- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Location
- Orlando FL
Can someone pass me a link on specs for this chip (if there are any). I keep hearing all the buzz about it. I'm just curious what is going to make to much better than current Intel cpus..
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Conroe whats so special?
- Thread starter dreamtfk
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Location
- Asheville NC
dreamtfk said:
Here it is in a non-technical nutshell.
Intel got rid of the netburst architecture. Conroe has short pipelines and lower frequencies, where netburst has long pipelines and high frequencies. There is soo much more I can't explain.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2005
They also use lower multipliers and a higher FSB to net better performance.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Location
- NewYork, NY
The purported quarters.
Intel Conroe 65nm Dual Core
E4200 2MB 1.60GHz 800MHz FSB Q4 $169. us
E6100 2MB 1.33GHz 1066MHz FSB Q1 2007 $149. us (35 Watts)*
E6200 2MB 1.60GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 $179. us
E6300 2MB 1.86GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 $209. us
E6400 2MB 2.13GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 $239. us
E6500 2MB 2.40GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 $269. us
E6600 4MB 2.40GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 $309. us (65 Watts)
E6700 4MB 2.67GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 $529. us
E6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 $749. us
E6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 $969. us
Intel Conroe XE 65nm Dual Core
E8000 4MB 3.33GHz 1333MHz FSB Q4 $1199. us (95 Watts)
The purported AMD Q3:
Athlon 64 FX-62 2MB 2.80GHz 1000MHz HTT $1,236 (???W)
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 1MB 2.60GHz 1000MHz HTT $696 (95W)
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2MB 2.40GHz 1000MHz HTT $645
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 1MB 2.40GHz 1000MHz HTT $558
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2MB 2.20GHz 1000MHz HTT $469
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 1MB 2.20GHz 1000MHz HTT $365
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 2MB 2.00GHz 1000MHz HTT $328
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 1MB 2.00GHz 1000MHz HTT $303
Intel Conroe 65nm Dual Core
E4200 2MB 1.60GHz 800MHz FSB Q4 $169. us
E6100 2MB 1.33GHz 1066MHz FSB Q1 2007 $149. us (35 Watts)*
E6200 2MB 1.60GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 $179. us
E6300 2MB 1.86GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 $209. us
E6400 2MB 2.13GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 $239. us
E6500 2MB 2.40GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 $269. us
E6600 4MB 2.40GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 $309. us (65 Watts)
E6700 4MB 2.67GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 $529. us
E6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 $749. us
E6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 $969. us
Intel Conroe XE 65nm Dual Core
E8000 4MB 3.33GHz 1333MHz FSB Q4 $1199. us (95 Watts)
The purported AMD Q3:
Athlon 64 FX-62 2MB 2.80GHz 1000MHz HTT $1,236 (???W)
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 1MB 2.60GHz 1000MHz HTT $696 (95W)
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2MB 2.40GHz 1000MHz HTT $645
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 1MB 2.40GHz 1000MHz HTT $558
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2MB 2.20GHz 1000MHz HTT $469
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 1MB 2.20GHz 1000MHz HTT $365
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 2MB 2.00GHz 1000MHz HTT $328
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 1MB 2.00GHz 1000MHz HTT $303
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Location
- Sword Base
basically it is a good chip, a fair bit better than what AMD has to offer, however the best thing about them is the pricing, it's insanely low.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Location
- NewYork, NY
I like how Intel addressed the wattage. A stock v-core/ 2.13 Conroe/ on air/stock box cooler... will destroy.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Location
- 1 Infinite Loop
Lower watts, lower heat, less noise, nice overclocks. What's not to love?! Did you see the preview benchies at Hot Hardware from the 2006 Intel Developer Conference? My goodness! 
OP
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Location
- Orlando FL
- Thread Starter
- #9
From that chart that Gumb posted it seems the only dual core cost over $1K whats up with that? And $300 for a 2.6 Ghz?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Location
- Spokane, WA
RangerXLT8 said:
In other words Intel decided to go the AMD way.
Only they will be superior to the A64 because Intel has tons of money for R&D and the A64 is old tech already.damarble said:In other words Intel decided to go the AMD way.
The next big thing from AMD (AM2 is not the next big thing, just the intro to DDR2) will put them back on top again, I'm sure. Which is good, heavy competition is great for us end-users. More performance, better prices.
I won't buy Intel products because of their marketing practices, but I'm glad to see they're finally catching on and going with AMD style engineering. It's been obviously superior on paper and product for a few years now. Hopefully we'll see even faster R&D in this direction now that their architectures won't be apples to oranges anymore. So score for them.
(** NOTE** I am not starting a flame war, nor am I stating that AMD > Intel in real world application. I am saying that AMD had more intuitive engineering.)
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Location
- 1 Infinite Loop
ExtremeTech has a good "nutshell" for you on Conroe architecture.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2004
- Location
- Saskatchewan, Canada
Makaelin said:
First of all, there's no guarantee K8L will be all that, remember its supposed to be 4 cores so of course amd can claim to have double the fpu power...
Next of all, Conroe is basically a P6 core with ooodles of upgrades. There is no amd engineering.
True Intel develops the tech, Amd buys the tech, and lets not forget K8 is really a upgraded K7 with an IMC. Also AMD hasn't lead the pack for years, the K7 was tied with the P3-T, it beat the Willamette, it tied up again with the Northwood(533fsb), it got beat by the HT and 800FSB(2.6c beating a 3200+ for less money).
Difference is P6 arch was always the better core but it got stuck with SDR while K7 got DDR which lead to higher numbers in gaming. Because Dothan and Banias are P6 cores with dual channel DDR and a Quad pumped FSB, they tie and or beat the K8 in most instances.
Not a flame war post just clearing it up.
I've worked with Athlon's, XP, 64, X2, and Opeterons. K8 > P4.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Location
- Sword Base
Lets not turn this thread into another comparison between K8/K8L and Conroe. Conroe will rock, K8L will probably do so too, but 'Conroe whats so special?' doesn't really require reference to a not yet completed AMD design.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
^^ this is too funny... P6 core is old tech banis/dothan/yohan/conroe is reworked/based P6 core. so old tech vs old tech with some new tech. nothing new here. a celeron 1.2ghz oced to 1.6ghz would own a 2.4ghz P4, that is with pc133 mem vs ddr. R&D NO, reworked old tech yes.damarble said:In other words Intel decided to go the AMD way.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
I dislike how everyone says Conroe beats AMD.. Conroe beats current generation AMD.. Thats like comparing a AMD 64 to a Pentium 3.. We will only know if Conroe is better when AMD releases its AM2.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Location
- The Netherlands
Evilsizer said:
I thought you would know better
Banias was a pimped P3. Dothan was a completely new design. Yonah was a reworked version of that and Conroe is the pimped one.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
Intel just finally realized that their architecture was becoming more and more flawed and decided to give in to AMD's ways of doing things, with a few improvments over AMD's design.
Intel did an amazing job on Conroe, but this isn't enough to make me switch. I want something TRUELY revolutionary to the CPU industry.
If AMD doesn't come out with something amazing in the next two years when I do my next upgrade, Intel will be my choice of proc, as long as it's better than AMD at gaming.
Intel did an amazing job on Conroe, but this isn't enough to make me switch. I want something TRUELY revolutionary to the CPU industry.
If AMD doesn't come out with something amazing in the next two years when I do my next upgrade, Intel will be my choice of proc, as long as it's better than AMD at gaming.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Location
- Sword Base
I am getting serious deja vu
![[H]pututu](/forums/data/avatars/s/241/241673.jpg?1704411343){kind=avatar}
