[Remonster]

http://neoseeker.com/news/story/5345/

The thing I don't understand is why is the top of the line CPU only 2.67GHz? Can anyone confirm the fact that they can run 9-12 operations per clock? Although seriously, to remain competitive they would have to do ATLEAST 10 if not 12 ops/cycle since AMDs can do 9 and they go up to 2.8GHz.....

Anyways, its nice to see the whole family moving up to 1066MHz FSB which makes even more sense since all of the new Merom (dual core mobile chips with 2x2MB cache) run at a 667MHz FSB which is the highest of any Intel Mobile chip save for the Pentium 4 Ms which are 800MHz but which are also horribly slow....

Of other interesting note is the these new 1066FSB CPUs means that the "normal" speed of memory to run at a 1:1 ratio with a stock Conroe would be DDR2 533 which is another area where Conroe doesn't seem as high and mighty as we all though, AMDs entire socket AM2 family runs off of a 1333MHz FSB with a 333 HT speed which means their 1:1 memory will be DDR2 667.

One last thing, the link above also mentions a Pentium D 960 3.6GHz Presler will also be released soon (April also?) and the whole Intel lineup will get major price cuts.

 

[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remonster http://neoseeker.com/news/story/5345/ The thing I don't understand is why is the top of the line CPU only 2.67GHz? Can anyone confirm the fact that they can run 9-12 operations per clock? Although seriously, to remain competitive they would have to do ATLEAST 10 if not 12 ops/cycle since AMDs can do 9 and they go up to 2.8GHz..... Anyways, its nice to see the whole family moving up to 1066MHz FSB which makes even more sense since all of the new Merom (dual core mobile chips with 2x2MB cache) run at a 667MHz FSB which is the highest of any Intel Mobile chip save for the Pentium 4 Ms which are 800MHz but which are also horribly slow.... Of other interesting note is the these new 1066FSB CPUs means that the "normal" speed of memory to run at a 1:1 ratio with a stock Conroe would be DDR2 533 which is another area where Conroe doesn't seem as high and mighty as we all though, AMDs entire socket AM2 family runs off of a 1333MHz FSB with a 333 HT speed which means their 1:1 memory will be DDR2 667. One last thing, the link above also mentions a Pentium D 960 3.6GHz Presler will also be released soon (April also?) and the whole Intel lineup will get major price cuts.

CPU speed means nothing when comparing a totally different architecture to another. I don't remember for sure offhand, but I believe the Conroe execute 12 instructions per clock cycle. Btw, this is not coinciding with the information I got this morning that said that the Conroe will be released in the fall.

http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/...will-fall.html

 

[shadowmelder]

That means it would theoretically run as a Athlon64 clocked at 3.54GHz, assuming we multiply by 12 and divide by 9 (or multiply by 1.3 repeating).

 

[bentrinh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remonster http://neoseeker.com/news/story/5345/ The thing I don't understand is why is the top of the line CPU only 2.67GHz? Can anyone confirm the fact that they can run 9-12 operations per clock? Although seriously, to remain competitive they would have to do ATLEAST 10 if not 12 ops/cycle since AMDs can do 9 and they go up to 2.8GHz..... Anyways, its nice to see the whole family moving up to 1066MHz FSB which makes even more sense since all of the new Merom (dual core mobile chips with 2x2MB cache) run at a 667MHz FSB which is the highest of any Intel Mobile chip save for the Pentium 4 Ms which are 800MHz but which are also horribly slow.... Of other interesting note is the these new 1066FSB CPUs means that the "normal" speed of memory to run at a 1:1 ratio with a stock Conroe would be DDR2 533 which is another area where Conroe doesn't seem as high and mighty as we all though, AMDs entire socket AM2 family runs off of a 1333MHz FSB with a 333 HT speed which means their 1:1 memory will be DDR2 667. One last thing, the link above also mentions a Pentium D 960 3.6GHz Presler will also be released soon (April also?) and the whole Intel lineup will get major price cuts.

Awesome. I'm not going to get an AMD next time anymore

 

[Hyrox]

That's assuming AMD doesn't come out with something to compete with/beat the Conroe.

 

[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyrox That's assuming AMD doesn't come out with something to compete with/beat the Conroe.

AMD is milking the end of their current architecture and Intel is just beginning a new one. AMD won't take the lead back after Conroe until they design a new core. The new AMD socket is just a modification of an old architecture, but will be based on socket 939 design.

 

[Jori]

And who's to say AMD wont be breaking out 3.0+ chips stock when they find it necessary though?

 

[pauldovi]

I have seen report that the "Extreme Edition" Conroe will go up to 4.0Ghz... I guess we will see.

Imagine how this beast will OC.... I bet you can get the 2.67Ghz up to 4.0Ghz on the new archy.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldovi I have seen report that the "Extreme Edition" Conroe will go up to 4.0Ghz... I guess we will see. Imagine how this beast will OC.... I bet you can get the 2.67Ghz up to 4.0Ghz on the new archy.

I *Highly* doubt that

 

[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldovi I have seen report that the "Extreme Edition" Conroe will go up to 4.0Ghz... I guess we will see. Imagine how this beast will OC.... I bet you can get the 2.67Ghz up to 4.0Ghz on the new archy.

Not gonna happen, not with a shorter bus length. 4 ghz proved hard even for the old architecture with the longer bus length and is the whole reasoning they're scrapping the design. They simply couldn't hit higher speeds, so you have to work on efficiency (ops/cycle) instead.

 

[pauldovi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sccr64472 Not gonna happen, not with a shorter bus length. 4 ghz proved hard even for the old architecture with the longer bus length and is the whole reasoning they're scrapping the design. They simply couldn't hit higher speeds, so you have to work on efficiency (ops/cycle) instead.

Regardless Im keeping my ol' 550 and then buying one!

 

[Remonster]

Well I guess its gonna be interesting to say the least, I mean it is gonna be 65nm which would allow for high clocks but then it does have a very short bus length and I believe they reduced the number of stages in the pipeline.....? so that would also reduce clock speeds and another factor to remember is that these are the first chips on this architecture, the first Pentium 4s were in the 1GHz range and now look where they have gone, 3.8GHz and we are OCing them to 4GHz+ every day

so I imagine after a few years once this architecture really gets developed and sees some revisions and new steppings then Conroe will truly be the behemoth that Intel wants it to be, though I don't think I can wait any longer, I may have to grab one ASAP because my P4 530 is REALLY showing its age, and once I get a G71.....its all gonna be over for this CPU lol.

EDIT/// Hmm.... I reread the article and read the one at The Inq and it seems as if maybe neoseeker misread The Inq's article OR maybe you are mistaken sccr

either way did you guys see those prices? The top of the line model is supposed to be under $550! That is awesome, seems like they are really taking advantage of the 65nm fab process, I mean IF AMD were to keep its prices as they are, that puts the 2.67GHz 2x2MB cache Conroe directly into the price point of the 2x512kb cache AMD X2 4600+ Manchester and under the price of the 2x1MB AMD X2 4800+ (this is from my memory of the last time I saw their prices but that sounds about right, right?) and if Intel's Conroe is clocked higher than either of those CPUs AND does 12 ops/cycle, AMD better pull something out from where the sun don't shine fast!

 

[ptrogen]

i knew amd was all hype, i have never bought into amd's "low temp, high oc" crap, if amd's are so great and so cheap how come its not the tech industry choice?
pentium=stable.reliable.

 

[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptrogen i knew amd was all hype, i have never bought into amd's "low temp, high oc" crap, if amd's are so great and so cheap how come its not the tech industry choice? pentium=stable.reliable.

Some of the largest companies in the world switched over to AMD servers and workstations. Also, there are some that are simply unwilling to change, regardless of facts.....such as yourself.

 

[Cheetos316]

The thing that I still don't understand is how Intel can get Conroe to do 12 ops/cycle and still use the traditional fsb. Even though it's clocked a bit higher, wouldn't you expect the same bottlenecks to occur? I mean it's dual core (maybe double core?) and it's doing a lot more per cycle. There's no way that the fsb can keep up with the cores. What's the point of having two cores that is capable of doing a great deal but not feeding it properly? This is where I think AMD's archectiture shines with Hypertransport. Also, once AMD moves to 65nm, it'll make it that much harder for Intel to compete with AMD.

 

[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remonster Well I guess its gonna be interesting to say the least, I mean it is gonna be 65nm which would allow for high clocks but then it does have a very short bus length and I believe they reduced the number of stages in the pipeline.....? so that would also reduce clock speeds and another factor to remember is that these are the first chips on this architecture, the first Pentium 4s were in the 1GHz range and now look where they have gone, 3.8GHz and we are OCing them to 4GHz+ every day so I imagine after a few years once this architecture really gets developed and sees some revisions and new steppings then Conroe will truly be the behemoth that Intel wants it to be, though I don't think I can wait any longer, I may have to grab one ASAP because my P4 530 is REALLY showing its age, and once I get a G71.....its all gonna be over for this CPU lol. EDIT/// Hmm.... I reread the article and read the one at The Inq and it seems as if maybe neoseeker misread The Inq's article OR maybe you are mistaken sccr either way did you guys see those prices? The top of the line model is supposed to be under $550! That is awesome, seems like they are really taking advantage of the 65nm fab process, I mean IF AMD were to keep its prices as they are, that puts the 2.67GHz 2x2MB cache Conroe directly into the price point of the 2x512kb cache AMD X2 4600+ Manchester and under the price of the 2x1MB AMD X2 4800+ (this is from my memory of the last time I saw their prices but that sounds about right, right?) and if Intel's Conroe is clocked higher than either of those CPUs AND does 12 ops/cycle, AMD better pull something out from where the sun don't shine fast!

No, I see where the error was. You read about the Intel processor being released in April and thought it was a Conroe core chip, but it's not. Conroe should hit in the fall.

 

[Jori]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptrogen i knew amd was all hype, i have never bought into amd's "low temp, high oc" crap, if amd's are so great and so cheap how come its not the tech industry choice? pentium=stable.reliable.

Tell this too my 37C load Sempron 2800 at 2.4ghz from 1.6ghz. Also tell this to the numerous 939 Opteron owners that got 3.0+ on air cooling stable.

 

[dpg]

I have to say that AMD got a long way to catch up with intel \\/

Quote:

In year 2004, The Revenue of intel was $34.2 billion USD with 91,000 employees Against $5.85 billion USD Revenue of AMD in 2005 with 18000+ employees...

The AMD market capitalization was around US$13 billion at the end of 2005 & Intel is about $150.5 billion (December 2005).

Still Intel is the best seller in the whole world

Just wait till the quad cores to come, then intel will rule

 

[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpg I have to say that AMD got a long way to catch up with intel \\/ The AMD market capitalization was around US$13 billion at the end of 2005 & Intel is about $150.5 billion (December 2005). Still Intel is the best seller in the whole world Just wait till the quad cores to come, then intel will rule

Your credibility hit the toilet when your figures suggest a 500% revenue growth for the fiscal year of 2004-2005 for Intel. The over 200% you're stating for AMD is also rediculous. Would you like to reveal your source?

 

[dpg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sccr64472 Your credibility hit the toilet when your figures suggest a 500% revenue growth for the fiscal year of 2004-2005 for Intel. The over 200% you're stating for AMD is also rediculous. Would you like to reveal your source?

"Wikipedia ALL THE WAY", Hey man no need to get angry @ me. I'm just saying that intel is my choice...

Hey man Market Capitalization refers simply to the value of a company, that is intels $150.5 billion & AMD US$13 billion....

& the Revenue is defined as the amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period(Intels $34.2 billion USD in 2005 Against AMD $5.85 billion Revenue in 2005)