BF2S Forums A sure fire way to increase frame rate in BF2!!!

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

btw nice find and wrong section, conroe looks likes its gonna pwn amd big time... and taiwan always gets the best pc stuff first

The current stuff yes but wait till AM2 can we say pwned ?

AMD will give a demo in Computex (taiwan ) about AM2 proccessors. We also manufacture cpus,gpus and ram... why shouldnt we get them first

-=|BW|=-Hollow_Moon wrote:

The intel Conroe will probably run very hot though... buy liquid cooling today

it shouldnt be right?  the p4 runs hot because of clock speeds right?

Clock speed is part of the reason a processor runs hot.  There are numerous factors -- the fabrication process (90nm, 130nm, 65nm, etc.), the quality of the fabrication (current leakage), the amount of power it draws (1.4v compared to 2.5v years ago), and the speed the processor runs at (600MHz vs 3.6GHz).  Up until the release of the Prescott (and derivatives) core, Intel processors weren't running at high heat.  Their Northwood cores were one of the highly favored series as it overclocked exceptionally well, giving people a reason to get either a 2.4GHz or 2.6GHz processor and cranking the speed to 3GHz and beyond.  It made using an Intel a reasonable buy as you can overclock the processor while keeping it cooled with most decent 3rd-party heatsinks.

However, Intel started receiving harsh critics from both users and some review sites when their Prescott cores were released, citing that despite the addition of new features, a new core design, the 90nm fabrication process did not help the processor from heating up immensely.  Intel's dual-core processor also didn't help much either, as they were based on Prescott cores initially.  However, Intel learned from that, and sort-of went back to the drawing board.

The Yonah core, unless I am mistaken, is based on the Dothan core, which is derived from Banias, also known as the Pentium-M.  While its origin stems from the Penitum3 days, the core was designed specifically to be both efficient and consume less power.  However, work was done so that the Yonah core would operate efficiently as a dual-core solution.  As we all know, adding another core to a processor increases power consumption -- it only makes sense to ensure that power is only used absolutely where and when necessary.

Conroe is considered to be radically different from our usual Pentium4, Prescott, and Presler processors/cores.  With little time to do the research (haven't kept up with Intel stuff in a while), it's stated that the Conroe is designed from scratch and as such will be completely new in design, architecture, and efficiency.  To add to that, Conroe will be designed on a 14-stage pipeline instead of Prescott's 31-stage.  While this'll tone down on high clock speeds, what it makes up for is its efficiency in computing.  As demo'd by Intel as well as (p)reviewed by numerous tech sites around, the Conroe processor not only outperformed at such an early stage but also shows the most promise.  Factoring into this is the notion that the new core design will also add the best possibility for RAM scalability.  The faster the memory in terms of access speed, the better it may very well be utilized by Conroe (assuming their built-from-scratch fact is true; confirm please?).

The design philosphy behind Conroe is to run cooler, compute efficiently, and consume as little power as possible.  Sounds familiar?  It should.  The philosphy behind this is the same when Banias was first demo'd.

Overall, Conroe should not only run exceptionally cool but will also enable Intel to once again use all-aluminum heatsinks in their future products.

(partial ref: Wikipedia, searching on google would take too much time)

sixshot wrote:

Overall, Conroe should not only run exceptionally cool but will also enable Intel to once again use all-aluminum heatsinks in their future products.

Took the words right out of my keyboard..lol

99RAM2500, you don't know what you are talking about.  AMD isn't waiting for Intel and copying everything they do.

1. Yes Intel did release the first SIMD instruction set known as MMX.  However, MMX was a integer based SIMD instruction set.  AMD came out first with 3DNow!, which was a FP based SIMD.  Guess what, SSE is Intel's version of 3DNow!, so who is following whom?

2. AMD's Opteron series chips have done nothing but gain market share as their higher performance, lower costs, and lower thermals take Xeons to the cleaners.

3. AMD was the first to market with a 1GHz part.

4. AMD was first to market with a dual core processor.  Intel's dual core chips were haphazard responses to AMDs offerings.

5. AMD brough 64-bit to the x86 architecture.  Intel had no choice but to join on the bandwagon.

6. AMD was first to market with an on-die memory controller.  CPU makers have been looking to push more of the motherboard components onto the CPU.

You are obviously technically challenged, or a fanboi that can accept the fact that Intel isn't always the first to market with new technology, or the best chip for everything.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-05-04 13:24:47)

Hmm... ancient thread... as an old arcade game used to say ... "Awise fwom yo' gwave!"

Conroe pricing reference can be seen here should you have concerns over how expensive the processor will be upon launch.

I thought I had seen the last of this thread... but man... it's amusing to see one person's antic go against a bunch of tech nerds.   Amusingly enough, the thread was created prior to the karma system.  Uh oh... *sees army of Karma* here it comes... *runs for cover*

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

To the OP, I say...not really.  While Conroe is looking to be a very impressive chip, games like BF2, and most other games really, are GPU bound, not CPU bound.  Who spends that much money for that level of Conroe processor, then doesn't pair it up with a good video card.  The tests had to be done at low resolution to remove the video card as the bottleneck.  Once you start making the settings like you would when really playing the game, and not benchmarking a CPU, the video card becomes the performance determining factor.

I agree...

If Intel is outperforming AMD for similar or lower prices by the time my days of upgrading arrive (Q1 '07) come around, I might go Intel. It certainly wouldn't be the first one in my possession. However, my all bets currently lie with AMD for being the better choice.

Unlike some people, I don't make all my tech decisions based on the irritating "RUNS GREAT ON" promos seen in many games.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-04 16:33:48)