Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel's Core 2 Desktop Processors Tested

CowboyNeal posted about 8 years ago | from the smokin'-tires dept.

335

Steve Kerrison writes "It's early morning here in the UK, but that doesn't stop us from being around to see the launch of Conroe and friends, Intel's newest desktop chips. Even a $180 Intel CPU can beat an Athlon FX-62 in a number of tests. Now that's bound to get the fanboy blood pumping, right? We've also taken a look at a pre-built system that's powered by the Extreme X6800 CPU, along with an nForce 4 SLI chipset. As you'd expect, it's quick."

cancel ×

335 comments

Loss Leader? (5, Insightful)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | about 8 years ago | (#15717099)

Gotta wonder if intel can legitimately deliver at this price or if they are going with loss leader tactics to try and regain marketshare.

Re:Loss Leader? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717129)

Loss or not, they at least gave stockholders a little more confidence than the slaughtering over the last two years. This is good news even if they take a loss.

Re:Loss Leader? (5, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | about 8 years ago | (#15717154)

Well, for now, the yields of the fastest Core CPUs is probably low enough that the average price of manufacturing could be higher for the cheapest chips, as they are a necessary part of the process, anyway. On the other hand, I think that the pure manufacturing costs for a (desktop) CPU tend to be quite a bit lower than this -- the big costs are the onetimers in development and investing in fab infrastructure. When that's already in place (for the current chip generation), it makes sense to use the resources available fully.

Re:Loss Leader? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717241)

being a desperate AMD fanboy seems to get you modded higher than being realistic and admitting your team can't always lead the division tonight...

Re:Loss Leader? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717247)

Bearing in mind that for the first time ever, the silicon for the cores of their laptops, desktops and servers are capable of coming off the same wafer, and I'd say they're onto a cost-saving exercise here. Heck, even the Core Solo is a Duo with a core disabled.

Thing is; these are miles ahead of AMDs current crop, Intel could double the prices on them and they're still good value for money. If they're a good product, market share will come without trying.

Re:Loss Leader? (3, Informative)

TheCp (988820) | about 8 years ago | (#15717274)

GDHardware's article: http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/cpus/intel/conr oe/X6800_E6700/001.htm [gdhardware.com] That thing SMOKES ol' AMD... for now at least...

Re:Loss Leader? (5, Funny)

rgravina (520410) | about 8 years ago | (#15717336)

That has to be one of the most entertaining, yet informative, reviews I've read in a long time!

From TFLA (The Fine Linked Article):
"[Intel's] P4 chip has largely been having its ass handed to it on a silver platter by the Athlon64 family of CPUs from AMD."

and then later:

"But this is where their [(Intel's)] little parade comes to a screeching halt - why? Because in the most simplistic of terms, Conroe (dubbed Core 2 Duo) kicks the Athlon64 right in the balls and doesn't look back."

Now, my friends, *that* is how you write a review!

I doubt they'd do a loss leader thing (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 8 years ago | (#15717320)

Most likley they are just having good yeilds. They've pretty much got the kinks worked out of their 65nm process with the Pentium Ds they made on it so it wouldn't supprise me that Core 2s are having high yeilds. High yeilds = low cost per unit. This is espically true if the yeilds are high, but mostly at lower speeds. Say 90% of chips work, but of that 90% 50% only work at the slowest speed. Well, just knock the price down on that and get it back in volume, hike it up more on the rarer fast chips.

If you look at their current pricing, it's not real supprising. You find you can get a Pentium D 65nm for as little as $175. That gets you a 3GHz one on their old 90nm technology. The price creaps up on the first incriment, a 3.2 is $217. However it takes a sizable jump then to $317 for 3.4GHz. The 3.6GHZ, if you can find it, is $500 or so. Past that, well there's only the "extreme" edition and that's over $1000 for 3.73GHz.

The jumps like that are normal. They can easily produce low speed chips and there's a large market for them so they are cheap. Maybe a couple incremental upgrades. Then you hit a knee and prices start jumping fast.

Based on their current pricing for their current high end, I don't see anything out of the oridinary for this new pricing.

Re:I doubt they'd do a loss leader thing (1)

Firehed (942385) | about 8 years ago | (#15717484)

Well that, plus unlike Microsoft with the Xbox 360 and the HD-DVD boys, they don't really have a secondary product to make up the losses (mobos and chipsets I suppose, but I think the nVidia chipsets are quite popular and of the boards with an Intel-brand chipset, not too many of them will actually be an Intel-made board). Yields have to be great - as you said, they got their 65nm process pretty well figured out with the PD line, and additionally the die shrink from 90nm lets them fit that many more chips per wafer. Better yet, the smaller dies means that an imperfection during manufacturing will affect a lower percentage of chips (say five dust particles get in the chamber and kill five chips, you're talking five of 500 vs five of 250).

As far as the pricing goes though, every series I can remember being released followed a nearly identical model. The question is whether the cheapest chip (either overall cheapest or cheapest of the 4MB chips) turns out to be the next Celeron 300/P4 2.4c/Athlon 2500+/Pentium D 805... which could well turn out to be too much of a good thing. If process yields are good, this is likely to be the case, as it's well known that chipmakers will just downclock chips to fit the market if need be (like what happened with the x800 boards - some had pipelines disabled which could be softmodded back into existance). Only time will tell, but I've got a feeling that this may be the case again.

first PC's? (2)

swami1984 (940733) | about 8 years ago | (#15717105)

so when will the first PC's come out with these?

Re:first PC's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717169)

I'm always confused when a NVidia-slashvertisement appears: Am I supposed to like it because NVidia makes me (as a loyal delusional WoW-faggot) jerk my cock wildly, or must I hate it because it makes me download a tarball of pseudo-binary crap to get half-assed Linux-drivers?

Re:first PC's? (3, Informative)

dhollist (811706) | about 8 years ago | (#15717364)

WWDC [apple.com] is August 7th.

More Detailed Review Here - (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717107)

There's a much more detailed review up at HotHardware.com [hothardware.com]

Until Apple picks up Conroe... (-1, Offtopic)

HaloZero (610207) | about 8 years ago | (#15717109)

...and Merom, I don't care. I'm saving my joys for a new OSX86 platform.

Word of the Day: Switcher (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717421)

switcher \'swi`ch &r\, n.
A person who thinks that they are a Mac user [atspace.com] but are really just trying to be. The mistake they make is to try to become a Mac user [atspace.com] , when real Mac users [atspace.com] are all about not trying to be anything and following your own rules. There is no fashion code to being a Mac user [atspace.com] . There are no rules as to what applications you have to run.

Recent converts like you [atspace.com] are ruining the old school Mac community [atspace.com] because you are posers. Apple releases one OS that popularizes Fitts' law and the Genie effect, and suddenly people assume being a Mac user [atspace.com] is all about owning a Mac. But a real Mac user [atspace.com] is born, not made. You "switchers" [atspace.com] are misrepresenting yourselves and the Mac platform. You're giving people the wrong idea of what Macintosh is.

switcher: shops at hot topic, thinks Firefox is a good Mac app, waiting for OS X port of PayrollPro 2000, follows any hint of a fashion trend (instead of setting them!), wouldn't know Clarus from Carl Sagan.

real Mac user: someone true to who they are, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. The ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world.

So... (5, Funny)

the.metric (988575) | about 8 years ago | (#15717110)

will this be enough to run Vista?

Re:So... (2, Funny)

moro_666 (414422) | about 8 years ago | (#15717175)

Actually i can't wait until they ship laptops with this cpu and a nasty integrated gpu that won't be able to pull vista off with all the bells and whistles attached. :)

  Now let's hope amd finds something to strike back on this, more competition means more cheap'n'fast cpu-s for us.

Re:So... (2, Informative)

paganizer (566360) | about 8 years ago | (#15717480)

I'm typing this on a HP DV8230US Laptop with a core duo T2300 CPU; it just purely and simply rocks and I hate intel, this is the first Intel chip i've owned in 12 years.
together with the gig of ram and the 256mb Nvidia 7300 GPU, I think this thing would run Vista.
Not that it ever will, of course. Any Win OS after Win2k sucks; took me forever to get WinXP media center off this thing.

Re:So... (4, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 8 years ago | (#15717177)

Now THAT was a stupid question...of course not. But it will be fast enough to run the latest in spyware in the years to follow.

Re: Just don't run Office 2007 (2, Funny)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | about 8 years ago | (#15717379)

Yes, it should be just sufficient enough to boot the operating system and allow you to play Solitaire at a playable frame rate. They should have Core Trio out by then anyway so I wouldn't worry.

I wonder if we will ever see a Core Pentio?

Re: Just don't run Office 2007 (4, Funny)

McFadden (809368) | about 8 years ago | (#15717436)

>I wonder if we will ever see a Core Pentio?


Probably a year or two before Vista ships.

Re:So... (1)

TangoCharlie (113383) | about 8 years ago | (#15717404)

I think "walk" would be more appropriate.

DNF (1)

joshsnow (551754) | about 8 years ago | (#15717553)

Vista? Nah, will this be enough to run Duke Nukem Forever?

Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (3, Informative)

riprjak (158717) | about 8 years ago | (#15717113)

"Real World" [hardocp.com] testing of the new core2 duo's over at HardOCP seems to suggest that the hype is, well, Bullshot (Penny Arcade). He also savages... no, investigates, the other benchmarks with his normal subtle-but-robust manner :) It seems that the top of the line Core2Duo just barely beats an FX-62 numerically in actual game performance; statistically there is no difference whatsoever... As with all things, it comes down to perspective. I have no doubt that Intel are catching up to AMD, may indeed have caught up. However, I simply do not believe they have gone from lagging significantly to leading significantly at the same clock speed; Time, I suppose, will tell.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (1)

riprjak (158717) | about 8 years ago | (#15717119)

wow... mangled the formatting there, I look like a fucking fanboy.

Apologies all!

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717339)

Never mind, that's not the formatting's fault.

If you compare CPUs, you compare CPUs and don't bring in benchmarks where graphics cards are the major factor. Thanks for playing though.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (1)

riprjak (158717) | about 8 years ago | (#15717396)

Another reply top anonymous...

If you are comparing high end CPU's, you dont include games at all using your logic and, indeed, this is my point... using 1024x768 or lower resolution is entirely unrepresentative, using 2+ year old games (Far Cry) even less useful.

Simply cpu's make NO meaningful difference for gaming, regardless of synthetic benchmarks suggesting otherwise.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717414)

Farcry is a 2 year old game but still pushes hardware to it's limits. If you haven't played that game, you wouldn't know.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717452)

protip: Graphics are created by graphics cards, games are made of graphics.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (5, Insightful)

doormat (63648) | about 8 years ago | (#15717138)

One of the things with HardOCPs review shows one extremely interesting thing...

If you have a single high end card (7900), there isnt a whole lot of difference between the FX62 and the X6800, or even the E6700. Most games are GPU limited now, and will be until the next generation of cards is released in 3+ months (FEAR is really the only exception to this).

They didnt run any benchmarks at 800x600 or whatever, because those results are more or less useless. Who spends $500+ on a processor and $500 on a video card and plays games at that low resolution.

What matters if you're going to buy a new rig now is the price performance ratio. If you're a midrange gamer, your best bet is probably a E6600 and a $250 video card. Or an AM2 setup, it all depends on the prices AMD cuts their X2 line to. We'll find out closer to the end of this month what the deal is. Come August 1st we'll have a very good idea of which platform is on top.

That's almost always the case (5, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 8 years ago | (#15717348)

The processor is generally the thing I upgrade the least because it simply has the least increase in demands. Video cards you can upgrade once a year and not be doing it too often given the advances they have. Throwing lots of RAM at your system is also a good idea. Processor? Well for gaming and most apps it just really isn't that big a deal. Get a good dual core of prett much any design you like and call it good. Hell if all you are worried about id gaming and not doing things in the background while you game get a good single core, games still don't make any use of a second core to speak of.

I moved from a P4 2.4GHz to a Pentium D 2.8GHz when I did a system overhaul not too long ago. Why such a minor processor upgrade, you might wonder? Well because the processor wasn't the issue. That 2.4 was plenty fast, for games at least. The graphics card was the issue and I wanted PCIe which my board didn't support. Had the board had the same socket, I would have just kept the processor. It was fine (though because of teh audio work I do I'm appreciating the dual core). I just got a dual core because they weren't that much more expensive and it has geek appeal to me.

The real useful thing, in my book, is that the Core 2s run cooler. Current processors have tended towards too hot. AMD is much better than Intel but even they put out quite a bit of heat at the high end. It sounds like the Core 2s are quite efficient for the performance they give. That's good because I value a quiet system and frankly, it's as good as I'm willing to make it at this point cooling wise. I'm not going water cooling and there's just no more air cooling I can do short of making the fans speed up.

I don't think I'd recommend these as an upgrade to anyone who already has a dual core AMD or Intel system. Unless you are doing simulations or rendering or something I just can't see the minor increase as worth it. Certianly not for games. However if you need to upgrade anyhow, these look like winners.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717357)

They didnt run any benchmarks at 800x600 or whatever, because those results are more or less useless. Who spends $500+ on a processor and $500 on a video card and plays games at that low resolution.

Me. I have a top end processor and a top end graphics card but I frequently turn the graphics settings down to 800x600 ... it allows me to keep the rest of the settings a bit higher and not go jumpy during the more intense parts of a game. For a fast moving scene with FSAA your eyes cant really tell much difference anyway.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717629)

You need to upgrade your eyes.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717152)

Playing games at high resolution is limited by graphics card. CPU plays minor role. Film at 11.

However, if you _do_ have tasks that are heavy on CPU and not GPU, Core 2 owns AMD.

So what's hype about a CPU that's 1) cheaper 2) plays games just as well 3) can handle the occasional DivX rip or MP3 conversion much faster?

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (4, Interesting)

riprjak (158717) | about 8 years ago | (#15717180)

Responding to anonymous... I must be mad.

But your point is accurate. Gaming is mostly GPU limited; my gaming system, an s939 amd64x2 3800+ with a pair of old GPU's (7800GTX 256MB) achieves equal or better gaming results than all of these.

I suppose the point is are such prices for CPUs currently justified when they wont have much impact on user experience?

No doubt the new entry level core 2 duo's seem to be the upgrade of choice to maintain near cutting edge; but a high end GPU seems to be a wiser spend than a new CPU for gamers.

As for video encoding et al, HardOCP had the same results in their "real world" testing as others, but at least they make an effort to simulate the way the "average" person might use the things; either way, I'll reserve judgement here until I see some 64bit results, since encoding in native 64bit will be the telling tale IMHO.

In any case, I think we are reaching the point of dimishing returns, a year old 2GHz processer already rips music as fast as the drive can deliver it, already transcodes video as fast as the drives can burn it etc... GPUs control gaming... It is nice to see intel returning to the game in a serious fashion and no doubt this will have positive results for the consumer if AMD try to match price performance. I was mainly trying to point out that the "benchmarks" aren't nescessarily useful in describing the performance of these beasts in operation.

err!
jak

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (1)

cnettel (836611) | about 8 years ago | (#15717369)

What codec, or drives, do you use if the drives are limiting for video transcoding?

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (1)

riprjak (158717) | about 8 years ago | (#15717389)

transcoding into XVID normally, or shrinking to DVD+R... Im talking WRITE speed limiting for video, not READ speed :)

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (1)

cnettel (836611) | about 8 years ago | (#15717533)

Ah, I just thought about my general scenario: transcoding to fit the storage of a suitable portable device (laptop or smaller). :)

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717394)

It's hard to hide your fanboyism if you assume the average person is a gamer.

MP3 encoding, DVD ripping, using bloated Office software, that's what the average person does.

Aside from that, there are power users who compile software and still don't play games. Intel leads and AMD lags behind right now. Big deal.

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (1)

prefect42 (141309) | about 8 years ago | (#15717515)

I like the way you describe 7800GTXs as old GPUs ;)

Is the just supposed to make those of us with older GPUs (9600XT) feel bad?

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (4, Interesting)

androvsky (974733) | about 8 years ago | (#15717164)

You have to be carefull with the HardOCP benchmarks. I only read the first several pages, but they're doing their usual "real-world" stuff... which means leaning on the video card to do most of the work. Naturally, CPU differences aren't going to show up much here. I appreciate them doing something to put a real-world perspective on things, but what I read doesn't change the fact that the Core2Duos (I hate typing that) are really stinking fast. But playing games that do most of the work on the video card won't matter, big surprise... it really looks like a clever yet still desperate attempt to be a raving AMD fanboy and prop them up.

Uh-oh, rant ahead, I tried to avoid it, I swear... ;)

I am a raving AMD fanboy, but I'm a raving AMD fanboy because they've made the best CPUs for a long time. They also have a wonderful motherboard architecture that makes very high bandwidth applications much easier to deal with. I find myself wishing I could plug the Core2Duos into an AMD motherboard... on-chip motherboard controllers would help Intel also. Ah, what do I care, I want to see a real motherboard built around a Cell, the overall system bandwidth is almost as exciting as the cpu. Too bad that means buying everything from Rambus... :(

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (1)

Calinous (985536) | about 8 years ago | (#15717287)

I wonder why hardOCP didn't add into the benchmark a slower processor - like a dual core 3800+, or an Pentium D 930. Maybe because they would get the same frame rates?

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (2, Interesting)

cnettel (836611) | about 8 years ago | (#15717181)

The Oblivion tests show all things wrong with this, E6700 and X6800 getting identical (more or less) numbers indicate a GPU bound test, AND they use different settings for the AMD test - as they state that the game was not playable if the higher quality settings were used there.

This [msdn.com] MSDN blog post was an interesting read to me. As the writer notes, image processing is a kind of virtual task. But it shows some pretty interesting stuff, IMHO, like the fact that the gap between AMD and Intel (Intel winning in the end) is much smaller at 64-bit. Maybe that should be no surprise, with AMD designing the AMD64 instruction set in tandem with the K8. It's also interesting as it might indicate trends regarding tight loop performances in JITed environments in general. This, like it or not, is becoming more common.

Kyle Bennet is an AMD whore... (5, Insightful)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about 8 years ago | (#15717228)

(cribbed from my post in anothe rplace).HardOCP are complete AMD whores here.

They do the power tests with power saving settings turned off. This gives AMD the edge at idle, mostly due to a lower transistor count. As other sites have shown, turning the power saving settings on (as one would expect) puts Intel far out front at idle.

How do they end that article?

" I would highly suggest keeping your eyes on AMD low wattage / energy efficient processors for those projects that require a noiseless solution."

So they make Intel look worse than they are, and yet Intel still wins at under load. What's the takeaway? Buy AMD.

In the gaming, after the Intel gets done smoking the FX-62, what do they say?

"It is very interesting that in all of our testing, both "what is playable" testing and "apples-to-apples" testing, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 are very close in performance. In fact, in some games they are dead even. The price difference between the two is very extreme with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 costing $999 and the Core 2 Duo E6700 at $530. Does it look like the price is justified between the two for gaming? We can safely say "no" as far as gaming goes with this gameplay testing we have performed."

Then, when speaking of AMD, do they mention even the E6700 ($530) beat the FX-62 and the FX-62 costs over $800? Nope.

"As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a "winner" then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn't enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up."

Any mention of overclocking levels and how the Core 2 Duo overclocks well? Much better than an FX-62 usually. Nope.

What's their takeaway from the gaming section where a $530 Intel beats out AMD's fastest chip (at $800)?

"We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today's games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely."

and then

"Lastly, I would advise everyone that is thinking of rushing out and purchasing their latest upgrade that we are sure to see HUGE pricing slashes out of AMD before the end of the month."

Way to go HardOCP. Rig your tests, ignore Intel victories and make your summary "buy AMD".

You have zero cerdibility, HardOCP.

Also, you used bullshot wrong. Bullshot is a term for fake screenshots designed for games (like EA uses). It doesn't fit here.

and your not an Intel whore? (-1, Offtopic)

Shivetya (243324) | about 8 years ago | (#15717578)

First off, why in the world would you turn on power saving modes when benchmarking for performance? The emphasis on the test was to determine which processors performed best playing games at their highest settings.

Next, Kyle closes the article suggesting for future proofing to buy an Intel. He does state that if you already have a high end AMD to not bother as the difference isn't noticable.

The one thing I take away from the article is that Intel has finally met AMD. It no longer is AMD is for gaming and Intel for everything else. For the lifetime of the P4 it has always been AMD leading the pack, when it comes to gaming computers and price points.

Also, since he already gives the FX price why should he repeat it. His comparisons of the price points for the two Intel chips was to make the reader aware that the performance difference doesn't warranted the price difference. He closed out the article with the statement supporting Intel.

What more do you want? Hey, we can all find bias whereever we want, too many of you go out of your way to do so

Re:Kyle Bennet seems to disagree... (1)

Tlosk (761023) | about 8 years ago | (#15717292)

In my opinion it's a stupid argument to make. As an observation it has some merit, but in no way justifies the conclusions being made.

Yes, as fast as today's video cards are, they still are the limiting factor when gaming at high resolutions with all the features turned on. CPUs are fast enough and getting a more powerful CPU isn't going to help when it's the video card that is maxing out.

So of course people shouldn't expect their games to play faster by buying a faster CPU, but I really don't see how that can then be stretched to conclude that there's no actual difference between the CPUs. If every part waited for the other components to catch up in performance would anything ever progress?

And that doesn't even get into all the areas that are CPU limited rather than GPU, like video and audio encoding/decoding, multiple apps running concurrently, encryption, etc.

The conclusion you draw that the CPUs are the same because of their performance on a task that is limited by another, unrelated component is akin to saying that a Ferarri is no more powerful than a Honda Fit because they're both doing 65 on the freeway. The conclusions are rigged from the start because of the test you are using to compare them.

OCAU's view (5, Informative)

Agg (246996) | about 8 years ago | (#15717136)

We have a comprehensive review on OCAU also: http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=4895 87 [overclockers.com.au] We compare the new high-end 2.93GHz X6800 and the 2.67GHz E6700, with the current Pentium D 955XE and AMD's A64 FX-62. Lots of info, loads of benchmarks and of course, some overclocking.

ads ads ads (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717150)

this might very well be an interesting article but if they're going to submit me to atleast five flash ads on screen at the same time, this early in the morning, I think I'll pass.

Re:ads ads ads (2, Funny)

iapetus (24050) | about 8 years ago | (#15717585)

There's your problem, then. With a Conroe you'd have enough power to display up to ten flash ads at the same time.

Intel's Core 2 need programmer do morething (2, Interesting)

chinaitnews.cn (988810) | about 8 years ago | (#15717151)

Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology.

Re:Intel's Core 2 need programmer do morething (4, Funny)

wbren (682133) | about 8 years ago | (#15717209)

Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology.
I completely agree! The Intel transfer the from hardware to software, get more on the power. In conclusion:

What?

Re:Intel's Core 2 need programmer do morething (2, Insightful)

JorDan Clock (664877) | about 8 years ago | (#15717249)

Look at his username. I don't think English is his primary language.

I think what he was trying to say is that Core 2 isn't a magic processor that just makes everything faster, but can also be leveraged by programmers for even greater gains with some optimization. Of course, this isn't different from any other processor, and I could be completely wrong about what he was saying.

Re:Intel's Core 2 need programmer do morething (1)

Hydroksyde (910948) | about 8 years ago | (#15717255)

Where did you hear this? I doubt that, as reducing the CPU's instruction set will break backward compatibility

But wait... (-1, Troll)

3b0la_R0 (911804) | about 8 years ago | (#15717171)

Here comes the new AMD FX.. with 65nm architecture.. consuming 30 watts, supporting SSE4, 0.9 Voltage...
Really what is Intel trying to do? They are just kidding

Re:But wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717469)

But you'll have to wait a while to get that, Q1 07 is it? (K8L)
And from the looks of the overclocking potential in these new cores, Intel has a lot of head room..

for people like me (-1, Redundant)

tezbobobo (879983) | about 8 years ago | (#15717179)

Conclusion from article 1:
Intel has learned from its overly optimistic view of Pentium 4 scaling and designed a new core architecture that simultaneously focusses on performance and energy efficiency, which, we suppose, is the Holy Grail of consumer-level computing.
It's difficult not to be wholly impressed with Intel's Core 2 Duo processors. The micro-architecture leverages a bunch of smart technologies that come together to form the most potent range of CPUs available. Putting it in some kind of context, the next-to-bottom model, E6400, costing $220, is, over the course of our benchmarks, as fast as an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 or Intel Extreme Edition 965. That, readers, is how good Core 2 Duo is.
What's equally as impressive as sheer performance is the fact that Intel has managed to architect such power into an energy-efficient package that puts out half the TDP of the two aforementioned high-end CPUs. Even the Extreme Edition, clocked in at 2.93GHz and multiplier-unlocked, ships with a 75W TDP. We suppose it's like buying a faster, more powerful car that also gives better fuel economy than your current model. A win-win situation.
We also like the fact that Intel, unusually, hasn't jumped on to a different form-factor with the release of a new architecture. You can simply slot a Core 2 Duo in a number of LGA i975X boards or opt for a 965-Express version. Intel also assures us that it will have high-volume Core 2 Duos immediately after launch, so you won't have to wait long to get your mitts on one.
Intel, then, has moved the goalposts as far as consumer-level CPUs are concerned. Its low-end Core 2 Duo parts are more than a match for anything that has come before and its high-end models, headlined by the Core 2 Extreme X6800, have absolutely no peer.
Architecturally speaking, AMD's Athlon 64 AM2 range hasn't changed an iota from yesterday to today. However, with Core 2 Duo soundly beating it in performance it's looking a lot less attractive. AMD needs to take a sledgehammer (pun intended) to current pricing if it is to remain competitive. Right now, if you're thinking of upgrading your PC and want the best solution possible for your money, you need to turn to Intel and not AMD. The empire has struck back.
It would be tempting to give the Core 2 Extreme X6800 the overall award. However, taking into account price vs. performance that award belongs to the Core 2 Duo E6400. It's a £150 CPU (once we factor rip-off Britain in the equation) that gives an Intel E.E 965 and AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 AM2 bloody noses - we love it!

Conclusion from article 2:
This is the first Core 2-based pre-built system we've reviewed. In the relatively short time we've had to work on it, to enable us to bring you this review on Core 2 launch day, we have to say it's a real eye-opener.
The MESH Elite Extreme SLI is the fastest pre-built system we've seen in our labs. The Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor is, of course, the main driving force behind this, but MESH has taken this new CPU and built a suitable system around it. The storage subsystem could be better, but other than that, the base unit fares very well.
And the peripherals to backup the base unit result in a system that, overall, not only performs well, but looks good. It's not imposing, or aggressive, it's power that's kept somewhat civilised by its environment.
Weighing in at £2,499 including VAT and coming with a three-year onsite warranty, it looks to us like a well priced-system, too. Of course, it's hard for us to call such a sum inexpensive; it's most definitely not, but for what's under the hood, we reckon it's worth it.
We expect there to be a lot of interest in the MESH Elite Extreme SLI system and justifiably so. It's fast, really fast, but perhaps a little too fast for its 7900 GTX graphics cards. Still, it's not going to get much quicker until the next round of GPUs surface. We look forward to pitting this system again other pre-built Core 2 systems in the near future. In the meantime, we give the MESH Elite Extreme SLI the HEXUS.award for speed in the extreme. Who'd buy an off-the-shelf AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 machine now? Answers on a postcard.

I would have read the review... (4, Funny)

twistedcubic (577194) | about 8 years ago | (#15717190)

..but it seems I need to upgrade to this new Intel processor so that my computer can handle all the ads in the website.

Re:I would have read the review... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717205)

Have you heard about that poor fellow who opened an email to see if it had a virus? Now his computer is acting crazy, blinking, making weird beeps.

Re:I would have read the review... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717494)

Nah, you just need to upgrade your "viewing experience" *cough* from IE to Firefox + AdBlock ... and gone are your problems. See? Just use your brain to save $$$

More good news for the consumer! (3, Insightful)

CCFreak2K (930973) | about 8 years ago | (#15717191)

Even if it's just a shot at getting market share back, the fact that great things like this are being sold at lower prices only mean good things for the consumer. This, for example, is GREAT for me as a system builder because everything besides the Pentium D 805 was expensive. Now, with something like this, I can offer a (possibly) better CPU for not that much more.

More good stuff is coming from both camps, I predict.

Will this be The Return Of The King? (2, Insightful)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | about 8 years ago | (#15717197)

I've been holding my breath waiting for AMD to respond. Anytime now would be a good time for them to announce how they are going to counter the Core Duo. But the reality might be that they need to recoup their costs from developing the AM2 platform before they can make any changes.

I think the competition has been good, but if Intel returns wearing the performance crown then I think there is a real potential that the CPU market will be dominated by Intel more so than it has ever been before, with consoles being the main holdout. If these benchmarks are true, then the introduction of the Core Duo will be a real turning point I think. Keep in mind that these speeds are introductory and that in the past Intel hasn't had much trouble progressing to higher performance out of the same architecture.

What this all means: (4, Insightful)

extra the woos (601736) | about 8 years ago | (#15717221)

What the benchmarks mean is that if you do a lot of media encoding, compiling, etc, you would probably benefit from conroe. HOWEVER, if you play games, regardless of whether or not you are on an AMD/INTEL system currently--if your system is pretty new--Do not upgrade at this time, as you are GPU limited, not CPU limited. Basically conroe: Large performance gains in cpu bound applications Little performance gain in gpu bound applications, obviously. This is good for intel. My systems for the past 7 years or so have been AMD. My next one very well may not be. The good news for everyone is that AMD is now the underdog again. Remember what happened last time they were the underdog? We got the athlon. The cpu speed wars went into a frenzy. For the last several years (5 or so) Intel has been sucking balls. Their chips have not been performance competitive. Clock speeds in both camps have stagnated. AMD chip prices have went way up compared to how they used to be. This is good news, AMD will go into overdrive developing their next-gen chips. Amd chips will become dirt cheap again. We'll see a new performance war. This is something i've been waiting for anxiously for a few years. I am very excited. Another thing is that the new intel chips take much less power than the old ones . (thank god)

load-balancing pandas (1)

distantbody (852269) | about 8 years ago | (#15717239)

I not quite comfortable with the way in which Intel/AMD set out their roadmaps to gradually increase the number of cores. It seems a bit fast for me, something done more for generating sales than any substanial performance improvement. By the time any substantial portion of software products are developed from the ground-up to be optimized for dual cores, the number of cores would likely have moved on. It won't be fun to have to upgrade your processor every two years just to get those extra cores that will be woefully underused by what would most likely be a market full of un-optimized software. Load balancing would really only be the way software makers would bother to optimize their code for anythimg more than 4 cores. My understanding is that load-balancing threads or whatever on cpus is not an exact science, and can quickly kill performance when not done right. Can it be justified to 'upgrade' to a newer more-cores processor every two years if you don't see a corresponding increase in UT2009/2012 framerates, or better perfmance in MS Excel...?

Re:load-balancing pandas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717284)

Really, all the work is done going from one core to more than one. I suppose you could special-case 2 cores, but that really doesn't make much sense. So, once you can run on more than one core, it should be trivial at worst and automatic at best to use any (reasonable) number, probably like 1-8. (This wouldn't necessarily be true if you had 1000s of cores, but I sincerely doubt we'll ever get that on one chip ;-).

Great news for the low end systems (1)

UR30 (603039) | about 8 years ago | (#15717257)

Quote from the article: "Intel, then, has moved the goalposts as far as consumer-level CPUs are concerned. Its low-end Core 2 Duo parts are more than a match for anything that has come before." Thus, Intel raises the capabilities on the low end systems. This is great. But besides gaming, are there anything needing such performance boost?

Damn it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717259)

I thought it said Extreme 68000. So much for being able to run MacOS on an Intel based machine.

forgot something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717264)

you mispelt fanboi

Energy efficiency (4, Insightful)

kjart (941720) | about 8 years ago | (#15717313)

Everything else aside, that was the one thing that interested me the most about the review - the fact that the new conroes are allegedly going to be consuming about half as much power as current desktop chips. Why is this important? Well, if such gains can be made on the desktop, I'm _really_ looking forward to the laptop chips. Maybe the 7hrs claimed battery life by laptop manufacturers will actually be accurate in the near future.

Re:Energy efficiency (4, Informative)

Afty0r (263037) | about 8 years ago | (#15717451)

Maybe the 7hrs claimed battery life by laptop manufacturers will actually be accurate in the near future.
I don't think it has been innacurate until now.

I own a Fujitsu Amilo V2000 laptop (in the UK) which uses the original Intel Centrino chipset. I work mostly at home, but am on the move once or twice a week. Several times early in its' life (first few months while the battery is fresh) I had come home in the evening from an onsite job, then got up in the morning and switch the laptop on and started work only to have the battery warning (10%) give me a nudge around 4pm (from a 9am start). My work is web development, so while it's not too intensive I'm running email, web radio, text editors etc. constantly. Admittedly it was running on a wired network, and using the built in wireless chip results in a loss of an hour or two from that figure...

I was completely amazed the first time it happened - forgetting to plug it in I assumed it would die a couple of hours later but it lasted almost the entire workday. (Other notes about that model : the battery itself died after 6 months, how annoying... and the screen is a bit glarey but overall I was very happy with the laptop.)

Re:Energy efficiency (0, Redundant)

mrbobjoe (830606) | about 8 years ago | (#15717456)

The difference in desktop power consumption stems from Core 2 being a mobile design to begin with, so I wouldn't expect as drastic a change in portable power consumption.

Re:Energy efficiency (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 8 years ago | (#15717632)

Well, if such gains can be made on the desktop, I'm _really_ looking forward to the laptop chips.

Do you expect laptop CPUs to somehow consume a fixed percentage of desktop CPU power? Or how else do you get this sort of assumption?

I don't think the difference is going to be as big as, say, between P4 and P-M. Those two were very different architectures, whereas the same Core 2 basis will be used for both desktops and laptops.

Besides, if laptop CPUs can be engineered for low power with high performance, why wouldn't you want to use the same chips on desktops/servers as well?

Wow, Intel!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717316)

Even a $180 Intel CPU can beat an Athlon FX-62 in a number of tests. Now that's bound to get the fanboy blood pumping, right?

It sure does. We have summer and my Intel is heating the apartement. I wonder how much Watt the power unit will need. 500? 600? 1000?

Re:Wow, Intel!!! (5, Informative)

unts (754160) | about 8 years ago | (#15717410)

TDP of Core 2 Duo E6400: 65W
TDP of Athlon FX-64: 125W

Whoops!

Noticable Difference? (2, Insightful)

treak007 (985345) | about 8 years ago | (#15717319)

Even though the benchmarks show that the intel conroe beats the amd fx, the real question still remains, the value. Would you honestly notice a difference in fps when both processors were running relatively close in frames per second. Maybe the conroe can get 20 more fps per second, but is that worth the extra money. Amd is notorious for being less expensive then Intel. Either way you could run the top of the line games, its just a question of which allows you to get more bang for your buck. If Amd sets a signifigantly competitive price, then it really doesn't matter how well the processors perform, people will choose whichever one provides the most performance per dollar value. While the Conroe beats the Fx in the performance battle, it still has not yet won the war. Let the price battle begin.

Re:Noticable Difference? (1)

spectrumCoder (944322) | about 8 years ago | (#15717454)

According to the figures at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2795&p=2 [anandtech.com] , Intel has won the price/performance ratio war. The Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in all benchmarks and is likely to sell for $86 less ($316 compared to $403).

It's irrelevant that in many games there won't be an significant difference in fps between these two CPUs. The Conroe E6600 is faster than the Athlon X2 5000 in all CPU bound benchmarks. So the only reason to buy AMD now is if you're tied to the AMD platform and only stress your CPU out in games.

Its all about competition. (1)

frickendevil (977786) | about 8 years ago | (#15717327)

The FX-62 was released to be in mild competition with intels next offerings, that to me was obvios, it was not intended to be the final product you have to chose between. Intel however IMO have released the conroe to be in a pissing contest with AMD, but AMD will just piss further then Intel can reach with the conroe, putting them behind again, and putting hte stupid people who rush out to change to an intel system just because the conroe is statistically better.

Re:Its all about competition. (1)

Craevenwulfe (611318) | about 8 years ago | (#15717433)

What the fuck? People who buy a "statistically better" (I think you meant to just say - better) chip are stupid? What kind of crack are you on. Oh wait your evidence is that AMD will come out with a much better chip - great, which shop can i buy it in?

Re:Its all about competition. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717510)

Leave him alone. hes just an upset AMD fanboi

Re:Its all about competition. (2, Funny)

spectrumCoder (944322) | about 8 years ago | (#15717541)

The Conroe was released to be in competition with AMD's future offerings, it is intended to be the final product. AMD released the FX62 to be in a pissing contest with Intel, but Intel has just pissed way further than AMD can reach with the FX62, putting them behind again, and upsetting the 'stupid' people who rushed out to change to an AMD system just because AMD was statistically better.

Quiet System Technology (1)

distantbody (852269) | about 8 years ago | (#15717349)

From TFA:
The 965 Express chipset family supports Intel Quiet System Technology, which intelligently manages processor and system fan-speeds in relation to core temperature, ensuring the fan(s) are spun just fast enough to keep the processor from throttling.
Sure, it sounds like a feature, but it also sounds like a way for them to engineer their CPUs to go bust prematurely, but not prematurely enough to be in warrenty. Now who would that benifit?...

Erroneous price/performance in headline (5, Informative)

dhollist (811706) | about 8 years ago | (#15717352)

The headline states that "Even a $180 Intel CPU can beat an Athlon FX-62 in a number of tests" but if you read the article, the $182 Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.83 GHz) chip wasn't tested [hexus.net] . All of the performance data relates to the $224 Core 2 Duo E6400 and pricier chips. The results are impressive, but I think the "$180 chip beats Athlon FX-62" deception should be pointed out to anyone who didn't pick that detail up from RTFA.

Re:Erroneous price/performance in headline (1)

unts (754160) | about 8 years ago | (#15717580)

Steve K (submitter) here. You're right, it was the E6400 not the E6300 that was tested. My apologies... 5am is not a friendly time for the brain. Neverhtheless, $40 more still makes for a CPU that's far cheaper than the FX-62.

Some more real-life benchmarks (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717359)

Rick Brewster of Paint.NET fame tested [msdn.com] two Core 2 CPUs with his own benchmark.

Sadly.... (1, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | about 8 years ago | (#15717388)

There are Athlon-FX 64-bit processors that still beat this benchmark by 2-3 thousand points on CPU-Z. I'm no Intel nor AMD Fanboy (I'm a Cyrix fan from beginning to end, and if you can't understand why then compare Unreal Tournament under a P2+MMX 233 against my Cyrix MII-233MX processor with the same RAM (Type+Amount,) and video+sound card. (Hint: The Cyrix beat the ever-loving shit out of the PII by a blazing 25 FPS (I don't use large abstract numbers, I use real-life performance tests/observable results, like the rest of you overclock geeks should use.) So my question is (Compared with my personal RL observations against Intel and AMD's claims,) is who the hell is bothering to rate their processors by what REALLY counts? By this I mean MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second [performed]) as opposed to GHz? Actually, I'd like to see MIPC as in Millions of Instructions per Cycle the processor is capable of. I don't care how many times it can do the same thing over again - how many times can it do the same thing, using a more efficient algorithm (like the divide by 10 thing, instead of dividing by 10 we multiply by .1) over and over again, and how can people finally realize the more true and better optimizations for their processors so we can have a far more accurate measure of performance? Benchmarks, AFAIC, (As Far As I'm Concerned,) are just an e-penis waggling contest. Gimme something I consider to be real results if you want to market your processor to someone that has even a modicum of a clue (And I admittedly have a very low clue about processors, but I'm still not a n00b when it comes to them. I've played with processors since I owned an Intel 8088 Packard Bell that I ran Jill of the Jungle and a few BBS servers on, funnily enough I was only 7-8 at that time and had full command of DOS and most of the standard BBS door-game system. Yep, that's sad, and my father was around computers FAR more than I ever was at that age.)

Re:Sadly.... (4, Funny)

baadger (764884) | about 8 years ago | (#15717460)

thats it...you're fucking banned from using parenthesis :P

now goto your room

Re:Sadly.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717552)

I'd like to see MIPC as in Millions of Instructions per Cycle the processor is capable of

Err, isn't that going to be a rather small number? Isn't the *reason* that we see 3.8GHz P4's because it takes rather more than 1 cycle to perform an instruction on CISC x86?

Not only that, the "MIPC" would be constant across a particular architecture - no matter what GHz the damn thing actually runs at!

Assuming that a CPU takes 1 cycle to do 1 instruction (optimism at play, but hey) then the processor rating by your scale would be 1x10e-6 for a 1GHz version, 1x10e-6 for a 2GHz version, 1x10e-6 for a 14.8GHz version with 1Gb of cache... etc etc

Hmm (1)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | about 8 years ago | (#15717397)

What I really want to know is which architecture is best suited as a server, I've seen no detailed tests for such things.

Personally I got a massive hard on for Sun Fire X4200 when it comes to 64bit PC "server" (UltraSPARC T1 is really where it's at for real servers) architecture; running lighttp, Zope v3 and PostgreSQL.

Does anyone have some links based on server perfomance (mostly IO).

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717409)

Maybe this [anandtech.com] is what you're looking for.

benchmarks (2, Interesting)

Exter-C (310390) | about 8 years ago | (#15717408)

Its interesting that all benchmarks seem to include mp3 compression or mpeg video creation etc. How many slashdot users actually use their computers more than 1-5% of the time doing that type of stuff? Of course Its all those DiVX groups that need the performance so that they can encode and release an extra 20% more videos in a month ;)

Overall the performance of the latest bunch of Intel processors is great, but when it comes down to it in a datacentre environment where spare stock etc is a costly exercise using Intel products is going to cost you more in the long run, while if we go with Opteron we can save on spares and still get great performance/power consumption.

Re:benchmarks (1)

baadger (764884) | about 8 years ago | (#15717467)

I'd be more interested in H.264/AVC decoding performance than encoding performance, that said we should be doing decoding of H.264 on GPU. Unfortunately the bastages at nVidia want you to pay extra for that privilege.

16+ Core 2 Benchmarks are list here (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717437)

List kep up to date of Core 2 Reviews [madshrimps.be] so far including 16 articles, with more to follow.

More performance data (1)

teh bigz (900495) | about 8 years ago | (#15717474)

There's a pretty good review up at bit-tech [bit-tech.net] too - 10 processors compared

Re:More performance data (0, Offtopic)

stallos (941048) | about 8 years ago | (#15717496)

Well, My PC really needs something not ordinary to make it function well. Now after cleaning the messes I had it is just as if a new PC. However not long ago my Printer is not working anymore, it magic! I also purchased software to remove adware [deletespyware-adware.com] but not luck.

Lets see (-1, Flamebait)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 8 years ago | (#15717499)

Release brand-new chip . . . Check
Pick older competitors chip . . . Check
Do comparisons . . . Check
Start the 'Spin'-Cycle . . . Check

Let the fanboism commence.

64-bit benchmarks? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717529)

I've followed all the links discussed here and I can't find any 64-bit benchmarks. Does the Intel Core 2 also deliver superb results with 64-bit code running on a 64-bit operating system?

You iNsensitivXe clod. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15717588)

addreSses wIll The 'community' by fundamental influence, the

What about the more reasonable processors? (3, Insightful)

rikkus-x (526844) | about 8 years ago | (#15717607)

Personally, I don't care about processors costing USD 400 or gaming performance, where CPU doesn't matter too much anyway. Are there any comparisons of the cheapest Core 2 processors with similarly priced AMDs?

Overclocked 805 (1)

Ethan Allison (904983) | about 8 years ago | (#15717617)

But how does the Core 2 Duo compare to an overclocked 3.7GHz* Pentium D 805?

*3.7GHz is the fastest it can go on a normalish cooling system, I believe
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...