It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

 
Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > WebNews
End user tests Conroe @ 2.4ghz vs Athlon 64 @ 2.8Ghz, result: Conroe not as fast? End user tests Conroe @ 2.4ghz vs Athlon 64 @ 2.8Ghz, result: Conroe not as fast?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


End user tests Conroe @ 2.4ghz vs Athlon 64 @ 2.8Ghz, result: Conroe not as fast?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 26th April 2006, 13:04   #1
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,752
jmke has disabled reputation
End user tests 2.4ghz Conroe vs Athlon 64 @ 2.8Ghz

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
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2006, 13:08   #2
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,752
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

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?
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2006, 21:42   #3
GIBSON
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!)
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2006, 05:56   #4
beerke
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Looks like Intel made the ultimate................benchmark cpu.
:grin: :grin:
But as always, i'll wait and see.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Foxconn to close doors on end user market? jmke WebNews 21 20th October 2008 23:42
Asus Xonar D2 Sound End User Preliminary Test Result jmke WebNews 0 19th July 2007 19:00
Scythe opens end user forums jmke WebNews 0 17th July 2007 21:12
AMD’s Response to Intel Conroe: Energy Efficient Athlon 64 X2 CPU jmke WebNews 0 3rd August 2006 12:08
Conroe E6700 @ 2.4Ghz beats AMD AM2 FX-62 @ 3Ghz jmke WebNews 2 1st June 2006 11:46
Intel Conroe 2.67Ghz is 15-40% faster than AMD FX-60 2.8Ghz - Benchmarked! jmke WebNews 8 8th March 2006 14:02
Conroe creams Athlon in Intel's black-box benchmark bakeoff jmke WebNews 0 8th March 2006 10:08
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ overclocking with high end air quest for 3GHz Sidney WebNews 0 11th June 2005 17:11
AMD announces the END OF SOCKET 754 ATHLON 64 with deadline Sidney WebNews 0 30th April 2005 04:17
AMD Tests AMD Athlon 64 4200+ Chip with Partners jmke WebNews 0 9th March 2005 17:19

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:21.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO