Staredit Network

Well, Intel's new line of processors (dubbed "Conroe") seem to have actually lived up to their hype, at least in 32-bit applications. While 64-bit benchmarks are pending, the few that have been done look promising.

Now Conroe comes with L2 caches of either 2 mb or 4 mb (2x1 mb or 2x2 mb respectively). L2 caches are basically used as extremely low latency memories for small tasks, so a program doesn't have to go the whole way to the undeniably larger but still slower main memory found on your Ram sticks. People have argued that the huge caches (twice the size of AMD's offerings) contribute to Conroe's performance. They do contribute a bit, but not to the degree AMD fanboys would like us to believe (I consider myself neutral). If AMD increased their cache sizes, they would perform better as well. However, increased cache sizes would not be equal to a 15% increase in overall performance. After all, how many programs do you know that use 4 mb or less of memory?

Another pro that Conroe offers is decreased power consumption (normal desktop cpus are rated at an amazingly low 65 watts for example). I believe the FX-62, AMD's top of the line model, is rated at 125 watts.

Beyond that, there is the obvious allure of a powerful dual core processor (multitasking) and low price ($600 for a processor that can compete, and often outperform, the $850 FX-62). However, power consumption for the next AMD processors will most likely be comparable or better to Conroe, and ever since AMD slashed prices magnificently on their processors, only one AM2 (that's a socket type for cpus) processor is more expensive than a comparable Intel processor (once again, the FX-62 is more expensive). Everything from the X2 3800+ to the X2 5000+ now fall beneath Intel's "price to performance curve," retaining AMD's leadership in that position (a position that they've held quite a long time).

Also, AMD has an added source of income in the form of ATI. Intel produces chipsets that support Crossfire (an ATI technology), and ATI gets cash that flows right into AMD's (Intel's chief competitor's) pockets. I believe ATI was currently only making about $100 million a quarter, but as AMD fine tunes their new acquisition, you can expect those profits to rise. Still, it will take some time to repay the estimated $5.4 billion AMD spent acquiring ATI, but it will also take market share away from Intel in the meantime.

What are your thoughts on this?

Dual cores are great, and soon games will be optimized for dual cores (like splitting up the code instead of having it be run on a single thread). Heck, have you played Oblivion on a computer? Conroe and R600/G80 (new graphics chips for ATI and NVidia, respectively) will help make max settings on Oblivion and other new games possible and fun. Programs are starting to be coded with dual cores in mind, because multiple cores will help to double, triple, etc. the performance (in a manner, and don't misquote me on this) of processors, whereas new architectures, as of now, can only do so much.

Not if you go with the "low end" spectrum of the processors. You can pick up an AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ for $150, and while that won't see you along forever, everybody says that's it's far more than enough power to multitask with virus scanning, new games, etc.

However, I have to laugh at people that compare the Itanium line of processors to the Opterons. Performance wise, Itaniums are better, I guess, but price-to-performance wise, Opterons are staggeringly so. Also, while the Woodcrest line of Xeons are better than Opterons (Woodcrests are new), you don't see the Conroe to Athlon 64 differences. Intel could have done a much better job with the Woodcrests, and the real winners are Merom and Conroe (mobile and desktop). AMD's Socket F Opterons (due out later) will undoubtedly make large improvements to the current Opteron architecture and decimate Woodcrests in performance. I think 64-bit applications are a place the Athlon 64s could make up a lot of the difference that Conroe created. Also, AMD is adding 64-bit extensions to their processors later, substantially increasing 64-bit performance.

OC a 3800+ x2 for a nice, afforadable dual core processor.

What do you expect, AMD64's have been out for a long time now.. But once AMD comes out with their new processors, which will be Socket AM3, which will be compatible with Socket AM2(to my knowledge.) everything will change again..

With AMD owning ATI now, there will be more AMD motherboards, and that's a good thing..

But yeah, the Conroe is pretty amazing.. but I will forever be an AMD fanboy

Yeah.. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3169 confirmed backwards and forward compatibility

Dual-cores are really good. Its the way the industry is going to move into now, since clock speeds are maxed out. I got a intel-core duo iMac and I gotta say, it runs both XP AND Mac really fast. In fact it runs XP faster than my pentium 4 3ghz with hyper threading.

Didnt i already make a thread on this?

Conroe pretty much pwns. Even with amds price cuts the conroe still come outs 70 bucks cheaper for same performance on the low end. But its multitasking ability isnt up to par.

Im a performance fanboy...i wont hesitate to stab AMD or Intel in the back.


Agreed. You rarely ever use the second core. Some people shut off 1 core for games because 2 cores give them problems. Thats why amd is working on that reverse hyperthreading thing. With the amount of money you spend on a dual core you could buy a really powerfull single core and get way faster frames. I also hate it when people give me the "but graphics drivers are being optimized for dual core" crap.


Also increased cache is generally bad for gaming.

Well, it will happen sooner or later... I don't think anybody is going to hesistate on making your programs run two times faster.. -.-

And hey, a 2mb l2 cache isn't bad.. I'd take it over the AMD64's 512kb cache

Then you probably have a 4000+

I was talking about the cheaper ones, like AMD Athlon 3000+ up to 3800+