Conore Explanation Plz

[Darkatom]

I have been hearing about conroe a lot lately and am filled filled a few questions about it. I would appreciate any info anyone can toss my way.(I did read the sticky but still am puzzled)
1. Is the new processor a dual core?
2. Will this line be replacing the pentium D?
3. Why are the clock speeds way lower compared to the Pentium D? And does the conroe out perform the Pentium D line?
4. I was going to be purchasing a new system within a couple of months and was interested in upgrading to the Pentium D 960 3.6 cause it suits my needs, should i wait for the conroe to be released? If so, will the new conroe lineup have one on par with the PD 3.6?

Again, any info and advice you guys have is greatly appreciated.

 

[thecoldanddarkone]

1. yes
2. yes
3. Because the core Architecture is better than the old one.
4. If you are waiting the next couple months then don't worry it will probably be to market before you get a new computer. A 2.4 (6600) conroe should out perform the 3.6 i most things and be cheaper.

 

[Darkatom]

1. yes
2. yes
3. Because the core Architecture is better than the old one.
4. If you are waiting the next couple months then don't worry it will probably be to market before you get a new computer. A 2.4 (6600) conroe should out perform the 3.6 i most things and be cheaper.

Thanks for the info, but i saw that there was going to be a conroe 6700. What processor would you compare that to thats out in the market right now.

 

[thecoldanddarkone]

there is no processor on the market at this moment in time that compares to the e6700... It is faster than all of them on the market right now.

 

[Darkatom]

That processor sounds like a good deal. I saw some post a chart of the price for it on here and if im not mistaken the price is $550ish. Any how thats what the 3.6 Pentium D is at right now so i might aim to get the E6700 .

 

[coldpower27]

That processor sounds like a good deal. I saw some post a chart of the price for it on here and if im not mistaken the price is $550ish. Any how thats what the 3.6 Pentium D is at right now so i might aim to get the E6700 .

Keep in mind by the time Conroe launches that the Pentium D 960 will be down to 316US in price which is what the E6600 will be.

 

[annaconda]

Which Motherboad we should buy right now that will be compatible with Conroe.

 

[dotK]

I'd reccomend the E6600 as it's quite a bit cheaper than the E6700 and still has the 4MB L2 cache. If you want extra speed you should be able to overclock it quite easily.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Which Motherboad we should buy right now that will be compatible with Conroe.

Don't. There are only a few that are compatible right now and they cost a bit of change. If you are waiting to buy the Conroe, wait to buy the motherboard, too.

 

[thecoldanddarkone]

the only one I know of costs 27x bucks after shipping, so I suggest you just wait. It would be cheaper to get a lower end motherboard and buy a middle class board later.

 

[Darkatom]

I saw someones thread on here stating that the E6700 can outperform the AMD FX-62 at half the price so I wouldnt mind spending the same amount for a E6700 that I would have on a 960 3.6.

 

[DemonDiablo]

I saw someones thread on here stating that the E6700 can outperform the AMD FX-62 at half the price so I wouldnt mind spending the same amount for a E6700 that I would have on a 960 3.6.

the real question then is, do you believe in overclocking? if you do then getting the E6700 may be a waste of money from a price/performance stand point incomparison to the E6600. if you're willing to OC or to learn how to OC then i suggest saving a few hundred and going with a cheaper and better price/performance cpu such as the E6600. let us know where you stand on this issue so we can give you more accurate advice.

 

[cupholder2.0]

Overclock or not, the Conroe is the way to go.

 

[Darkatom]

the real question then is, do you believe in overclocking? if you do then getting the E6700 may be a waste of money from a price/performance stand point incomparison to the E6600. if you're willing to OC or to learn how to OC then i suggest saving a few hundred and going with a cheaper and better price/performance cpu such as the E6600. let us know where you stand on this issue so we can give you more accurate advice.

I personally dont like overclocking and which is why i dont see the extra cost for the E6700 a waste but more of a good deal for the power of the processor.

 

[JetUsafMech]

I personally dont like overclocking

Gasp!

Seriously...

E6700: 2.66 GHz / FSB 1066/ 4 MB shared L2 cache
E6600: 2.40 GHz / FSB 1066/ 4 MB shared L2 cache

You could do 260 mhz on stock cooling EASILY and save some loot.

 

[thecoldanddarkone]

How hard is it to accept someone doesn't overclock, sheash its their money.

 

[JetUsafMech]

How hard is it to accept someone doesn't overclock, sheash its their money.

It's not like I was berating him. And you're right, it is his money, and if a 260 mhz overclock can save him some loot, I was simply saying that it is fairly simple to do. Didn't mean to come off as such a bastard. A thousand pardons!

 

[InternalStorm]

The ONLY reason you would get the E6700 is if you were overclocking.

260MHz will make barely any difference, and for what, $200 bucks more it's not worth it. The real incentive to getting it is if you are a hardcore overclocker, as the E6700's will be binned to have a higher OC potential, whereas the E6600's will not overclock quite as high. The stock speeds are very close, but the difference lies in the overclocking headroom.

 

[NulloModo]

OCing on a stock voltage is a no-risk operation. If your system ends up crashing all you have to do is pull the CMOS battery for a couple minutes then plug it back in and you are back in business, and you know what your upper limit is.

as to your questions:

1. Yes, Core 2 is only duo so far, although I think Intel had some info on the roadmaps for single core budget alternatives, but you don't want them.

2. Yes, Pentium D is a lame duck at the moment.

3. It has to do with work per cycle. You know how an A64 can outperform a P4 of the same clockspeed easily? It is the same idea, only this time Intel found a way to make a chip that outperforms the A64 by leaps and bounds per cycle. Think of it this way: you have 2 tons of papers you need to destroy, you can go with a machine that has 100 cu ft for space and runs 100 rpm, or one with 500 cu ft of space that runs at 50 rpm, which is gonna get the job done faster?

4. Unless your old system blew up in your face, don't buy a new one now, wait a month and get Conroe goodness.

 

[Darkatom]

OCing on a stock voltage is a no-risk operation. If your system ends up crashing all you have to do is pull the CMOS battery for a couple minutes then plug it back in and you are back in business, and you know what your upper limit is.

as to your questions:

1. Yes, Core 2 is only duo so far, although I think Intel had some info on the roadmaps for single core budget alternatives, but you don't want them.

2. Yes, Pentium D is a lame duck at the moment.

3. It has to do with work per cycle. You know how an A64 can outperform a P4 of the same clockspeed easily? It is the same idea, only this time Intel found a way to make a chip that outperforms the A64 by leaps and bounds per cycle. Think of it this way: you have 2 tons of papers you need to destroy, you can go with a machine that has 100 cu ft for space and runs 100 rpm, or one with 500 cu ft of space that runs at 50 rpm, which is gonna get the job done faster?

4. Unless your old system blew up in your face, don't buy a new one now, wait a month and get Conroe goodness.

Very well put.

 

[Krycek1]

Thanks for the info, but i saw that there was going to be a conroe 6700. What processor would you compare that to thats out in the market right now.

This will be true. However, the processor is not on the market. Only in the hands of a select few who have connections or some exclusive way of obtaining one. It's not on sale to the general public yet but it'll certainly be worth the wait.

 

[Donnie27]

The ONLY reason you would get the E6700 is if you were overclocking.

260MHz will make barely any difference, and for what, $200 bucks more it's not worth it. The real incentive to getting it is if you are a hardcore overclocker, as the E6700's will be binned to have a higher OC potential, whereas the E6600's will not overclock quite as high. The stock speeds are very close, but the difference lies in the overclocking headroom.

This should be the Subject of a New Thread. I too believe E6700 will overclock higher than E6600. I'd be absolutely shocked if that's not the case. The amount of so called "Golden Samples" will be higher in the E6700 as well.

I personally dont like overclocking and which is why i dont see the extra cost for the E6700 a waste but more of a good deal for the power of the processor.

Though I'm going witht the E6600, if I'm not overclocking, I too would go with a E6700=P Reason being yes it kicks the shit out of current 1000 dollar Intel and AMD processor out the box. The $519 I'm told is MSRP, not tray Price.

I will only shoot for only about 2.8GHz to 3GHz with a E6600 because I don't have Water cooling yet (Noise not temp). I don't want to push when it is already kick-ass. But I do agree with JetUsafMech as well, 267MHz is hardly something that will even be a system strain and almost NOT overclocking. Well unless it was a 3500+ LOL!

 

[Fort_Major]

Gasp!

Seriously...

E6700: 2.66 GHz / FSB 1066/ 4 MB shared L2 cache
E6600: 2.40 GHz / FSB 1066/ 4 MB shared L2 cache

You could do 260 mhz on stock cooling EASILY and save some loot.

I think the only thing important worth noting here is let's suppose you have a
4ghz system. an extra 260 mhz isn't worth much. However
if you have a 2ghz rated system that is on par with the 4ghz system in power and performance then your 260 is actually 520 mhz in comparison. Depending upon how many operations per timing you're used to comparing to the new ones this may have a larger difference on performance then one at first agrees. I won't touch the OCing issue. Just thought i'd point that aspect out.

 

[gersson]

I personally dont like overclocking.

Oh come on grandpa, it's not a big deal. There are a load of websites that will hold your hand throught it all.

OCing with stock voltage is a no brainer.

 

[Darkatom]

Oh come on grandpa, it's not a big deal. There are a load of websites that will hold your hand throught it all.

OCing with stock voltage is a no brainer.

Grandpa? lol, im 21.

 

[Antheus]

his point is that while it makes sense that you would be scared to overclock being that you haven't done it before, make an informed decision before you decide which to do. Nowadays there are many protection mechanisms enabled that would prevent you from destroying the chip if you overclocked too much.

Chips have what's called a stock voltage, which is the default voltage on the chip. At that voltage you can generally pump up the front side bus, causing both your ram as well as your processor to run at higher speeds. Eventually you hit a speed that one of your coponents can't handle, at which point you can simply reset the bios and bump it down a bit. You won't even need to touch the voltage or make some of the other tweaks necessary to get more of an overclock, just reach your max and then put it a bit lower.

The point is that you would be doing a minimal overclock (literally as simple as going into your bios and changing one setting a bit) which will negligibly (if at all) raise your temperatures/reduce processor life expectancy.

Often times the mid range chip is the best bang for your buck because it can usually easily overclock to higher levels since it is basically the exact same chip though clocked a bit lower.

I hope that was at least a bit informative, and it's perfectly acceptable if you don't want to, but it's better if you know a bit about the subject before you decide

 

[ThirtySixBelow]

Grandpa? lol, im 21.

haha

I guess you technically are saving money by getting the 6600 and oc'ing it to 6700 speeds, but if you are doing that, then if you got the 6700 you could also oc that to speeds the 6600 couldn't reach, so you would still get your extra money's worth. If you are going to oc, then why not factor that into every item in the line up. You can say that your 2.4 oc'd to 2.6 is saving money, but your 2.6 oc'd to 2.8, though the 200 is less of a difference here, is still something the other card can't reach. So, you have to factor in that you can oc at every level if that is what you are into. Persuading to save money by overclocking still keeps you behind in a higher card that could overclock even farther than the budget option.

 

[DemonDiablo]

his point is that while it makes sense that you would be scared to overclock being that you haven't done it before, make an informed decision before you decide which to do. Nowadays there are many protection mechanisms enabled that would prevent you from destroying the chip if you overclocked too much.

Chips have what's called a stock voltage, which is the default voltage on the chip. At that voltage you can generally pump up the front side bus, causing both your ram as well as your processor to run at higher speeds. Eventually you hit a speed that one of your coponents can't handle, at which point you can simply reset the bios and bump it down a bit. You won't even need to touch the voltage or make some of the other tweaks necessary to get more of an overclock, just reach your max and then put it a bit lower.

The point is that you would be doing a minimal overclock (literally as simple as going into your bios and changing one setting a bit) which will negligibly (if at all) raise your temperatures/reduce processor life expectancy.

Often times the mid range chip is the best bang for your buck because it can usually easily overclock to higher levels since it is basically the exact same chip though clocked a bit lower.

I hope that was at least a bit informative, and it's perfectly acceptable if you don't want to, but it's better if you know a bit about the subject before you decide

i could figure out why people just can't accept that not everyone overclocks. if the man doesnt want to overclock then thats his proagative. why do people feel like its their place to shove their opinons down other peoples throats?

 

[Filter]

because honeslty you shouldnt consider an fx series chipe unless yoru going to overclock. it.
people dont understand that. The reason it carries a higher price tag is because its unlocked. so its not totally fair to compare the chip unless your o/c it.

 

[Antheus]

because people often say "i don't plan to overclock" without making an informed decision. people come to the forums for advice, and I think it's pretty valid advice. I'm not saying go grab a watercooling setup and go for the highest overclock you can get, i'm informing him and letting him make his own decision. If I were in any way misinforming him then I could see a reason for you jump down my throat, but I don't think i am

 

[chrisf6969]

The [H] article states they compared a 2.93 XE Conroe to a Pentium D 965 XE and the Conroe was 50% faster across the board. But if you look at the slides, they say 2.66Ghz Core2 vs 965 3.73Ghz.

If thats the case, in a month you can buy a $300 processor thats 50% faster than the current top of line $1000 Pentium D processor. Which is already pretty fast. Just imagine what you can do with one overclocked to 3.2Ghz++. The fastest stock is 2.93 with 3.2Ghz coming next quarter, so we (OC'ers) should be able to hit 3.2Ghz easily.

 

[trxjw]

Just to jump in on the overclocking issue..

I understand the how the guy feels about overclocking. If you just spent $1800 - $2500 on a sweet new system and then accidently changed something you werent supposed to and toasted your new box, I dont think anyone would be too thrilled. Granted, there isn't a high risk of doing that if you start out slow, but the risk is still there for some people. Not everyone is comfortable making changes in the clocks and voltages and they shouldn't be convinced otherwise.

 

[Donnie27]

Just to jump in on the overclocking issue..

I understand the how the guy feels about overclocking. If you just spent $1800 - $2500 on a sweet new system and then accidently changed something you werent supposed to and toasted your new box, I dont think anyone would be too thrilled. Granted, there isn't a high risk of doing that if you start out slow, but the risk is still there for some people. Not everyone is comfortable making changes in the clocks and voltages and they shouldn't be convinced otherwise.

Intel processors don't burn like that. Please note that the other guy did say at stock voltage and only 267MHz. No one is going to kill an INTEL processor with that small of an overclock=P But I also disagree and think E6700 is fine just like it is without overclocking.

I must ride the fence here. I agree with folks who don't like and like to overclock.I finally un-overclock my 2.6C to quiet the system after 2 years 6 months of being overclocked3.2-3@1.55v. Many folks think my HTPC is water cooled it is so quiet.

I don't see anyone trying to force folks to overclock. Real overclockers don't like that.

 

[alan.p]

Don't. There are only a few that are compatible right now and they cost a bit of change. If you are waiting to buy the Conroe, wait to buy the motherboard, too.

I love the way that Intel makes you buy a whole new freakin' mobo for the exact same socket format, if you want a newer CPU. Really.

Can't you just flash the damn things, like the way you can flash old 939 boards to support dual-core?

My inner Mr Cynical suggests that this is deliberate on Intel's part, to sell more chipsets.

 

[Donnie27]

I love the way that Intel makes you buy a whole new freakin' mobo for the exact same socket format, if you want a newer CPU. Really.

Can't you just flash the damn things, like the way you can flash old 939 boards to support dual-core?

My inner Mr Cynical suggests that this is deliberate on Intel's part, to sell more chipsets.

So flash your Sc-939 and install an AM2?

In the past, it has sucked that Intel switch so many boards in too short of a time period. Yet, Intel forced NO ONE to do anything. I have an i875 and Northwood C. I had an option to buy Sc-754 but went Sc-939, it is out dated as hell after less than a year as well.

Conroe is worth a New board and even it were compatible and I had a i955 or etc., Looks like ATI's New board would get my money anyway.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Let's clear up the overclocking business. You overclock by increasing the front side bus (default 266MHz for Conroe). Once you reach the max FSB speed, you have to increase the ammount of voltage to the components in order to increase the FSB more. Running at out-of-spec clocks does not cause ANY damage to you CPU. Running at out-of-spec voltages will damage your CPU hella fast. This is why the Opterons were so popular, they hit 2.6GHz at stock voltage, basically free MHz and zero risk. It's totally worth it to overclock at stock volts since it's free speed at no risk. Based on preliminary numbers so far, it's looking like Conroe can approach 3GHz at stock voltage, you wouldn't mind free MHz would you? Really, you can spend $550 on a E6700, or you can spend $320 on an E6600, overclock the FSB by 30MHz, and you just saved yourself $220. I say go for the E6600.

Gosh, the "at no risk" phrase makes me feel like a salesman.

 

[jyi786]

Even though this thread went somewhat OT, it all comes down to this:

The guy doesn't want/prefer to OC. That's quite all right. It's why there are non-OC componentry out there to buy. Although from our standpoint it doesn't make sense at all.

Would you buy a Corvette as a daily beater "exclusively"? I don't think so. Same thing with OCing. We can use it as a daily beater AND race with it. Have your cake and eat it, too.