Core 2 Duo Reviews are out !!

[Mohit]

this one is interesting …there is only a max 10% diff in perfomance between the 4mb n 2mb core 2 duo proccies … the 4mb ones are not worth the extra premium imho.

better to oc an e6300 insanely than spending that premium.

what do u guys think ??

[Switch]

Well I for one will disagree with you… I Beleive [H] Team always gives us one of the best reviews from the consumer point of view… They measure everything with Real World Performace…

No arguing about C2D here but about [H] reviews…

[mjp1618]

Intel’s AMD Killer - Core 2 Duo - GDHardware.com

…in the most simplistic of terms, Conroe (dubbed Core 2 Duo) kicks the Athlon64 right in the balls and doesn’t look back.

At the end of the day the numbers here really do speak volumes about Intel’s potential with Conroe – make no mistake about it, they have unleashed a series of new processors that are going to make AMD’s life really uncomfortable for the foreseeable future. AM2 should be called AMwho? A band-aid fix at best, AMD’s current crop of CPUs simply can’t compete with Core Duo 2 when you consider they’re priced about the same. The only chance AMD has to keep selling its CPUs is to hurry up and lower its parts in a hurry.

We already know of OEM and system builders who’ll be lining up behind Conroe, now the least of those is VoodooPC who in the past have been outspoken against Intel. You’ve gotta know that if Core 2 Duo can turn VoodooPC’s CEO, Rahul, around then it’s the chip for everyone as he’s a picky s.o.b. who demands the best in performance.

Stay tuned to GDHardware as in the next few days we’ll be looking into the overclockablily of these new CPUs – can you say “old school Celeron” clockability?

Kudos to Intel for getting it right and not just baby-stepping us into the next realm of performance but really handing AMD its ass on a silver platter. We’re performance nuts around here and appreciate the school-of-hard-knocks Intel has gone through with P4. It’s nice to see AMD eat some crow for awhile.

This reviewer seems to be as much an Intel fan as the [H]ard|OCP reviewer was an AMD fan…

[Darklord]

I donno if anyone observed this in the AT review but AMD has a 35 Watt X2 3800+ !!! i was shocked to see that.I mean it is on 90 nm,i think it is some commendable achievement.I know this has got nothing to do with conroe and all but then i couldnt resist posting this here,cos i myself was impressed.

[Vandal]

@Switch

From AT Only

Yeah baby C2D inside soon…

[Vij]

will conrroe be available by aug and what would indian prices of 6300 6600

[Vandal]

@ interesting Mohit… thanks..

C2D inside soon…

[Switch]

@Vijay… Now why do that reminds me of techboy

Prices will be a tad higher then US prices but availability will be a Big issue as from the total of 100% Intel production only 25% will consists of C2D and of that 25% every major OEM (Dell/HP/Emachines/Etc) will try to get thier hands on the last chip available on the planet…

Only time will tell Vijay…

[mjp1618]

@Switch

Well I for one will disagree with you… I Beleive [H] Team always gives us one of the best reviews from the consumer point of view… They measure everything with Real World Performace…

No arguing about C2D here but about [H] reviews…

This is an interesting discussion about the [H]ard|OCP Core 2 gaming performance review:-

beginning the end of conroe hype. - by GotaLoveIMC.

In particular, Msg. 16 by jaguarskx.

He uses this link, “Games against CPUs - Part II” to illustrate the fact that at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes a real bottleneck to test the CPU effectively.

Also, on the page 3 in the [H] review, this is an interesting part (as also pointed out in the THG forum’s discussion):-

The ONLY difference that we experienced is that we did have to lower a couple of settings with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform compared to the Intel platforms. This was the internal and external shadows. Luckily, the shadow sliders there are “notched” so it is easy to know exactly what position they are in. With the Intel CPUs, we were able to have this 5 notches up, which is in the middle of the slider for those shadow options. When we tried these same settings on the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform, we found performance to be overall lower than the Intel CPUs and not playable. By moving those sliders down a couple of notches to 3 notches on the slider, performance was now playable.

The difference in graphics quality is minor though between notch 3 and 5. We noticed that some objects cast shadows farther in the distance as we approached them with the slider at notch 5. We also noticed that at extreme angles when viewing in third person view zoomed all the way out the character was casting a shadow in more places than with notch 3. That’s all we noticed between the slider positions.

Sure, the [H] review is on real-world gaming performance, but it really sucks as a CPU review. I bet even most Pentium Ds would have come close to the FX and Core 2 numbers.

Also, on the Conclusions page:-

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.

Do they really think the almost 2x price premium is only because of the slightly higher clock? At least for me, the Extremes (like the FXs) costs so much mainly because they are supposed to be extremely good overclockers, on account of their unlocked multipliers as well as because they are the top bins. What kind of idiot pays 2x the price for a 9% higher clock? The Extreme is supposed to be used by enthusiasts who push their systems to the limits.

Disclaimer: I am not a regular reader of [H]ard|OCP, and so I am not very familiar with their testing methods. Maybe they are just being consistent. But, I personally don’t think their methods are the best, at least as far as CPU testing is concerned.

[mjp1618]

@Darklord

I donno if anyone observed this in the AT review but AMD has a 35 Watt X2 3800+ !!! i was shocked to see that.I mean it is on 90 nm,i think it is some commendable achievement.I know this has got nothing to do with conroe and all but then i couldnt resist posting this here,cos i myself was impressed.

I don’t think there will be many of them around. They are just the best chips cherrypicked for low power consumption… And really, I don’t understand why AMD needs them, why can’t the Turion X2s be used instead of them?

[Darklord]

Well i dont get the point.WHy is everyone crying about the high price of FX 62 ? no one is forcing you to get it.Also agreed that AM2 is lacking to C2D but then didnt Intel also price their Pentium D around same price range when they were clearly being beaten by FX ???

[mjp1618]

Intel’s Core 2 Extreme/Duo Processors - FiringSquad

So there you have it, Intel’s back in the leadership position when it comes to performance. Both Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Core 2 Duo E6700 clearly outperformed the best processor AMD currently has to offer. You can expect Intel’s hard at work cranking out as many Core 2 processors as they possibly can, as clearly they’ve got quite a gem on their hands with their latest CPU.

[Darklord]

@mjp1618

I don’t think there will be many of them around. They are just the best chips cherrypicked for low power consumption… And really, I don’t understand why AMD needs them, why can’t the Turion X2s be used instead of them?

Uhhh ?? how do you know there arent going to be too many of em ??? WHy AMD needs them ? well cos Intel is now playing the Performance/Watt game,thats why.

[mjp1618]

Intel Conroe Core 2 Duo/Extreme Processors - Hexus.net

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!

[Switch]

Sure, the [H] review is on real-world gaming performance, but it really sucks as a CPU review. I bet even most Pentium Ds would have come close to the FX and Core 2 numbers.

So whats wrong in that Dear… When they talk about gaming performance… They make a lot of sense… As as a gamer you would see only those points…

Do they really think the almost 2x price premium is only because of the slightly higher clock? At least for me, the Extremes (like the FXs) costs so much mainly because they are supposed to be extremely good overclockers, on account of their unlocked multipliers as well as because they are the top bins. What kind of idiot pays 2x the price for a 9% higher clock? The Extreme is supposed to be used by enthusiasts who push their systems to the limits.

Edit/Delete Message

Come on man… read carefully again… he is talking about gamers there… Not enthu’s… Hell… I am sure non of the enthu’s will give a POS about gaming… All they care for is numbers… While a gamer looks at VFM mostly… and surely a 6800 is no VFM compared to a 6700 …

[mjp1618]

@Darklord

Uhhh ?? how do you know there arent going to be too many of em ??? WHy AMD needs them ? well cos Intel is now playing the Performance/Watt game,thats why.

Because, they are apparently not really made any differently. AMD does not “try” to make the 35W models. They are just cherrypicking their best, lowest power-consuming chips, and probably underclocking them to fit in the 35W TDP range.

So, I just think that AMD will have only a very low fraction of its chips with such good properties.

I agree that AMD “needs” them to compete with Intel after the 65W Conroes… Such low-power chips, however low in number, can provide a kind of a halo effect over the entire product line… Sharikou, for one, keeps on playing up the 35W card whenever he wants to play up AMD’s preformance-per-watt ratio…

But really, I personally don’t understand why and where the 35W Athlon 64 X2s are needed. For what applications? HTPCs? Why not use Turion X2s? Many VIIV PCs use Core Duos, and will soon use Meroms. Why not the Turion X2s?

I personally think the 35W Athlon 64 X2s are just a publicity gimmick.

---

Regarding my comment about the 35W X2s being just the best bins, I don’t have a link yet, seems to be an old news item. It was reported by CNET among others, IIRC.

[mjp1618]

@Switch

So whats wrong in that Dear… When they talk about gaming performance… They make a lot of sense… As as a gamer you would see only those points…

Come on man… read carefully again… he is talking about gamers there… Not enthu’s… Hell… I am sure non of the enthu’s will give a POS about gaming… All they care for is numbers… While a gamer looks at VFM mostly… and surely a 6800 is no VFM compared to a 6700 …

Well, yeah, you have good points; as I said, I am not a regular reader of [H], I guess they always post reviews like that, pure gaming reviews…

It’s just that their reviews looked very strange to me…

[Darklord]

@mjp1618

Because, they are apparently not really made any differently. AMD does not “try” to make the 35W models. They are just cherrypicking their best, lowest power-consuming chips, and probably underclocking them to fit in the 35W TDP range.

So, I just think that AMD will have only a very low fraction of its chips with such good properties.

I agree that AMD “needs” them to compete with Intel after the 65W Conroes… Such low-power chips, however low in number, can provide a kind of a halo effect over the entire product line… Sharikou, for one, keeps on playing up the 35W card whenever he wants to play up AMD’s preformance-per-watt ratio…

But really, I personally don’t understand why and where the 35W Athlon 64 X2s are needed. For what applications? HTPCs? Why not use Turion X2s? Many VIIV PCs use Core Duos, and will soon use Meroms. Why not the Turion X2s?

I personally think the 35W Athlon 64 X2s are just a publicity gimmick.

---

Regarding my comment about the 35W X2s being just the best bins, I don’t have a link yet, seems to be an old news item. It was reported by CNET among others, IIRC.

Uh well i know that but thats not my point.I am not trying to defend AMD or anything.my point is achieving 35W on 90nm is not a joke and that too DUal Core…thats it.

[mjp1618]

Intel’s Core 2 Duo processors - bit-tech.net

Final Thoughts…
So then, it turns out that the performance numbers that we ran on the Intel-built Core 2 Duo E6700 system are as good as they looked the first time around. The performance capabilities of Intel’s Core architecture are now clearer than ever. There wasn’t a single test where the Core 2 Extreme X6800 fell behind AMD’s current flagship processor - the Athlon 64 FX-62. Arguably though, the more intriguing processors are the lower-end Core 2 Duos, namely the E6600 and the E6400.

There are many occasions where the Core 2 Duo E6600 is hot on the heels of the Athlon 64 FX-62, and in many cases Intel’s slowest 4MB L2 cache Core 2 Duo outperforms AMD’s flagship chip for roughly 1/3 of the price. On the other hand, there are many occasions where the Core 2 Duo E6400 puts in strong performances against the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ and X2 4600+ processors. In many situations, it came out on top of the X2 5000+ while costing considerably less than AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 3800+.

Overclockers UK is listing the chips on pre-order, starting at £152 for the E6300. The Core 2 Duo E6400 comes in at £182 including VAT - we think that this represents excellent value for money. Having said that, the Core 2 Duo E6600 represents great value, too. At £252 including VAT, it is marginally more expensive than the Athlon 64 X2 4600+, but the performance delivered by it is in a completely different league altogether. Meanwhile the Core 2 Duo E6700 and Core 2 Extreme are on pre-order for £411 and £775 respectively.

Intel has spent a long time shouting about it’s Core 2 Duo processors, and now it is clear why the company has been doing so for such a long time. The architecture is incredibly fast, and based on our preliminary testing, there is plenty of room for the architecture to scale, too. We were able to get our Core 2 Extreme X6800 running quite happily at 3.46GHz. Unfortunately though, due to the time that we had available, we had to cut short our overclocking testing and save it for another day - it’s something that we think is definitely worth revisiting.

In fact, there are a whole bunch of architectural caveats to investigate on Intel’s Core 2 Duo processors. One that we hope that we have answered here is the question of L2 cache. Despite there being some performance improvements as a result of having 4MB of L2 cache, we don’t think that the performance deficit is as big as some have made out. Out of the four processors we’ve looked at today, the E6400 looks to be a steal at £182, while the E6600 also represents good value for money.

We have a hard time recommending the Core 2 Duo E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800, but there is no doubting that the performance that these processors deliver is in a different league in virtually all scenarios that we’ve tested them in. If you’re looking to spend this kind of money on a new processor, you’re not going to go far wrong with either chip. Of course, AMD is set to reduce its prices on July 24th - that could make things very interesting, but it isn’t going to change the benchmark scores. Right now, the benchmarks are in Intel’s favour.

[Switch]

Yup they are strange… You should try reading the last Fragbox review they did… You will die laughing …

They were so pissed by ATI that even though a of fault in the nVIDIA based BFG card they did not recommaned the system putting the blame on ATI chipset initially… Later upon inspection when the problem was discovered they still did not consider revising thier rating on the system… They did however updated the ariticle but rating for the system remained the same… Do read when you have time