- Back to homepage

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?

All information and graphics contained in Madshrimps are sole property of the Madshrimps crew and may not be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from us.