Anand's X6800 vs. FX62 Article

J

jarman

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
448
That is an ass whooping if I've ever seen one. The best part is at the end of the article where the Intel price cuts are shown. I see some new [H]ardass folding boxen on the cheap in the near future!!!



 
Since the availability of the conroe is going to be so low, and in such high demand I wonder if retailers are going to jack up the price considerably
 
rayman2k2 said:
and it still holds its own
Click to expand...
I'm drooling at the prospect of overclocking it to 3GHz/1333MHz FSB. But I can wait. :D
 
I think its kinda dumb to even compare a fx 62 @ 2.8 vs a Conroe @ 2.93. The clockspeed isn't even the same.

Overclock the fx 62 to ~2.93 then do a comparison. 130mhz does make somewhat of a difference in speed.
 
Nirad9er said:
I think its kinda dumb to even compare a fx 62 @ 2.8 vs a Conroe @ 2.93. The clockspeed isn't even the same.

Overclock the fx 62 to ~2.93 then do a comparison. 130mhz does make somewhat of a difference in speed.
Click to expand...
They're comparing AMD's fastest stock chip to Intel's fastest stock chip.

Is it fair to compare a 2.6GHz Athlon 64 to a 2.6GHz Pentium 4?

Clock speed is irrelevant.
 
looks good now .. but possible angry mobs throwing lazy-boy recliners thru local pc shop windows rioting due to lack of supply will ensue around Q3 of this year more than likely causing mass panic and hysteria resulting in thousands of civil suits against Intel by said local pc store owners demanding compensation for damages upon their stores ..

:(


...this could get ugly folks


[F]old|[H]ard
 
kumquat said:
They're comparing AMD's fastest stock chip to Intel's fastest stock chip.

Is it fair to compare a 2.6GHz Athlon 64 to a 2.6GHz Pentium 4?

Clock speed is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's also similar price wise, at least on paper.
 
It was indeed a good review but incomplete. Given the circumstances I would say its OK.

One thing bothered me about the review as I believe it to be no small matter.

FSB on the intel system should have been running at 1066 and DDR2 memory should have been run at 1:1 533 Now I don't know if this would have mattered in the performance scaling but that is the stock settings for the XE6800 . My personnally belief is Anand crippled the intel system by not running it at those settings. But I am sure it was an accident. But I feel strongly that 1:1 533 4-4-4-10 would have given the intel system a better score with all tested apps.
 
amd just got PWNED!

havent owned an intel processor since my pentium 1 66mhz in '94. cant wait to go back in july/august! got my amd opteron rig all sold and the cash is burning a hole in my pocket. :D
 
FSB on the intel system should have been running at 1066 and DDR2 memory should have been run at 1:1 533 Now I don't know if this would have mattered in the performance scaling but that is the stock settings for the XE6800 .
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing that it's not running at that speed?
 
EQTakeOffense said:
Where are you seeing that it's not running at that speed?
Click to expand...

Even though FSB wasn't qouted . I believe they set it at same settings as Fx-62. Since FX -62 doesn't have a 1066fsb. Here's all the article said .

We're happy to report that we gathered enough parts to build two systems while in Taiwan for Computex. We managed to acquire a Socket-AM2 motherboard equipped with an Athlon 64 FX-62 and a P965 motherboard equipped with a Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz at our hotel, along with two sets of 2x1GB of DDR2-800 (only 5-5-5-12 modules though), a pair of Hitachi 7K250 SATA hard drives, and two NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTXes (one for each system) - it helps that all the major players have offices in Taiwan. Of course we happened to pack some power supplies, monitors, keyboards and mice in our carry-on luggage, as well as copies of Windows XP, Quake 4, F.E.A.R., Battlefield 2, SYSMark 2004 and Winstone 2004.

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 (2.80GHz)
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz)
Motherboard: nForce 590-SLI Socket-AM2 Motherboard
Intel P965 Motherboard
Chipset: NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI
Intel P965 Chipset
Chipset Drivers: nForce 9.34 Beta
Intel 7.3.3.1013
Hard Disk: Hitachi Deskstar T7K250
Memory: DDR2-800 5-5-5-12 (1GB x 2)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX
Video Drivers: NVIDIA ForceWare 91.28 Beta
Desktop Resolution: 1280 x 1024 - 32-bit @ 60Hz
OS: Windows XP Professional SP2

Maybe I will ask them to tell if they used 200BS on both systems. Since the AMD system doesn't have a 266BS option I believe they used 200BS on both systems.

Its already been shown at Extreme systems it makes a differance.
 
Maybe I will ask them to tell if they used 200BS on both systems. Since the AMD system doesn't have a 266BS option I believe they used 200BS on both systems.
Click to expand...

I still don't quite understand how you're comming to the conclusion that they used a 200FSB on the Intel system.

I also don't understand why you would think they would want the AMD system to use a 266 FSB.


This Graph Pretty much shows what FSB each system was using.

Intel was run using a 266/1066 FSB with DDR2-533

AMD was running 200/2000HT with DDR2-800
 
Hmm..that E6400 is priced very nicely.

Oh, and it is so nice to the engineers back in control at Intel instead of the marketing department. Die Netburst, die.


 
Anyone know what the difference is (besides clock frequency and price) between the X6800 and the E6600? :confused:



 
EQTakeOffense said:
I still don't quite understand how you're comming to the conclusion that they used a 200FSB on the Intel system.

I also don't understand why you would think they would want the AMD system to use a 266 FSB.


This Graph Pretty much shows what FSB each system was using.

Intel was run using a 266/1066 FSB with DDR2-533

AMD was running 200/2000HT with DDR2-800
Click to expand...

Were did I say I want AMD system to use 266BS when it's not an option as I said.

They clearly state both systems were running DDR2 800 5-5-5-12 timings.

The graph you linked to is the very reason I believe conroe was running @ 200BS.
 
The graph you linked to is the very reason I believe conroe was running @ 200BS.
Click to expand...

If it was a 200SB it would DDR2-400 and an 800Mhz FSB. The DD2-400 would only provide around 3200MB/s of bandwidth. How would having the Intel system runing at 200MHz SB prodive 5000MB/s of bandwidth. If anything, they were running the bus at 333/1333 for it to be DD2-667 to provide the roughly 5000MB/s bandwith since the limit of DDR2-667 is 5300MB/s.

There was an graph of how Conroe bandwidth scales with FSB but I can't find it right now, if I do find it, I'll post it.
 
More likely they were running the Athlno FX 62 at 2.8GHZ with a divider of 7 for a DDR2-800 speed, since the base speed is 400MHZ.

With Intel it was probably a divider of sorta to run the FSB:RAM in a 3:2 ratio. Hopefully, i wish they would have been a bit more clear on that issue.

Since the P965 has native support for DDR2-800.
 
coldpower27 said:
More likely they were running the Athlno FX 62 at 2.8GHZ with a divider of 7 for a DDR2-800 speed, since the base speed is 400MHZ.

With Intel it was probably a divider of sorta to run the FSB:RAM in a 3:2 ratio. Hopefully, i wish they would have been a bit more clear on that issue.

Since the P965 has native support for DDR2-800.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the article ? It was AM2 that was tested . It's bus speed was 200BSand it was run at DDR2/800 both systems . Read the article.. The only thing that isn't clear is wheather the Conroe was run at 266 or 200 . Because that link that you showed was so low I believe the conroe was run at 800FSB and not 1066 as it should have been . What part are you struggling with? P965 also supports 1066 FSB and DDR533 would allow 1:1 divider and lower latency . Which would help the Conroe. But running AM2 @ DDR2 533 would have showed poorer results.

No matter others will test the same apps at 266=1066 @DDR2 533 @ 1:1 and we will compare them .
 
EQTakeOffense said:
If it was a 200SB it would DDR2-400 and an 800Mhz FSB. The DD2-400 would only provide around 3200MB/s of bandwidth. How would having the Intel system runing at 200MHz SB prodive 5000MB/s of bandwidth. If anything, they were running the bus at 333/1333 for it to be DD2-667 to provide the roughly 5000MB/s bandwith since the limit of DDR2-667 is 5300MB/s.

There was an graph of how Conroe bandwidth scales with FSB but I can't find it right now, if I do find it, I'll post it.
Click to expand...

200BS = 800FSB You really are missing the point. They did not O/C the Conroe FSB if anything they underclocked the FSB .

It seems your playing . You plainly see the 333bs= 1333FSB yet you don't seem to understand that 200bs= 800FSB just as 266bs= 1066FSB

So your saying that DDR2 800 for AMD =7623 points and DDR2 800 for Conroe=4936 points not likely.
 
Conroe XE is obviously bottlenecked by the single 7900 GTX...When they'll use a Crossfire XTX setup or GTX SLI then we'll talk about what Conroe can do... ;)
 
savantu said:
Conroe XE is obviously bottlenecked by the single 7900 GTX...When they'll use a Crossfire XTX setup or GTX SLI then we'll talk about what Conroe can do... ;)
Click to expand...

..and are there any SLi/CF mobo's in the works that we know about as of right now? ..or that are already out and will support the Conroe XE?


[F]old|[H]ard
 
pxc said:
I'm drooling at the prospect of overclocking it to 3GHz/1333MHz FSB. But I can wait. :D
Click to expand...

At the end of the article the mention the overclockability.

"While performance here is extremely strong, we also haven't even touched on the
overclockability of Conroe; from what we've seen, hitting above 3.5GHz on the highest end
parts isn't too far fetched on air cooling alone. The absolute highest we've seen on air is
3.8GHz from a Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor."

So apparently they did not overclock but they have "seen" things.

I am excited about Conroe now and even more so about that Badaxe motherboard that works
with CrossFire cause that is the route I want to go.
 
In my opinion, they overclocked the chip they had there.... with limited time, testing, and probly no benchies... just to see what they can get.

Thats why they have "seen" it, however they cant give solid results
 
The problem then becomes what happens after Dell and HP have eaten their lunch, unfortunately the concern is that aggressive pricing won't be enough to reduce retail demand for Conroe. What we're worried about happening is a very small supply of Conroes on the retail market in late Q3/early Q4, resulting in much higher street prices than what you see in the table above. In the worst case scenario for Intel, Conroe's limited retail availability could result in a price to performance ratio equal to or worse than AMD's Athlon 64 X2.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I have been worried about for months.
 
jarman said:
Anyone know what the difference is (besides clock frequency and price) between the X6800 and the E6600? :confused:
Click to expand...
The X6800 / X6900 (3.2 ghz Q1 '07 ) will have unlocked multipliers, just like the FX-5X / FX-6X
 
jebo_4jc said:
This is exactly what I have been worried about for months.
Click to expand...
And there is nothing we can do about that, unfortunately. :(
 
... I don't get it. Why does it *bother* people that a really significant jump in processing power is coming their way?? Are you that loyal to a big multinational corporation?
 
qdemn7 said:
The X6800 / X6900 (3.2 ghz Q1 '07 ) will have unlocked multipliers, just like the FX-5X / FX-6X
Click to expand...

E6600 = $316 :eek:

Hello RAM divider :D



 
kumquat said:
... I don't get it. Why does it *bother* people that a really significant jump in processing power is coming their way?? Are you that loyal to a big multinational corporation?
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. Intel has stated only 25% of their production this year will be Conroe. So if Dell and HP buy up a very large amount of Conroe's for their systems, that will leave a dearth of CPUs for people like us. The result will be places selling the CPUs ABOVE the MSRP. Just because the E6700 is going to retail for $531 doesn't mean it HAS to be sold for that price. If you're eagerly awaiting Conroe, only to find out that e-tailers are selling them for 20% or more above the MSRP, what are you going to do? And don't think it won't happen, some of the biggest e-tailers routinely jack up the price on things that are new or in short supply, because they know people will pay any price to get them.
 
jebo_4jc said:
More like hello ATi's chipset with Asynchronous memory clocks :cool:
Click to expand...
I'll let you beta test their south bridge. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top