Conroe = par with AMD in gaming !

[rotten2dacore]

heh anyone else grin when they read the new conroe gaming review on the main page?

heh grats intel you finally made a good gaming pc.. but its only as good as the stuff already out.

knew those huge canned benchmarks were on the shaddy side of town.

granted Conroe may be great in encoding and other tasks but intel still cant dominate gaming atleast like AMD has.

4x4 for the gaming win soon.

ya its a happy amd fan post but its needed after listenign to intel people say conroe was the 2nd coming

[b1lk1]

When games become more CPU dependant, Conroe will make AMD bleed. But by then, AMD will have K8L out and they can counter Intel. It is a cat and mouse game. Right now, Intel is definitely that cat. They got theirs working first and they will reap the rewards. The sad thing is that alot of people with high end S939 dual core systems are upgrading to Conroe and it will not help their gaming experience at all. The GPU's do all the work. I was into benchmarking hardcore but have grown very tired of it and trying to keep up. That really is the only thing Conroe can bring to the table right now, increased benchmark scores. Once you get over 80FPS in games, I dare say noone could tell the difference. Conroe is great for S478/Socket A/S754 users to upgrade to, but us S939/AM2/S775 guys need not bother. Unless of course you love to spend money to make your E-penis look bigger on Futuremark or whatever benchmark makes you happy.

[HookeyStreet]

Unless of course you love to spend money to make your E-penis look bigger on Futuremark or whatever benchmark makes you happy.

LMFAO :roll:

[drade]

Yep Intel wins again..... I love it.... Im getting one soon...

[{JNT}Raptor]

Yep Intel wins again..... I love it.... Im getting one soon...

With your setup......It's a logical upgrade.......as stated above though......It's a useless upgrade for existing 939 machine owners.

It took Intel 2yrs.......and Intel owners have suffered Looooong enough. :D

[drade]

With your setup......It's a logical upgrade.......as stated above though......It's a useless upgrade for existing 939 machine owners.

It took Intel 2yrs.......and Intel owners have suffered Looooong enough. :D


Yes I mean upgrading to a conroe from my 478 will be a huge step in my opinion. One thing is iv'e always sticked intel to being my main priority, I want to go dual core amd for once, but saw how well this conroe is, changed my mind instantly. Im very excited to have one of these.

[Alec§taar]

See subject-line/title above, & take a peek @ ANY of the numerous reviews we cite here in the forums - the superiority of this CPU family is NOT solely restricted to gaming either...

:)

* Hey, I am currently an AMD user too (Intel as well in other system here)... do I like knowing that if I waited 3-6 months, I would have had to ABSOLUTE FASTEST THERE IS? No...

It's only a "temporary King of the Hill" status, anyhow - history in this field shows us that!

(BUT, we make do, w/ what we've got, & make the best of it (hence, o/c'ing & system tweak/hack/tune stuff, right?)).

Still, I had to suggest the Intel stuff above... Consistence across every review vs. CPU's like I have, & even the Fx-62 stuff from AMD is only showing me that Intel's got a good one this round!

APK

P.S.=> Nobody stays ontop forever, including Intel, & the past 2-3 years now have shown us this... someone said "cat & mouse" above, & were right, only a matter of time & work before AMD comes out w/ something 'that little bit better' in most areas vs. Intel! apk

[drade]

See subject-line/title above, & take a peek @ ANY of the numerous reviews we cite here in the forums - the superiority of this CPU family is NOT solely restricted to gaming either...

:)

* Hey, I am currently an AMD user too (Intel as well in other system here)... do I like knowing that if I waited 3-6 months, I would have had to ABSOLUTE FASTEST THERE IS? No...

It's only a "temporary King of the Hill" status, anyhow - history in this field shows us that!

(BUT, we make do, w/ what we've got, & make the best of it (hence, o/c'ing & system tweak/hack/tune stuff, right?)).

Still, I had to suggest the Intel stuff above... Consistence across every review vs. CPU's like I have, & even the Fx-62 stuff from AMD is only showing me that Intel's got a good one this round!

APK

P.S.=> Nobody stays ontop forever, including Intel, & the past 2-3 years now have shown us this... someone said "cat & mouse" above, & were right, only a matter of time & work before AMD comes out w/ something 'that little bit better' in most areas vs. Intel! apk

Correct, technology moves fast and freely. I hate waiting with a passion, but conroe just opened my eyes. Im not saying amd sucks at all, I got an amd turion laptop I love it! Amd athalon xp 3000+ love it. I mean just new stuff is always better, but it movess so fast it aint even funny.

[magibeg]

I've already begun saving up for a nice little conroe system. Going to go with the E6600 (the extreme edition is a bit out of my price range) then i'ld just have to wait out for a few months until vista (hopefully) gets released along with the new dx10 video cards :D. Next few years are going to be good i hope

[tigger]

ave you seen the benchies on toms hardware

if people thought intel was gunna take amd's thrashing lying down they were wrong.i've had an amd system and it was ok,but my current pent d is better.i am not biased either way.if amd come up with a better chip i will switch to that too.that connis IS impressive tho.65watt max power on all connies.

[rotten2dacore]

The Core 2 Extreme X6800 has been overclocked to 5.2GHz by Coolaler and set a SUB 10 SECOND SuperPi_1M run! The record now stands at 9.828 seconds

[Cj_Staal]

That happened a while ago with a ES.

[gR3iF]

no its done several time that someone pwnend on conroe 10 seks in 1m super pi

please be up to date read www.xtremesystems.com



AND the conroe is doing well against any amd cpu a 6600 beats a fx-62 in all test

price: 6600=330 euro fx-62=1000 euro



any questions?

[gR3iF]

update:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59753
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=107212
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=107206
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=107203
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=106772&page=2
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=106285
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=106685



Any Questions Any Comments Any Cups?

[Cj_Staal]

noice, I deserve a beating. I'm getting a 6600 since it's the cheapest with a 4mb cache, and obviously pwns :)

[gR3iF]

jup its like a 3700 which was a fx-57 ^^

i will get the same cpu too end of this month

[Alec§taar]

See subject-line/title above, & this URL below for a read:

Intel E6700 Core 2 Duo : Introducing the new Core:

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=459

:)

* Off to read it myself over a cup of coffee, while the brain begins its "Boot Process" here today...

APK

P.S.=> Guys, I am convinced by this point (by the sheer weight of the numbers in TONS of reviews from many sites) that Intel's got a serious "winner" & new kingpin of CPU's coming out in this new CONROE family...

INTEL's "Conroe's" just consistently win across the boards on most all of the tests I have seen (especially the "HIGH-END" model in the E6800)... not just gaming ones, but all others as well in all categories.

E.G.-> When I see the CPU I have coming in mid to near last (if NOT last) on these tests? It almost "boggles the mind" to me how quick these new CPU's must be... kid you not! apk

[rotten2dacore]

AND conroe oc-ed like heaven...

[gR3iF]

JUP ;P


you have problems to push a amd over 3 gig and the first people oced there conroes no es
to 4 gig on air

[rotten2dacore]

I'm going to build a new computer, 4 my brother during the price war between Intel and AMD. In order to AMD to compete, they must lower the FX line to a lower price than Intel's Core Duo 2 processor. Looks like the E6600 out perform FX-62 in 9 out of 10 tests. Since, E6600 will be priced around $320, I will only go for FX-62 if it is about $290 or cheaper.

What do you think?

[gR3iF]

the 6600 its for me just the fact that you can clock that intel way higher even on air

[Tatty_One]

Yep Intel wins again..... I love it.... Im getting one soon...

When you say "again" can you remind me the last time they won?

[tigger]

i'm not sure but i think it was the pIII coppermine intel last won with,the conroe has a touch of pIII and netburst i believe.
forgive me if i am wrong lol

[gR3iF]

the p4 the first p4 on intels 478 socket was way faster then amds first durons and palomino core only the athlon xp with barton core was a good challenge for the p4

[15th Warlock]

When you say "again" can you remind me the last time they won?

I remembe Cyrix taking the performance crown from Intel for a very short time with the 686 processor (this was way before VIA bought Cyrix), which was faster than the Pentium 166Mhz procs of the day, then Intel introduced the 233Mhz Pentium proc with MMX, and they "won" the top place again :p

[Alec§taar]

When you say "again" can you remind me the last time they won?

Well, prior to say, 2-3 years ago? It was INTEL ALL THE WAY, as far back as I can remember, for the most part, thru the Pentium I/II era...

That is, until around 1997-1998, when AMD put out the first Athlons, @ around 500-600mhz iirc... they were a "revolution of the mind" imo!

Now, even FARTHER back?

You can count the 486 era, & Cyrix +IBM iirc, did also put out the FIRST "Dx/2 80" cpu then, 40mhz clock crystal cycle oscillated & doubled!

All to beat the LONGEST REIGNING SPEED CHAMP I CAN RECALL - The Intel Dx/2 66mhz (33mhz clock oscillated & doubled)!

* Some things, however, ran FASTEST on TRUE Dx/50 CPU's (true 50mhz clock crystal oscillated) though in the 486 era! However, I cannot recall which things (memory oriented ops? Not sure anymore, been SO long!)

As far as Dx/4 133mhz on 486's (fastest there was iirc & the "end-of-the-line" for that cpu type)?

IIRC, Cyrix did one also (still have one, it flies, considering it can run Windows NT 3.51 on it to this day) for "Wintergreen overdrives" (cyrix designed @ least iirc w/ working w/ IBM)

Not 110% sure here on THIS account (the chip I still have is covered by a heatsink attached to its surface, & I cannot read it anymore)...

AMD also did a Dx4/120 iirc, but this I am "hazy" on!

All were in response to Intel "Clock tripled" Dx/4 120mhz cpu's iirc, after the Dx/2 80 started beating Dx/2 Intel 66mhz cpu's...

:)

* "Oldster" here... BUT, I absolutely LOVED that timeframe though (circa 1991-1995 or so)!

(It was when imo, I learned the MOST about this lunacy on ALL levels, @ the highest "%-per-day" ratio... I could NOT learn enough!)

APK

P.S.=> Hope I have my "facts" straight up there, I am operating off memory alone!

If I am "off" anyplace above guys, DO correct me, thanks!

(And... things DO fade over time, & imo, the more you pack more & more details into your head, lol!)... apk

[_33]

I think the title is misleading. It should read "Conroe takes gaming performance crown". Thoe Conroe is definately not perfect; proven by test of RAID arrays and various I/O comparisons where AMD and P4 leads gracefully.

I read that loading times with Conroe are longer. So basically, you get a cool smooth game experience with excessive loading time. Tradeoff or turnoff?

[Alec§taar]

I think the title is misleading. It should read "Conroe takes gaming performance crown". Thoe Conroe is definately not perfect; proven by test of RAID arrays and various I/O comparisons where AMD and P4 leads gracefully.

Yea, it's doubtful they lead ALL tests, but, iirc? For example, they didn't outdo other CPU's in ALL of the photoshop tests in the url I put up of a test today on the last page of this thread... but, check it yourself & see if you wish (could be wrong - I've only read thru a dozen of them the past 2-3 weeks as most of you have probably too, lol).

BUT, they are tending to win MOST of the tests across the boards, @ least that's what I've seen/noted from the tons of reviews on them lately in comparison to the "top-contenders" from AMD & it left that impression on me!

(Especially for me, when compared to the CPU I do run now on this system in my sig below - seeing it come in mid to last in tests? Blows me away & makes me wonder just HOW fast these new cpu's from Intel TRULY ARE!)

I read that loading times with Conroe are longer. So basically, you get a cool smooth game experience with excessive loading time. Tradeoff or turnoff?

Tradeoff, minor one, imo @ least... why? You can offset it w/ RAID 0 stripes setups I would imagine, but you mention them LOSING in RAID tests as well??

Hmmmm.... I know this MIGHT be a pain to produce, but can you show me such a result in a test comparison about them losing in RAID 0 setups?

"TIA!"

APK

[Cj_Staal]

Easy, get a RAID card :)

[Tatty_One]

the p4 the first p4 on intels 478 socket was way faster then amds first durons and palomino core only the athlon xp with barton core was a good challenge for the p4

But the P4 was not a budget chip and U R comparing it with the duron amongst others, you can only compare the early celeron's with those and they were crap, now the xp Barton core was a challenge for the P4 but correct me if I am wrong...the palermo was origionally pitched against the P3, the P4 came out after and "spanked" it, well at least until the Bartons arrived in 2003 I think.

If we are going that far back to compare like with like I would suggest that AMD have been the front runner at least for the last 3 years which IMO is no mean feat considering their humble roots and the fact that Intel were always considered the leaders of CPU technology.

[15th Warlock]

The last AMD processor to run behind the Pentium 4 was the Athlon XP 3200+
If memory serves me well, all hardware reviewers were asking AMD to check their performance rating system, since the 3.06Ghz P4 beat the 3200+ in almost every benchmark, some months later AMD introduced the Athlon 64, and the rest, as ppl say, is history :)

[cjoyce1980]

wow! intel makes a processor that is good for 5mins. You are forgetting that this 64-bit processor has not be tested with the OS that it is ment for. why be silly and by now, when you can wait until vista is released and see which processor and graphics card combo works the best.

I have a funny feeling all these intel fanboys will be switch come vista launch time. K8L is due later this year with K9 due around the launch of vista. I think intel are gonna be playing catch up yet again.

also its widely known that mircosoft and amd have been close since early WinXP days, makes you wonder why K9 launch is soon near vista release.

[Alec§taar]

See subject-line/title above!

:)

* I use both as far as CPU's (currently) !

As far as the NVidia/ATI thing + "blatant fanboyism"?

I have used ATI, decent stuff (9800XT I had 2002-2003 iirc - for sale in the "Buy/Sell/Trade section" here in fact), but I definitely AM a "NVidia fanboy"!

(Mainly because of the words of John Carmack while developing Doom III - "I like what they do with their drivers vs. ATI" more-or-less accurate quotation/point is there)...

APK

[15th Warlock]

wow! intel makes a processor that is good for 5mins. You are forgetting that this 64-bit processor has not be tested with the OS that it is ment for. why be silly and by now, when you can wait until vista is released and see which processor and graphics card combo works the best.

I have a funny feeling all these intel fanboys will be switch come vista launch time. K8L is due later this year with K9 due around the launch of vista. I think intel are gonna be playing catch up yet again.

also its widely known that mircosoft and amd have been close since early WinXP days, makes you wonder why K9 launch is soon near vista release.

What are you talking about? Vista will be released for both 32bit and 64bit platforms, both versions will support AMD and Intel processors, so I don't see what's your point :confused:

[_33]

Yea, it's doubtful they lead ALL tests, but, iirc? For example, they didn't outdo other CPU's in ALL of the photoshop tests in the url I put up of a test today on the last page of this thread... but, check it yourself & see if you wish (could be wrong - I've only read thru a dozen of them the past 2-3 weeks as most of you have probably too, lol).

BUT, they are tending to win MOST of the tests across the boards, @ least that's what I've seen/noted from the tons of reviews on them lately in comparison to the "top-contenders" from AMD & it left that impression on me!

(Especially for me, when compared to the CPU I do run now on this system in my sig below - seeing it come in mid to last in tests? Blows me away & makes me wonder just HOW fast these new cpu's from Intel TRULY ARE!)



Tradeoff, minor one, imo @ least... why? You can offset it w/ RAID 0 stripes setups I would imagine, but you mention them LOSING in RAID tests as well??

Hmmmm.... I know this MIGHT be a pain to produce, but can you show me such a result in a test comparison about them losing in RAID 0 setups?

"TIA!"

APK

OK, well here's a funny article about the RAID lag (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32842) issue. Let me find some benchiez..... Ahem.... (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32842), still looking... Soon... (http://www.short-media.com/extendednews.php?n=5194)....... argh.... (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32818)

There are a good bunch of credible info about RAID issues with the conroe, as the processor is involved in RAID 5 operation for parity check. Maybe a RAID card would do the trick, or maybe not(?)... A solution would have to pop up for that.

But I'll keep checking for benches, but I'm sure I saw a PCmark bench and it was a disaster.

[_33]

Check this out, how AMD spanks (big word) (http://xtreview.com/review115.htm) in IO operations...

The hard drive chipset in not directly cpu related the chipset here play a big role.it is clear that the new amd am2 chipset is better optimized than all others.borth cpu conroe e6600 and intel 955XE show prety same performance , they are sharing the same platform (motherboard) and chipset

...seriously...

The raid problems is supposed to be on B0 steppings with Woodcrest. The C stepping is the 965 chipset.

But we still havent heard about the raid issues anywhere else than theinq. And its abit odd on released products (woodcrest) and when every OEM and alot of people got older stepping Core 2 Duos, but nobody have said a single word (http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42134)

...AND....

Intel hints that Conroe is going to release at B-2 Stepping as Intel Core 2 Duo processor. As for the previous version, a problem was found to make the system full loaded. It’s only solved in the new stepping. We don’t encourage anyone to buy the engineering sample from the web. The retail version is going to release in the end of this month, and it’s much stable.

Further, some of the manufacturers noticed that the released Intel P965 chipset has got the expected performance from Fast Memory Access technology, performing the same as i975X with DDR2 800. Intel has promised to fix the problem in the next P965 C-2 Stepping, and is expected to release in late July.

With regard to the reports on the weak performance of G965, sources indicate that it is because the driver hasn’t been finished. It’s not the stage to make any conclusion yet. Intel scheduled to add DVMT 256MB support in v14.21, releasing on July 13, Pixel Shader 3.0 and T&L support in v14.24, and Hardware Geometry (Vertex Shader 1.1/2.0) support in v14.26, where v14.26 is expected to be the final version. Besides, G965 has stepped in C-1 Stepping, yet there are still some problems to be fixed. We expected G965 would be releasing at C-2 Stepping. It’s very soon to the releasing day (July 23), but it seems the progress is still far away from expected. Whether G695 could release on time is a big question!

Fig.1 Inte Core 2 Duo (Conroe)B2-Stepping QDF, Product Code and MM Code
Fig.2 Schedule on Intel G965 and 946GZ driver update


source (http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=627088)

[v-zero]

the p4 the first p4 on intels 478 socket was way faster then amds first durons and palomino core only the athlon xp with barton core was a good challenge for the p4
Actually, the original socket 423 P4 was a complete pile of sh*t and got beaten by Durons, Thunderbirds and the P3.
The 478 class were originally slow too, and only found real form with the advent of 130nm and the Northwood C cores, bringing the 800mhz fsb...
The Palomino core was the last of the 180nm chips from AMD, and was the basis for the Athlon XP up until the 2200+ was released, at which time Thoroughbred A (the poorer brother of the B revision) was released on 130nm. I had a Palomino 2100+, it got hot, but clocked to 2400+ without problems...
The Athlon XP was able to sucessfully compete with the P4 until the 2.4C and co. started killing it for AMD. The lack of SSE2 hurt the Athlon XP more than the clock scaling, without that feature it was destined to die...

Now we're in the here and now, and let's face it... Intel have just given AMD one hell of a beating, and on July 24th AMD will have some price dropping to do...

[_33]

Actually, the original socket 423 P4 was a complete pile of sh*t and got beaten by Durons, Thunderbirds and the P3.
The 478 class were originally slow too, and only found real form with the advent of 130nm and the Northwood C cores, bringing the 800mhz fsb...
The Palomino core was the last of the 180nm chips from AMD, and was the basis for the Athlon XP up until the 2200+ was released, at which time Thoroughbred A (the poorer brother of the B revision) was released on 130nm. I had a Palomino 2100+, it got hot, but clocked to 2400+ without problems...
The Athlon XP was able to sucessfully compete with the P4 until the 2.4C and co. started killing it for AMD. The lack of SSE2 hurt the Athlon XP more than the clock scaling, without that feature it was destined to die...

Now we're in the here and now, and let's face it... Intel have just given AMD one hell of a beating, and on July 24th AMD will have some price dropping to do...

But, my current overclocked 2.8ghz Venice (0,09 micron) is barely twice as fast as my previous Athlon XP 1800 (0,18 micron) at 1.54ghz, thanks to that memory controller and extra caches.

[v-zero]

But, my current overclocked 2.8ghz Venice (0,09 micron) is barely twice as fast as my previous Athlon XP 1800 (0,18 micron) at 1.54ghz, thanks to that memory controller and extra caches.
That supports my point... Why the "but"?

[b1lk1]

There is no doubt Intel is about to hand AMD their asses. Conroe is the king. Anyone that cannot see that is a fool. I do believe the speed is wasted in anything but benchmarking as most games are GPU dependant. In the next year or so when games are written to take advantage of the CPU more it will shine then. Either way, price dropping is AMD's only weapon and it should hold them over until K8L comes out. All I can say is that it better be as good as they say as Intel is definitely taking over for awhile. Seems like yesterday my AMD64 system was the top dog..................... LOL!!!!

[WarEagleAU]

When games become more CPU dependant, Conroe will make AMD bleed. But by then, AMD will have K8L out and they can counter Intel. It is a cat and mouse game. Right now, Intel is definitely that cat. They got theirs working first and they will reap the rewards. The sad thing is that alot of people with high end S939 dual core systems are upgrading to Conroe and it will not help their gaming experience at all. The GPU's do all the work. I was into benchmarking hardcore but have grown very tired of it and trying to keep up. That really is the only thing Conroe can bring to the table right now, increased benchmark scores. Once you get over 80FPS in games, I dare say noone could tell the difference. Conroe is great for S478/Socket A/S754 users to upgrade to, but us S939/AM2/S775 guys need not bother. Unless of course you love to spend money to make your E-penis look bigger on Futuremark or whatever benchmark makes you happy.


ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

I couldnt have said it any better myself ::Wipes tears of laughter from his eyes:: Funniest thing Ive heard in years!

[Alec§taar]

See subject-line/title above first, & then check it, tell me what you think (because that article is RAID 5 specific first of all, from what I read & unless I missed something? It's NOT as "bad" as you guys think! Read on...):

Maybe a RAID card would do the trick, or maybe not(?)... A solution would have to pop up for that.

I think I have THE solution already, in my signature in fact...

A PCI-e x4 Promise SuperTrak EX8350 128mb ECC Ram Caching Controller w/ Intel I-O cpu

:)

Why?

It shows 0% cpu usage setup the way it is running 2 Raided Western Digital Raptor "X"'s 16mb buffer x2 (32mb total) 10,000 rpm SATA diskdrives on Windows Server 2003 SP #1, fully hotfix-patched!

(It's using a well-written filtering/interception type driver & reading/writing the disk using LBA using BIOS int 0x13, function 0x42 (a.k.a IBM’s int 13 extensions))

All calls for Disk I/O are then run thru it's own onboard Intel I/O processor (disallowing the system CPU to perform those functions instead, offloading it & increasing its performance in other areas which are CPU-intensive as well))!

We did a test here in fact that illustrates it, cleanly.

(Uses even less CPU than my CENATEK RocketDrive does (@3% cpu usage), where my RAID 0 setup & beat that Seagate 'perpendicular recording' disk in that area of the tests (took 2/3 vs. Seagate (@4% cpu usage) - won BIG on readspeed though, it has MASSIVE "aerial platter density"))

See here, for tests we ran on HDTach:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=13650

(See/refer to HDDTach output on the 2nd from the bottom-most screenshot of test results in the final posting vs. INSTG8R's Seagate perp. recording tech disk)...

************************************************** ****************

* Still, interesting: Intel's "Mighty Achilles" NEW CPU appears to have a heel, & It's in RAID'd Disk I/O...

(That is, unless he's setup with Boots(trapping) like I have here on Pci-e x4 hi-volume slots for disk I/O 128mb cached & 16mb buffered disks ontop of that in RAID 0 with fast seeks & 0% cpu usage)...

APK

P.S.=> REMEMBER THOUGH, from the articles @ TheInquirer - THIS "excessive cpu usage hassle" (still does the job, only eats CPU like mad) ONLY SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING ON RAID 5 ARRAYS, not other raid'd levels!

It appears to be more of a mobo SATA onboard firmwares issue + SO FAR, only tested w/ a IBM ServeRAID controllers showing this problem: Most likely? This is easily fixed too, via a RAID Firmware "flashing"... quick, software redesign!

(So, unless I missed something while reading? This is NOT as bad as folks think... & not for ALL types of RAID apparently!)

Still, if I ever go to Intel again, & on variants of that CPU family in the future?

This controller's going to be going into those rigs... bank on that!

IMO @ least, because of this possible "issue" & absolute LACK of System CPU use, even driving a RAID 0 setup (dodging this issue completely, until future revisions of these CPU fix it, & they doubtless will next round imo - OR fix the mobo circuitry to work around this even faster, another possible here)!

You agree?

apk

[gR3iF]

i guess i can feel out some fps difference

its just for me gaming is something special atm iam playing css on a really high level css is on my system ugly like cs 1.5 so the work is done by cpu even on this pentium d i have sometimes fps downs even though in my fps windows it shows 100fps

i hope conroe is getting this downs or even fps drops away

[Tatty_One]

Most games ARE GPU dependant but ALL GPU's ARE CPU dependant so those using this argument are flawed, if the CPU cannot pass the info to the GPU quick enough you are only using a % of the GPU's potential hence the term "throttling".

Anyone, and I only use it as an example, who has got an ATI 1800XT or Nvidia 7800 and above will have throttling for example if they run an athlon 64 3000 or P4 3.0 @ stock speeds in games, many reviews will support this and it is because of this reason I could never quite understand why a good friend of mine who has a Barton 2800 @stock speeds runs an 7900GTX, he is probably only using about 50% of it's capability in games! If the CPU cannot supply the GPU at the GPU's maximum bandwidth you just aint gonna get the most out of your card IMO.

[tigger]

am i right in thinking this is why they test the cpu in games by running the tests at low resolution?.
fmiiw.

[gR3iF]

jup thats in most times the way