Great news for Pentium fans!AMD should try to keep up with Intels revolutionary step in doing its business and let the competition going!

Wow, this is the best Conroe review I've seen so far. Page 13 is particulary great. Thx xbit, great job

These numbers can't be right...they are half what everyone else on the web is reporting, and lower than my 3000+ !

No AMD L2 4M
Intel had fix it problem but architure similar like ALPHA Processor!!!
What that Intel do for past TWO year. Don't you hurtt???
Intel Reduce Core-Logic Transistor. why? Did Effect to Complex Decoder? or Only Reduce time to excess the Memory, That most important performance. Most Kernel do in the simple way for compability So Special Instruction allmost in the CPU don't use. How to AMD fight back! Reduce the latency of internal memory execution by half the performance is equal to intel core 2 duo, other are above intel except *kernel in most pc-game.

Very clear and simple the comaprison

Hi all;

Not a regular reader here so I'm not sure how to take the article. One thing is certain though Intel has made significant performance leaps.

As to power usage I'm not to sure we have valid comparison here. As has already been mentioned Intel has an off board memroy controller. In any event the real argument here is that, for most of us, total system disapation is the real issue. If you leave your PC on 100% of the time it is overall power usage that you ae concerned about. In other words publishing CPU power usage is useless information for many of us. Better to know total system usage. This doesn't even take into account that AMD is about to deliver new technology directed at this very subject.

By the way I totally agree with the issue of 64 bit performance. I've been running 64 bit Linux for a couple of years now and would find such information very usefull. For many of the applications that I work with 64 bit is a win already, but now that viable competition is at hand results here would be very usefull. My suspicions are that Core 2 will perform well with respect to 64 bit apps on a 64 bit OS but nothing in the article deals with that. It seems that the publishing community does not pay attention to 64 bit anything even though it can be a boom to some.

Maybe the issue with 64 bit is that it doesn't do much for word processing thus the lack of respect in the publishing world.

All in all I liked the article but it is far to many pages to load. I would very much prefer a wider format to the articles. I'm sitting in front of a nice High resolution screen and the text of the article is barely a 1/4 of the screen width. Combine this with bad eyesite and Firefoxes zoom function and reading is a bit tedious.

In any event thanks for all the good work.

Dave

Good Benchmarks generally, but it would have been nice to see system total power consumption comparisons.
As for timing, Intel have missed out this year with any educational purchases, we've already bought AMD. By the time we are looking at next year’s financial situation, the CPU battlefield will have changed again.
Personally I cannot afford to buy a new system based upon just a 30% performance increase, it just doesn't effect my productivity enough to justify the expense.
Keep up the good work!

Its just the thing that the doctor ordered

just the thing the doctor ordered

obiviously you find it hard to admit: INTEL is by far the better choice.
what will AMD response? who cares? when INTEL was lousy, you said it is, don't mix current results with speculations...

OK - Now look at AMD on 90 nm vs. INTEL on 65 nm - who is the real winner - give AMD a few months to get their 65 nm process on the mark and the tables will turn in a dramatic fashion - KINDA RIDICULOUS TO COMPARE AMD 5 YR OLD PROCESS TO INTEL LAST WEEK PROCESS !!!

I've found this review very helpful.When CONROE's arrived i would certainly get the E6600 as its really shows you get a really good performace per dollar.

Thanks' for the new innovation that pcworld bringing to us for sure all of us (pc enthusiast) will benefits off it!!

>>ME ESL

I hope there'll be a day where all this stupid comment will be removed. XBitLabs people are working hard to write any article and they gave us the possibility of comments just to extend that article, not to hold in stupid comments from obfuscated people, often having absolutely no idea about what they are talking. I hate to read comments and being interrupted by crazy stupid posters.
Someone just have to remove some non-comments, please.

Thanks

Pretyy good article.
Just one part is a bit flawed - You evalute the PCU's from a power consumtion standpoint architecture.
1) you present the IDLE numbers withount CnQ/EIST => the value of those nubmers is ZERO from the economical prespective.
2) you measured power consumption of the the CPU ONLY!, a nice work but from the performance per wat standpoint mostly meaningless.

These mistakes make your Perf./Watt conclusions completely meaningless.

On the other hand the Perf./GHz Graph shows probably the most.
Thanks for that. One does not see such an inovative (and logical) aproach in data presantation too often.

Best regards.

Pretty good article.
Just one part is a bit flawed - You evalute the PCU's from a power consumtion standpoint architecture.
1) you present the IDLE numbers withount CnQ/EIST => the value of those nubmers is ZERO from the economical prespective.
2) you measured power consumption of the the CPU ONLY!, a nice work but from the performance per wat standpoint mostly meaningless.

These mistakes make your Perf./Watt conclusions completely meaningless.

On the other hand the Perf./GHz Graph shows probably the most.
Thanks for that. One does not see such an inovative (and logical) aproach in data presantation too often.

Best regards.

And the prize goes to xbitlabs for the best Core 2 Duo review on the web...Grats

Anandtech has a different opinion about power consumption, on thei graphs it's about 110 W in idle mode, not so little like in XBitlabs article. Where is the mistake?

Duh whatever you guys say nothing can beat my good ol P3 550MHZ 512L2 cache. It's a 128 bit processor with unique power saving features and ultra high performance.

Wery good article! I was so glad to see a such widely description of those CPU's and benchmarks. Also, the last graphs where you put up effectivity/watt and price/performance was very cool. I'm sure this will help many people to decide their choise of CPU among the huge market!
THANKS

"I have to say that the Pentium D processor family that has lost quite a few of its members will still remain in demand. Despite the high heat dissipation and power consumption of the models in this family, they will still be a good choice for inexpensive systems. So, you shouldn’t give up on these processors"

Chush them they are power wasters and heaters think of the environment not you pockets!

must be pro Intel it seems