End user tests Conroe @ 2.4ghz vs Athlon 64 @ 2.8Ghz, result: Conroe not as fast?

@ 2006/04/26
Now, for the very first time, someone actually got hold of a Conroe chip in their own lab and did some tests. It was a 2.4GHZ Conroe (Link: CPU-Z) against an Athlon 64 overclocked to 2.8GHZ. The overclocked Athlon 64 had a 2.8/2.4 -1 = 16.7% clockspeed advantage.

The following results were obtained by running 32 bit ScienceMark binaries optimized for Intel Pentium
Comment from beerke @ 2006/04/28
Looks like Intel made the ultimate................benchmark cpu.
:grin: :grin:
But as always, i'll wait and see.
Comment from GIBSON @ 2006/04/27
Quote:
While Conroe isn't out yet, the numbers shown at IDF do seem to favor Conroe a lot more than these end user benchmarks are showing... not quite the AMD killer in the end?
Oh what a surprise?! (yes, that was meant ironicaly!)
Comment from jmke @ 2006/04/26
some very interesting results here

Quote:
However, once you go over the 4MB limit, Conroe is slower than Athlon 64 at the same clock. Both the Cryptography and STREM tests use a lot more than 4MB, larger than Conroe's 4MB cache, and Conroe immediately falls below Athlon 64 on the performance curve.
and at XS they did some comparo's too:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=829

Cinebench 9.5:

Conroe 2.4ghz 738
X2 @2.4ghz: 669
X2 @2.6ghz: 727

WinRAR 3.6:

Conroe 2.4ghz: 1120
X2 @2.4ghz: 1168
X2 @2.6ghz: 1253


About ScienceMark, I haven't the unofficial binaries used lately by VW. So, with the official ScienceMark 2.0, this is the comparation:

Conroe 2.4ghz: 1308.9
X2 @2.4ghz: 1322.99




While Conroe isn't out yet, the numbers shown at IDF do seem to favor Conroe a lot more than these end user benchmarks are showing... not quite the AMD killer in the end?

 

reply