Conroe Performance Preview Follow-Up
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 9, 2006 9:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Trade Shows
The F.E.A.R. Issue
To the readers that pointed out our F.E.A.R. results as being unusually high, we owe you a sincere apology. When we went back to test Conroe for the second time we re-ran all of our tests to make sure that no mistakes were made. We caught the Quake 4 issue where Conroe’s SMP performance was understated, and we also discovered a problem in our F.E.A.R. testing.
While our intention was to test both the AMD and Intel systems at the “Maximum” Computer settings and “High” Graphics settings, only the Conroe system was configured as such. We inadvertently left the AMD system at a higher resolution (1280 x 960) instead of the default resolution (1024 x 768) when you select the “High” Graphics defaults. The oversight was entirely our own doing as Intel was not running the benchmarks or configuring them, it simply happened while we were setting up both systems at the same time. We played with different resolution settings and while deciding that we would go with one, managed to configure the two boxes differently.
Of course this means that our initial F.E.A.R. tests were incorrect, and below we have the correct results with the settings we intended to run both systems on:
The performance advantage of Conroe makes a lot more sense now, at 20% instead of 41%. With performance in Quake 4, UT2004 and HL2 in the 20 - 30% faster range on Conroe, the F.E.A.R. results now make a lot more sense.
To those who pointed out that even the CrossFire X1900 setup would be more GPU bound at 1280 x 960, you were very correct, our original results were inaccurate. We do strive for accuracy and reliability in our results here at AnandTech, which is why we went back and retested/confirmed all of our initial findings before bringing you this update. Aside from the F.E.A.R. and Quake 4 issues that we've since corrected, we found no other performance anomalies in our initial results.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
Questar - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
I think you have confused AMD for ATI.amano - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
Not really: "Why Ati drivers where modified to recognize the Conroe processor?"Indeed, why ? Perhaps to fix the disadvantage that the FEAR benchmark gives to ATI?
If this disadvantage was fixed for the INTEL-setup, and not for the AMD-setup, then the 2 setups can not be compared and the benchmark-results are flawed.
(sorry, my first post was a bit confusing..)
Accord99 - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
That was fixed several driver revisions ago. All it was was a mistake in one If statement.DSaum - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
So the 41% Conroe advantage over AMD has suddenly become 20%? After this sorry episode I have serious doubts as to Anandtech's objectivity as an unbiased reviewer."Believe it or not, Intel doesn't seem malicious in their intent." LOL
clnee55 - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
After a great review and re-test by Anand, I hope i don't see fanboism comment again. Unfortunately, there are still kids around, who cannot understand a simple review.Bladen - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
^And the AMD fanboy of the year award goes too...BTW for thoes wondering if Conroe and the others are 64 bit, the answer is yes.
I highly doubt Intel will release a processor that is not 64 bit in the future. Well for any processor designed for laptop, desktop or server anyway...
Bladen - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
Ohh crap, I failed to realise my post would not be directly below DSaum...matthewfoley - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
Um, would they have released a follow up article telling you about it if they were trying to hide something?Sunrise089 - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
It was a 41% advantage in one game during one total hour of testing. In addition, not only did Anand explain how they messed up, but also provided new graphs only 2 days later. What are you really thinking here, that Anand's mistake will increase Conroe's sales even though the corrected numbers are out and its 6 months away from launch? I'm pretty sure even Intel fanboys didn't just read the first story and then plan on not visitng another hardware site before launch.Aileur - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
Way to be able to readNow, thats not the same as dropping from 40 to 20%, is it?