Beautiful Conroe

Radio91PRadio91P Layton, UT New
edited October 2006 in Hardware
I just got my new board and CPU last night. I through it together and started to overclock. HOLY CRAP!@ 2.96GHZ without changing the voltage!

That is some amazing stuff!

Radio:celebrate

Comments

  • edited September 2006
    Yeah, don't you just love these new processors from Intel! :D
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Yeah I found my 3.0Ghz clock to run very stable until I tired to play anything from Valve, Once I dropped below 2.73Ghz things ran fine again... I am not really sure why it is doing this?

    I love this new Conroe CPU, but my chip allegiance is still with AMD :)

    TBH I am having trouble seeing huge performance differences vs the e6400 clocked at 2.80Ghz vs and FX-62 CPU. I have them running side by side and in most cases they seem to run very much the same. I don't do much video or audio encoding so those aspects of the chip don't really appeal to me. But in 3Ds Max 8.0 on both systems the renderings finish pretty much at the same speeds, along with my gaming at 1280 x 1024 the Intel etches out the AMD by a hair according to physical numbers, but if you look at the way they run you couldn't tell the difference at all. I am trying to prove that this Intel CPU is better as all the benchmarks online say, But even with kick butt hardware to feed this Conroe I am finding it a very hard task.

    I would also like to note the FX-62 is not OC'ed and is running at stock speeds, while the Conroe is running at 670Mhz above its stock speeds. The only thing I see as beneficial is the price.... the FX62 runs at about $650 while the e6400 is at a low $250... I have a review underway that will show you my findings :)
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    I would also like to note the FX-62 is not OC'ed and is running at stock speeds...

    Wait a minute, you have the only chip AMD makes that comes multiplier unlocked and it's sitting there at stock speeds? Are you mad, man?
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Gargoyle wrote:
    Wait a minute, you have the only chip AMD makes that comes multiplier unlocked and it's sitting there at stock speeds? Are you mad, man?

    Very Mad... I have never been much of a OC'er when it comes to CPU's... I think the X2 series wa when i first tried to push the limits of a AMD CPU... But the Conroe is by far a much easier OC'able CPU... I will be doing some massive OC'ing on that FX-62 in the next week :)

    To note: when your running Dual 7900GTX 512MB Graphic cards with 2 GB of ram and a FX-62... there isn't much space for noticeable performance increase in gaming, so why make my system use more power and run hotter itf it isn't needed? games run flawlessly at 1280x1024 with this setup :)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    I am having trouble seeing huge performance differences vs the e6400 clocked at 2.80Ghz vs and FX-62 CPU. I have them running side by side and in most cases they seem to run very much the same.
    One area that will show a direct, linear performance increase with respect to increased CPU frequency is Folding@Home. I have not personally observed that with Conroes, but with D8 and D9 series dual core CPU's the increase in Folding@Home production increases at a 1:1 ratio to that of the CPU cores' frequencies.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    I did notice on the Core-2-Duo in folding that CPU 1 folds about 40% faster than CPU 2 on the same F@H core.

    It kind of wierd, both cores are showing 100% usage and one core is just much faster than the other. I think Core 1 has 5 WU's completed and Core 2 has only 3....
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    That's really weird. Perhaps one of the cores is running another program/application simultaneously? If the computer is not running anything other than F@H, both cores should have nearly identical production rates, assuming the work units are the same. It's possible that the two protein models were the same series, but different variations, such as 8888 have_fun_bubbles vs. 8888 have_fun_bubbles_sst (fictitious work units).
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    I check the first batch and they were 100% the same. As for app's running I would think all apps wpould run on Core 1 making core 1 run slower than Core 2, but it is Core 2 that is running slower.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    I think Windows tries to balance the load between cores, so I would expect that the impact of background programs would affect both cores the same. Weird :scratch:
  • lemonlimelemonlime Canada Member
    edited September 2006
    Very nice overclock Radio91P.. :thumbup what model of conroe was that? E6600?
  • Radio91PRadio91P Layton, UT New
    edited September 2006
    E6600

    I now have it at 3006 at 1.32V stable as a rock. It is crazy to think that this bugger is so stable. I have been doing some benchmarks and have had some good results.

    CPU score on 3dMark06 with old 3800X2 overclocked to 2.5 was 1850
    now with E6600 stock it went up to 2200. Overclocked to 2.96 it was 2550. I have not done much else with it.

    Thanks:headbange
  • edited October 2006
    nice choice. grrr8 man
Sign In or Register to comment.