With the Intel Nehalem chip on its way, Intel is cutting the prices of some of its high-end desktop processors and adding some chips into its lineup. The new Intel chips include the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 processor for high-end and gaming desktop PCs.
Intel is slashing the prices on some of its high-end desktop PC and server processors and adding some new chips to its portfolio following the release of the chip maker’s naming scheme for Nehalem.
The changes to Intel’s chip pricing were officially released Aug. 10, and those changes include cutting the price of the high-end Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz) by 40 percent from $530 to $316. Intel also added a new Core 2 Quad chip into the mix called the Q9650 (3.0GHz) at a price of $530.
Other additions to the high-end lineup include the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz) at a price of $266. All three of these desktop chips are built on the company’s 45-nanometer manufacturing process.
Intel also announced chip price cuts July 20.
The changes to Intel's processor listing come a day after the company released the new branding and naming scheme for the processors that will be built on Intel’s forthcoming Nehalem microarchitecture. Since Intel has said that the first of the Nehalem chips – the Core i7 – is destined for high-end PCs and gaming desktops, the changes allow Intel to drop the prices of some its older chips, while freeing up room in its pricing chart for its latest processors.
The Intel Developer Forum will kick off Aug. 19, and much of the discussion there will focus on Nehalem, which will allow Intel to build chips that scale for two to eight cores and have new features such as an integrated memory controller. By bringing the first of the Nehalem chips into the high-end PC space, it allows Intel to showcase the chips in a small, but influential part of the market before entering the mainstream.
The other part of the market that Nehalem processors are likely to show up first is in the single-socket server space, and Intel also made changes to its Xeon lineup. The chip maker added three new models, the Xeon X3370 (3.0GHz), the X3330 (2.66GHz) and the E3120 (3.16GHz). The prices for these chips are $530, $266, and $188 respectively.
Intel also cut the price of its Xeon X3360 (2.83) by 40 percent from $530 to $316. The X3370 now replaces this chip as the high-end of the single-socket server chip lineup.
Finally, Intel added two additional Core 2 Duo desktop chips into the lineup. These additions include the Core 2 Duo E8600 (3.33GHz) for $266 and the E7300 (2.66GHz) for $133.
All the new prices are calculated in 1,000-unit shipments.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz - Wolfdale Arrives
In the summer of 2006, Intel released their 65nm Conroe-based processors, and to say they won the hearts of many would be an understatement. It was one product-launch that Intel didn't want to hit lightly, especially since AMD were actively taking from their customer base - on the enthusiast side, most notably. When said and done, Intel did accomplish what they planned to do. They put the industry through a blender and showed us how to be excited about processors again.
Although frequencies with Conroe were not as high as what we were used to seeing from Intel, the folks in Santa Clara proved that a high frequency didn't mean much if the processor itself was inefficient. Indeed, a 2.4GHz Conroe Dual-Core proved just how much better an efficient processor could be, and it quickly became the most common processor choice for the enthusiast.
The following summer, follow-up processors were released, including the E6750 Dual-Core which we evaluated at the time. Besides speed bumps, those processors didn't bring much to the table in way of new features, except for native 1333FSB support. Instead, the processor we are taking a look at today is one of the few new models that effectively replace the Conroe-based chips that we came to love so dearly in summer of '06.
I won't delve deep into how 45nm improves on 65nm, as I explained all of that in our QX9650 review, but I will touch on things briefly. One large benefit that comes with all die shrinks is better power efficiency and lower temperatures. Chips have the capability to run just as fast, if not faster, than their predecessors, all while running cooler and drawing less power. It's a win/win situation.
But with 45nm, Intel introduced more than just a die shrink. The biggest feature that most people will be interested in is the SSE4 instruction set. It affects media-buffs only - those who encode videos - but the performance gains are so evident, that developers of such applications are bound to begin supporting it sooner than later. The speed increases could be as large as 2x, even though it's difficult to believe.
Other improvements include increased L2 cache, half-multipliers (eg, 9.5x), a faster front-side-bus, improved Super Shuffle Engine, Smart Cache (to improve how split loads are accessed and stored) and so many transistors on a single die, it can give people headaches to think about it!
The obvious downside of the QX9650 launch in November was the fact that no other processors complimented it. Therefore, it was QX9650 or bust - until now that is. During CES earlier this month, Intel officially announced their 45nm launch plans, which include the desktop side, server and also mobile. We found out at that time that the Quad-Core models (Q9300 - Q9550) were pushed back to sometime in Q1. Although a solid date was never settled on, original road maps showed January as the scheduled launch. However, the rumor is that due to poor performing Phenom Quad-Core sales, Intel decided to hold off on the launch to help push remaining 65nm models to consumers first.
So how does the road map stand now that some time has past? Although Intel announced near-immediate availability of all 45nm desktop Dual-Cores at CES, only the E8400 has shown up on e-tailers. One popular e-tailer has the other models listed for availability in April. How true that is, I'm unsure, but it's strange given the fact that they were supposed to be available by now.
Processor Name
Cores
Clock
Cache
FSB
TDP
1Ku Price
Available
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775
4
3.20GHz
2 x 6MB
1600MHz
150W
$1,499
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770
4
3.20GHz
2 x 6MB
1600MHz
136W
$1,399
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
4
3.0GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
130W
$999
Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
4
2.86GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
95W
$530
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
4
2.66GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
95W
$316
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
4
2.5GHz
2 x 3MB
1333MHz
95W
$266
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
2
3.16GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$266
Jan 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
2
3.00GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$183
Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
2
2.66GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$163
Jan 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190
2
2.66GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$163
Jan 2008
The biggest downside to the road map is that the Q9xxx are not available. Once they are, they are no doubt going to sell like hotcakes, given the improvements over the previous generation and the fact that the prices do not increase. The upside, though, is that even though the E8400 is the lone desktop Dual-Core to be available right now, we can be happy that it is the model most people would be after.
What makes the E8400 such a great choice is the fact that it's affordable, at $220USD on average, and has a nice clock speed. Let's face it... where overclocking is not concerned, having a 3.0GHz CPU looks better to the ego than say, 2.66GHz. It's all about the smooth frequencies, baby.
Although frequencies with Conroe were not as high as what we were used to seeing from Intel, the folks in Santa Clara proved that a high frequency didn't mean much if the processor itself was inefficient. Indeed, a 2.4GHz Conroe Dual-Core proved just how much better an efficient processor could be, and it quickly became the most common processor choice for the enthusiast.
The following summer, follow-up processors were released, including the E6750 Dual-Core which we evaluated at the time. Besides speed bumps, those processors didn't bring much to the table in way of new features, except for native 1333FSB support. Instead, the processor we are taking a look at today is one of the few new models that effectively replace the Conroe-based chips that we came to love so dearly in summer of '06.
I won't delve deep into how 45nm improves on 65nm, as I explained all of that in our QX9650 review, but I will touch on things briefly. One large benefit that comes with all die shrinks is better power efficiency and lower temperatures. Chips have the capability to run just as fast, if not faster, than their predecessors, all while running cooler and drawing less power. It's a win/win situation.
But with 45nm, Intel introduced more than just a die shrink. The biggest feature that most people will be interested in is the SSE4 instruction set. It affects media-buffs only - those who encode videos - but the performance gains are so evident, that developers of such applications are bound to begin supporting it sooner than later. The speed increases could be as large as 2x, even though it's difficult to believe.
Other improvements include increased L2 cache, half-multipliers (eg, 9.5x), a faster front-side-bus, improved Super Shuffle Engine, Smart Cache (to improve how split loads are accessed and stored) and so many transistors on a single die, it can give people headaches to think about it!
The obvious downside of the QX9650 launch in November was the fact that no other processors complimented it. Therefore, it was QX9650 or bust - until now that is. During CES earlier this month, Intel officially announced their 45nm launch plans, which include the desktop side, server and also mobile. We found out at that time that the Quad-Core models (Q9300 - Q9550) were pushed back to sometime in Q1. Although a solid date was never settled on, original road maps showed January as the scheduled launch. However, the rumor is that due to poor performing Phenom Quad-Core sales, Intel decided to hold off on the launch to help push remaining 65nm models to consumers first.
So how does the road map stand now that some time has past? Although Intel announced near-immediate availability of all 45nm desktop Dual-Cores at CES, only the E8400 has shown up on e-tailers. One popular e-tailer has the other models listed for availability in April. How true that is, I'm unsure, but it's strange given the fact that they were supposed to be available by now.
Processor Name
Cores
Clock
Cache
FSB
TDP
1Ku Price
Available
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775
4
3.20GHz
2 x 6MB
1600MHz
150W
$1,499
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770
4
3.20GHz
2 x 6MB
1600MHz
136W
$1,399
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
4
3.0GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
130W
$999
Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
4
2.86GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
95W
$530
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
4
2.66GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
95W
$316
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
4
2.5GHz
2 x 3MB
1333MHz
95W
$266
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
2
3.16GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$266
Jan 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
2
3.00GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$183
Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
2
2.66GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$163
Jan 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190
2
2.66GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$163
Jan 2008
The biggest downside to the road map is that the Q9xxx are not available. Once they are, they are no doubt going to sell like hotcakes, given the improvements over the previous generation and the fact that the prices do not increase. The upside, though, is that even though the E8400 is the lone desktop Dual-Core to be available right now, we can be happy that it is the model most people would be after.
What makes the E8400 such a great choice is the fact that it's affordable, at $220USD on average, and has a nice clock speed. Let's face it... where overclocking is not concerned, having a 3.0GHz CPU looks better to the ego than say, 2.66GHz. It's all about the smooth frequencies, baby.
AMD Phenom X3 8750 Triple-Core Processor Review
AMD announced the availability of three new AMD Phenom X3 triple-core processors that feature the latest B3 stepping. AMD first announced triple-core processors back in September 2007, but only just recently launched the AMD Phenom X3 8000 series last month. As the world's only triple-core x86 desktop processor, the Phenom X3 processors make for a very interesting product, but enthusiasts and consumers that follow processor launches had some concerns about the new triple-core processors. AMD states that the triple-core processors integrate three computational cores on a single die of silicon, but in reality it is a quad-core processor with one of the cores disabled. The initial batch of triple-core processors also suffered from the same TLB erratum that was found on the quad-cores since they made from the same B2 die steppings. When AMD announced the 50-series of quad-core processors they brought hope to AMD fans around the world as the TLB erratum was fixed thanks to a new and improved B3 stepping. AMD has finally brought the 'B3' stepping to the triple-cores and has announced three new AMD Phenom X3 triple-core processors that make up the new '50-series'. Without further ado here are the new AMD Phenom X3 processors and their price points.
• AMD Phenom X3 8750 triple-core processor - (2.4GHz) - $195
• AMD Phenom X3 8650 triple-core processor - (2.3GHz) - $165
• AMD Phenom X3 8450 triple-core processor - (2.1GHz) - $145
As you can see triple-core pricing starts at $145 for the 2.1GHz Phenom X3 8450 to $195 for the top end 2.4GHz Phenom X3 8750 triple-core processor. While these prices are very competitive, they are really close to that of the AMD Phenom X4 series. For example the AMD Phenom X4 9750 Quad-Core Processor is currently $214.99 shipped on our shopping service. Is it worth the extra $20 to get a quad-core or should one save the cash and go triple-core? You also have the2.2GHz Phenom X4 9550 for the same exact price of $195 plus shipping. If that question isn't tough keep in mind that Intel just cut prices this week, so now you have the 3GHz Intel E6850 for $183 and the 2.4GHz Intel Q6600 for $224.
The processor we will be looking at today is the AMD Phenom X3 8750 triple-core processor. The AMD Phenom X3 8750 is a 2.4GHz processor manufactured using AMD's 65nm Silicon on Insulator process technology. The chip has a Max TDP of 95W and has official support for a 1.8GHz memory controller and HT 3.0 frequency with Dual Dynamic Power Management technology. AMD informed Legit Reviews that they do have higher clock frequencies on the road map later this year as well as 65W Phenom X3 triple-core processors. The 65W triple-core processors will be aimed at HTPC users and those looking to build energy efficient computers. AMD will continue to expand and introduce new Phenom X3 processors in the months ahead, so expect to see and hear more about them!
• AMD Phenom X3 8750 triple-core processor - (2.4GHz) - $195
• AMD Phenom X3 8650 triple-core processor - (2.3GHz) - $165
• AMD Phenom X3 8450 triple-core processor - (2.1GHz) - $145
As you can see triple-core pricing starts at $145 for the 2.1GHz Phenom X3 8450 to $195 for the top end 2.4GHz Phenom X3 8750 triple-core processor. While these prices are very competitive, they are really close to that of the AMD Phenom X4 series. For example the AMD Phenom X4 9750 Quad-Core Processor is currently $214.99 shipped on our shopping service. Is it worth the extra $20 to get a quad-core or should one save the cash and go triple-core? You also have the2.2GHz Phenom X4 9550 for the same exact price of $195 plus shipping. If that question isn't tough keep in mind that Intel just cut prices this week, so now you have the 3GHz Intel E6850 for $183 and the 2.4GHz Intel Q6600 for $224.
The processor we will be looking at today is the AMD Phenom X3 8750 triple-core processor. The AMD Phenom X3 8750 is a 2.4GHz processor manufactured using AMD's 65nm Silicon on Insulator process technology. The chip has a Max TDP of 95W and has official support for a 1.8GHz memory controller and HT 3.0 frequency with Dual Dynamic Power Management technology. AMD informed Legit Reviews that they do have higher clock frequencies on the road map later this year as well as 65W Phenom X3 triple-core processors. The 65W triple-core processors will be aimed at HTPC users and those looking to build energy efficient computers. AMD will continue to expand and introduce new Phenom X3 processors in the months ahead, so expect to see and hear more about them!
AMD Phenom X4 9850 Processor Review - B3 Stepping
When the AMD Phenom series of processors launched back on November 19th, 2007 no one could have expected just how rough things were about to get for AMD. First, they sent out Phenom 9900 processors to the press that were was unable to keep up with the Intel Core 2 series of processors. Second, the Phenom 9700/9800/9900 processors that AMD sent out to the media were pulled at the last second and replaced with the lower clocked Phenom 9600 (2.3GHz) and Phenom 9500 (2.2GHz). Then after the Phenom series was lauched it got caught up in the TLB erratum 298 controversy and found itself plauged by benchmark problems. On top of all this AMD kept telling the media, who in turn told consumers, that everything was fine and AMD was on track to deliver the Phenom 9700 and 9800 later in Q1 with a new 3GHz model in Q2 of 2008.
AMD is committed to bring quad-core to the desktop market in Q4, and we are meeting that commitment with the launch of AMD Phenom quad-core processors 9500 and 9600 (2.2GHz and 2.3GHz) on Nov. 19th. AMD is going to initially introduce these two mainstream AMD Phenom quad-core processor models in order to satisfy customer demand in 2007. Since the October meeting, AMD has decided to launch our AMD Phenom 9700 (2.4GHz) quad core product in Q1 2008, along with our AMD Phenom 9900 (2.6 GHz) quad core processor. The launch of these two higher performance processors models will coincide with the introduction of related, significant performance enhancements in the platform; namely CrossFireX and our new enthusiast graphics product. Higher performance AMD Phenom processors will follow the introduction of the AMD Phenom 9700 and 9900 models, with a 3.0 GHz model in Q2 2008. AMD has a great history of delivering faster parts through a product’s lifecycle, and we are confident that this will remain true. - AMD PR 11/14/2007
The past four months could not have gone by fast enough for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), but there does seem to be a new hope for Phenom as the latest revision of the core (stepping B3) fixes the TLB erratum along with many other erratums that were on the list. The TLB fix is now done at the silicon level, so the performance hit users were seeing with the BIOS workaround should be gone. AMD has now stopped production on the older core steppings as a result of this change. If you see a Phenom 9500 or Phenom 9600 in a system or for sale at a retailer you know that the procesor is a B1 or B2 stepping that has the TLB issue. All of the new Phenom B3 steppings will be named with the nomenclature of what AMD is calling the '50 series' of processors. The four new AMD Phenom X4 processors that AMD is announcing today are the 9550 (2.2GHz), 9650 (2.3GHz), 9750 (2.4GHz) and 9850 Black Edition (2.5GHz). AMD has told us to expect the new 50-series processors to perform the same, clock-for-clock as older revision (B2) processors operating in a platform that is not implementing the TLB erratum fix. For example, the 2.2GHz Phenom 9550 processor will replace the Phenom 9500 (B2) processor. AMD is basically 'fixing' Phenom and is making the model numbers clear to make sure consumers know what processors they are getting without having to open the retail box.
Our Phenom 9600 Black Edition on the left has been the fastest Phenom X4 processor that money could buy for a number of months now, but it is being replaced by the Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition processor that is seen above on the right. What is shocking is the fact that our Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition has a production date code of the tenth week of 2008. It is obvious that AMD was in a hurry to get these in our hand just days after these rolled off the production line.
The AMD Phenom X4 9850 that we will be benchmarking today is a 2.5GHz processor manufactured using AMD's 65nm Silicon on Insulator process technology. The chip has a Max TDP of 125W and it is a 'Black Edition', which means its multiplier is unlocked for better overclocking. Since the bus speed can't be raised that high on Phenom processors the best way to overclock is by increasing the multipler and the Black Edition was designed just for that. The one feature that is new and exclusive to just the AMD Phenom X4 9850 processor is a 2.0GHz memory controller.
AMD is committed to bring quad-core to the desktop market in Q4, and we are meeting that commitment with the launch of AMD Phenom quad-core processors 9500 and 9600 (2.2GHz and 2.3GHz) on Nov. 19th. AMD is going to initially introduce these two mainstream AMD Phenom quad-core processor models in order to satisfy customer demand in 2007. Since the October meeting, AMD has decided to launch our AMD Phenom 9700 (2.4GHz) quad core product in Q1 2008, along with our AMD Phenom 9900 (2.6 GHz) quad core processor. The launch of these two higher performance processors models will coincide with the introduction of related, significant performance enhancements in the platform; namely CrossFireX and our new enthusiast graphics product. Higher performance AMD Phenom processors will follow the introduction of the AMD Phenom 9700 and 9900 models, with a 3.0 GHz model in Q2 2008. AMD has a great history of delivering faster parts through a product’s lifecycle, and we are confident that this will remain true. - AMD PR 11/14/2007
The past four months could not have gone by fast enough for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), but there does seem to be a new hope for Phenom as the latest revision of the core (stepping B3) fixes the TLB erratum along with many other erratums that were on the list. The TLB fix is now done at the silicon level, so the performance hit users were seeing with the BIOS workaround should be gone. AMD has now stopped production on the older core steppings as a result of this change. If you see a Phenom 9500 or Phenom 9600 in a system or for sale at a retailer you know that the procesor is a B1 or B2 stepping that has the TLB issue. All of the new Phenom B3 steppings will be named with the nomenclature of what AMD is calling the '50 series' of processors. The four new AMD Phenom X4 processors that AMD is announcing today are the 9550 (2.2GHz), 9650 (2.3GHz), 9750 (2.4GHz) and 9850 Black Edition (2.5GHz). AMD has told us to expect the new 50-series processors to perform the same, clock-for-clock as older revision (B2) processors operating in a platform that is not implementing the TLB erratum fix. For example, the 2.2GHz Phenom 9550 processor will replace the Phenom 9500 (B2) processor. AMD is basically 'fixing' Phenom and is making the model numbers clear to make sure consumers know what processors they are getting without having to open the retail box.
Our Phenom 9600 Black Edition on the left has been the fastest Phenom X4 processor that money could buy for a number of months now, but it is being replaced by the Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition processor that is seen above on the right. What is shocking is the fact that our Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition has a production date code of the tenth week of 2008. It is obvious that AMD was in a hurry to get these in our hand just days after these rolled off the production line.
The AMD Phenom X4 9850 that we will be benchmarking today is a 2.5GHz processor manufactured using AMD's 65nm Silicon on Insulator process technology. The chip has a Max TDP of 125W and it is a 'Black Edition', which means its multiplier is unlocked for better overclocking. Since the bus speed can't be raised that high on Phenom processors the best way to overclock is by increasing the multipler and the Black Edition was designed just for that. The one feature that is new and exclusive to just the AMD Phenom X4 9850 processor is a 2.0GHz memory controller.
AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition
Enthusiast products probably come under more scrutiny than most other products, and for good reason. When something is advertised to run faster, clock higher, or pretty much be the best of any product that is marketed, you expect it to be so. Even if the product is only that for a short time, you just expect great results.
There was a lot of hype surrounding the AMD Phenom processors long before they actually launched. There was also a great hope that AMD would be on the comeback trail and once again be competitive against Intel. Well, by now everyone knows that not only did the Phenom let us down as far being a competitive product when up against a similar Intel CPU, but the release of the first generation of Phenom CPU's had issues that caused grief among consumers.
Not long after the initial release of the Phenom CPUs, AMD introduced a Black Edition for overclockers. At least, that is what was assumed by many in the enthusiast crowd. To their credit, AMD was not charging any more for these (even if retailers were).
So what did the release of the Black Edition mean? It meant that you were getting a CPU that had unlocked multipliers which can be a true dream to those that like to just absolutely push their systems to the max. A low multiplier and a high front side bus or HTT is what overclockers dream of. But we want to make one thing clear from the beginning of this article. Phenom is not built for high HTT settings. Our overclocking endeavors were actually very frustrating because of this. With that in mind, it is obvious why AMD wanted to release this part with unlocked multipliers and why they are not charging any extra. If you want to overclock Phenom at all, your best bet is to be able to raise the multiplier. I know I am giving away the rest of the article here, but I think it is important to say this right up front. It is what it is!
It is really hard to figure out what to say to end this article. Most people will probably buy this CPU thinking that it will be an overclocking beast, and that they are guaranteed to get 3.0GHz out of it. If that is what you are thinking, you will be sorely displeased. Think about it, if 3.0GHz was automatic, why have we not seen any speed bumps for the Phenom actually released yet? Truth be told, AMD is having a hard time with these parts. The TLB problems have not helped, and being so sensitive to the higher bus speeds is certainly a hindrance to any serious overclocker. When it comes down to it, you should consider yourself lucky any time you get anything extra out of a CPU, and you can take that statement to the 10th degree for Phenom.
There was a lot of hype surrounding the AMD Phenom processors long before they actually launched. There was also a great hope that AMD would be on the comeback trail and once again be competitive against Intel. Well, by now everyone knows that not only did the Phenom let us down as far being a competitive product when up against a similar Intel CPU, but the release of the first generation of Phenom CPU's had issues that caused grief among consumers.
Not long after the initial release of the Phenom CPUs, AMD introduced a Black Edition for overclockers. At least, that is what was assumed by many in the enthusiast crowd. To their credit, AMD was not charging any more for these (even if retailers were).
So what did the release of the Black Edition mean? It meant that you were getting a CPU that had unlocked multipliers which can be a true dream to those that like to just absolutely push their systems to the max. A low multiplier and a high front side bus or HTT is what overclockers dream of. But we want to make one thing clear from the beginning of this article. Phenom is not built for high HTT settings. Our overclocking endeavors were actually very frustrating because of this. With that in mind, it is obvious why AMD wanted to release this part with unlocked multipliers and why they are not charging any extra. If you want to overclock Phenom at all, your best bet is to be able to raise the multiplier. I know I am giving away the rest of the article here, but I think it is important to say this right up front. It is what it is!
It is really hard to figure out what to say to end this article. Most people will probably buy this CPU thinking that it will be an overclocking beast, and that they are guaranteed to get 3.0GHz out of it. If that is what you are thinking, you will be sorely displeased. Think about it, if 3.0GHz was automatic, why have we not seen any speed bumps for the Phenom actually released yet? Truth be told, AMD is having a hard time with these parts. The TLB problems have not helped, and being so sensitive to the higher bus speeds is certainly a hindrance to any serious overclocker. When it comes down to it, you should consider yourself lucky any time you get anything extra out of a CPU, and you can take that statement to the 10th degree for Phenom.
Intel's New Core 2 Duo Processors Run Blazingly Fast
In our WorldBench 5 test suite, Intel's Core 2 Duo reference system outscored a matching system equipped with AMD's high-end Athlon 64 FX-62 chip by 17 percent. We also tested shipping PCs based on several chips in the Core 2 Duo family, including a water-cooled, overclocked ABS machine that posted a mark of 181 on our WorldBench 5 test--the highest WorldBench score we've ever seen. (See PC World's detailed test results and chart. For full reviews of five new Core 2 Duo-based systems, click the product names in the results chart.)
All of our Core 2 Duo configurations performed impressively, and the higher-end models in particular should allow power users to handle demanding multimedia work on their PCs more quickly and to perform multiple computing tasks at once more efficiently. Gaming, too, will receive an impressive boost from systems equipped with the new chips.
Though its new products are good news for users, things are different for some Intel employees, as the company announced the layoff of 1000 management employees.
The Core 2 Duo processor line ranges from the 1.86-GHz E6300 chip ($183) with 2MB of cache to the 2.93-GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800 chip ($999) with 4MB of cache; all have a 1066-MHz system bus. (Intel leaves the "Duo" designation off of its X6800 CPU.)
Though Core 2 Duo chips use the same Socket 775 interface as current Pentium 4 and Pentium D chips, they require new chip sets, so you'll have to get a new motherboard--you can't just pop a Core 2 Duo chip into your existing Intel-based PC and reap the tremendous performance gains. The Core 2 Duo reference systems we tested used a motherboard with Intel's 975X Express chip set (boards using the P965 Express chip set will also be available); nVidia and ATI have their own Core 2 Duo boards as well.
The new processors and systems will be on sale from various vendors beginning July 27, with some configurations of Core 2 Duo machines checking in at surprisingly reasonable prices.
Our motherboard Core 2 Duo test setup consisted of an Intel 975X Express board, 2GB of DDR2-667 memory, a pair of SATA hard drives configured in a striped array, and an nVidia GeForce 7800GT-based graphics card. We swapped first a 2.93-GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800 chip and then a 2.67-GHz Core 2 E6700 chip into that setup to generate scores we could compare directly to an otherwise identically configured system featuring AMD's new DDR2-capable AM2 platform and its top-of-the-line FX-62 processor.
Both of the Intel setups bested the AMD-based system on every test in our WorldBench 5 suite as well as on every one of our gaming tests (see chart below). The improvement on WorldBench 5's multitasking tests, which involve running a Web browsing session in Mozilla while encoding a file with Windows Media Encoder, was particularly dramatic. You'll also see notable gains in Photoshop and similar graphics applications.
In addition to our lab-built systems, we tested several vendor-supplied PCs. For example, Dell's $3985 XPS 700, a high-end system based on the 2.67-GHz Duo E6700 processor, came with 2GB of RAM, an nVidia GeForce 7950 GX2 Dual-GPU graphics board with 1GB of SDRAM, and two 320GB SATA hard drives in a Raid 0 array. That system (whose price includes a 24-inch wide-screen monitor) also earned a score of 153 on WorldBench 5, well ahead of the 142 posted by the previous top scorer, a 2.6-GHz AMD Athlon 64 FX-60-based Xi system.
Dell's $2350 XPS 410--a relatively mainstream system based on the midrange 2.4-GHz E6600 CPU--shipped with 2GB of RAM, an nVidia GeForce 7900GS graphics board, and two 320GB SATA drives configured in a Raid 0 array. That machine (whose price includes a 20-inch wide-screen LCD) earned a score of 138 on WorldBench 5, matching the score posted by AMD's high-end FX-62 chip on our motherboard test bed.
But even those notable scores paled in comparison to the performance of the overclocked system that ABS sent us. The $4199 water-cooled ABS Ultimate X9--which shipped with 2GB of RAM, a pair of Radeon X1900 Crossfire graphics boards, two superfast Western Digital 150GB SATA drives configured in a striped RAID array, and a Core 2 Extreme X6800 chip overclocked from 2.93 GHz to run at 3.5 GHz--turned in a WorldBench 5 score of 181. Obviously, this system is not a likely choice for typical buyers, but its score is by far the highest we've seen from a shipping system. And it may indicate how much headroom Intel's Core microarchitecture possesses.
All of our Core 2 Duo configurations performed impressively, and the higher-end models in particular should allow power users to handle demanding multimedia work on their PCs more quickly and to perform multiple computing tasks at once more efficiently. Gaming, too, will receive an impressive boost from systems equipped with the new chips.
Though its new products are good news for users, things are different for some Intel employees, as the company announced the layoff of 1000 management employees.
The Core 2 Duo processor line ranges from the 1.86-GHz E6300 chip ($183) with 2MB of cache to the 2.93-GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800 chip ($999) with 4MB of cache; all have a 1066-MHz system bus. (Intel leaves the "Duo" designation off of its X6800 CPU.)
Though Core 2 Duo chips use the same Socket 775 interface as current Pentium 4 and Pentium D chips, they require new chip sets, so you'll have to get a new motherboard--you can't just pop a Core 2 Duo chip into your existing Intel-based PC and reap the tremendous performance gains. The Core 2 Duo reference systems we tested used a motherboard with Intel's 975X Express chip set (boards using the P965 Express chip set will also be available); nVidia and ATI have their own Core 2 Duo boards as well.
The new processors and systems will be on sale from various vendors beginning July 27, with some configurations of Core 2 Duo machines checking in at surprisingly reasonable prices.
Our motherboard Core 2 Duo test setup consisted of an Intel 975X Express board, 2GB of DDR2-667 memory, a pair of SATA hard drives configured in a striped array, and an nVidia GeForce 7800GT-based graphics card. We swapped first a 2.93-GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800 chip and then a 2.67-GHz Core 2 E6700 chip into that setup to generate scores we could compare directly to an otherwise identically configured system featuring AMD's new DDR2-capable AM2 platform and its top-of-the-line FX-62 processor.
Both of the Intel setups bested the AMD-based system on every test in our WorldBench 5 suite as well as on every one of our gaming tests (see chart below). The improvement on WorldBench 5's multitasking tests, which involve running a Web browsing session in Mozilla while encoding a file with Windows Media Encoder, was particularly dramatic. You'll also see notable gains in Photoshop and similar graphics applications.
In addition to our lab-built systems, we tested several vendor-supplied PCs. For example, Dell's $3985 XPS 700, a high-end system based on the 2.67-GHz Duo E6700 processor, came with 2GB of RAM, an nVidia GeForce 7950 GX2 Dual-GPU graphics board with 1GB of SDRAM, and two 320GB SATA hard drives in a Raid 0 array. That system (whose price includes a 24-inch wide-screen monitor) also earned a score of 153 on WorldBench 5, well ahead of the 142 posted by the previous top scorer, a 2.6-GHz AMD Athlon 64 FX-60-based Xi system.
Dell's $2350 XPS 410--a relatively mainstream system based on the midrange 2.4-GHz E6600 CPU--shipped with 2GB of RAM, an nVidia GeForce 7900GS graphics board, and two 320GB SATA drives configured in a Raid 0 array. That machine (whose price includes a 20-inch wide-screen LCD) earned a score of 138 on WorldBench 5, matching the score posted by AMD's high-end FX-62 chip on our motherboard test bed.
But even those notable scores paled in comparison to the performance of the overclocked system that ABS sent us. The $4199 water-cooled ABS Ultimate X9--which shipped with 2GB of RAM, a pair of Radeon X1900 Crossfire graphics boards, two superfast Western Digital 150GB SATA drives configured in a striped RAID array, and a Core 2 Extreme X6800 chip overclocked from 2.93 GHz to run at 3.5 GHz--turned in a WorldBench 5 score of 181. Obviously, this system is not a likely choice for typical buyers, but its score is by far the highest we've seen from a shipping system. And it may indicate how much headroom Intel's Core microarchitecture possesses.
Intel Core 2 Extreme: 1333MHz PSB
In our Intel Core 2 (Conroe) Performance Review article, we briefly mentioned about the initial rumors of the Core 2 Extreme clocks. There was talk about it debuting at 3.33GHz on a 1333MHz PSB, but of course that didn't happen. While we're in no position to pout about the Core 2 Extreme X6800, especially after seeing its performance, we couldn't get rid of that nagging feeling that the X6800 just wasn't extreme enough since it was just a multiplier increment over the regular Core 2 Duo E6700.
We wanted to satisfy our curiosity as to how the Core 2 Extreme would perform if it did meet the speculated specifications on release. Our overclocking platform of choice - Gigabyte's GA-965P-DQ6. At the present moment, we find that many initial Core 2 motherboards' BIOS do not properly detect Core 2 processor capabilities, sometimes restricting multiplier selection and others lack the necessary voltage and tweaking selections. The GA-965P-DQ6 happens to be one of the better boards to support the unlocked X6800 and possess great voltage granularity, a perfect combination for our overclocking efforts.
To do this, we overclocked the Core 2 Extreme X6800 to the ideal 3.33GHz with a 1333MHz PSB using a 333x10 FSB to CPU multiplier ratio and then topped it off with DDR2-1066 memory.
Maximum Overclocking
Next, we did some real overclocking to see just how scalable the Core microarchitecture can be. Intel's Netburst has produced scalable processors with good overclockability, but are bogged down by high power consumption and operating temperatures. The Core 2 is almost a total opposite, starting at modest sub-2GHz speeds. The Core microarchitecture's short pipelines would have reduced the processors scalability in terms of frequency, but its ultra efficient power consumption and low thermals should give it plenty of room.
In our overclocking tests, we took the same Core 2 Extreme X6800 and went all out to see just how far we could push the processor on stock Intel air-cooling. That's right, we didn't use fancy third-party coolers for this nor did we rely on exotic cooling techniques. The standard Intel boxed processor cooler was used to realistically set a stage for overclocking bandwidth right out of the box.
Our result? A final clock of 3.60GHz at 360x10. Not exactly the best overclock on the Conroe core, but it nearly puts the Core 2 Extreme at the same speed of the Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 965, which runs at 3.73GHz. In the end though, our overclocking effort was possibly limited by the older B1 stepping of our X6800. The newer B2 stepping on the retail processors seems to have better overclocking performance from what we've been able to gather. On the other hand, the GA-965P-DQ6 showed a great overclocking bandwidth, with the retail boards clocking up to 480MHz with ease. However, since we were testing the processor and not the motherboard, the 360x10 setting was more ideal than say 450x8 after taking into consideration memory limitations and keeping chipset voltage on the low.
We wanted to satisfy our curiosity as to how the Core 2 Extreme would perform if it did meet the speculated specifications on release. Our overclocking platform of choice - Gigabyte's GA-965P-DQ6. At the present moment, we find that many initial Core 2 motherboards' BIOS do not properly detect Core 2 processor capabilities, sometimes restricting multiplier selection and others lack the necessary voltage and tweaking selections. The GA-965P-DQ6 happens to be one of the better boards to support the unlocked X6800 and possess great voltage granularity, a perfect combination for our overclocking efforts.
To do this, we overclocked the Core 2 Extreme X6800 to the ideal 3.33GHz with a 1333MHz PSB using a 333x10 FSB to CPU multiplier ratio and then topped it off with DDR2-1066 memory.
Maximum Overclocking
Next, we did some real overclocking to see just how scalable the Core microarchitecture can be. Intel's Netburst has produced scalable processors with good overclockability, but are bogged down by high power consumption and operating temperatures. The Core 2 is almost a total opposite, starting at modest sub-2GHz speeds. The Core microarchitecture's short pipelines would have reduced the processors scalability in terms of frequency, but its ultra efficient power consumption and low thermals should give it plenty of room.
In our overclocking tests, we took the same Core 2 Extreme X6800 and went all out to see just how far we could push the processor on stock Intel air-cooling. That's right, we didn't use fancy third-party coolers for this nor did we rely on exotic cooling techniques. The standard Intel boxed processor cooler was used to realistically set a stage for overclocking bandwidth right out of the box.
Our result? A final clock of 3.60GHz at 360x10. Not exactly the best overclock on the Conroe core, but it nearly puts the Core 2 Extreme at the same speed of the Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 965, which runs at 3.73GHz. In the end though, our overclocking effort was possibly limited by the older B1 stepping of our X6800. The newer B2 stepping on the retail processors seems to have better overclocking performance from what we've been able to gather. On the other hand, the GA-965P-DQ6 showed a great overclocking bandwidth, with the retail boards clocking up to 480MHz with ease. However, since we were testing the processor and not the motherboard, the 360x10 setting was more ideal than say 450x8 after taking into consideration memory limitations and keeping chipset voltage on the low.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
