Xbitlabs - Contemporary Dual-Core Processors Shootout

[harpoon84]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...dualcore-shootout.html

So, new Intel Core 2 Duo E8000 processors based on 45nm Penryn cores do not have any worthy competitors at this time. They are considerably faster than Core 2 Duo with smaller model numbers and outperform the top AMD Athlon 64 X2 CPUs with overwhelming advantage. Add here their fantastically low power consumption and pretty democratic official pricing and Core 2 Duo E8000 will turn into a potential market hit. It is especially true for Core 2 Duo E8200 and E8400 models.

Only retailers can cast a shadow over this rosy situation, because they keep the prices for these promising models at a pretty high level since the market hasn?t been saturated with them just yet. However, this problem should very soon get resolved.

As for the top Athlon 64 X2 processors, they turned out seriously overpriced after the launch of the new Core 2 Duo E8200. Today they can only compete against Core 2 Duo E4000 and Pentium E2000. Moreover, we can check out how reasonable AMD?s price policy actually is with a simple empirical rule: for AMD Athlon 64 X2 processor to perform as fast as a Core 2 Duo E4000 or Pentium E2000, it should run at about 20% higher clock speed.

It means that from the performance standpoint AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ should cost as much as Core 2 Duo E4600, and Athlon 64 X2 5000+ shouldn?t be priced higher than Pentium E2200. Only in this case the dual-core processors pricing would be considered fair and reasonable. Moreover, we will have to disregard the power consumption rates in this case, because regular Athlon 64 X2 cannot be considered economical.

So, the results of our today?s dual-core processor shoot-out indicate clearly that Intel processors win the ?Best Buy? title in every single price segment. And it will remain this way until AMD reduces the prices on its Athlon 64 X2, which keep rapidly losing their appeal. The situation may also change if they launch revised triple-core and dual-core processors on Phenom-like architecture, which have a chance of become more competitive against Core 2 Duo. However, it will hardly happen any time soon.

Well, Wolfdale E8000 series C2Ds simply obliterates the competition. Nowadays, it seems AMD X2 is reduced to fighting against E4000 and E2000 series chips in the mainstream / budget markets.

 

[zsdersw]

I like how in the specifications of the chips they're reviewing they list 64-bit support. Every CPU from Intel and AMD these days has 64-bit support, even the Celerons. What's next in the spec list? Motherboards with USB ports?

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
I like how in the specifications of the chips they're reviewing they list 64-bit support. Every CPU from Intel and AMD these days has 64-bit support, even the Celerons. What's next in the spec list? Motherboards with USB ports?

Floppy ports.

 

[bharatwaja]

what about built in dial up modems???

 

[AmberClad]

I saw that review earlier this morning. The one gripe I had was that pie chart showing the breakdown between single, dual, and multi processor ownership. It looks like a sampling of CPU-Z users (which is almost by definition enthusiasts), which is not going to be representative of the overall breakdown of all computer systems in use in the US, much less the world.

For example, CPU-Z statistics claims that more than 50% of today?s computer systems feature dual-core CPUs

Seems really doubtful to me.

 

[angry hampster]

Anyone have any overclocking links to an E8200? Curious if those can hit 3.7-3.8GHz easily on air.

 

[Borealis7]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Well, Wolfdale E8000 series C2Ds simply obliterates the competition. Nowadays, it seems AMD X2 is reduced to fighting against E4000 and E2000 series chips in the mainstream / budget markets.

you sound surprised...havent you been paying attention the past year?
no news here. move along.

 

[waffleironhead]

bah! those systems cant touch my p2b-d with dual 500mhz p3 katmai meh.......

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Borealis7

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Well, Wolfdale E8000 series C2Ds simply obliterates the competition. Nowadays, it seems AMD X2 is reduced to fighting against E4000 and E2000 series chips in the mainstream / budget markets.

you sound surprised...havent you been paying attention the past year?
no news here. move along.

Actually, X2 was a whole lot closer to the E6x50 performance wise, and priced quite well to match (at stock speeds of course). However, the introduction of Wolfdale has made X2 totally uncompetitive in the DC high end.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Borealis7

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Well, Wolfdale E8000 series C2Ds simply obliterates the competition. Nowadays, it seems AMD X2 is reduced to fighting against E4000 and E2000 series chips in the mainstream / budget markets.

you sound surprised...havent you been paying attention the past year?
no news here. move along.

Actually, X2 was a whole lot closer to the E6x50 performance wise, and priced quite well to match (at stock speeds of course). However, the introduction of Wolfdale has made X2 totally uncompetitive in the DC high end.

The X2-6400 was scarcely able to meet the ancient (and not high-end, never was) E6600 in benchies.

What are you talking about? X2 has been toast since the launch of C2D, performance-wise, and after the first Intel price cuts, competitively as well, unless you need a cpu under $100.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I saw that review earlier this morning. The one gripe I had was that pie chart showing the breakdown between single, dual, and multi processor ownership. It looks like a sampling of CPU-Z users (which is almost by definition enthusiasts), which is not going to be representative of the overall breakdown of all computer systems in use in the US, much less the world.

For example, CPU-Z statistics claims that more than 50% of today?s computer systems feature dual-core CPUs

Seems really doubtful to me.

What you state is likely true but in same measure a true breakdown of existing computer systems is hardly of interest to anyone as well.

Money is no longer made or exchanged on systems already out the door. Such numbers do assist analyses of potential upgrade cycle volume, but hardly capture the liklihood of what those upgrades are going to be.

What people are going to buy in the coming 2-3 months is of relevance to all business entities involved. Price/performance of currently selling product is relevant.

Price/performance of computers sold last business quarter and already sitting inside someone's home is not relevant except to those tasked with quantifying the next upgrade cycle.

 

[Xvys]

What a crummy review! No overclocking results? No comment on the wonky Wolfdale temps?? And no Conroe processers being tested?? I'm sure 90% of the readers want to know how the Wolfdale's compare to their Conroe duals & quads, and is worth it to upgrade. In other reviews, the E6850 and E8400 have nearly identical test scores, despite 6mb cache and hafnium high-k gates, or whatever.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Borealis7

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Well, Wolfdale E8000 series C2Ds simply obliterates the competition. Nowadays, it seems AMD X2 is reduced to fighting against E4000 and E2000 series chips in the mainstream / budget markets.

you sound surprised...havent you been paying attention the past year?
no news here. move along.

Actually, X2 was a whole lot closer to the E6x50 performance wise, and priced quite well to match (at stock speeds of course). However, the introduction of Wolfdale has made X2 totally uncompetitive in the DC high end.

The X2-6400 was scarcely able to meet the ancient (and not high-end, never was) E6600 in benchies.

What are you talking about? X2 has been toast since the launch of C2D, performance-wise, and after the first Intel price cuts, competitively as well, unless you need a cpu under $100.

X2 6400+ was a bit slower than the E6750, but still slightly faster than the E6550. Compare the prices today and you'll see it falls in between these two CPUs.

AMD cannot be faulted for their pricing against Conroe, they did all they could to maintain price/performance parity with Intel. However, Wolfdale is a whole new ballgame and unfortunately AMD simply can't keep up.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: Xvys
What a crummy review! No overclocking results? No comment on the wonky Wolfdale temps?? And no Conroe processers being tested?? I'm sure 90% of the readers want to know how the Wolfdale's compare to their Conroe duals & quads, and is worth it to upgrade. In other reviews, the E6850 and E8400 have nearly identical test scores, despite 6mb cache and hafnium high-k gates, or whatever.

They already reviewed Wolfdale CPUs earlier this month.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...ay/intel-wolfdale.html

 

[Pyrokinetic]

Hmm....my OC'd X2 3800+ at 2.8Ghz is roughly equal to a stock E4500 Allendale. The E4500 costs roughly $125, and a Pentium E2140 goes for about $75. I paid $65 for my 3800+. I might not have the most rock'in system out there, but it does what I need it to.

Now, an OC'd E2140 (not to mention the E4500) would kick the holy bejeebers out of my system, but that is the way it is.

I was hoping the upcoming dual-core Agena varients would level the playing field a bit, but I think they will hit the track after the race is nigh over. Come on AMD...at least spare the Intel guys the pain of overpriced CPUs again (Remember the Pentium 4 'Extreme Editions'?).