Originally Posted by ZGold550
They're not complete. Although they are somewhat helpful. In fact, theyre FAR from complete.
Additionally... I HIGHLY doubt we'll see a 3.0 conroe before 2007. In fact, i'de put money on it.
Good, because we already know there will be 3.0Ghz Woodcrest CPUs out at launch. And EEs are just rebadged server procs, so umm... yeah.
Keep an open mind. Unless Intel is purposely trying to fool us, I'd guess the performance will be pretty much as stated here. Think about it, what does Intel have to gain? They fool us and then when the real stuff gets here, we realize it's way worse? How would that go? Sure it's next gen versus this gen, but when's AMD's next gen coming out? In the same way, you could say K8 was next gen when it was being compared to the P4, but what else would you have them compare it to? They even (apparently) overclocked the FX-60 to 2.8Ghz, which will probably be where AMD'll be at during the Sept. timeframe. Sure AM2'll be out long before then, but how was Intel supposed to get its hands on a board still under NDA exactly? And what's AM2 supposed to bring? Maybe
10% performance increase?
Trust me, I was shocked when I saw these numbers. Even if they are slightly fudged, they're not going to be anymore than 10% or so off, to be deniable. I mean if they come in 30% slower than this shows, what does Intel have to gain exactly? Enthusiasts are reading this now and it'll be sure as hell the enthusiasts who'll read the reviews before they actually go buying. If come Sept or Oct, the reviews show otherwise, you can be sure as hell there'll be some pain in for Intel. They're not dumb.
edited to be a slight bit more respectful to everyone.