Intel's Conroe CPU overclocked - phenomenal results!

Intel's Conroe CPU overclocked - phenomenal results!

Summary: It seems that AMD might be in for a rough ride. A very rough ride. The overclocked pre-production Conroe CPUs are producing insane results - over 4.0GHz!

TOPICS: Processors

It seems that AMD might be in for a rough ride.  A very rough ride.

Last week AMD announced their 4x4 A stock 2.4GHz Conroe can be overclocked to a whopping 4.0GHz, outperforming everything that AMD currently have, even the FX-62architecture that combined two dual-code CPUs and two dual-GPU graphics cards.  I made a comment that I thought that this sounded an awful lot like a stop-gap announcement because AMD didn't have a product that could directly compete with the Intel Conroe.  Well, it seems that even their stop-gap isn't going to last that long ...

Enthusiasts have taken pre-production Intel Conroe 2.4 GHz CPUs and overclocked them and the results are more than impressive, they're amazing.  A stock 2.4GHz Conroe (E6600) can be overclocked to a whopping 4.0GHz, outperforming everything that AMD currently have, even the FX-62. 

OK, you might say, but what happens when the FX-62 is overclocked?  Surely that must give the Conroe a run for it's money?  Afraid not.  While it's possible to overclock the FX-62 up to around 3.6GHz, this takes some serious cooling to avoid stability issues, whereas it seems that the Conroe will only need to be water-cooled (don't try this with a standard air-cooled setup!).  Want even more power still?  Then take a 2.66GHz Conroe (E6700) and overclock to a whopping 4.26GHz!

What does mean?  Well, it's seriously bad news for AMD.  The FX-62 is a $1,000 CPU, and now Intel have a CPU (it is rumored that it will cost around $300 at launch) that basically makes it obsolete.  It also makes 4x4 a moot point too - who is going to bother with a twin dual-core AMD setup when they can buy one low-cost CPU from Intel and overclock it to get far superior performance?

This power seems to be translating into results - the tests using Super Pi (a program which calculates the value of Pi to an incredibly high number of decimal digits) shows that the Conroe is nearly twice as fast as as an overclocked FX-62.  Gaming performance is also superior to the FX-62 (the benchmark results for Far Cry are insane).  And there figures aren't even for overclocked Conroes!

I know that a lot of AMD fans are going to find these figures hard to believe (I don't think that I'm going to truly believe them until I see it for myself) but there's little doubt in my mind that Intel is going to leapfrog ahead of AMD with these CPUs. The worse part for AMD is that there's little they can do about it until they get chips based on 65 nanometer out of the door, which will be towards the end of this year. Until then it seems that Intel has the field all to themselves. I'm left wondering how overclocking enthusiasts with a loyalty to AMD are going to react to this. Are we going to see hardcore AMD fans shifting to Intel (which I would imagine is what Intel are hoping for), or will they wait and see how AMD responds? IF thy're willing to wait, how long will they wait?

However, the real question though is this, how will AMD respond?

Topic: Processors

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Yeah, but AMD got hypertransport and other good things

    Performance, schmerformance - what ya want is hypertransport and the other thingy. Intel only be closing da gap.

    Sorry, I lost the script and it's sunday.
    • You can't eat off hypertransport

      I don't care what the AMD marketing guys tell you, hypertransport won't make you grow hair and it won't make you lose weight. It certainly won't buy you better results in synthetic or real world benchmarks. The mid-end Conroe 2.4 makes AMD's newest FX-62 obsolete.
      • In addition to that...

        ...HyperTransport technology is worthless on the desktop. It shines in being able to provide fast, effective, point-to-point CPU communication in massively parallel systems (4-way and higher, I'd assume).

        Although, I think we missed the punch line, George. ;)
  • That could be just how AMD respond!

    ... or "We got 4x4"!
    Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
  • Not just the overclocked Conroe 2.4, but the stock 2.4

    " A stock 2.4GHz Conroe (E6600) can be overclocked to a whopping 4.0GHz, outperforming everything that AMD currently have, even the FX-62"

    No, not just the overclocked 4 GHz Conroe. The stock 2.4 GHz Conroe murders the AMD FX-62! That's scary.
    • There's a reason I'm being conservative ...

      ... and that's because I've not seen any 64-bit benchmarks yet. AMD's been pretty good there in the past so they could still have an advantage there. Overclocked there's no doubt that Conroe wins ...
      I'm still building an AMD X2 5000 system ... I've had a good deal on the parts and it'll be plenty powerful. But I might also build a Conroe too ...
      Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
      • Oh please.

        64-bit benchmarks are meaningless, there is very little, if any performance gained by going 64-bit.

        [url=]64-bit benchmark[/url]

        • Hey! Allow me to be fair!

          Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
  • Now TWO George Ou's


    Come back when you get real, impartial, and independent labs with real, impartial, and independent test results! Then we can begin to have a reasonable discussion on CPU's.

    Until then, this whole argument is bogus.
    • With that much overclocking known...

      ... anyone selling Conroe's with an air cooling system should be sued for the demolished CPU's that can be expected.

      Also, expect a lot of overclock control software.
      Anton Philidor
      • Who knows ...

        ... it might make water-cooling more mainstream.
        More overclock control software would be nice!
        Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
    • What makes you think that ...

      ... these tests aren't:


      Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
      • It's simple.

        He thinks that because AMD isn't winning. :)
  • Real investigative reporting!

    Congradulations on using a random messageboard user for results of a yet to be released product's abilities. What happens when this is a hoax? You can make those graphics with MSPaint.

    This is why people are skeptical.
    glocks out
    • Not just random users ...

      It's not just one forum. Do a search, there are several. These users that are carrying out this testing are more than likely to be genuine. They have a past history of breaking test results for a number of products. They've got little to gain and a lot to lose from faking data.
      I have little doubt that these figures are a true representation of the capabilities of the hardware that these user have access to.
      I've looked carefully at the screenshots that they offer and I can see no evidence of any tampering or manipulation.
      When Conroe comes out, then we'll know for sure, although I'm convinced that there will be a minority that don't believe, refuse to believe or start clutching to the next thing that AMD will come out to beat there new processors.
      Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
    • *cough*

      [url=]Knock[/url] yourself out with some real investigative reporting, from one of the most renowned IT sites on the internet. Oh shits, suddenly those random forum board users and their benchmarks are legitimate. Damn.
      • Those results are almost identical to what I saw initially

        Saw those earlier - It starts off good for AMD, with the FX-62 beating the 6800.
        One thisng I will say about the AMD - the memory bandwidth is impressive.
        I can't wait to benchmark the Conroe myself!
        Adrian Kingsley-Hughes