
Were you guys concerned in the least that the bios couldn't recognice the FX60?

Probably normal right?

This was already discussed. THe motherboard couldn't recognized the CPU because it was OCed

 

[trader869]

Again from Rahuls blog....

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.

Something isnt right with the IDF tests.

 

[kknd1967]

You missed something. FX60 is not always fast. It can be slower than A64 FX57 and even 4000+
See this.

so there seems to be some trick, if any, at intel's FX60 rig which counts for 10% performance, in FEAR.

Originally posted by: trader869
Again from Rahuls blog....

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.

Something isnt right with the IDF tests.

 

[liebremx]

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: plus
Were you guys concerned in the least that the bios couldn't recognice the FX60?

Probably normal right?

This was already discussed. THe motherboard couldn't recognized the CPU because it was OCed

That's interesting. Can you point me to the source?

 

[trader869]

Originally posted by: kknd1967
You missed something. FX60 is not always fast. It can be slower than A64 FX57 and even 4000+
See this.

Originally posted by: trader869
Again from Rahuls blog....

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.

Something isnt right with the IDF tests.

I didnt miss it. Ive seen that before and know it well. Im saying that at one point, on basically the same test, the an FX at 2.8 scored higher, with LESS graphics hardware. What does that tell you???

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: trader869
I didnt miss it. Ive seen that before and know it well. Im saying that at one point, on basically the same test, the an FX at 2.8 scored higher, with LESS graphics hardware. What does that tell you???

It means that Tom has his own UT2004 timedemo, while Intel used another.

 

[kknd1967]

I know something may be fishy. At I said, that is about within 10% difference. Run FEAR benchmark on my machine, I can get 3-4% difference at different time. Overall on the intel's FX60 side, trick(if any) is marginal even it looks ugly (unknow CPU, old BIOS RD480...). I have no idea about the Conroe side though and I hope not as much as 20%

I didnt miss it. Ive seen that before and know it well. Im saying that at one point, on basically the same test, the an FX at 2.8 scored higher, with LESS graphics hardware. What does that tell you???

 

[trader869]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: trader869
I didnt miss it. Ive seen that before and know it well. Im saying that at one point, on basically the same test, the an FX at 2.8 scored higher, with LESS graphics hardware. What does that tell you???

It means that Tom has his own UT2004 timedemo, while Intel used another.

We dont know that do we? For all we know,we can assume they are the same demos. AT the very least the setups wouldnt be off by over 20fps.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: trader869
We dont know that do we? For all we know,we can assume they are the same demos. AT the very least the setups wouldnt be off by over 20fps.

THG uses their own THG8-assault-single demo:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/page6.html

Here's another review using UT2004 at 1280x1024. It's more than 20fps off.

http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?page=9&skrivelse=462

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: dexvx
Anyone who thinks the identification string of a BIOS has any relevance to performance is stupid.

Quit kidding yourself. The bios takes more than just identification for a processor. It also checks the default multipliers from the processor. It also checks and sees what it supports (Cool 'n Quiet and etc.). If you honestly think your performance wouldn't change if your bios couldn't identify your processor, then you're seriously in the dark. I also wouldn't want you working on the general public's computers. You might blow them up.

No, performance will not change if it cannot identify the processor. As long as the CPU is in the same family, but just a different stepping or higher clock speed, the magical boot up screen does not need to properly recognize it in order for it to function properly. If it works fine with, say, an X2-4800, then it should work fine with an FX-60, even if the bootup screen says "Unknown Processor".

Yea, nice personally jab at my ability.

 

[bigboxes]

Originally posted by: TanclearasHonestly, I was more disappointed with Anandtech. What Intel has done is a paper launch by simply not calling it a launch. Neither ATI nor Nvidia could get away with a stunt like this without people calling it out for what it really is.

Remember, there is really no such thing as a free launch.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: bigboxes

Originally posted by: TanclearasHonestly, I was more disappointed with Anandtech. What Intel has done is a paper launch by simply not calling it a launch. Neither ATI nor Nvidia could get away with a stunt like this without people calling it out for what it really is.

Remember, there is really no such thing as a free launch.

The funny thing is only a moron would call it a paper launch, or even a launch at all Intel preview stuff at IDF every year, it's just this year they have something that has gotten AMD fanboy's panties in a knot since it would appear to blow a 2.8Ghz Fx-60 out of the water on teh gaming front. Their planned/announced launch date has never changed.