• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Question regarding Core 2 Duo processors

W

wilka91

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
81
Hi.

First of all, I'm a total newbie when it comes to the Conroe processor.

2 weeks ago I didn't even know what it really was, but as more and more people were talking about it, I felt like I had to get a look at some previews and benchmarks.

And I gotta say I was pretty impressed at the performance of the 6700 Core 2 Duo CPU when it was opposed to a Athlon64 FX-62, especially in video games!

But to be honest, my little brain doesn't understand how can a dual core processor beat the FX-62 in a game like FEAR or Half-Life 2. In my mind a game like any other software needs to be hyper threaded to take advantage of a dual core CPU, but all these benchmarks out there seem to be proving me wrong. In fact, how come an Athlon64 X2 4800+ doesn't take advantage of its structure in single threaded applications, while the Conroe does?????

Can you please explain it to me?

Thanks in advance.
 
It's quite complicated, but I'll try to make it as simple as possible... The Core2 Duo is MUCH more efficient than previous processors, including the FX series. The key word is efficiency, not delegation. These new processors don't utilize dual core-ness better than AMD's but each of their cores are more powerful. The Core2 is an extremely efficient archetecture, with a shorter instruction pipeline than previous Intel processors. What this means is, it takes less time for individual instructions to be completed, which translates to more instructions per clockcycle.

I'm sure someone can step in and give a huge technical dissection of the archetecture, but, that's beyond me, 22hrs after I woke up this morning :).
 
wilka91 said:
Hi.

First of all, I'm a total newbie when it comes to the Conroe processor.

2 weeks ago I didn't even know what it really was, but as more and more people were talking about it, I felt like I had to get a look at some previews and benchmarks.

And I gotta say I was pretty impressed at the performance of the 6700 Core 2 Duo CPU when it was opposed to a Athlon64 FX-62, especially in video games!

But to be honest, my little brain doesn't understand how can a dual core processor beat the FX-62 in a game like FEAR or Half-Life 2. In my mind a game like any other software needs to be hyper threaded to take advantage of a dual core CPU, but all these benchmarks out there seem to be proving me wrong. In fact, how come an Athlon64 X2 4800+ doesn't take advantage of its structure in single threaded applications, while the Conroe does?????

Can you please explain it to me?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Your comment doesn't make much sense to me Athlon FX 62 is also a Dual Core CPU.

Well how can the Athlon FX 62 beat the Pentium EE 965?

Core 2 Duo which is based on Core Architecture, which has higher IPC then even the K8 architecture that AMD uses. Which means in Single Threaded application Core 2 Duo will outperform previous architectures. Single Threaded performance isn't going to go away as important overnight, games still have quite a dependence on it.

Core 2 Duo's performance in games is not because it's a Dual Core, the Athlon FX 62 and Pentium EE 965 are both Dual Core as well, but don't have such great performance.
It's because Core Architecture provides even stronger Single Threaded performance then even K8 and certainly NetBurst.

If Conroe were a Single Core and had the right clock frequnecy and cache, it would still beat the Athlon FX 62 in gaming because of it's better Single thread performance. Though well coded MultiThreaded games like Quake 4 are the exception. Oblivion to some degree as well.
 
thanks. actually my question ws stupid because I had no idea the FX-62 was a dual core CPU.

but are there any benchmarks out there that show the performance of a Conroe processor against a single core Athlon64? that would be great.
 
wilka91 said:
thanks. actually my question ws stupid because I had no idea the FX-62 was a dual core CPU.

but are there any benchmarks out there that show the performance of a Conroe processor against a single core Athlon64? that would be great.
Click to expand...
There is no longer a point to this anymore.

The fastest Athlon Single Core is the Athlon FX 57. Which also operates at 2.8GHZ just like Athlon FX 62, so in games that don't need Dual Core, aka majority they will basically perform identically in those situations. Modified a tiny bit due to the fact that FX 62 can use DDR2 memory vs FX 57 using DDR1.
 
oh, okay, so the Conroe is really powerful even when it only uses 1 core!!! wow! :eek:

I guess I'll be buying my first ever Intel CPU soon! :D
 
wilka91 said:
oh, okay, so the Conroe is really powerful even when it only uses 1 core!!! wow! :eek:

I guess I'll be buying my first ever Intel CPU soon! :D
Click to expand...
Ya, me too. I havent used an INTEL chip since 2003 (P4 3.4GHz) I just hope this Conroe X6800 chip is all what intel says it is. I think It will be great to go back to INTEL for a while ;)
 
when i saw some of the first benches i put aside the money i had saved up for a X2 and a little extra and now im waiting to buy a conroe SFF

this will be my first intel cpu since my 386 and 486. I had a K6, K6-2, Thunderbird, Thuroughbred, and a A64. now im bailing on them, i feel bad...
 
newls1 said:
Ya, me too. I havent used an INTEL chip since 2003 (P4 3.4GHz) I just hope this Conroe X6800 chip is all what intel says it is. I think It will be great to go back to INTEL for a while ;)
Click to expand...


I haven't used an INTEL chip since an old P-II 300Mhz computer i had, also looking forward to going back to intel for a while :)
 
I've never had an intel processor. my first ever PC was running on a K6 (in 1998), then I had a Duron 1Ghz, AthlonXP 1800+ Palomino, 2400+ Thoroughbred, 2800+ Barton, and finally a 64 3400+ Newcastle
 
happy to head back to intel for a while, just got a core duo laptop and it rocks, can't wait to see the x6800 perform, i'm sure it'll be overkill.
 
My last Intel chip was a P-75 but this round I am coming back to the Intel camp. AMD might have kept me in their camp if they had dropped prices 2-3 months ago but now I might as well wait for the Conroe to come out.
 
savantu said:
Clock is ticking till july 27th. ;)
Click to expand...
HELL YA! I feel like I have no life. I've never been so happy for a chip to come out like this ever.. INTEL, please get them out soon!
 
Last intel was a .. wait, using it now. Yay Dothan, and a Yonah on the way. UPS better not drop it!

Still wondering if I *need* a conroe or not though. Opty165 does everything I need it to do, and more.
 
mwarps said:
Last intel was a .. wait, using it now. Yay Dothan, and a Yonah on the way. UPS better not drop it!

Still wondering if I *need* a conroe or not though. Opty165 does everything I need it to do, and more.
Click to expand...

pfft my last intel was a pentium 1 66mhz
:eek:
 
wilka91 said:
I've never had an intel processor. my first ever PC was running on a K6 (in 1998), then I had a Duron 1Ghz, AthlonXP 1800+ Palomino, 2400+ Thoroughbred, 2800+ Barton, and finally a 64 3400+ Newcastle
Click to expand...

You had a K6 and still had the balls to buy AMD again? Actually, I guess I did too, I went from an original pentium, to a K6, to a K6-2, and after the crashfests both of those were it was a Pentium 4 and I am not going to touch AMD again until they start making their own chipsets and prove they are as reliable as the Intel + Intel offerings.
 
NulloModo said:
Actually, I guess I did too, I went from an original pentium, to a K6, to a K6-2, and after the crashfests both of those were it was a Pentium 4 and I am not going to touch AMD again until they start making their own chipsets and prove they are as reliable as the Intel + Intel offerings.
Click to expand...

You missed the Athlon 64 generation. Some of the best chips ever made.

Jeff
 
playrh8r said:
You missed the Athlon 64 generation. Some of the best chips ever made.

Jeff
Click to expand...

I don't think it was the chips as much as the chipsets. I just don't like using third party chipsets, although I have heard the nVidia ones are decent.
 
NulloModo said:
I don't think it was the chips as much as the chipsets. I just don't like using third party chipsets, although I have heard the nVidia ones are decent.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here will deny that Intel makes the best chipsets for Intel CPU's ;)
I tried the K6-II on a VIA Mobo...never again..I say NEVER again! *L*
I always go Asus Mobo with Intel chipset and Intel CPU since that.

Terra - And untill something bad happens via that config, I won't change it :D
 
Terra said:
I don't think anyone here will deny that Intel makes the best chipsets for Intel CPU's ;)
I tried the K6-II on a VIA Mobo...never again..I say NEVER again! *L*
I always go Asus Mobo with Intel chipset and Intel CPU since that.

Terra - And untill something bad happens via that config, I won't change it :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I had a SiS chipset on the K6 and a Via on the K6-2. One thing I will say though, it had an unkillable hard drive. That thing was running in a dorm room with no AC that got above 100 degrees during the day, and I even tried to boot the machine after it had been in my car in sub freezing temps overnight and it wouldn't start because the HD was frozen, once it thawed out though, it ran like a charm. I just hope my current HDs can stand all that (knock on wood).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top