I believe the Intel Conroe (which will be called Core 2 Duo) is due to launch on July 27th. Several independent reviewers have suggested that the cheapest conroe you can buy (a little under $200 I believe) outruns the fastest of AMDs current offerings on some bench marks. It also runs cooler (i.e. consumes less power) than anything else in its class. This is important because a Conroe will not need a turboprop of a cooling fan to dissipate heat. Silence is good! I'd hold onto my money for a little while and buy a Core 2 Duo system. (Full disclosure, just so you guys don't think I'm completely astroturfing here: I am employed by Intel and I am stating my personal opinion only. Nothing in this post should be construed as endorsed by or representing the opinions of Intel Corporation.)
I'd also plug the advantages of having multiple cores. I think multi-core chips are a huge potential boon to some of the very deserving distributed computing efforts out there such as folding@home. Most people will never be doing anything that needs both cores, but as dual core processors become ubiquitous more and more people should let the other core run one of those applications (especially folding@home).
I'd also plug the advantages of having multiple cores. I think multi-core chips are a huge potential boon to some of the very deserving distributed computing efforts out there such as folding@home. Most people will never be doing anything that needs both cores, but as dual core processors become ubiquitous more and more people should let the other core run one of those applications (especially folding@home).
OK, still getting a handle on speed bottlenecks and what-not....so a question...
All other things being equal, what do you think would be faster:
2.2GHz clock with 2GHz FSB, or
3.0GHz clock with 800MHz FSB?
I'm getting the former, but again not sure where the "crossover" is on something like this.
All other things being equal, what do you think would be faster:
2.2GHz clock with 2GHz FSB, or
3.0GHz clock with 800MHz FSB?
I'm getting the former, but again not sure where the "crossover" is on something like this.
As an aside: this will work well if people are wanting to give over one and only one core to distributed stuff. What's going to be a bit more tricky is making these simulations work with multicore in general. Most molecular dynamics code out there (like TINKER, the MD code that Folding@Home runs off) is written in FORTRAN77. Good luck getting that code working multithreaded. There will also be big issues about slicing up the work to be effective on parallel multicore machines, like the next generation of supercomputers will be. Interesting times ahead for scientific computation.
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
Which is better is going to vary by application. Applications that eat up all the memory bandwidth you can throw at it could perform better with the faster FSB. Those that are more CPU intensive would perform better with a faster CPU. There's quite a disparity on your two examples though. In the particular case you've cited, all things being equal, the faster CPU would be the better performer in the vast majority of cases.
I have to question your first example too, as there currently is no PC that ships with a 2GHz FSB. Even the chipsets used for Conroe are going to be 800MHz FSB, though reportedly you can overclock them to 1Ghz or even 1.2GHz FSB.
Somehow I knew you'd be first to answer. 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...CategoryId=pcmcat60700050018&id=1142288946533
Shows 1GHz bus.
Also:
http://www.ultramalta.com/products.jsp?id=32
Show a 2GHz bus, although maybe they're also talking about overclocking, or that's a top end the board supports but isn't there yet, or - ? Wouldn't think so, but again I'm so out of date on the whole PC specs thing......
OK, thx. Can you give a few common examples of each type of app above?
Then I'm either misunderstanding the ads somehow or Conroe needs to get with it. eg:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...CategoryId=pcmcat60700050018&id=1142288946533
Shows 1GHz bus.
Also:
http://www.ultramalta.com/products.jsp?id=32
Show a 2GHz bus, although maybe they're also talking about overclocking, or that's a top end the board supports but isn't there yet, or - ? Wouldn't think so, but again I'm so out of date on the whole PC specs thing......
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
One example I can think of off-hand that is very memory bandwidth (FSB) dependent is Quake 3/Quake 4.Somehow I knew you'd be first to answer.
OK, thx. Can you give a few common examples of each type of app above?
An application that would be more processor intensive would be something like Folding @ Home.
Ahhh. This is where all things are not equal.
AMD uses a Hypertransport bus which is the peripherals/ram communications interface to the processor. It's not truly a FSB bus since the memory controller is integrated into the processor itself.
Intel chips do not yet have integrated memory controllers so they still retain a classic FSB.
And, yes, that ASUS link is for a high-end mainboard for those who want to run an AMD chip with a dual/quad SLI video card solution.
:lost: Folding @ Home? What's that, some laundry kinda software? yeesh
So basically games and more graphics-intensive kinda stuff would benefit from faster SBs, while I'm guessing more "number-crunching" things (spreadsheets or what-not) prefer the CPU boost, for instance?
k......the end result/meaning of that is...? ie it sounds like it's an "FSB wannabe" and so not nearly as good, generally?
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
It's a distributed computing project.
If only it were that simple. It's more dependent on the specific application architecture so it can't be generalized. For example, in games, Quake is very memory bandwidth dependent whereas a game like Fear is more CPU cycle dependent.
Without going too deep and getting too boring - it's an improvement over the classic FSB design. Hypertransport is a bi-directional, point-to-point, serial communications protocol. Intel has also decoupled their FSB and peripheral communications bus (GTL+/AGTL+) for some time now, but iirc, it's still a parallel communications signaling interface.
The end result of the above techno-babble is that decoupling these busses from the FSB allows for greater scalability in peripheral bus communications and greater flexibility in design. Eventually Intel will integrate their memory controller into the processor and the FSB will have gone the way of the dodo.
egslim
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,858
Keep in mind that the FSB is only one of innumerable microarchitectural differences between processor designs.
For example, even though an integrated memory controller like that of Athlon64 is technically superior to anything resembling an FSB, Core has far better prefetching to achieve lower latency anyway. As this page shows: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=5
The point is this: Technobable is fun, but if you want to see how a processor performs, simply forget it and look at the benchmarks from a reputable site.
For example, even though an integrated memory controller like that of Athlon64 is technically superior to anything resembling an FSB, Core has far better prefetching to achieve lower latency anyway. As this page shows: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=5
The point is this: Technobable is fun, but if you want to see how a processor performs, simply forget it and look at the benchmarks from a reputable site.
Thx. Have a good one? To be honest the one mentioned earlier I found muddled...
Getting back to English
So how would you compare the 2, ie an Athlon HT vs a "classic" FSB? Sounds like the Athlon HT is superior, plus it's running at faster rates (up to 2GHz vs typicall 800MHz or less for FSB), so clock speeds/etc being equal, Athlon should blow the latter away.egslim
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,858
www.anandtech.com has a fair number of reviews, and they usually make sense.
www.lostcircuits.com has some of the most thorough, high quality reviews available, but not so many of them.
www.hardocp.com is decent, though they focus mostly on overclockers and such.
Personally I would avoid www.tomshardware.com, because they have a tendency to be biased and wrong.
www.lostcircuits.com has some of the most thorough, high quality reviews available, but not so many of them.
www.hardocp.com is decent, though they focus mostly on overclockers and such.
Personally I would avoid www.tomshardware.com, because they have a tendency to be biased and wrong.
xenxabar
bacon chocolate tacos
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,313
Well, today's the big day for Intel. The new conroe chips are out, and they are pricey! Newegg has 'em for $1,200. However, it appeared to me that OEM like Dell and Alienware had them for a bit less -- still over $900. AMD's FX-62 can be had for about $850. Hopefully, the prices will drop soon.
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
The top of the line Conroe is pricey. The E6300, the low end Conroe, can be had for as little as $200. Supposedly they are great overclockers too so even with the low-end Conroe you can wring performance out of it that comes fairly close to the FX-62.
xenxabar
bacon chocolate tacos
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,313
I'm still trying to find a place that sells the e6300. Can't find much at Newegg right now. However, at nearly 10 times the cost of the AMD 3800 chip, I'll stay with AMD. After further consideration, one of the benchmark sites I saw didn't impress me as much as before. They were comparing Intel's new top of the line to AMD's bottom of the line (same classification of chip). Hopefully AMD will release something bigger and better soon, at least with lower power consumption.
egslim
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,858
My guess is you'll need to wait at least a few months before AMD's 65nm proces comes online, until then they don't have a chance to catch up.
With limited supply and demand for Conroe as high as it undoubtedly is, I expect you'll have to be as lucky as a lotterywinner who just found a goldmine in his backyard to get a $ 200 E6300 anytime soon.
With limited supply and demand for Conroe as high as it undoubtedly is, I expect you'll have to be as lucky as a lotterywinner who just found a goldmine in his backyard to get a $ 200 E6300 anytime soon.
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
ZipZoomFly.com had the e6300 in stock last week but they sold out quickly. TigerDirect is listing their e6300 at $209, but it's on backorder. It appears that just about everybody is out of stock right now. Core 2 Duo's are a hot commodity.
I'm not sure what review you're talking about, but AnandTech did a review of the low-end Core 2 Duo overclocked vs. the AMD FX62 (a $1000 chip). The e6300 overclocked beat out the FX62 in just about every benchmark:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802