Spring IDF 2006 Conroe Preview: Intel Regains the Performance Crown
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 7, 2006 3:58 PM EST- Posted in
- Trade Shows
F.E.A.R. Performance
F.E.A.R. gets its own page for a couple of reasons:
1) It's the only gaming benchmark that we're using that doesn't use an Intel provided demo. This is the same demo we use in our tests.
2) The integrated test tool reports Min, Avg and Max results, and three graphs take up more room than one.
We ran with all of the effects settings at Maximum and the graphics settings at Highest defaults. Updated: As we've described in our follow-up article, there was an issue with the original F.E.A.R. results that has since been fixed. The charts below have been updated.
First up - the average frame rate:
If you had any doubts about the results on the previous page, this one should convince you. Even when running a non-Intel created demo, Conroe offers a 20% performance advantage over the 2.8GHz Athlon 64 X2.
The advantage exists in both the minimum and maximum frame rates as well:
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
220 Comments
View All Comments
mircea - Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - link
I think that Intel did this to bite on AMD's recen jump in desktop retail sales. With soo much press from now until release putting Intels' new CPU above AMD it will mkae it a hard decision for some. Plus I don't think AMD would be soo much out of the know if Intell would just show this a week before release. I bet AMD and Intell know the ballpark figures of the competitions release in the upcoming 6-8 months. Of course AMD couldnot have known this a year ago when Intell gave up on Netburst even more when I'm sure Intell was already working on this when or just after AMD released the 64. But then jut like upgrading, trying to beat the competition on each generation would mean huge refresh cycles, and never released chips. Intell proved it can't keep up the pace for each generation. Amd cought up this one, and in doing so let Intell "breathing room" to work on the next one since it was useless to compete in teh current one.JackPack - Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - link
It's far, far too late for an AMD response this year. After a redesign and tapeout, it'll take a year before production silicon is ready. Even respins alone take 3-4 months and masks cost millions of dollars.Quad-core Clovertown/Kentsfield should have taped out already if they're intending for for a Q4'06-Q1'07 release.
No, any serious design work going on now at Intel or AMD is for 2nd gen-quad core.
Samus - Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - link
that is very impressive. intel might have convinced me to built an intel-processor system, my first in years.Powermoloch - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
seriously, it's amazing to see intel's new chip can do alot more for less ghz. Dayum :O !!!fsardis - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
i suppose the comparison isnt fair for another reason. the chipsets are not the same. if for example they tested both cpus on the same chipset such as nf4 i am sure it would further close the gap.coldpower27 - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
Why do this Intel's own chipsets tend to be the most stable and great performing for their processors?Questar - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
By what, 1%? 3%? 5%?You're not getting 40% from a chipset.
munky - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
First, I'd like to see Intel with a 40% lead in some official benches. The performance lead Intel is trying to show off seems too good to be true.Questar - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
We will all have that chance in a few months.But, as many people have pointed out, why would Intel try to pull a fast one? It's not like they wouldn't get found out.
UNCjigga - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link
Besides Intel's 975x at launch, what other chipsets can we expect to see? Any ATI RD6xx or Nforce 5xx ready at launch? Anything from SiS or VIA?