Official Conroe information thread - Page 7

**specmike** · 04-10-2006, 10:35 PM

Well, if I understood the tiny bit of reading I did about Dothan, Conroe more closely resembles Dothan than it does PrescHott. And, we've seen what a Dothan CPU can do in a desktop MOBO. So, if Conroe is a good natural progression from Dothan/Yonah type architecture then it will be fine.

Am I on the right track here or do I need to read more?

Mike.

**Sandog** · 04-10-2006, 11:00 PM

OK that guy got my goat. Even if Conroe were based off hacks like he says, so what? As long as the figures Intel put out for speed and power are true I could care less how Intel does it. Even if the Conroe were mediocre (not whipping the Athlons) then I would say to the good doctor 'It's the motherboard stupid'. Say what he may about vaporware CPU's, nothing beats an Intel mobo in quality and stability. By the way, the Conroe reviewer he kept mentioning had to have an engineering sample, not a final revision chip IMO. I find it hard for anybody who likes tech. to not appreciate the turn around Intel has been pulling and not say one nice thing about the Conroe or Intel. What a classless Professor.

**Sandog** · 04-10-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specmike

Well, if I understood the tiny bit of reading I did about Dothan, Conroe more closely resembles Dothan than it does PrescHott. And, we've seen what a Dothan CPU can do in a desktop MOBO. So, if Conroe is a good natural progression from Dothan/Yonah type architecture then it will be fine.

Am I on the right track here or do I need to read more?

Mike.

Hey specmike,

No you are on the right track. As Intel_User has pointed out technically so many times before, Conroe is based off the Israeli laptop chip designs such as the Pentium M and Yonah.

h20-ski · 04-10-2006, 11:32 PM

As Sandog and Intel_user has said Conroe is based off of the Pentium M architecture, but much tweaked, ie. 4 issue core, faster FSB, enhanced FP units (the major weakness in performance in the P-M's).

Intel_User · 04-11-2006, 07:15 AM

Quote:

That guy is nuts. From what little I have seen, from Anandtech and the few benchmarks at Xtremesystems.org, Conroe is faster that what that guy claims. Not only that but Anandtech published benchmarks more in tune to what the average person does with a computer, gaming and media encoding.

Edit: I see that he has a major biases towards AMD as can be seen on some of his other blogs

Hmm. Yeah being biased could be very right. Lot of his posts are about Intel messing up.

Main guy("main" meaning the guy who's benchmarking it) from Xtremesystems do say that Conroe system is on a buggy system, and since the beginning he got the system, the numbers are improving. I am certain the system is still not optimal, and final version can be even better.

Quote:

Well, if I understood the tiny bit of reading I did about Dothan, Conroe more closely resembles Dothan than it does PrescHott. And, we've seen what a Dothan CPU can do in a desktop MOBO. So, if Conroe is a good natural progression from Dothan/Yonah type architecture then it will be fine.

Am I on the right track here or do I need to read more?

Mike.

Its a very good architecture in a long time from Intel. Even the Pentium Pro/II had flaws in architecture which was obvious and wasn't fixed on the later generations.

It does resemble Dothan more than Prescott due to the fact that its focused on more balanced performance than pure focus, like clock speed. Some things Intel put on Prescott, just plain don't make sense. I am sure 5-min lesson on CPU architecture will make anyone understand why Pentium 4's were flawed(not including high number of pipeline stages).

Quote:

I am thinking a lot of members in here will want to get the D975XBX pretty soon and I can start stealing posts away from Intel_User

Heh, its really thanks to you that people are actually posting in the thread I started.

Quote:

Other than the 965 series, is the 975X going to remain the 'premier' board for this next generation of Intel processors, or is there another chipset on the horizon?

The roadmaps on everything is a bit murky now. Its a bit hard to get a grasp on anything. 975X seems to be the premier board, but they may come with 985 chipset or so I heard.

**Sandog** · 04-11-2006, 05:30 PM

Well one of our members in here has a Conroe in his hands but no mobo to run it on yet. Might be he is waiting on the 965 chipset board.

Intel_User · 04-12-2006, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Well one of our members in here has a Conroe in his hands but no mobo to run it on yet. Might be he is waiting on the 965 chipset board.

It was said on one of the sites that had preview of IDF Conroe systems that said due to poor I/O drivers, the Conroe system loaded slower than the overclocked FX-60, yet it finished the benchmark faster because of the better scores.

Since its on a slightly modified 975XBX, maybe Conroe still has something else to bring...

**Sandog** · 04-12-2006, 05:21 AM

The ES6600 Conroe is suppose to arrive in July/August and cost between $300-400. This chip should beat the AMD FX-62 which will cost around $1000-1200 (recent figures) and won't arrive until '07 maybe. Thas pretty disparaging on AMD's part.

This would be totally opposite to what we were use to a year ago with the Intel EE chips costing around 50% more than faster AMD counterparts only it looks like there will be a worse discrepancy now. Reading up on some news about Conroe benchmarks like Sciencemark all relay good news. This chip is looking to be a killer. Add this together with what I said earlier about my feeling of AMD's DDR2 transition not returning a whole lot of performance, AMD's lagging in .65nm, and Intels pricing should cause a drastic resurgence in Intel sales amongst enthusiasts.

**Sandog** · 04-12-2006, 05:42 AM

Conroe Info.

E6700 2.67Ghz 1066Mhz FSB w/4MB LGA 775
E6600 2.40Ghz 1066Mhz FSB w/4MB LGA 775
E6400 2.13Ghz 1066Mhz FSB w/2MB LGA 775
E6300 1.86Ghz 1066Mhz FSB w/2MB LGA 775

Chipsets supporting Conroe so far.

P965 ICH8R
G965 ICH8R

As of now the current D975XBX does not support Conroe but that will change probably with a new BIOS that has plenty of time to arrive. The hardware end of the D975XBX has already been taken care of with rev 304 of the board I believe.

The stock 2.4GHz Conroe is the one we've seen recent benchmarks of whooping up on AMD FX-60 OC to FX-62 speeds (+200MHz)

The 2.67GHz Conroe with a 1333MHz FSB will yield 3.33GHz which is what the Conroe EE should turn out to be. That is the chip for moi.

Edit: The Conroe EE may be a 2.4GHz part at 1333 FSB which equals 3.0GHz but I don't think that the improvement over the 2.67GHz Conroe would be much worth the cost.

**Sandog** · 04-12-2006, 07:09 AM

Whats going to be really exciting about Conroe is the lower power. It will be nice to not lag behind AMD in benchmarks or even be ahead but it will be very relieving if the new chips can finally run quiet with just a stock Intel HSF.

After the Conroe, Intel will try to go to .45nm in order to achieve lower power with quad-core designs. in 2007/8 Intel should start looking at changing the FSB architecture as I think they will be needing more CPU to memory bandwidth. There's also news of a new socket appearing shortly which I believe is for server chips.

h20-ski · 04-12-2006, 10:19 AM

Sandog you are correct. Xeons will move from the long 603/604 to LGA S771. With Dempsey being the first to support the new socket. Then shortly there after Woodcrest taking the place of Dempsey. AMD currently is not seeing the efficency of memory bandwidth for DDR2 as they have with DDR1. From what I have heard over the web, is that the EE will start at 3.33GHz with a 1.33GHz FSB.

Water_abx · 04-12-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandog

Whats going to be really exciting about Conroe is the lower power. It will be nice to not lag behind AMD in benchmarks or even be ahead but it will be very relieving if the new chips can finally run quiet with just a stock Intel HSF.

After the Conroe, Intel will try to go to .45nm in order to achieve lower power with quad-core designs. in 2007/8 Intel should start looking at changing the FSB architecture as I think they will be needing more CPU to memory bandwidth. There's also news of a new socket appearing shortly which I believe is for server chips.

If I am not mistaken, Bloomfield will be the first quad-core single die processor from Intel.

On a side note, I hope the 3.33GHz Conroe doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Seeing the prices for the other Conroes, I would guess the 3.33GHz will cost $850-899. Although, I have a feeling that won't be the price. An $899 EE Conroe? Pretty much a pipe dream.

Can you imagine running a liquid cooling system with Conroe. Damn that would be awesome.

h20-ski · 04-12-2006, 10:43 AM

Water cooling a Conroe, that is like water cooling a Dothan, almost no point.

But nevertheless water cooling Conroe can almost be done passively being that there is enough radiator.

**specmike** · 04-12-2006, 10:56 AM

One thing I noticed over the past 2 years or so, give or take, is that AMD seemed to be more than happy to start charing $1000+ for it's flagship FX CPUs, just like Intel was doing with the EE CPUs. However, that may be short lived if the FX series takes a back seat to Conroe.

Mike.

**Sandog** · 04-12-2006, 11:23 AM

EE chips will always be $999 at least when intro'd. They always have been. The Conroe EE will cost more than that especially if it is the 3.3GHz version.

The Conroe EE hits 95W from what Intel_User said, that is plenty warm enough for me to keep using my Koolance case. I suspect the 2.67MHz Conroe wouldn't be too far behind this if that wattage is true and it probably is.

04-10-2006, 10:35 PM	#91
specmike Yes, Yellowbeard Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Metro Atlanta, GA. Posts: 2,625	Well, if I understood the tiny bit of reading I did about Dothan, Conroe more closely resembles Dothan than it does PrescHott. And, we've seen what a Dothan CPU can do in a desktop MOBO. So, if Conroe is a good natural progression from Dothan/Yonah type architecture then it will be fine. Am I on the right track here or do I need to read more? Mike. __________________ CORSAIR TECH SUPPORT
(Offline)

04-10-2006, 11:00 PM	#92
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,199	OK that guy got my goat. Even if Conroe were based off hacks like he says, so what? As long as the figures Intel put out for speed and power are true I could care less how Intel does it. Even if the Conroe were mediocre (not whipping the Athlons) then I would say to the good doctor 'It's the motherboard stupid'. Say what he may about vaporware CPU's, nothing beats an Intel mobo in quality and stability. By the way, the Conroe reviewer he kept mentioning had to have an engineering sample, not a final revision chip IMO. I find it hard for anybody who likes tech. to not appreciate the turn around Intel has been pulling and not say one nice thing about the Conroe or Intel. What a classless Professor. __________________
(Offline)

04-10-2006, 11:32 PM	#94
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	As Sandog and Intel_user has said Conroe is based off of the Pentium M architecture, but much tweaked, ie. 4 issue core, faster FSB, enhanced FP units (the major weakness in performance in the P-M's). __________________
(Offline)

04-11-2006, 05:30 PM	#96
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,199	Well one of our members in here has a Conroe in his hands but no mobo to run it on yet. Might be he is waiting on the 965 chipset board. __________________
(Offline)

04-12-2006, 05:21 AM	#98
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,199	The ES6600 Conroe is suppose to arrive in July/August and cost between $300-400. This chip should beat the AMD FX-62 which will cost around $1000-1200 (recent figures) and won't arrive until '07 maybe. Thas pretty disparaging on AMD's part. This would be totally opposite to what we were use to a year ago with the Intel EE chips costing around 50% more than faster AMD counterparts only it looks like there will be a worse discrepancy now. Reading up on some news about Conroe benchmarks like Sciencemark all relay good news. This chip is looking to be a killer. Add this together with what I said earlier about my feeling of AMD's DDR2 transition not returning a whole lot of performance, AMD's lagging in .65nm, and Intels pricing should cause a drastic resurgence in Intel sales amongst enthusiasts. __________________
(Offline)

04-12-2006, 05:42 AM	#99
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,199	Conroe Info. E6700 2.67Ghz 1066Mhz FSB w/4MB LGA 775 E6600 2.40Ghz 1066Mhz FSB w/4MB LGA 775 E6400 2.13Ghz 1066Mhz FSB w/2MB LGA 775 E6300 1.86Ghz 1066Mhz FSB w/2MB LGA 775 Chipsets supporting Conroe so far. P965 ICH8R G965 ICH8R As of now the current D975XBX does not support Conroe but that will change probably with a new BIOS that has plenty of time to arrive. The hardware end of the D975XBX has already been taken care of with rev 304 of the board I believe. The stock 2.4GHz Conroe is the one we've seen recent benchmarks of whooping up on AMD FX-60 OC to FX-62 speeds (+200MHz) The 2.67GHz Conroe with a 1333MHz FSB will yield 3.33GHz which is what the Conroe EE should turn out to be. That is the chip for moi. Edit: The Conroe EE may be a 2.4GHz part at 1333 FSB which equals 3.0GHz but I don't think that the improvement over the 2.67GHz Conroe would be much worth the cost. __________________ Last edited by Sandog : 04-12-2006 at 06:18 AM.
(Offline)

04-12-2006, 07:09 AM	#100
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,199	Whats going to be really exciting about Conroe is the lower power. It will be nice to not lag behind AMD in benchmarks or even be ahead but it will be very relieving if the new chips can finally run quiet with just a stock Intel HSF. After the Conroe, Intel will try to go to .45nm in order to achieve lower power with quad-core designs. in 2007/8 Intel should start looking at changing the FSB architecture as I think they will be needing more CPU to memory bandwidth. There's also news of a new socket appearing shortly which I believe is for server chips. __________________
(Offline)

04-12-2006, 10:19 AM	#101
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	Sandog you are correct. Xeons will move from the long 603/604 to LGA S771. With Dempsey being the first to support the new socket. Then shortly there after Woodcrest taking the place of Dempsey. AMD currently is not seeing the efficency of memory bandwidth for DDR2 as they have with DDR1. From what I have heard over the web, is that the EE will start at 3.33GHz with a 1.33GHz FSB. __________________
(Offline)

04-12-2006, 10:43 AM	#103
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	Water cooling a Conroe, that is like water cooling a Dothan, almost no point. But nevertheless water cooling Conroe can almost be done passively being that there is enough radiator. __________________
(Offline)

04-12-2006, 10:56 AM	#104
specmike Yes, Yellowbeard Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Metro Atlanta, GA. Posts: 2,625	One thing I noticed over the past 2 years or so, give or take, is that AMD seemed to be more than happy to start charing $1000+ for it's flagship FX CPUs, just like Intel was doing with the EE CPUs. However, that may be short lived if the FX series takes a back seat to Conroe. Mike. __________________ CORSAIR TECH SUPPORT
(Offline)

04-12-2006, 11:23 AM	#105
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,199	EE chips will always be $999 at least when intro'd. They always have been. The Conroe EE will cost more than that especially if it is the 3.3GHz version. The Conroe EE hits 95W from what Intel_User said, that is plenty warm enough for me to keep using my Koolance case. I suspect the 2.67MHz Conroe wouldn't be too far behind this if that wattage is true and it probably is. __________________
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode