After an 18-page in-depth review of Intel’s new processor line, The Tech Report concludes: “After years of wandering in the wilderness, Intel has recaptured the desktop CPU performance title in dramatic fashion. Both the Core 2 Extreme X6800 and the Core 2 Duo E6700 easily outperform the Athlon 64 FX-62 across a range of applications – and the E6600 is right in the hunt, as well. Not only that, but the Core 2 processors showed no real weaknesses in our performance tests.”
links to (40+) other reviews can be found here: http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25598
You beat me to the link! I found that one earlier too, as I was compiling a series of posts with links to reviews, then found that and gave up(pointed to it).
Looks like the reviews are unanimous(excepting the jokers @ hardocp, questionable “review”) in supporting those early benchmarks showing core 2 duo whooping it up on AMD. As a matter of fact, the review numbers look relatively scary, well at least if I were AMD I’d be scared, but since I’m not, I’m happy.
They just need fab a better product to keep competition alive and keep CPU prices low.
The E6400 is looking to keep right near to the Fx-62 as well, which isn’t bad conbsidering it’s c. $183 v. c. $1000 for the Fx…
did a great job. I guess the 900 lb gorilla has awoken. Well its about time. As much as I like AMD this is really great competition to advance technology and keep the prices low as possible. The FX is ridiculously expensive.
Intel’s Core 2 are great processors – intel finally managed to be clearly leading in terms of performance for the time beeing.
On a side note, i hate it that every review/benchmark looks only at the high-end cpu’s, leaving out the ones that most people will end buying – the entry level/mid range ones.
Please, i had it with X6800 and E6700 benchmarks, how about some E6400 ones?
you can’t simply scale guess the performance due to different cache sizes – 2MB on the slower cpu’s.
Anandtech had the E6300 benchmarked, but not E6400. Depending on the app, it benchmarked anywhere between an X2 3800 and 5000, but usually around a 4400. Maybe a bit faster.
They also looked at the difference between 2-4MB cache, and found it added 1-10% depending on the app. Average was about 3.5%.
For money/performance the best two choices are E6600 (@2.4 Ghz) which is a little bit (unnoticeable) faster than AMD X2 5000+. I think that AMD will lower the price of the above CPU to be competitive with intel’s one, and I think it might reach 300 $ or less
I have a Pentium D920. I might replace it with a 950, which should be great value for money at around $250 once the prices go down, and no need to replace my motherboard (only 3 months old)
But why?
What are you going to be able to do with the 950 that you can’t do with the 920?
Good point
I am also wondering if that bit of extra speed is worth the money.
its really not. I always thought it best to do large speed jumps. like right now I’m still using a p3-600/512k , I plan on upgrading to a quad core next year.
The speed difference WILL be worth the money
Yeah, I’m on an XP 2800+ (which was a 2600 until I sent it back to AMD for an RMA and they sent back the 2800+… I love free upgrades).
I’ve got 1.5gb of RAM and a Geforce 6800.
I would love to have a dualo core system, but not for the price I would have to pay. I would need new mobo, new RAM (For DDR2), new proc, and a new video card (mine is AGP)… and for what?
You’ve definately got me beat with the P3 though…
Thanks