Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
Contemporary Dual-Core Desktop Processors Shootout

Started by: coldpower27 | Date 07/19/06 03:48:35 PM
Comments: 156 | Last Comment:  09/02/16 04:01:36 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


Please keep in mind that the Athlon has the Memory Controller integrated into the CPU which will inflate the power usage numbers! At this stage it is really difficult to compare power usage because it is an apples to oranges situation.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/19/06 03:59:35 PM]

weak benchies.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/19/06 04:00:06 PM]
- collapse thread

Nice response! You sir are a retarded fuck, that lick men's balls for after dinner delights. Learn some English before you type
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/19/06 10:01:49 PM]

Awesome Review! I loved those extra charts on page 13. I planned to buy an E6600 and after reading this review, I'm definately buying an E6600.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/19/06 07:47:59 PM]
- collapse thread

Sucker...You're gonna be paying for the early adopters price premium! LOL!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/19/06 11:12:56 PM]
Nice work making yourself look stupid.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/21/06 01:09:41 AM]
432 is right, only a no-clue impatient moron will spend money on products just as they come out. You're the perfect example of why companies like "first adopters" of their products...Because they're willing to shell out premiums!

Most users are smart enough to wait until prices have settled down or they plan to buy much later, instead of going out and blindly buy the first E6600 they come across.

Have a think about it and register this in your pea-brain.

(1) Kentsfield (quad-core Conroe) is being pushed up by 3 months, and is coming end of THIS year. This is to counter AMD's 4x4 solution.

(2) Core 2 Extreme 3.2Ghz is coming at the end of the year as well.

(3) Because of (1) and (2), have a think about the prices of the Core 2 Duo CPUs as newer, faster ones come AND as supply of Core 2 Duo starts to pick up. (by Sept).

(4) AMD is slashing their prices from the rumoured 46% to 55%. How do you think that affects Intel? Don't you think they'll respond in kind?

Who's the stupid one now?

The impatient moron (like yourself) ?
The person who stands back and waits a bit for the dust to settle?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/21/06 04:08:45 AM]
Hey, just curious if your stupid on the cycle of computers...

Your saying your so smart about "waiting for dust to settle"

are you f***ing retarted, every 3-6 months something new is coming out, its the Quad-Core now but soon enough they make something newer and better, you'll always be waiting with the attitude you got you stupid b!tch

no ur just delaying buying new CPU because you don't have money or are AMD fan so you try to bring it down and make it look bad
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/22/06 06:00:00 PM]
Oh look, a "drive by poster"! => Justsomeguy69.

I see you haven't reached past puberty. Wonderful use of language. Are you making up for the size of something else? Maybe if you actually learn proper ENGLISH and grammar, people will be able to read the nonsense you actually type. Fortunately for me, I can read incompetent posts like yours.

(1) Who says you have to buy when every generation comes out? Who say's you can't skip upgrades every 2 years? Is someone pointing a gun to your head? Or are you just the same gulliable sheep that fall for every new thing that is coming? Its amazing how many of you are so easily manipulated into buying things...My lecturer in Business and Marketing was right, when he says "young, stupid, and gulliable...Let's make money out of them!"

Intel's co-founder, Gordon Moore, came up with a Law. Known as Moore's Law. It basically says computing power doubles every 18 months. Who says I can't wait until computing power doubles before investing? Who says I can't wait until quad-core flows down to the mainstream?

Quad-core is gonna be for the upper "enthusiast" end, when it comes at the end of this year. Who says every single person needs to buy it?

Just because some people are planning to buy Conroe, doesn't mean everyone should. You buy for what you need and understand the benefits and disadvantages of the design. Instead of basing your buying entirely from benchmarks alone. You only use benchmarks to see how much benefit you can gain and decide which is the best for the application you use for. (you won't use a Conroe based solution in an eight-core or CPU server style solution, that would be a bad idea because of the Bus design of the chipset).

(2) A new GPU (video cards) get refreshed every 6 to 12 months, such that the performance of the budget line of the new generation rivals the mainstream of the last generation. ie: GF7300GT with DDR3 is equal or slightly better than the regular GF6600, but costs a fraction of what the GF6600 was. Who says you need to buy a GF7xxx series? Why can't you skip a generation and go for the GF8xxx? (This way, if you know you'll be playing DirectX 10 games, you would have plenty of money to get a decent solution).

(3) I'm not investing in Conroe, as I fully know that Conroe is to hold AMD back while Intel works on their next generation CPU that uses CSI (Intel's version of Hypertransport). The current design is a bus based solution. As soon as you hit quad-core, the bus starts to become the bottleneck. Since quad-core is a definite future, why not invest in a design that removes that bottleneck?

Of course, you're obviously mentally incapable of seeing that, because you can't even see the forest among the trees. You (like many others), are so focused on the new tree in front of you, that you don't even see what's behind it!

Who's the "stupid bitch" that assumes I'm an AMD fan?
YOU. I own Intel, AMD and even VIA based systems.

Only young stupid cocks like yourself would jump on Conroe without thinking. You wait until supply is plenty before buying, as PC Vendors are delibrately charging a price premium for early adopters, as well as Intel needing to get rid of Pentium-D surplus stocks. They keep the prices high for now, as they want you to get Pentium-D (they have too many left over!) and prices will gradually drop as supply improves for Conroe.

Besides, waiting for a mobo that supports Kentsfield (quad-core) doesn't hurt, does it? The closer the quad-core arrives, the more likely certain mobos can handle it. This gives you the right time to pick a mobo that supports quad-core. It gives you an option to upgrade from Conroe (dual-core) to Kentsfield (quad-core).

Of course, you're simply incapable of understanding that kind of view. Maybe if you grew up and became more open-minded by thinking in a different manner, you'd understand. But I doubt that. Looking at your post again, you don't even have the mental capacity to write a coherent response, let alone thinking with a different approach.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/23/06 12:31:18 AM]

Great news for Pentium fans!AMD should try to keep up with Intels revolutionary step in doing its business and let the competition going!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/21/06 03:38:17 AM]

These numbers can't be right...they are half what everyone else on the web is reporting, and lower than my 3000+ !
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/21/06 07:53:24 PM]

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.

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/22/06 08:35:08 PM]

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 !!!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/23/06 07:24:59 AM]

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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/23/06 04:31:19 PM]

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?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/24/06 03:49:06 AM]

"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
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/24/06 05:07:13 PM]

I see that the faster (4MB) Conroes draw less power at idle than the 2MB parts. Is there anyone here to help explain this, as it's pretty illogical?

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 07/25/06 12:56:07 AM]

Don´t you think? And about games test?! Loser
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 10/22/06 02:52:53 PM]


What is the name of the S&M utility you used to measure the maximum power consumption?

The link you have included is broken.
0 0 [Posted by: pavan168  | Date: 08/12/10 09:23:02 PM]
- collapse thread

0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 08/12/10 10:42:48 PM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment