Very interesting if true… A one stop source for CPU and chipsets will make them more attractive, and probably make nvidia uneasy going ahead.
Elsewhere… I can’t find the links at the moment. K8L isn’t supposed to be around until 2008. And roadmaps claim 65nm processors are going to coexist with 90nm for a long time yet, neither getting much faster.
I think AMD are a year off introducing a new architure
AMD / ATI I did hear that one but don’t think that will happen I think ATI
are lined up to take over another mass chip maker of a different form.
AM2 may soon see a utility that could give it the ability to out do conroe
i think a software version of what intel may have implimented in hardware
making 2 cores act as one.
There’s talk of a “reverse hyper-threading” utility, but it’s all been rumours. HT makes one CPU appear as two virtual ones. AMD would love to make two real cores look like one more powerful one as that would benefit single threaded applications. But can they do it?
That’s unlike what Intel are doing in Conroe, which is a shared L2 cache for both cores. If only one core is active, it gets the whole cache to use for itself.
Price cuts are a given. Big question is what will it look like at street prices…
Question is how fast do all of the other CPUs (Conroes) compare with AMDs.
Have not seen any benchmarks apart from the Intel Core 2 DUO E6600 2.4GHz vrs the AMD FX 62 (some of which were not fair tests).
Plus Intel are comparing CPUs that are nearly a year old to their new UNRELEASED chip.
its far more than a shared cache I’ve seen the results for there 4 way
chip and the memory bandwidth increases the fewer core’s used.
Looks like data channelling via the other cores so if one core is opperational
then the other 3 core’s channel the memory and increase the speed.
If it was truely one lump shared per core you would not expect bandwidth gains.
looks like there own implimentation of dual/tripple/quad channel memory using the idle core interconnectivity on the actual cache memory.
That would indicate a performace loss if all 4 core were going full tilt but is kind of interesting use if you have a single thread application only hitting the one core for cpu time.
Too lazy to find the links, but they’re all at the usual tech sites. Typical clock sacling applies, although knock a bit more off for the lower cache in the bottom models. Generally at a given clock, the Conroes win in all but a few exceptions. Benchmarks performed at multiple review sites all paint the same picture, arguing over why a few tests may potentially be unfair is pointless.
Conroe is now part released, X6800 are in stock and available in the UK from two suppliers I know of right now. Lower models expected to be formally launched next week.
AMD is now playing “price performance” leadership, as they have no new performance to offer we’re seeing the price slashing. Bear in mind they don’t have anything radically new on offer until K8L which is at least a year away.
Intel regains the overall performance crown, while also pushing “performance per watt”, hence AMD’s “lower power” sorted A64s.
Regardless if you like AND or Intel more, performance is going up, prices are comming down. The only big loosers are AMD stockholders
And for those not afraid to push their CPUs overclocking, reports are people can get close to 4 GHz out of Conroe on air cooling. Can an overclocked A64 keep up? Not at the same cooling levels…
Loosely speaking, the lowest end two conroes take a bit of a hit from the reduced cache and fit in between the highest three non-FX X2s. The middle Conroe E6600 is the FX62 stomper with AMD not having anything to match the two higher models.
I started this thread for AMD and it’s swung around to Conroe… /heh
Conroes crunching ability (Boinc or otherwise) is the big unknown for me. The reworked SSE engine sounds very promising… but there are still bits of the A64 suited to some things more than Conroe so will have to consider this project at a time.
Also, there’s rumours of Intel pulling ahead their quad-core desktop chip to the end of this year: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060719233920.html
My reading of this is that it is not going to be a mainstream transition. It’s going to be offered as a high end “extreme edition” type part, I guess to keep AMD’s 4x4 platform in its place.
Im not a major CPU buff so im not fully clued up on the workings ect,
But AMD have always impressed me more than Intel,
For the pure fact that AMD does what i want it to do,
Am i right in saying that this “Conroe” is a good chip that will lead in comparrison to AMD?,
And if so Is it like AMD and good for gaming or like intel and good for programming?
I think maybe AMD got shot in the foot out of the deal made seeing as AMD had the x86 M$ backing that had seen the technology sharing of the 2 companies as each had something each other wanted but AMD had the microsoft backing.
I think AMD will be back on top at some point / swings and roundabouts
but it also worth noting that infact Intel have always had access to new production techniques before AMD but I feel AMD are ahead of the CPU design game.
I think Intel with there money are getting or cutting 1st dibs contracts on new manufacturing techniques that AMD just have to bide there time before they get the chance to use them also.
I still feel AMD can make a better CPU than Intel but like Nvidia and ATI
it now looks like Intel have claim back to there 15mins of fame.
The very short way of describing it is that Conroe is to A64, what A64 is to P4. For gaming and power efficiency, the A64 walked over the P4. In general performance, the A64 beat the P4 in most cases, except in some areas where the P4 architecture was more suited and it would beat the A64 there. Now the tables are turning. Conroe beats A64 in most areas, although there are still some cases where the A64 is better.
The only difference is that AMD have said they will not give up price/performance even with Intel’s new agressive pricing. Therefore A64 will still likely remain the value choice.
