Conroe .vs. FX-62 (anandtech)

Joshua Stubbles · Jul 2006

Since Intel's NDA has lifted on the info of their core duo's, lots of info is spouting out. Anandtech's review is quite good.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

Take note - the non-overclocked $315 Core Duo E6600 beats AMD's FX-62 chip. At $700 LESS, who the hell wouldn't want one? I'm an AMD fanboy to the core, but hot damn I just might build me a Conroe machine.

TomDunne · Jul 2006

I hear that the Cornroe is the gangsta's CPU of choice...

Wow, they're down to a 65nm manufacturing process, that's amazing. I wonder how they managed such a massive drop in diameter, it's usually much more gradual than that. I may also have to re-evaluate my AMD fanboy status (even my laptop is AMD, I'm such the cpu otaku).

Thegodzero · Jul 2006

if i bye a conroe does it mean i then have to get cornrows and bust a cap in someones ass?

aesir · Jul 2006

I WILL NOT ABANDON YOU, MY PRECIOUS AMD!

Joshua Stubbles · Jul 2006

I feel the same way, guys. but AMD's new chips aren't coming out until 2008. That's a loooooong time to wait

I think I'll defineatly be building a Conroe system here shortly

Thegodzero · Jul 2006

Oh i agree i only care about the price to performance. But i'm not upgrading untill the end of the year or next year.

sonic · Jul 2006

It's just like when AMD released their 64 bit line. It was a LOT cheaper and much faster. Now its Intel's time to shine for a while, and then AMD will most likely come out with something to stomp Intel in 2-3 years.

I'll probably stick with my current rig for a while longer (AMD 3000+ stock 1.8ghz OCd to 2.7ghz on stock cooler), because it was so cheap when it was top of the line, and still performs amazing for everything that isn't multithreaded. It's only a few points below the FX-55 in benchmarks, all for the low low price of 90 dollars for the processor (at the cost of voiding your warranty and shortening the lifespan of your CPU by a couple years

)

I'd love to upgrade to dual core, and that one 130 dollar Pentium D dual core that OCs to around 4.1ghz is still cheaper and faster than the lowest Conroe

PfhorRunner · Jul 2006

Well, if you're a linux user, Beowulf networking is probably a safe bet for best bang for money's sake... but maybe not your time. Just get 4 of a fairly cheap system, gut them out, except for processor, RAM, a really small HD (just enough for linux), then use your Base computer (the one you want to be the "main" one) for all your HDD stuff, as well as your graphics. Connect them using either cat6, or firewire (depending on what drivers you're using, as well as hardware) follow the beowulf network setup directons. Then BAM* you have a very fast, computer system that works as one, quite a lot of processing power for fairly cheap...

This was posted a while back, but it was to run Quake 3 on a 24 node system, spanning 24 monitors. And has been done serveral times at different universities around the United States when their computer labs become out of date, they hand them over to computer science kids and they make super computers.

*: Not so fast, and a lot of time guessing and checking, and fixing.

sonic · Jul 2006

Beowulf clusters are only useful for specific applications, like scientific calculations and servers.

PfhorRunner · Jul 2006

Hrm, you're right. I was just talking speed, and the only one i've been around personally was a game server. Yet, they were also playing other games on it... Not sure if they had a performance gain or not having it be on the cluster.

And nice OCing, I was amazed at the stock cooler.

KDR_11k · Jul 2006

I think this'll push AMD to hurry up a bit with making cheaper, more powerful chips available.

Clusters require multithreaded applications, preferrably ones geared for supercomputers (huge number of threads, little branching). They won't do jack or games except allow you to play 24 games at once.

Joshua Stubbles · Jul 2006

Speaking of AMD, this is their new (upcoming) priceline:

IceWolve · Jul 2006

or you could post the entire thing :P http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/2094_large_amd_pricing_1023.png

Joshua Stubbles · Jul 2006

They didn't have the whole list!

I think I'll still build a Conroe system, though. The Conroe E6600 is still going to be 1/2 the price of the AthlonFX-62, and outperforms it. I'll buy another AMD in 2007/2008, when they take the market back

Intel's Conroe chips are too good/cheap to pass up.
Sorry AMD!

sonic · Jul 2006

172 bucks for 4200+ that equals/outperforms the 185 dollar Core2 Duo. For the Core2Duo upgrade price, include a new motherboard (apparently the only ones to support it at the moment suck) and the DDR2 ram, and you just spent a lot more money (assuming you have a socket 939 mobo) on a setup that most likely has an unstable chipset.

AMD is still tied in the mid range market, but whipped in the high end. I'm going to get a 4200+ dual core as soon as the prices drop.

KeyserSoze · Jul 2006

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry AMD!

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't feel guilty, brand loyalty is for suckers.

Joshua Stubbles · Jul 2006

Well, I'd be getting the E6600 chip. It's twice as fast as the 4200+, but not quite twice as much.
I'm not entirely sure where you're hearing about the Conroe mobos 'sucking', Sonic. I've read nothing but astounding reviews about the whole line of CPUs and mobo's. Hell, people have already posted overclock marks of the lower end chips, cranking them to a STABLE 3.2-3.5ghz. Doesn't sound so bad to me

I'm looking to build a new PC for around $2200 anyways. So if going with Intel will get me more bang for the buck, that's where I'm heading

IceWolve · Jul 2006

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/191/conroepricesgs0.jpg

The l2 cache on those conroes are huge, no wonder why they have good performace and more expensive a bit :P

Im sticking with amd at the moment, its pretty good atm, and the price cut makes it even better. Besides ill most likely spend less geting a amd x2 compatible mobo than a intell conroe compatible one

sonic · Jul 2006

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd be getting the E6600 chip. It's twice as fast as the 4200+, but not quite twice as much.
I'm not entirely sure where you're hearing about the Conroe mobos 'sucking', Sonic. I've read nothing but astounding reviews about the whole line of CPUs and mobo's. Hell, people have already posted overclock marks of the lower end chips, cranking them to a STABLE 3.2-3.5ghz. Doesn't sound so bad to me

I'm looking to build a new PC for around $2200 anyways. So if going with Intel will get me more bang for the buck, that's where I'm heading

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if you're going for an all new system, Intel is the way to go for sure. I was just talkin about us poor people with socket 939 mobos

.

Neo_God · Jul 2006

Anyone else hear anything abotu conroe's having problems with Raid? I never heard any details beyond it has problems.

I know for my next PC I'm going with an Intel. While AMD does grant a good amount of stability, Intel offers just the brute force needed for applications and games.

IceWolve · Jul 2006

Guess what, its the 24th

Conroe .vs. FX-62 (anandtech)

Replies