Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jul 2006 11:16 UTC, submitted by Mr. Tan
Intel OCAU reviews the new Core 2 Duo line from Intel, and concludes: "Thanks to its new micro-architecture, Core 2 Duo is performing far better than the previous generation dual core Pentium D. An X6800, for example, is between 30% ~ to 40% faster than a Pentium D 955XE. Core 2 Duo is achieving performance in applications and games that has not been seen before with a dual core desktop CPU. In addition Core 2 Duo consumes 40% less power and runs much cooler than Pentium D."
Order by: Score:
silicon
Member since:
2005-07-30

I wish I had the cash for the Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition (X6800).

Reply Score: 1

Can't wait to upgrade...
by Milo_Hoffman on Fri 14th Jul 2006 13:01 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Can't wait to put on in my Mac mini...thats gonna be a smokin machine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Can't wait to upgrade...
by Dark Leth on Fri 14th Jul 2006 16:12 UTC in reply to "Can't wait to upgrade..."
Dark Leth Member since:
2005-07-06

You can't. The mini uses mobile chips, of which the new Yonah ones will not be as dramatic of an improvement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Can't wait to upgrade...
by Tuishimi on Fri 14th Jul 2006 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Can't wait to upgrade..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Merom you mean? The improvement should still be pretty good... the opened up pipeline and bigger cache should offer some readily discernible speed increases.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Can't wait to upgrade...
by smitty on Fri 14th Jul 2006 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can't wait to upgrade..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I'd say Core(1) is probably about even with the Athlon X2s, so you'll probably see a significant boost by waiting. 20-30%? It will also be 64 bit, so I'd wait if you are going to keep it for years. If you upgrade every year or two, though, I'd just get something now. There's always something coming out in a few months that will be faster.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Can't wait to upgrade...
by Tuishimi on Fri 14th Jul 2006 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can't wait to upgrade..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes... I recently bought a 2.0 yonah for my mac mini. I will wait 6 months and pick up a merom.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Can't wait to upgrade...
by godawful on Fri 14th Jul 2006 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Can't wait to upgrade..."
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29
RE[3]: Can't wait to upgrade...
by Dark Leth on Sat 15th Jul 2006 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can't wait to upgrade..."
Dark Leth Member since:
2005-07-06

No, I was referring to him wanting to drop in a Conroe, which is the chip being reviewed. He can only use a current Yonah, Sossaman, or the upcoming Merom.

Reply Score: 1

the mac mini is nice
by werpu on Fri 14th Jul 2006 13:16 UTC
werpu
Member since:
2006-01-18

I just got one, but the main performance problem of this machine is definitely not the processor, so upgrading the processor will not help too much, the main performance drag is the intel 965 graphics processor.

Reply Score: 1

More reviews...
by Mr. Tan on Fri 14th Jul 2006 13:55 UTC
Mr. Tan
Member since:
2005-07-08

from hardocp, i dont know if this is relevant or not, since gaming performance is GPU bound not CPU bound, but i leave the judgement to you guys/gals

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVz...

Reply Score: 2

v Interesting article. Thanks for posting.***
by ivefallen on Fri 14th Jul 2006 14:11 UTC in reply to "More reviews..."
RE: More reviews...
by netpython on Fri 14th Jul 2006 15:14 UTC in reply to "More reviews..."
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

What about this one:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwxLCxoZW50aHVz...

Focussed on multimedia.Furthermore there's a comparizon with a AMD FX-63:-)

Reply Score: 0

Also interesting. Though Intel has always had
by ivefallen on Fri 14th Jul 2006 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: More reviews..."
ivefallen Member since:
2006-05-19

the performance edge over AMD in multimedia, the new chip obviously has increased that performance. Props to Intel.

Reply Score: 1

FX63 for $300 ?
by bards1888 on Fri 14th Jul 2006 13:58 UTC
bards1888
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sounds good to me.


Woops, meant to say FX-62.......

Edited 2006-07-14 13:59

Reply Score: 0

I need one
by shadow_x99 on Fri 14th Jul 2006 14:11 UTC
shadow_x99
Member since:
2006-05-12

It's been long enough since I bought a new computer. I've been waiting for that kind of CPU to buy one... I got a airplace engine as a CPU (If you could hear it, you would understand)... I long to have a quiet yet performant system!

Reply Score: 1

RE: I need one
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 14th Jul 2006 20:11 UTC in reply to "I need one"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I got a airplace engine as a CPU (If you could hear it, you would understand)...

Sounds like you need a new heatsink or a new power supply, not a new CPU.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I need one
by shadow_x99 on Mon 17th Jul 2006 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE: I need one"
shadow_x99 Member since:
2006-05-12

P4 Prescot generates a lot of heat. To cool down a CPU, you need a good heatsink, good thermal paste & good fan. When the CPU gets at 60 celsion, the fan try to do faster to compensate... The fan going faster will create a lot of noise... The noise annoys me...

Core 2 Duo uses less power and therefore produce less heat (According to all reviews at least)... Having a CPU that generate less heat will allow me to have fan going slower... You see where I am going?

Reply Score: 1

Core 2 vs Core?
by zerohalo on Fri 14th Jul 2006 14:55 UTC
zerohalo
Member since:
2005-07-26

This review and others I've seen, compare Core 2 with P4 or AMD. But what about the difference between Core 2 and Core? I'm mostly interested because I'm about to upgrade my laptop and I'm wondering if it's better to wait for Merom or whether there's not a significant difference between Core and Core 2 that would make the wait worthwhile. I'm sure it'll be better, of course, but does it represent a significant jump or just a speed bump?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Core 2 vs Core?
by netpython on Fri 14th Jul 2006 15:20 UTC in reply to "Core 2 vs Core?"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

But what about the difference between Core 2 and Core?

The Core 2 has shared L2 cache.The Core has unshared L2 cache.

Which means one single core can consume up to 100% L2 cache (Core 2) when only one core is used.

see:http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=489587&P=2

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Core 2 vs Core?
by ValiSystem on Fri 14th Jul 2006 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Core 2 vs Core?"
ValiSystem Member since:
2006-02-28

Which means one single core can consume up to 100% L2 cache (Core 2) when only one core is used.

Also, i suppose that when a process is migrated from one core to another, this process can reuse directly the shared cache instead of refilling the cache of its core.
That is a great thing.

Edited 2006-07-14 15:55

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Core 2 vs Core?
by Wes Felter on Fri 14th Jul 2006 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Core 2 vs Core?"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

The Core 2 has shared L2 cache.The Core has unshared L2 cache.

No, both of them have shared L2.

Anyway, what matters is price, performance, and power, not microarchitecture.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Core 2 vs Core?
by netpython on Fri 14th Jul 2006 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Core 2 vs Core?"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Anyway, what matters is price, performance, and power, not microarchitecture.

Agreed,$500 prize difference between the X6800 and E6700 is a lot of do whereas the performance is generally pretty the same.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Core 2 vs Core?
by phoenix on Sat 15th Jul 2006 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Core 2 vs Core?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

No, the Core architecure uses separate L2 caches (2x 1MB and 2x 2MB), one specifically for each core. It's similar to putting two normal CPUs together into one chip package. Depending on the CPU, they even have to go across the FSB to access data in the other core's L2.

The Core 2 architecture uses a single, shared, 2 MB or 4 MB L2 cache. Each core can access the full 2 or 4 MB. The cores dynamically assign the L2 cache as needed to eachother. And they can access data that the other core put in the cache.

Big difference.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Core 2 vs Core?
by Dark Leth on Fri 14th Jul 2006 16:13 UTC in reply to "Core 2 vs Core?"
Dark Leth Member since:
2005-07-06

The only great performance change is that Merom will be 64-bit; Yonah is not.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Core 2 vs Core?
by Dark Leth on Sat 15th Jul 2006 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Core 2 vs Core?"
Dark Leth Member since:
2005-07-06

Who voted this down? I was being realistic with that analysis - you have a problem with it, back up your vote with some reasoning.

Reply Score: 1

...
by suryad on Fri 14th Jul 2006 16:38 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

So HardOCP is saying compared to an AMD this is not that big of a performance boost...not suprising really. I cant wait for the next gen AMDs to come out based on 65 nm...and quad cores...with HT 3.0. Supposedly it is an FP monster that new architecture. Time will tell. Nice reviews but a bit disappointing this Core 2 cpu. Considering all the numbers that were released early on how they were 40% faster than FX processors in virtually every benchmark, this is rather lukewarm.

What I am interested in is how the processor from INtel will scale and how it would handle having more cores added to the die.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by CPUGuy on Fri 14th Jul 2006 16:44 UTC in reply to "..."
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Tomshardware gives a much better reivew of this.

All of the tests on THG show every model of the Core2 beating every model of the X2 and Fx, in every benchmark.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by suryad on Fri 14th Jul 2006 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Thanks a lot for the link. I just saw another review at Techreport and so on, boy oh boy the number differences are quite amazing! Intel needs to be truly applauded for this quick turnaround. THeir Israel team is truly amazing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Get a Life on Fri 14th Jul 2006 18:20 UTC in reply to "..."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

HardOCP is intentionally choosing to GPU-limit their game benchmarks to demonstrate that there is little substantive difference in practice for the gamer. Even NetBurst processors will show little difference if you start playing at 1600x1200 with a single GPU. If you start looking at the overall benchmarks you will see that the Core 2 is clearly offering higher performance per clock with lower power consumption. If what you'll be doing is GPU-bound then it doesn't matter what you have performance-wise. Compared to Intel's performance with NetBurst, though this is quite an improvement and given the intended pricing makes Intel's offerings very competitive. That's now, and not at the end of 2007 or 2008. With the reports of air overclocking around the 4GHz mark, there is clearly much room for the processor to scale. The biggest problem with the processor until next year will be availability.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by smitty on Fri 14th Jul 2006 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

With a single GPU, pretty much every Core 2 Duo and X2 are going to be even in games. Even most of the Pentium Ds are fast enough. If you move to SLI/Crossfire, though, you'll start noticing differences.

Reply Score: 2

A sad day
by Duffman on Fri 14th Jul 2006 18:54 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

for AMD fanboy.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: A sad day
by segedunum on Fri 14th Jul 2006 21:53 UTC in reply to "A sad day"
RE: A sad day
by phoenix on Sat 15th Jul 2006 03:13 UTC in reply to "A sad day"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

A sad day for home users, gamers, and hobbyists, perhaps. Or, it could just mean cheaper Athlon64s for everyone.

Definitely a sad day for AMD-based laptop makers, but then, AMD has never really had a strong laptop CPU.

But, until Intel scraps their shared-bus chipset/memory layout, they will remain second choice for all multi-processor server setups. There's still nothing in Intel's lineup that can even match a lowly Opteron 2xx setup using single-core CPUs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Core 2 vs Core?
by Wes Felter on Sat 15th Jul 2006 04:45 UTC
Wes Felter
Member since:
2005-11-15

No, both of them have shared L2. Read Intel's Web site or any article ever written about the Core Duo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Core 2 vs Core?
by phoenix on Sat 15th Jul 2006 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Core 2 vs Core?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Hmmm, looks like you're right. I was confusing the Pentium D with the Core.

Reply Score: 1