Intel Conroe (with AMD FX comparison)

[TechZ]

AnandTech have managed to borrow a Conroe test system at IDF, and have some early benchmarks of the machine stacked up against an overclocked Athlon 64 FX-60. The tests show a 2.66GHz Conroe consistently beating an FX-60 at 2.8GHz, in some cases by up to 42%. The gaming results are especially interesting, as they show large performance gaps despite running at 1280x960 and 1280x1024 with high in-game detail levels.

While we're still comparing to Socket-939 and only using RD480, it does seem very unlikely that AMD would be able to make up this much of a deficit with Socket-AM2 and RD580. Especially looking at titles like F.E.A.R. where Conroe's performance advantage averages over 40%, it looks like Intel's confidence has been well placed.

Also keep in mind that we are over six months away from the actual launch of Conroe, performance can go up from where it is today. We also only looked at the 2.66GHz part, the Extreme Edition version of Conroe will most likely be clocked around 3.0GHz which will extend the performance advantage even further.

Also HEXUS has Intel Conroe vs. AMD Athlon FX-60 benchmarks:

ll of the games were run in 1024*768 with the graphics in medium settings. These numbers are just showing you the performance against AMD.

Unreal Tournament 2004 Bot Patch (1024*768)
AMD Athlon FX60 @ 2.8GHz - 159.64fps
Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz - 186.95fps

Quake 4 - Time Demo (1024*768)
AMD Athlon FX60 @ 2.8GHz - 226.4fps
Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz - 278.1fps

Half Life Source (pbca_lost_coast) - Time Demo (1024*768)
AMD Athlon FX60 @ 2.8GHz - 112.67fps
Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz - 140.02.1fps

FEAR (CPU Max, Graphics - Medium) - Time Demo (1024*768) - Average FPS.
AMD Athlon FX60 @ 2.8GHz - 193fps
Intel Conroe @ 2.67GHz - 281fps

These are interesting results for a number of reasons, we are comparing the mid range Conroe CPU against that of the future top of the range FX62. Whilst we know that AMD has Socket AM2 around the corner, and also has DDR2 around the corner we have to say that Intel have a major performance lead. The clock speeds were low and can clearly increase over time, and apparently the CPU scales well (how well, we don't know yet.)

/me awaits for the fanboys on either side...

[Kip_6666]

The Conroe has 4mb of cache, which is double the amount of the FX, its a next generation CPU and finaly also uses DDR2.

But its still a spanking


Just when I was starting to think the the CPU speed race was slowing down.

[fluke667]

whoa a new intel cpu is a little bit faster than a 1 year+ old amd cpu
i'm not impressed but at least it's not using twice the wattage of the amd as with current intel cpus

[haha604]

It would be interesting to see what AMD comes up with when it moves to 60nm. I for one don't think AMD would be beaten this easily .

Focusing on efficiency per clock is the right approach for Intel though.

[chaos386]

Thank god they finally killed NetBurst!

It will be interesting to see how AMD responds to this. Can AM2 match Conroe? It's also worth noting that Intel showed off their quad-core "Kentsfield" CPU at IDF in addition to Conroe/Merom. CPUs have just gotten interesting again.

EDIT: I'd just like to mention, for all the AMD fans out there, that AMD still has plenty up its sleeve, like integrated PCI-Express controllers, GDDR3 and XDR RAM controllers, and Z-RAM (a special type of onboard cache that is 5x denser than the SRAM used in current AMD and Intel CPUs, and it just happens to only be possible on AMD's SOI fabrication)

[QupiX]

The fx 60 is not a year old is it? I thought it was half a year old or something

[fluke667]

Originally Posted by QupiX

The fx 60 is not a year old is it? I thought it was half a year old or something

you're right