Disappointed by the Conroe launch

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Tanclearas

Originally posted by: deeznuts
Wow, man some people just can't stop complaining, I swear. Every time there is a new launch, there's gotta be someone to cry about it.

Tanclearas, a paper launch is when a company says something is launching, i.e. products are available, but they are not. All 4 companies in question have been guilty of this (AMD, Intel, ATI and Nvidia). This is not a paper launch. Do you expect this product at retailers this week, next week or the week after? I really don't think so.

It's manufacturer representation of available product that defines paper launches. We all know that conroe isn't expected in stores until Q3, so wait until then to cry paper launch.

Originally posted by: deeznuts
Mr Ruiz, is that you? You sound very heartbroken, why?

Read and think about something before you respond with a jack-ass response. I'm concerned that the door is open to paper launches by simply not calling them paper launches. There is a difference between demoing a product at an IDF and allowing a premiere review site like AT to benchmark select games. I would find it equally distasteful for AMD to try this, but if Intel can do it, then why not AMD.

Ok....so why are the AMD peeps all up in arms....
Am I misisng something or is this normal for all this crying to be taking place??

Next time fool, post all your jibberish in one post instead of 4...GOT IT!!!!


I for the record have no problem with what Intel did...Any idiot who puts full stock in this is foolish since it was still a very controlled test run with unknown variables on both system...

My only concern with this type of review done by AT (not INtels fault) is that many ppl will now post vaporware-like post for the next six months talking about a phantom leader. I hear and understand the Intel crowd about "the amd famboys did this with the Hammer". You are right they did. I was an INtel user then so I did see that babble...Another concern is some willl forgo upgrades thinking they got to wait for this....Then ofcourse in 6 months we will hear something greater from AMD...I think this went beyond a normal preview by AT and thus is very misleading in some of their statements.

I also like to state I am pretty sure I will buy one shortly after release. So dont label me a fanboy. I wait until I see real detailed reviews using apps I use, as well as factor in prices of chipset mobos etc....I am not the re-emerging Intel fanboy who has finally unburied their heads out of the sand (most their arses) now that there is something to get excited about. Most of the Intel fanboys leading the rush on these conroe threads are as bad as the AMD fanboys wh think Intel sucks no matter what...

 

[AkumaX]

here's what i'll hope for:

a cheap mobo (50-80) that o/cs well (at least 300fsb)

a super low end conroe, that uses, oh.. well.. 667fsb (i.e. 4 x 166fsb). i would have gone for 533fsb (4 x 133fsb) but i doubt it

now, a 100-150 dollar cpu that is 1.66ghz = (10 x 166fsb)

therefore, with my cheap mobo, i'd be able to do 10 x 300 = 3ghz.

(back to dreaming)

 

[Marmion]

I'm afraid you will have to get a Merom for a 667FSB - Conroes are all 1066MHz starting from 1.86Ghz all the way up to 2.67Ghz for the 'normal' chips, and up to rumoured 3.33Ghz (1333Mhz FSB) EE chip.
Intel has released the prices for these conroes and the fact that the 2.67 part is approx $530 seams very nice compared to a $1k FX62 or FX64 or whatever.
Me- I'm looking at the 1.86Ghz (2MB) at a nice $210.

Of course, I'm waiting for real benchmarks, but I can hardly see DDR2 bringing too mcuh performance to AMD.

 

[Acanthus]

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.

The article has been updated with the newest bios, owned by anand himself. :Q

 

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

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.

The article has been updated with the newest bios, owned by anand himself. :Q

Hopefully this new article will clear up any doubts.

The most amazing thing about this is that a middle-of-the-line Conroe trounces AMD's top-end proc by about 20% in Anand's tests. Just wait until we see the 3.33 GHz EE. :Q

 

[Tanclearas]

Just to clarify some things for this thread, and stress that my original post is simply my opinion. You are absolutely free to disagree, but there is no need to respond with jack-ass statements, and calling me (or others) stupid or idiots.

First, the thread had nothing to do with whether the benchmarks were fishy or not. I honestly believe that Conroe will be faster when it is available. There are plenty of other threads where people are arguing whether the benchmarks are valid or not.

Second, it is my opinion that this went well beyond a simple tech demo. This was not a demonstration of a processor running a bouncing ball at half of the anticipated clock speed for launch. This was benchmarking by a third party, specifically targetting one of the weakest areas of the company's currently available product.

Third, even though ATI did not "launch" the X1800XT on the same day as the X1800XL, there were several people in these forums crying foul because the X1800XT benchmarks were announced the same day. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, guess what it is.

Fourth, as originally stated, I'm disappointed mostly in Anandtech. They have essentially crowned a new king while it was still in the womb. They have let Intel get away with something that they would not have let ATI nor Nvidia get away with.

Fifth, the computer hardware industry is not the automobile industry. Although some similarities might exist, they are purely superficial, and they are definitely not equivalent.

Finally, I am not loyal in any way to any hardware manufacturer, so I am not (as some have put it) an AMD fanboy with my panties in a knot. I currently own an AMD CPU, but I have owned CPU's from AMD, Intel, and God help me, even Cyrix. I had a GeForce 7800GTX, and I currently own an X1900XT. I like hardware. I particularly like fast hardware. I normally make a major system upgrade in the December-January timeframe, so if Conroe is the fastest thing going (at a reasonable price) at my next upgrade, then I'll be going with Intel. Perhaps if you are so adamant to defend Intel, you might find the fanboy you're looking for by simply looking in the mirror.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: 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

If you read the comments, I blelive one of the article writers even confirmed it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra


If you read the comments, I blelive one of the article writers even confirmed it.

You did read Anands' follow-up? He installed the newer bios, corrected flaws in the testing, and Conroe still came out on top handily, though the F.E.A.R. result was 20% instead of 41%. I think they laid to rest just about everything but the Intel demos themselves as variables. And I doubt that will be as huge a difference as was pointed out about the old QIII days.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra


If you read the comments, I blelive one of the article writers even confirmed it.

You did read Anands' follow-up? He installed the newer bios, corrected flaws in the testing, and Conroe still came out on top handily, though the F.E.A.R. result was 20% instead of 41%. I think they laid to rest just about everything but the Intel demos themselves as variables. And I doubt that will be as huge a difference as was pointed out about the old QIII days.

Didn't they find one of the intel demo's was even more conservative than one of AT's own? or am i hallucinating?

 

[dug777]

ya:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=3

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: dug777


Didn't they find one of the intel demo's was even more conservative than one of AT's own? or am i hallucinating?

Yeah, that's right! they used their own Q4 demo

 

[darkdemyze]

No matter how legit everything is made out to be, even if Conroe is proven to be better right now it's still putting Intel's future platform against AMD's. Had the tests been done on AM2 I'm sure the results would have been different.

I feel that the launch of AM2 with DDR800 support will make a significant impact on these "benchmarks" come release time. But for now, Intel can bask in their soon to be shortlived glory with their new technology pitted against AMD's old technoloy.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: darkdemyze
No matter how legit everything is made out to be, even if Conroe is proven to be better right now it's still putting Intel's future platform against AMD's. Had the tests been done on AM2 I'm sure the results would have been different.

I feel that the launch of AM2 with DDR800 support will make a significant impact on these "benchmarks" come release time. But for now, Intel can bask in their soon to be shortlived glory with their new technology pitted against AMD's old technoloy.

Didnt anand say he was actually seeing a performance decrease with AM2 in his blog?

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra


If you read the comments, I blelive one of the article writers even confirmed it.

You did read Anands' follow-up? He installed the newer bios, corrected flaws in the testing, and Conroe still came out on top handily, though the F.E.A.R. result was 20% instead of 41%. I think they laid to rest just about everything but the Intel demos themselves as variables. And I doubt that will be as huge a difference as was pointed out about the old QIII days.

Right...I understand that. My point though, was that because of the OC, the CPU was unrecognized with that bios. It's not becaus it's a FX 52 or whatever it was as others speculated.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: 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.

lol intel had both and they had conroe in the works. Why do you think apple used the whole performance per watt example. You dont just think they were switching for the pentium m do you.

 

[robertk2012]

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.

Sure it will run just fine. Every overclocked processor is identified wrong. ;-).

 

[deeznuts]

Originally posted by: darkdemyze
No matter how legit everything is made out to be, even if Conroe is proven to be better right now it's still putting Intel's future platform against AMD's. Had the tests been done on AM2 I'm sure the results would have been different.

I feel that the launch of AM2 with DDR800 support will make a significant impact on these "benchmarks" come release time. But for now, Intel can bask in their soon to be shortlived glory with their new technology pitted against AMD's old technoloy.

Can someone explain to me how exactly AM2 is supposed to help AMD? From my memory of reading overclocking guides for A64's, it was said that CPU is king, memory secondary. And with that, lower latencies are more important than bandwidth.

So ... DDR2 offers higher bandwidth, at the expense of higher latencies. So how is this supposed to help A64's again? Is this the reason Anand is finding lower performance out of the platform?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: deeznuts

Originally posted by: darkdemyze
No matter how legit everything is made out to be, even if Conroe is proven to be better right now it's still putting Intel's future platform against AMD's. Had the tests been done on AM2 I'm sure the results would have been different.

I feel that the launch of AM2 with DDR800 support will make a significant impact on these "benchmarks" come release time. But for now, Intel can bask in their soon to be shortlived glory with their new technology pitted against AMD's old technoloy.

Can someone explain to me how exactly AM2 is supposed to help AMD? From my memory of reading overclocking guides for A64's, it was said that CPU is king, memory secondary. And with that, lower latencies are more important than bandwidth.

So ... DDR2 offers higher bandwidth, at the expense of higher latencies. So how is this supposed to help A64's again? Is this the reason Anand is finding lower performance out of the platform?

AMD claims the DDR2 memory controller is currently borked and not functioning properly, thus the decrease in performance.

 

[deeznuts]

Just theoretically though. Does this make sense? That DDR2 plays to the weakness of the A64 processor?

 

[darkdemyze]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: deeznuts

Originally posted by: darkdemyze
No matter how legit everything is made out to be, even if Conroe is proven to be better right now it's still putting Intel's future platform against AMD's. Had the tests been done on AM2 I'm sure the results would have been different.

I feel that the launch of AM2 with DDR800 support will make a significant impact on these "benchmarks" come release time. But for now, Intel can bask in their soon to be shortlived glory with their new technology pitted against AMD's old technoloy.

Can someone explain to me how exactly AM2 is supposed to help AMD? From my memory of reading overclocking guides for A64's, it was said that CPU is king, memory secondary. And with that, lower latencies are more important than bandwidth.

So ... DDR2 offers higher bandwidth, at the expense of higher latencies. So how is this supposed to help A64's again? Is this the reason Anand is finding lower performance out of the platform?

AMD claims the DDR2 memory controller is currently borked and not functioning properly, thus the decrease in performance.

Thank you.

Besides, you may also note that Anand says that the current tests have increased performance over the original BIOS revisions. Therefore taking into consideration that AM2 is still a few months from actually being released, there's still more time for improvment. Granted thats assuming it's going to get better, but no worse than what intel is claiming about Conroe being even better than it is now by the time of release.

 

[darkdemyze]

Originally posted by: deeznuts
Just theoretically though. Does this make sense? That DDR2 plays to the weakness of the A64 processor?

Can you explain how else there's such a cut in performance?

Are you trying to say that memory doesnt have anything to do with performance? If that's the case then why do we even have 184-pin DIMMs in the first place? Why not just stick with 168-pin DDR133 sticks and just keep lowering latencies

Also, is that why Intel switched over to DDR2 cause I can see how much it's hurting them..

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: darkdemyze

Originally posted by: deeznuts
Just theoretically though. Does this make sense? That DDR2 plays to the weakness of the A64 processor?

Can you explain how else there's such a cut in performance?

Are you trying to say that memory doesnt have anything to do with performance? If that's the case then why do we even have 184-pin DIMMs in the first place? Why not just stick with 168-pin DDR133 sticks and just keep lowering latencies

Also, is that why Intel switched over to DDR2 cause I can see how much it's hurting them..

ugh. Intel architecture needs the additional bandwith. A64s get very littl performance increase from bandwith. The latency of DDR2 just kills any performance from the additional bandwith. Im not really sure how AMD is going to change that without entirely reworking the processor which it appears they are not doing.

 

[deeznuts]

Originally posted by: darkdemyze

Originally posted by: deeznuts
Just theoretically though. Does this make sense? That DDR2 plays to the weakness of the A64 processor?

Can you explain how else there's such a cut in performance?

Are you trying to say that memory doesnt have anything to do with performance? If that's the case then why do we even have 184-pin DIMMs in the first place? Why not just stick with 168-pin DDR133 sticks and just keep lowering latencies

Also, is that why Intel switched over to DDR2 cause I can see how much it's hurting them..

No I'm not saying memory has anything to do with performance. The A64 needs the bandwidth UP TO A CERTAIN POINT. As is evident in almost any A64 oc'ing guide, CPU Speed is king, everything points to not sacrificing that for memory oc's, since there is almost no gain. And on top of that, do not sacrifice latencies for higher memory speeds, as the hit on performance for higher latencies is not insignificant.

So, what I am asking is, how is AM2 supposed to improve performance, other than being a platform refresh. There is nothing inherent about the new platform that, IMO would improve current performance. I might be totally mistaken however, and I hear the on-die MC will alleviate the performance hit, but I don't see any performance leap either.

 

[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.

You sir, just got pwned.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=2

If the BIOS cannot use the CPU properly, it would not even boot up. Like I said, all thats missing from the old DFI board was a microcode update for the FX-60. All those "bug" fixes from the DFI RD480 are just minor glitches that has almost no relevance to performance.

shock
denial <-- You are still here.
depression
anger
acceptance

--------------

Quotes from Anand Followup:

With SMP enabled we see that Conroe holds an even larger 31% performance advantage and with it disabled, the unreleased CPU was 29% faster. If anything, Intel?s own demo was a little more conservative on Conroe and definitely not optimized to make AMD look bad.

We inadvertently left the AMD system at a higher resolution (1280 x 960) instead of the default resolution (1024 x 768) when you select the ?High? Graphics defaults. The oversight was entirely our own doing as Intel was not running the benchmarks or configuring them, it simply happened while we were setting up both systems at the same time.

As we mentioned earlier, the Conroe system was supposed to be running at 4-4-4-15 timings but was instead configured at 5-5-5-15, giving Conroe a bit of a disadvantage. We re-ran all of our tests with the timings correctly set to 4-4-4-15, the results are below:

While the faster timings gave Intel a small performance boost in the games, it?s nothing to write home about.

 

[liebremx]

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.

[/quote]

*Woot* Now you see why the string was irrelevant? The only relevant thing in that new BIOS regarding the benchmarks I'm pretty sure is the crossfire fix. They could have left the FX-60 fix and IT WOULD STILL BE PROPERLY CONFIGURED even if the string says otherwise.