How much faster

[Zebo]

Do you guys think a E6600 is than a X2 4600 in a global setting (eg all benchmarks combined)? % wise? 15-20-30? Both are 2.4Ghz same everything but mobo obviously. I'll have data soon enough posted just curious what y'all think.

 

[stevty2889]

Hard to say for sure. It appears to be consistantly better than an FX-62, so average 15-25% faster than a 4600+ is reasonable. Got your hands on one already?? Pick out your motherboard? I want to overclock to crap outta mine so I'm just gonna get the Asus P5W DH Deluxe, and use the DDR-2 667 thats in my 805 system.

 

[meksta]

by my estimation, conroe is about 20% faster than X2 at the same clock speed.

 

[Plester]

beauty of the conroe is the overclocking headroom - way more than 90nm A64s which have been at their upper limit (3ghz+/-) for a while now. a 6600 depending on the mobo seems to have a sweet spot close to 3.6 and the scores in cpu intensive benchmarks at those speeds are shockingly fast.

For example

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Plester
beauty of the conroe is the overclocking headroom - way more than 90nm A64s which have been at their upper limit (3ghz+/-) for a while now. a 6600 depending on the mobo seems to have a sweet spot close to 3.6 and the scores in cpu intensive benchmarks at those speeds are shockingly fast.

For example

I don;t care about ES chips, they are hand-picked. The only retail C2D I saw input about couldn;t get past 3.2

Lets wait until Duvie gets his, and I will believe his results.

 

[HopJokey]

One dollar Bob.

Oh, wrong game.

I'm guessing 20% (in benchmarks not limited by the GPU *cough*HardOCP*cough*).

I'm interested to see your results Zebo. Thanks for doing this test.

 

[Plester]

I don;t care about ES chips, they are hand-picked. The only retail C2D I saw input about couldn;t get past 3.2

that's fine.

regardless, i bet that once the mobo situation settles out and people figure out the idiosyncrasies of o'cing C2Ds, the average for the 6600 will be well above 3.2, but i guess we will have to wait for Duvie (or you could venture over to xtremesystems where dozens of Duvies are hard at work).

 

[cmrmrc]

CORE 2 is 15% faster than the X2 with 1mb L2 and 20% faster than the 512k version

 

[dexvx]

Xbitlabs took ALL their benchmarks and gave a "total" comparison (ironically this is what most synthetic benchmarks do - take benchmark results from multiple sources and sums them to a number):

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_12.html

e6600 scored 163.4
X2-4600 scored 136.9

Its 20% faster per clock on average from XbitLab's benchmark suites, which is pretty much every variety of benchmarks.

 

[yacoub]

HOW much faster? So fast it'll HURT!

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Xbitlabs took ALL their benchmarks and gave a "total" comparison (ironically this is what most synthetic benchmarks do - take benchmark results from multiple sources and sums them to a number):

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_12.html

e6600 scored 163.4
X2-4600 scored 136.9

Its 20% faster per clock on average from XbitLab's benchmark suites, which is pretty much every variety of benchmarks.

Yeah, with the ridiculous number of tests they did, i'd say their "average speed faster" is actually pretty close.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Plester
beauty of the conroe is the overclocking headroom - way more than 90nm A64s which have been at their upper limit (3ghz+/-) for a while now. a 6600 depending on the mobo seems to have a sweet spot close to 3.6 and the scores in cpu intensive benchmarks at those speeds are shockingly fast.

For example

I don;t care about ES chips, they are hand-picked. The only retail C2D I saw input about couldn;t get past 3.2

Lets wait until Duvie gets his, and I will believe his results.

Err, have you not been following the reviews @ AT?

Granted, they really know what they are doing & they have likely the best air cooler out there, the Tuniq Tower, but they got the E6600 to 4 GHz on the Asus P5W DH, & the E6700 & X6800 to over 3.4 GHz+ IIRC.

It seems with the E6600 or higher, 3.0 GHz is like a minimum.

And consider that a 3.0 GHz destroys a 2.8 GHz FX-62...

Well, i'll let you draw your own conclusions.



edit: I wasn't thinking about the chips AT using being ES...
I guess we won't know for absolutely sure, & i honestly think 4 GHz is going to be extremely rare, but i am sure we'll see 3 GHz+ on average.

 

[Sc4freak]

20% is about right. The E6600 (2.4ghz) is a tiny wee bit faster than the FX-62 (2.8ghz).