Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Core 2 Reviews All Around the Web 143 143

NerdMaster writes "NDA for Intel Core 2 CPUs was lifted on the night from yesterday to today and all major hardware reviewing websites are posting Core 2 Duo E6700 and Core 2 Xtreme X6800 reviews. Here is a collection of several reviews so you can check for yourself whether Core 2 Duo is faster or not than Athlon 64 X2. Reviews posted at Tom's Hardware Guide, AnandTech, HEXUS, Hardware Secrets, OCAU, TweakTown, HotHardware, The Tech Report, Trusted Reviews, Legion Hardware, bit-tech, ExtremeTech, Legit Reviews, Sharky Extreme, HardOCP, PC Perspective, GotFrag Hardware, Gamepyre, X-bit Labs - Part 1, tbreak, neoseeker and Byte Sector." We've already touched on this technology, but there has been (obviously) a lot of discussion about it since it was announced.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Core 2 Reviews All Around the Web

Comments Filter:
  • 6800 (Score:4, Funny)

    by jackb_guppy (204733) on Monday July 17, 2006 @08:05AM (#15730391)
    First Intel takes over Apple.

    Now Intel is build extreme 6800 processors.

    The clock rolls back 20 years. I knew the 6800 were better than x86!!!
  • Dear AMD fanboys (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Iamthefallen (523816) * <Gmail name: Iamthefallen> on Monday July 17, 2006 @08:06AM (#15730401) Homepage Journal
    Yes, we all know that GPU is a much greater limitation than the CPU. You don't need to point this out, again.

    Yes, we all know that because of this, you don't need a top of the line CPU to play the latest games. You don't need to point this out, again.

    But dammit, how about just being exited over what appears to be a big step forward in CPU performance, price, and power consumption? How about focusing on the technology and the application of it rather than the brand?

    Eventually, AMD will adopt these things as well, and possibly improve on them to try to overtake Intel. Competition and innovation is a Good Thing(tm) for all of us, and not just when it's AMD doing it.

    I'm currently running AMD on all my machines and was looking at upgrading to a X2 CPU later this year. Core 2 Duo has completely changed that. Instead I'm looking at an Intel based system where the money I save on the CPU can be put towards a stronger video card instead.

    • I know I'm exited.
    • I think AMD will drop the prices of the CPUs to fit into the price curve.. Doing otherwise is commercial suicide, which I don't think they're quite up for yet..
      With you all the way on being excited about having new tech out there, and innovation on all sides is good. Intel may be the big juggernaut, but it's good to see they are still flexible enough to pull good tech out of the hat.
      Personally, I don't really care who has the best and fastest.. I used to want the best rig I could afford.. These days, I w
      • Intel may be the big juggernaut, but it's good to see they are still flexible enough to pull good tech out of the hat.

        They are not. Developing a new CPU is a huge gamble. It takes 4-6 years to go from requirements to production. At the start of the period, you guess (using Moore's Law) how many transistors you are going to have available to play with, and then you start working out what you are going to do with them. You do this from a series of requirements. Six years ago, Intel realised that thei

    • by mgblst (80109) on Monday July 17, 2006 @08:24AM (#15730517) Homepage
      for the techreport article:

      In fact, after seeing the Core 2 in action, many folks may be wondering how AMD is going to keep up. The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ currently lists for more than the Core 2 Duo E6600, and that's just not gonna cut it. Fortunately, AMD has confirmed to us that a major price move is coming in July. We don't have the specifics just yet, but they say they intend to maintain a competitive price-performance ratio. That may mean we'll see the dramatic price cuts rumored to be coming, which would be a good start.

      For its next trick, AMD needs to get its 65nm fab process going ASAP. I've heard prognostications that AMD won't be able compete against Core 2 chips with its current AMD64 microarchitecture. That may be the case, but I'm not entirely convinced. The contest we've seen in the preceding pages pitted CPUs manufactured on AMD's 90nm process against CPUs made on Intel's 65nm process. The Netburst fiasco at 90nm has made us forgetful about the benefits of process shrinks, but they can be substantial. AMD could be in a much stronger position if it gets to 65nm quickly.

      Why are there so many fans of AMD? We can all see the core duo is a great chip, but AMD managed a coup, to topple the crown of the reigning champ Intel a few years ago, and that deserved much kudos. I think a lot of us were worried about Intel becoming another Microsoft, and Intel had some very dodgey practises (Rambus, Pentium divide, PIV)
      • The 65nm process from AMD will give us another interesting animal: a 35 W desktop processor. 100% passive cooling without a ridiculously expensive case would be pretty nice, eh?
        • This dual G5 user thinks very much so!
          • I wonder what The Jobs will be announcing/unveiling at WWDC [apple.com] this year. Three weeks away! I'm stocking up on Kool Aid.

            (What I really want is a merom based PB. Er, I mean MBP.)
            • by Firehed (942385)
              I know we're starting to venture a bit off topic, but I think having finished off PPC with the G5 towers moving to Intel, presumably Conroe, would be a safe bet, though an update to the portables to use the Merom chips if they're available wouldn't be unlikely either. That or the much-rumored true Video iPod. Or both!
              • I'd be surprised if we saw merom based MBPs any sooner than a year. Anyway, right after I posted, a new story appeared on what we might expect from WWDC.
                • A bit late but; The Merom has the exact same socket and design specifications (including power envelopes) as Yonah. I would suprise if we don't get macbooks using it as soon as they are available.
                  • I take back my statement. I think you and the AC are right. I'm still kind of stuck in old pre-intel Apple, where we had to patiently wait for incremental improvements to equipment. The level playing field doesn't just mean Apple can compete in terms of easily comparable performance, it has to compete.
        • The 65nm process from AMD will give us another interesting animal: a 35 W desktop processor. 100% passive cooling without a ridiculously expensive case would be pretty nice, eh?

          The X2 3800+ EE (35W) is already available for socket AM2 and it's made with a 90nm technology. I suspect that the shrink to 65nm will enable even faster processors at the same TDP. Check these sites: (although I have to admit it is currently out of stock) http://www.pcmicrostore.com/PartDetail.aspx?q=p:10 05329;c:36124 [pcmicrostore.com] and http: [lagoom.com]

      • The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ currently lists for more than the Core 2 Duo E6600, and that's just not gonna cut it. Fortunately, AMD has confirmed to us that a major price move is coming in July. We don't have the specifics just yet, but they say they intend to maintain a competitive price-performance ratio. That may mean we'll see the dramatic price cuts rumored to be coming, which would be a good start.

        I think of things like this when somebody says, "never wait to buy. Things will always get cheaper and bette

    • by Don_dumb (927108) on Monday July 17, 2006 @08:25AM (#15730518)
      It is strange in a way that for years I would only consider AMD, the chips were cheaper more powerful and didn't burn as hot. Intel were the big M$-alike. But lately AMD chips have become more expensive, and now slower.

      Now I will be going Intel if I put anything new in my box. Which I wont because I will probably get a Mac.

      Oh wait, hang on . . .
      • Prices wouldn't be high for AMD products if there wasn't demand. Trust me, there is a huge demand for Opterons. Think about it, Opterons and AMD64s are made in the same places...

        Once demand for MCW shoots up you'll see AMD prices drop I suspect [*]

        Tom

        [* Personal hunch not affiliated with my employer...]
        • I think you are missing the other half of the economics of it. Demand wouldn't be so high if AMD could meet it with supply. Unfortanatly AMD can't supply the things fast enough.

          • Well that too. But that doesn't change what I said. Once demand drops availability increases. That doesn't mean the price WILL change even though it SHOULD.

            Tom

            [N.B. I have no idea what AMD pricing plans are off the top of my head and I fully don't intend to speak on their behalf, I hate disclaimers...]
    • Re:Dear AMD fanboys (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 3dWarlord (862844)
      I'm currently running AMD on all my machines and was looking at upgrading to a X2 CPU later this year. Core 2 Duo has completely changed that. Instead I'm looking at an Intel based system where the money I save on the CPU can be put towards a stronger video card instead.

      Isn't this a bit premature? It is confirmed that AMD will drastically reduce prices on their X2 line of CPUs around Conroe's launch. Shouldn't you wait to see what offers the best price/performance ratio? It seems like you have exhibited
      • Not really. AMD will have to do some very extreme price cuts to compete in performance/price. The E6300 keeps up with most AMD x2 CPUS, and I strongly doubt that they will drop the X2 4800 to the $200 range. But even if they do, the lower heat output and power consumption of the E6300 would tip the scale back in its favour.

        Obviously, if they do decide to practically give their CPUs away, I'll consider what is the best option for me at the time. But right now, there doesn't appear to be any chance for AMD to
        • In a lot of the reviews, the E6300 was more in line with the X2 4200. And if AnandTech is right, those chips may very well end up being similarly priced. Since the chips won't be readily available until at least August 7th, I'd wait to see what AMD's cuts are like. I think they will keep the pricing competitive. They will have to, since they've now lost the performance edge.
        • Re:Dear AMD fanboys (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Odin_Tiger (585113) on Monday July 17, 2006 @11:19AM (#15731567) Journal
          One tiny problem, but it more than tips the scales IMHO: Boards. Hop over to newegg and look for boards with full support for the C2D's capabilities. Not just "if you plug it in it will boot", but meeting the FSB speed, DDR2, plenty of slots and plugs, etc. The variety is lacking and untried. The E6300 looks -very- appealing right now, but until there is more choice among boards (and until they've had 3 - 6 months to work out BIOS kinks), C2D is not something I'll be giving much consideration.
          • One tiny problem, but it more than tips the scales IMHO: Boards. Hop over to newegg and look for boards with full support for the C2D's capabilities. Not just "if you plug it in it will boot", but meeting the FSB speed, DDR2, plenty of slots and plugs, etc. The variety is lacking and untried. The E6300 looks -very- appealing right now, but until there is more choice among boards (and until they've had 3 - 6 months to work out BIOS kinks), C2D is not something I'll be giving much consideration.

            Aye, that's
          • What!?!? You mean that a CPU that hasn't even been released yet doesn't have a thousand different mobos just waiting to run it? I can't believe it.

            Joking aside, this whole issue is one of comparing the newest Intel chips with somewhat older AMD chips. The only story here is that we've gone back to the days of "every time AMD or Intel release a new chip, they become the company with the best chip". I'm sure AMD has something interesting coming up, but I'm far too lazy to look up what that is.
    • My name is ArcherB and I am an AMD fanboy.

      This processor, imho, is as much an AMD product as it is and Intel one. Not because AMD developed it, but because it would not exist if it were not for AMD. If AMD were to go under tomorrow, this would be the last processor we can expect to see from Intel for at least 10 years. For this reason alone, I will continue to buy AMD.

      And yes, I am excited about this CPU. It is superior to any AMD CPU currently on the market. However, there was never any doubt in my mi
      • My name is ArcherB and I am an AMD fanboy. This processor, imho, is as much an AMD product as it is and Intel one. Not because AMD developed it, but because it would not exist if it were not for AMD. If AMD were to go under tomorrow, this would be the last processor we can expect to see from Intel for at least 10 years. For this reason alone, I will continue to buy AMD.

        While I applaud you sticking to your guns, I do not understand this stance at all. "Since Linux desktop distros would have never progre
        • No silly, he's going with the underdog. In both cases he's one that will go with the underdog: AMD or Linux.
        • While I applaud you sticking to your guns, I do not understand this stance at all. "Since Linux desktop distros would have never progressed with the user-friendliness they have today without Microsoft Windows, I'll continue to use Microsoft Windows".
          Well, not really. If it were not for Windows, MacOS would drive X innovation. Some would say it already does. You don't have to spend too much time with KDE and/or XGL to understand why. If it were not for MacOS and Windows, Gnome XFCE and KDE would all spur
          • Continuing to spend your money with AMD doesn't do any good, if Intel has the superior product- just as spending money on Intel when AMD had the superior product would not encourage Intel to do anything innovative.

            Look, if a company can simply take your money for granted, you lose. Vote with your wallet and force AMD to win you back with something even better.
        • A revolutionary product? Really? Seems to me like it's just another x86 processor with a few new tricks. Certainly faster, certainly better, but revolutionary? Try evolutionary.

          Peace.
      • wrong logic (Score:3, Insightful)

        If AMD were to go under tomorrow, this would be the last processor we can expect to see from Intel for at least 10 years. For this reason alone, I will continue to buy AMD.

        If you continue buying AMD even if it has low-quality products, it will be AMD who won't research better CPUs. Only iff they start losing market share they'll improve. AMD isn't going out of bussiness, and if it went out of bussiness other company would replace it - it's easy to make money in a market owned by a single company, that's why
      • This processor, imho, is as much an AMD product as it is and Intel one. Not because AMD developed it, but because it would not exist if it were not for AMD.

        Your argument applies vastly more to any and every CPU AMD has ever produced.

        If AMD were to go under tomorrow, this would be the last processor we can expect to see from Intel for at least 10 years.

        Don't kid yourself. The *market* demands faster CPUs every year.

        You may argue that progress would not be as quick, nor prices as low, but to say it woul

    • by mungtor (306258)

      I'm currently running AMD on all my machines and was looking at upgrading to a X2 CPU later this year. Core 2 Duo has completely changed that. Instead I'm looking at an Intel based system where the money I save on the CPU can be put towards a stronger video card instead.

      And next year (or 2) AMD will pass Intel again and you'll have to change your mind again. Why don't you just stick with AMD since it was their competition that brought you this little gem from Intel? Without AMD, you'd still have a 3.

      • Dear AMD fanboy,

        Yes, I know that GPU is a much greater limitation than the CPU. You don't need to point this out, again.

        Yes, I know that because of this, you don't need a top of the line CPU to play the latest games. You don't need to point this out, again.

        I'm a working father of two who's just bought a house in need of significant renovations. I'm not a hardcore gamer, I don't overclock my machine and I don't buy a lot of games. If I'm lucky, I can get a couple hours per week in. More likely it's a couple
        • Actually, I never mentioned CPU vs GPU bottlenecks in anything. Don't get all self-righteous without being able to read.

          You can buy/build a gaming rig that will handle all the games you will want to play with a sub-$200 CPU and a sub-$300 video card right now. Getting the latest and greatest doesn't apply unless you feel inadequate because you can't play in 1200x1600 with 4xAA. Trying to buy something now to future-proof it is futile in the computer world because you technology will be eclipsed by somet
          • Actually, I never mentioned CPU vs GPU bottlenecks in anything. Don't get all self-righteous without being able to read.

            Well, you're right. However, your rhetorical question "Can you really see the difference between 155 fps and 187 fps?" implies the same argument used for GPUs being the bottleneck, that being that CPUs today are powerful enough that it doesn't matter if you see a 20% speed increase. That it doesn't matter if your CPU can provide you with 155 or 187 fps. I argue that if I can get that 20% s
      • And next year (or 2) AMD will pass Intel again and you'll have to change your mind again. Why don't you just stick with AMD since it was their competition that brought you this little gem from Intel? Without AMD, you'd still have a 3.0 Ghz P4 and youd be paying $700 for it.

        Personally, I don't care. I don't see how anyone could consider that they owe any company their business. I'm sorry, but AMD is not going to love you back.

        The only reason all of my machines have AMD processors right now is because
        • And if AMD is crushed out of existance becuase Intel abuses their Monopoly position, leading to 2000$ processors, hey, that's Capitalism, right?

          Sometimes, it's not just about you.
          • The way I see it, buying the better product is an insentive for the other guy to make their product better.

            The half of capitalism that you forgot to mention is that there's quite a market for processors that cost less than $2000. If Intel doesn't service that market, than someone else will. Stop getting all dramatic.
      • Re:Dear AMD fanboys (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fbjon (692006)
        I'm a musician, and I need all the processing power I can get, the more the better. It also needs to be quiet, as in no noise at all. So yes, some people need low heat and fast performance in their desktops.
        • Wouldn't yours be a good case for a fanless thin client with some beefy servers in another room?
          • I'm a musician, and I need all the processing power I can get, the more the better. It also needs to be quiet, as in no noise at all. So yes, some people need low heat and fast performance in their desktops.

            Wouldn't yours be a good case for a fanless thin client with some beefy servers in another room?

            Haven't you been reading the news? File sharing made all the musicians poor.
    • For the price I usually pay for components, all this dick waving from Intel/AMD is useless.
      I want a CPU which does the job I need it for.
      I didn't wave my hands when AMD took the lead, I don't cheer when Intel get it back.
      I just look at my requirements and budget and get what fits.
      There have only been a couple of CPUs I have actively wanted or kept away from (the celeron 300a and the Thunderbird 1.4 after the THG report)

      And yes, it looks like Intel have got their act together, its like theres a big lead time
    • by frankie (91710) on Monday July 17, 2006 @09:09AM (#15730765) Journal

      The absolute best commentary on this horde of Conroe reviews was from Hannibal:

      As parent post notes, most of the "reviews" focused on high-end 3D gameplay, which is 99% GPU benchmarking and only slightly affected by the CPU. On the bright side, this is an excellent way to make a list of incompetent overhyped bloggers whose articles should be ignored from now on.

      • "most of the "reviews" focused on high-end 3D gameplay, which is 99% GPU benchmarking and only slightly affected by the CPU"

        If this is true, what I don't understand is why the benchmarks have a greater than 1% difference between Intel and AMD chips.
      • [H] bragged about benchmarking games with real world settings. I dislike that for two reasons.

        All of the benchmarks except one had average framerates below 60FPS. I personally prefer to turn graphics settings way down and play at a constant 60FPS than have eye-candy at an inconsistent framerate. I like V-SYNC.

        If I buy this CPU, I'll be using it for a few years, not just for current games. I want to know how it will perform when games get more CPU hungry.
    • by amcdiarmid (856796)
      I am an AMD fanboy, and I am happy that Intel is following the AMD way that has existed since about the 1.5GHz processors. (When AMD decided that heat may not be such a good thing.)

      Lets get this straight: Low power consumption is a good thing. If Intel has gotten the point: we are happy - especially since new processor families tend to get faster than the old ones quickly.

      The AMD K6-II and K6-IIIs blew chunks in comparison to the P3 processors (and weren't that good vs the P2s) Sorry, the preformance was
    • First off - kudos to Intel for bringing out a chip that's competitive with AMD, finally. Personally, I too will most likely be buying one of the new E66xx+ chips. They are faster than AMD's best, in a single CPU setup. It depends upon whether I decide to "cheap" it out initially, and only go single CPU, or whether I go multi-CPU.

      If you're looking at multiple CPU systems, the entire scenery changes and AMD is still on top, from what I've been able to see. Intel is still subject to the FSB, and still doesn't
      • AMD is still king of multi-path IO, NUMA, and low latency.
        For medium to large workstations and servers, Opteron all the way.

        Although I am totally sold on Core Duo for single socket, 2-way 1Us and smaller workstation.
    • And here come the -1 Overrated downmods, how very predictable.

  • Both sides are way to good a designing benchmarks and "tests" that show themselves as winners.

    One big attraction (for me) to Intel chips has always been the Intel (north and southbridge) chipsets having seen many systems in various stages of there lives. It is realy hard to beat the stability of an Intel chip on an Intel board and AMD does not offer that (not to say if they did it would be inferior).

    Honestly it is looking more and more like my next system will be an ATI Intel combo like the last one, maybe
  • by vlad_petric (94134) on Monday July 17, 2006 @08:16AM (#15730475) Homepage
    Intel has been betting on two "mediocre" horses for too long. The first - Pentium 4 - has been successful initially, with its high clock rates, but in the end people figured out that it doesn't deliever performance (regardless, they kept it at their flagship for ~5years).

    The second - Itanium - as far as I'm concerned, it's simply a step backwards. A processor these days is most of the times limited by the slow memory (it can easily take 200-300 cycles to service a request from memory, as opposed to 2-3 cycles from the L1 cache or 6-20 cycles from the L2). Out-of-order execution (Pentium Pro and after) alleviates the problem to a certain extent, by allowing other instructions that do not depend on the result of the instruction that missed to execute. So the processor can still do something while servicing the miss (quite often it executes other loads that miss, effectively increasing the memory-level parallelism of the processor). Because Itanium executes instructions in order, it simply can't do that. Furthermore the compiler can't tell which instructions are going to miss (it needs a profiler to figure frequently-missing instructions, and only then it can generate prefetches). Intel's solution - let's throw shitloads of caches on the Itanium, to reduce the occurence of the misses. Of course, that makes the chip huge, considerably more expensive, etc.

    Nevertheless, Conroe seems to be an awesome chip. Time to buy some INTC shares ...

    • by MtViewGuy (197597) on Monday July 17, 2006 @11:11AM (#15731506)
      One thing though: isn't the Conroe-core CPU's actually based heavily on the excellent Pentium III-M low-power CPU's with its excellent on-die cache control? It appears that Intel has finally come out with an excellent CPU core that is not only great for the latest games, but also can tackle higher-end multimedia file editing at reasonable speeds (as anyone who tries to do Photoshop image editing or Premiere video files can attest).
      • I've heard that the first Core Duo is based on the PIII core (with many modification though). Not sure about Conroe though. Happen to have an "authoritative" reference?

        Also, what do you mean by "excellent on-die cache control"? Cache control is always on-die (it's the cache data that can sometimes be off-chip).

        • Also, what do you mean by "excellent on-die cache control"?

          One of the things that made the Pentium III-M such a wonderful chip was that it really took advantage of the on-chip L2 cache memory to offer surprisingly good performance despite the relatively low CPU clock speeds. It's that excellent interfacing with the L2 cache that was retained for the Core Duo (and likely Conroe-core Core Duo 2) CPU's.
      • One thing though: isn't the Conroe-core CPU's actually based heavily on the excellent Pentium III-M low-power CPU's with its excellent on-die cache control?

        The Yonah (Core) was based on the Pentium III, but the Conroe (Core 2) is a from-scratch design.
    • Considering what AMD is capable of, I would sell INTC shares and buy AMD shares now. Since the rest of the market will be following the Intel hype, you're going completely against the market -- and unless AMD completely dies, you'll almost certainly be able to make some money at it.

      I haven't actually followed the markets, but I bet you can make a lot of money following a two-horse race this way. Let's say it's another few months, and we get some good news from AMD. Huge price drops on the AM2 chips and t
  • I mean we all know this guy is a complete and utter nutter...

    He is still claiming it wasn't the battery on the Dell laptop that exploded.

    He is still claiming Intel is paying off all the reviewers to show the Intel chips in a better light...

    Why can't this guy just die a horrible death? Maybe being squished by boxes full of AMD processors?
  • by bobdotorg (598873) on Monday July 17, 2006 @08:58AM (#15730692)
    Here's a one-pager link for Anand:
    http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2795 [anandtech.com]
  • by jmke (776334) on Monday July 17, 2006 @09:05AM (#15730736) Homepage Journal
    Since the NDA expired I've complied a list of official [madshrimps.be] benchmarks, there are 43 on there already; Top 3 imho are those from Techreport, HardOCP and Anandtech
  • 64bit performance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by billhubbard (989339) on Monday July 17, 2006 @09:22AM (#15730833)
    The Core 2 Duo benchmarks are impressive. But where are the tests for 64bit performance?
    Does Core 2 Duo have a problem with 64bit code like the old Pentium 4?
    • The Techreport benchmarks (details here [techreport.com]) were performed on Win XP 64 bit, with a number of the applications tested being 64 bit editions. If you look at the 64 bit app benchmarks, there's some variation (e.g. Windows Media Encoder it comes out slightly ahead of AMD's best, POVray it comes out slightly behind), but it seems pretty much neck-and-neck with AMD's current chips on 64 bit code.
  • by spyrochaete (707033) on Monday July 17, 2006 @09:43AM (#15730958) Homepage Journal
    I just invested in a lovely upgrade and the parts are due to arrive in the store tomorrow. I'm REALLY glad these Conroe reviews came out when they did because I'm going to change my order!

    I've currently got a socket 754 Athlon 64 3400+ with a GeForce 6600GT. I was planning on upgrading to the AM2 socket with an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ with a GeForce 7900GT. I had heard that Intel had some fancy new chip coming out, but benchmarks showed their current 950 series to be a little slower than the AMD's. I figured this was the best Intel had to throw into the ring so I was confident in my AMD purchase. Now I'm going to hold out a week and buy my first Intel chip in about 5 years.

    I happen to subscribe to the HardOCP philosophy of appreciating the user experience over raw benchmark scores, but it's hard to ignore the sexy selling points of Conroe. The additional speed is great, the difference in L2 cache is enormous (2x512KB on the 4200+, 2x2MB on some of the Intels), the lower power consumption means I can keep my 380W Antec silent PSU (probably), and the cooler temperatures mean less fans and more headroom for overclocking. Plus Intel features the lower price vs. comparable AMD products; the inverse is why I bought my Athlon XP a few years ago.

    Honestly, I thought I had become an AMD fanboy until I saw those benchmarks. I love AMD and their chips have given me nothing but 100% dependable service. However, the same is true of Intel, and I'd kind of forgotten that after so many years. The computing world is privileged to be headed by such fierce and outstanding competitors. I figure I'm still supporting AMD by buying an Intel chip since hopefully it will inspire them to one-up the re-awakening giant once again. I think AMD really needs to shave down to a 65nm process!
    • I just invested in a lovely upgrade and the parts are due to arrive in the store tomorrow. I'm REALLY glad these Conroe reviews came out when they did because I'm going to change my order!

      I've currently got a socket 754 Athlon 64 3400+ with a GeForce 6600GT. I was planning on upgrading to the AM2 socket with an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ with a GeForce 7900GT.


      I always wondered who plunked down the cash to upgrade hardware constantly. I guess now I know. I still don't get it though.

      • I've currently got a socket 754 Athlon 64 3400+ with a GeForce 6600GT. I was planning on upgrading to the AM2 socket with an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ with a GeForce 7900GT.

        I always wondered who plunked down the cash to upgrade hardware constantly. I guess now I know. I still don't get it though.

        Obviously you aren't the kind of person who upgrades hardware. Otherwise you'd know that socket 754 is 2 generations old and they only make Duron chips (equivalent of Intel's budget line Celeron) for it now. I
  • ...and I/O throughput is the most important indicator to me. Wouldn't the Anandtech Business benchmarks suggest that the AMD FX64 is better for raw I/O throughput?

    Or would RAID 5 SCSI or WD Raptor disks ipso facto obliterate that argument?

    I'm confused!
  • good with salt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Monday July 17, 2006 @10:10AM (#15731118) Homepage
    It's best to take this with a grain of salt.

    It depends on what you are doing whether or not Intel is better than AMD [or vice versa].

    Getting 300fps in a game doesn't mean the cpu will be good for software development or as a server [e.g. Tomcat + Apache + ...].

    Also if you're into SMP or just multi-processing AMD is still the way to go. The HT links are such a performance boost over a FSB scheme.

    So really it depends. Hopefully we'll see AMD pulling some rabits out of their hats. In the next year or so.

    Tom

  • When will I be able to go to Dell.com (for example) and order a system with one of these?

    When will I be able to order a notebook with one of these?

    How long after the release of a new architecture should I wait for them to work out the kinks?
    • AnandTech says PC manufacturers may start selling Conroe desktops by next week, while chips will not go on sale for 2 or 3 weeks.
    • Apple is selling systems with Intel Core Dual CPS right now and has been for months. They will anounce systems with the new intel processors in Mid August, on th 12th, I think. Apple typicaly does not announce machines until they are actually available to buy. So to directly answer your question: "In the second week of August 2006." If you really want so good performance the top of the line Apple "Mac Pro" will almost certainly contain two Intel Core 2 Dual Xeons in a quad core configuration. The mai
      • Oh, sorry, I guess I need to be more specific now. I meant a PC. I know I could buy a Mac and use it as a PC, but the brand premium is too big. I can get PC's at a far smaller markup.
        • Really? Yes you can buy a generic PC for dirt cheap but not a PC with premium specs. Buy the time you get a near silent case and a M/B with two xeon sockets and two new Core 2 Dual Xeons and some RAM and a quality graphic card and then software (an OS at least) the price comes in maybe higher than Apple's. I was looking at a Core Dual notebook a while back and noticed they cost more than Apple's Macbook when you configure them the same way. It's hard to find a Core Dual noteook with wireless Eithernet,
          • I can get a perfectly good desktop with OS for $300 from Dell (if I watch for the right deal). It won't be cutting edge, but it will satisfy my needs.

            An easier way to make this commparison is to compare the companies. Dell is about selling as many boxes as possible, as efficiently as possible. Their margins are very small. Apple is a premium brand that sells at much higher margins. It has to maintain high margins because it's volumes are lower (it isn't easy to survive at less then 5%) and because it c
  • by CrimsonSamurai (912915) on Monday July 17, 2006 @10:24AM (#15731187)
    The prices for Core 2 Duo compatible motherboards are just plain atrocious. I'm not paying $260 for a high-end Intel based motherboard. It does not have SLI support and thus in my eyes does not justify the hefty price tag. For this reason I may choose to go AM2. I am only a college student and my upgrade money comes from what extra money I have left over from my summer job and my birthday. I'm looking for a cost-effective solution, and although the Core 2 Duo prices themselves look good, the motherboard prices are just plain ugly.

    So chances are I will pick up either a nForce 590 SLI or 570 SLI based motherboard. Currently I am looking at the Abit Fatal1ty AN9 or the MSI K9N SLI. I'm leaning toward the Abit as it is a 590 board but is still reasonably priced at $180 (at eWiz).

    Anyhow, just my 2 cents on the high prices of C2D mobos.

    • I'm looking at the Asus M2N SLI Deluxe (socket AM2). It has the NForce 570SLI chipset which has nice specs, plus it has a super sexy copper heat pipe spanning the north and south bridges. It's $168 (Canadian) at my local hardware store which is about the lowest price of what you would probably call enthusiast boards.

      I don't see justification in spending 40% more on a Fatal1ty brand board. I used to respect his endorsed products until I saw the garbage Creative mouse with his mug on the box.
    • The prices for Core 2 Duo compatible motherboards are just plain atrocious [...] So chances are I will pick up either a nForce 590 SLI

      According to Tom's Hardware (here [tomshardware.co.uk]), the nForce 590 SLI does support the Core 2 Duo.
  • My personal main interest in this processor is its lower power consumption. I hate noisy computers and seeing anything that makes it easier to build a powerful silent computer makes me happy.

    How well can one expect the power adaption to load and dual core technology to be supported in Linux distros like Ubuntu or OpenSuse? How easy will it be to build a system with > 4 GB RAM with this processor type?
  • As the venerable Jon Hannibal Stokes from Arstechnica puts it: [arstechnica.com]

    The NDAs have lifted on the Core 2 Duo reviews, and you can surf on over to your review site of choice for a boatload of benchmarks and bar graphs. The Tech Report's Core 2 Duo review [techreport.com] was the only one that didn't make me want to jab my own eyes out with my mechanical pencil after reading it, so it's the only one I'm actually going to link up here. In fact, I was so frustrated after reading a few of these reviews, that I surfed over to CNN and

  • What sort of support does Conroe have for multi-processor rigs? I'm currently running a 2x Opteron 275 system (ie, four cores). Sure, each individual processor in my box has its ass handed to it by a Conroe proc. But until it is possible to assemble a rig with more than one Conroe in it, I don't see a good reason to switch away from AMD for my parallel computing needs.
  • concerns - (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mseidl (828824)
    I have some concerns here -

    Intel got lazy because AMD wasn't a threat. Then, AMD opened up a can of whoop ass, and showed Intel how to make a chip. Even newer chips that came out still didn't hold up to AMD. But, NOW! Look at Intel go. Finally we have some interesting competition.

    Ok, back to my concern. This processor is considerably better than anything else out there. Can, AMD rectify this? Will Reverse-HT be all that it's cracked up to be? 4x4? Can AMD stay alive long enough and be smart enough
  • I will gladly "upgrade" to a x2 as soon as the price cuts hit. The intel guy will have to buy a new MB and Processor. This is why I love AMD; A bios upgrade and my 939 MB is ready for a facelift.

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.

Working...