20 Comments

Back to Article

• rayo123 - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  The one showing normalized bars for various Pentiums is bogus. We all know the P4 was inferior in core int/fp performance to the P3 clock by clock.

• DeathSniper - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  Unfortunately, most people out there (Jack and Jill) don't.

• DeathSniper - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  They just see a neat-looking and pretty graph ;)

• ElFenix - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  i like how the performance chart is normalized to a 25 mhz 486 dx.
  
  and how is a 2.8ghz pentium d more than 2x as fast as a 1.4 ghz pentium 4?
  
  anyone want to run specint on some things and see if intel is shoveling it?

• psychobriggsy - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  So Intel think a PIII (450MHz at introduction) has around 1/4 the Integer performance of a P4, which was 1.5GHz at introduction and often beaten by 1GHz PIIIs in benchmarks?
  
  Conroe will be good though. It's good to see Intel is back on track. AMD have got their work cut out the next couple of years. It's no good if AMD are still ramping 65nm and Intel start shipping 45nm. K8L had better be more than interesting.

• mschira - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  This is the biggest crap ever.
  We all know that a Pentium D (which is basicly two slow Pentium 4's on one die) is NOT faster than a Pentium 4. At least single threaded.
  So why it he so much faster than a Petium 4 in that slide?
  I thought Intel is dooing better with their new CPUs, why would they have to lie that bloddy bad?
  I fear for them they are not doing good after all.
  One thing is for sure, belive no performance word from them. No single word.
  Increadable.
  M.

• Hulk - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  If they are comparing a Pentium 4 single core with a Pentium D using a multithreaded application they can get that performance delta.

• Griswold - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  Congrats, you found today's FUD. :)

• BrownTown - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  the reason the Pentum D beats the P4 is becasue these are launch speeds, so its being rcompared to a 1.5A Williamette, not a 3.8 PResscott

• psychobriggsy - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  They're probably comparing a 1.5GHz P4 to a 3.2GHz Pentium D 840 (performance at introduction). But yes, the graph is pretty damn poor, there's not enough information on it.

• Hulk - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  I guess the NDA will be in effect until the launch.
  
  Damn, just two or three good tests and we'd know the real story.

• RichUK - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  I’m more partial to reviews, rather than Intel generated numbers

• Questar - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  Read much?
  "Now we're off to benchmark Conroe ourselves..."

• Griswold - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  And where are the numbers? Oh wait, probably under NDA for a few more months.

• Questar - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  I guess I was right, Grissy my boy. Article with real benches is up.
  
  And you made a fool of yourself, again.

• Questar - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  Did you think maybe they had to wait in line, maybe they need time to write something and upload it to the site?
  
  Man, you're annoying.

• peldor - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  Do we have any idea what speed this Conroe was running? I've heard clock speeds at launch from ~2 GHz to maybe 3.33 for a Conroe XE.

• Doormat - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  Wow. I didn't expect that out of Intel. Good to see power numbers are back in line, maybe I wont need to buy a monster 500W power supply with my next upgrade.

• Spoonbender - Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - link

  Sounds nice. Interesting that AMD is launching what was it, 35W desktop cpu's though?
  Makes Intels claims of performance/watt superiority sound a bit more shaky.
  
  Still, looking forward to Conroe. Looks like a monster performer at a very reasonable wattage.
  

• yeeeeman - Wednesday, January 13, 2021 - link

  Intel, you need some more of this