Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Criticism over Conroe benchmarks

2K views 23 replies 14 participants last post by  muffin 
#1 ·
Quote:


Intel's new Conroe looks to give AMD a punch to the gut -- or maybe not

Benchmarks posted yesterday of Intel's unreleased Conroe processor have sparked quite a firestorm in forums around the web. Users from both the AMD and Intel camp were quick to examine the numbers provided in the articles, but the end result was still the same -- Intel has a slam dunk with Conroe.

As is the case with benchmarks held outside of a controlled environment and conducted with equipment provided by a party that has something to gain from favorable performance numbers, suspicions have arisen over the benchmark results.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1170

To quote Rahul Sood directly:

Quote:


First of all, though it’s claimed that you’re running an FX-60 processor on the machine, I have yet to see an established motherboard and processor with an image that says "processor unknown".

You’ll notice that the image I am referring to on Anandtech's website (the bios image) states that the AMD processor is “unknown†which makes me believe that the bios they are running is outdated. So, I did a bit of digging and low and behold, the DFI bios version “D49C-32†they are running is from 10/11/05. There has been 1 major revision with major fixes that include:

Set Cool 'n' Quiet Default to Disabled

- With Cool & Quiet enabled, AMD processors will throttle in order to save power and bring their thermal load down. This means the processor could be running as low as 800MHz in certain programs â€" no matter what the program is. In theory Cool & Quiet is supposed to throttle up to maximum in games but this is not always the case. No enthusiast PC goes out with Cool & Quiet enabled unless it’s a fanless machine or media center.

Add Support for AMD Athlon 64 FX60 CPU

- According to DFI the FX-60 will not operate correctly without this bios update. Without official support for the FX-60 CPU I’m not sure what we’re comparing against here.

Fix Memory Timings 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table Error.

- Memory latency can make a massive difference in performance. If the latency was not running at the correct latency we can see a pretty big difference in all kinds of performance. Anandtech stated “The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings…†Apparently this isn’t the case, but they would not be able to tell without having the platform in house.

Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode.

- More apparent performance issues under Crossfire mode.

Next, when you take a future Intel chipset and compare it to a chipset that no enthusiast supports (RD480) with an outdated bios it’s like taking a Ferrari and putting it on Bias-Ply tires. It’s just not a good way to show off a “new†technology.

 
See less See more
#4 ·
Well the Conroe is still a good chip, but its a next gen chip, AMD has yet to release theirs. Its like the tortoise and the hair intel had the P4 out early but although a little slower AMD blew it away with the AMD64. This just looks like it will be another repeat of that.
 
#5 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by Marshall82

Well the Conroe is still a good chip, but its a next gen chip, AMD has yet to release theirs. Its like the tortoise and the hair intel had the P4 out early but although a little slower AMD blew it away with the AMD64. This just looks like it will be another repeat of that.

Well, we can just throw those benchmarks away, they arnt even legit! Well have to wait, still.
 
#6 ·
no prob... lets go and buy the best hardware we can find and do our own benchmarks
just need to get the Conroe (hmm... and also the money for the hw
)
and stop say "its a next gen cpu..." whiners... if the conroe is better... the conroe is better thats it! simple as that! its not the end of the world... and for now we dont even know that...
 
#13 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by ShawnMcGrail

Well, If by "They aren't legitimate", You mean the AMDs, Well... Have your chuckle, Because the Intel ones are.

To the AMD Fan-boys, This is all I have to say:


Yeah, exactly. This was practically a Intel-run benchmark. Still waiting for some actual benchmark results with a AMD.. And your little ytmnd thing makes no sence for this. The AMD benchmarks arnt legit, so you cant say anything about them.
 
#14 ·
Why would Intel do these benchies that are rigged, and then release the Conroe for testing (with their own setups), only to see different results. Rigging a test like this will only give you a few weeks... before everyone knows... Intel isnt that stupid.

Also, why doesn't someone show us some FX60 benchies that match the Conroe? It doesn't matter who does the FX60 benchies or when...
 
#15 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by Jori

Yeah, exactly. This was practically a Intel-run benchmark. Still waiting for some actual benchmark results with a AMD.. And your little ytmnd thing makes no sence for this. The AMD benchmarks arnt legit, so you cant say anything about them.

Yeah? And?

The likelyness that the FX-60 will beat the Conroe is slim to none, Close a the gap a bit, Definatly, But beating it...

Therefor, It makes perfect sense when all the AMD fan-boys start with this.

At first it was, "Ah crap... we got beat, Dammit, poop, rgggggg..."

Now that they want to argue that its ill-legitimate, "OMGZORZ ITS T3H FAKE!!!!! WE HAVE TO COMPLAIN UNTIL WE GET IT OUR WAY!!!!!"

The likelyness of having a completely legitimate review is impossible... End of story...

And "Little YTMND thing", over 100,000 users is little? Since when?
 
#17 ·
Exactly. Now every Intel fanboy out there talking about how the Conroe whoops the FX60 can just SHUT UP, because we have no unbiased, legit results. I'm sure the Conroe will be a good CPU, but no way it whoops an FX60 by that much.
 
#18 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by pauldovi

Why would Intel do these benchies that are rigged, and then release the Conroe for testing (with their own setups), only to see different results. Rigging a test like this will only give you a few weeks... before everyone knows... Intel isnt that stupid.

Why would Nvidia release a statement that the 7900gtx is twice as fast as previous cards when it turns out that they're maybe 10% faster?
 
#21 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by ShawnMcGrail

Yeah? And?

The likelyness that the FX-60 will beat the Conroe is slim to none, Close a the gap a bit, Definatly, But beating it...

Therefor, It makes perfect sense when all the AMD fan-boys start with this.

At first it was, "Ah crap... we got beat, Dammit, poop, rgggggg..."

Now that they want to argue that its ill-legitimate, "OMGZORZ ITS T3H FAKE!!!!! WE HAVE TO COMPLAIN UNTIL WE GET IT OUR WAY!!!!!"

The likelyness of having a completely legitimate review is impossible... End of story...

And "Little YTMND thing", over 100,000 users is little? Since when?


Ehm. No. It may not beat it, but my guess is it will close the gap considerably. And what about complaining? Its not legit FX-60 results, so nothing can be proven until results are out. And the "little YTMND thing" is little.. Literally. It takes up barely anyroom on my monitor
.

But just to add your saying a legitimate review is impossible? Why is that? Because there are no honest people in this world or something? But it is possible, so.. Yeah..
 
#22 ·
How about the the whole fanboy ppl calm down... The fact is that even if the comparisons are not right and the FX-60 is faster then the conros is still a friggin fast chip no matter what, we just dont have a proper AMD comparison to go with... Well done to intel for the Conroe and well done to AMD for the FX-60
 
#24 ·
Intel shows off new core. Claims to beat AMD by a significant margin. Claim disputed, possibly a valid dispute. Who knows - we will have to wait until Conroe is in the hands of real people.

End of story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top