Quote from Forbin :

Perhaps, but only due to the fact that new memory (DDR2) and a new video card (PCI-E) are required for Conroe. If that were not the case, the price/performance ratio would definitely be in Conroe's favor. It's that much faster.

As I said above, $300 Conroe = $1000 AMD FX-62.

Not quite that cut and dry, I'm afraid. To run a Conroe chip, he would need to spend more money on motherboard which is $200 give or take some, and a stronger PSU ($100). I'm not denying the Conroe is going to be good value, it's just more than you're thinking of.

Add all of that to the fact that Conroe is brand new technology, Intel is probably still working out bugs from it. AMD is at its peak right now, making some of its best chips right now, it's a simple and trusted choice.

Try not to forget that Conroe needs ~3.1v for the core. Which is a butt load of voltage, which has to get out somehow. Yes it has great power for games, but in anything else (from the banchmarks I saw) it is lacking somewhat, and that much power on a small die. It won't be a long lasting processor.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Try not to forget that Conroe needs ~3.1v for the core. Which is a butt load of voltage, which has to get out somehow. Yes it has great power for games, but in anything else (from the banchmarks I saw) it is lacking somewhat, and that much power on a small die. It won't be a long lasting processor.

And you get this info where?This is really not true Conroe need 3.1V.You would fried the CPU on 65nm process with such a voltage.

Thats misleading info which showed earlier version of CPU-Z.

Quote from BigDave2967 :

The current PC I have can only give me a maximum of 60fps when alone, and 40fps when racing other drivers and 30 for multiple drivers after the T1. I wonder how much big of a difference will there be? *drools*

I would expect up to 120-180 FPS when you race for example with 8 players on FE track and nobody is very close to you.
I have "same" CPU (A643200+ working at 3500-3800+ frequencies) and GF6600&GF7900GT and I get same FPS with both cards(I can go with 7900GT without FPS lost to 8xAA+16AF).

I get usually with full grid being last on start minimal 40-50 FPS and soon around 80-150FPS .There is really huge performance difference between AthlonXP and A643500+.

Quote from Forbin :

As I said above, $300 Conroe = $1000 AMD FX-62.

*thud*

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

And you get this info where?This is really not true Conroe need 3.1V.You would fried the CPU on 65nm process with such a voltage.

Thats misleading info which showed earlier version of CPU-Z.

Ah, I've not followed the chip in a while, last time I looked at any sites they was raving about the high vcore.

Either way the Conroe wouldn't have a long life, the smaller dies are getting the more years get cut off their longivity, but as most people are upgrading so much that anyone who makes processors (GPU's are effected by the shrinking die size more the CPU's) can get away with it. I read a while ago (though it was on an ATi biased website so not sure on how much water numbers hold) that the nVidia 90nm GPU's would be lucky to get past 2 years (around 5-6 if you don't use it for games).

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Ah, I've not followed the chip in a while, last time I looked at any sites they was raving about the high vcore.

Either way the Conroe wouldn't have a long life, the smaller dies are getting the more years get cut off their longivity, but as most people are upgrading so much that anyone who makes processors (GPU's are effected by the shrinking die size more the CPU's) can get away with it. I read a while ago (though it was on an ATi biased website so not sure on how much water numbers hold) that the nVidia 90nm GPU's would be lucky to get past 2 years (around 5-6 if you don't use it for games).

Ah ok,
Then I understand but on the other hand it doesnt make sense to post such a "facts" if you now say you didnt follow the informations.
Hope you dont bealive those marketing bullshits from ATI about 90nm NVIDIA GPU`s.Both companies posted alredy so many misleading info on the rival that I cant bealive poeple still think its true.

I know...everyone is allowed to make mistakes.I did that several times as well

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Ah ok,
Then I understand but on the other hand it doesnt make sense to post such a "facts" if you now say you didnt follow the informations.
Hope you dont bealive those marketing bullshits from ATI about 90nm NVIDIA GPU`s.Both companies posted alredy so many misleading info on the rival that I cant bealive poeple still think its true.

I know...everyone is allowed to make mistakes.I did that several times as well

Well usally such information rarely changes. But it is my fault for being out of date with current tech. I find it funny how Intel and AMD have changed places though, AMD know they are kicking the markets ass, so they rampped up prices to match, Intel are getting ass kicked, so they dropped prices (though still far from AMD's old prices) and made a much more powerful chip then ever. Though lets not forget that Conroe is nice tech, and it's being benchmarked to old tech, that'd be like running an FX-60 vs First Gen P4. I hope AMD have something to pull out of the bag which will turn around their "we are teh best lawlawlawl" stance.

Though it was hugley biased the details weren't made by ATi, so there might be some truth in it, just it's cutting out the BS. The only way people will know for sure is when their cards start to die.

Quote from BigDave2967 :

*thud*

Actually a $183 Conroe will beat a FX-62 if you clock it up a bit (from 1.86GHz to ~2.6GHz shouldn't be a problem with stock cooler and volt). Conroe is truely an amazing CPU.

A Conroe will do 4GHz on air, that is quite damn good. At that speed you'll beat every other CPU on the market. Actually at ~3.2GHz would be enough.