Discussions about Silent Computing
https://silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=29816
It was done by admin, as it wasn't me. I oppose the whole PC thing anyway. Feels to me like a job motivated by fanboism rather then by political correctness...TomZ wrote:Who renamed this thread? Is the new title more politically correct?
I have to agree that the new topic is more accurate. And sure, the original topic was sensationalist, but personally, I didn't think it was so bad it had to be changed (imo there are topics with worse names on these forums). I don't even think it was misleading considering the results from the benchmarks. After all, results were amazing from a processor that wasn't even going to be released in the next few months and yet it had huge lead in media encoding benchmarks and even in gaming. To be perfectly accurate the topic should be. "According to Anandtech, early engineering sample of Conroe @2.66Ghz beats FX-60 @2.8Ghz", but that would have obviously been too long.MikeC wrote:Yes, it was me, and it has nothing to do with political correctness or fanboyism. It has to do with wanting SPCR not to mislead anyone... not that this is really possible in a forum. "Conroe Destroys AMD" -- come on, talk about a flaming headline! It jumped at me on the front page everytime someone posted in the thread. The revised headline is simply more accurate.
Now, for the very first time,someone actually got hold of a Conroe chip in their own lab and did some tests. It was a 2.4GHZ Conroe (Link: CPU-Z) against an Athlon 64 overclocked to 2.8GHZ. The overclocked Athlon 64 had a 2.8/2.4 -1 = 16.7% clockspeed advantage...
Indeed... I've seen (read) that before.However, once you go over the 4MB limit, Conroe is slower than Athlon 64 at the same clock.
Just because somebody has a blog, doesn't make them an expert.MikeC wrote:The Journal of Pervasive 64 bit Computing has a piece entitled Conroe Busted in which Conroe performance claims (made by Intel w/ Anand's help) are scrutinized and found wanting.Now, for the very first time,someone actually got hold of a Conroe chip in their own lab and did some tests. It was a 2.4GHZ Conroe (Link: CPU-Z) against an Athlon 64 overclocked to 2.8GHZ. The overclocked Athlon 64 had a 2.8/2.4 -1 = 16.7% clockspeed advantage...
Check xtremesystems.org, they have a few samples there that are basically affirming Conroe's superiority.~El~Jefe~ wrote: they exist, obviously, even if only 10 were sent out to a few places, that would be way enough to get their stock flying high. And bios/mobo/chipset arguments really wouldnt matter as any manufacturer out there already would have a working mobo within 1-3% speed of the retail version.
Why? Intel already leads here, with Yonah beating the power consumption of low voltage Turions.I really think the low voltage am2 chips are going to be the key things that make people drop intel. consider the overclockability of ddr2 and 1/2 the wattage chips?
?with Yonah beating the power consumption of low voltage Turions.
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article313-page5.htmljaganath wrote:?with Yonah beating the power consumption of low voltage Turions.
LV Turions (MT-3X) have a TDP of 25W. Yonah (Core Duo/Solo) have TDP > 30W. Given that AMD's TDP is more reflective of actual max power dissipation than Intel, the gap is probably at least 10W.
The ML is volted at MT levels. MLs at normal voltage (1.35v) would be 35W.jaganath wrote:1) You said low voltage Turions; I took this to mean the MT-XX processors, not the ML-XX tested in the Desktop Power Survey.
It beats it in load and idle.2) Yonah only beat the ML-XX in idle, and then only by less than 1W.
you believe that blog? it's fanboy blog.MikeC wrote:The Journal of Pervasive 64 bit Computing has a piece entitled Conroe Busted in which Conroe performance claims (made by Intel w/ Anand's help) are scrutinized and found wanting.
Conroe's score is amazing.
Keep in mind that he tested both the Pentium-M optimized binary and the Pentium 4 binary. Out of both binaries, the Pentium 4 was faster. This is compiled with Intel's latest *publicly* available compiler.
Conroe is more similar to the Pentium-M than to the Pentium 4, but the binary doesn't utilize Conroe's wider resources. In *scalar* code, x87 code is generated by the Pentium 4 optimized binary because the Pentium 4 can't execute pipelined scalar sse adds, but can in x87 mode. (I had thought this was not the case but Intel's optimization guide says this is the case, I'm not sure if I 100% believe that, but given that x87 code was generated with the most aggressive flags possible -- sse/sse2 code was used sparingly in with some of the x87 code).
I imagine that if you ran the 64-bit binary Conroe's lead would widen even more.
What I am perplexed about is why Conroe bombs on the encryption code -- the entire instruction mix consists of BSWAP, XOR, and various MOV instructions, none of which are micro-coded on other processors, and no jump instructions. With Conroe's wide integer resources, I don't see why this is the case. I'm guessing there is an address generation limitation, but since I don't have a Conroe I can't really test that theory. It's a blind guess.
In any case, I see this as a *strong* showing for Conroe, not a weak one as the blogger claims. In the benchmarks that matter (BLAS, MolDyn, Primordia) Conroe is at least equal to if not exceeding an Athlon at the same clock speed. The fact that in 32-bit mode, an Athlon64 clocked 400 mhz higher cannot exceed Conroe's performance gap is telling.
I can't wait for a 64-bit run....
As it should be considering that the Athlon is a 3-year old CPU and Conroe is brand new.In the benchmarks that matter (BLAS, MolDyn, Primordia) Conroe is at least equal to if not exceeding an Athlon at the same clock speed.
*And not actually available yet!jaganath wrote:As it should be considering that the Athlon is a 3-year old CPU and Conroe is brand new*.
Nobody said the person was an expert.accord1999 wrote: Just because somebody has a blog, doesn't make them an expert.
