Slashdot Mirror
Core 2 Reviews All Around the Web
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.
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!!!
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.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
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 ...
The Raven
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)
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 mind that Intel could create this CPU since they have more research money that NASA. It just took them getting mopped for a while to motivate them. This is the CPU Intel should have released years ago. Good to see they are finally close to where they should be. However, don't expect me to congratulate Intel too much for doing what they should have been doing anyway!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Here's a one-pager link for Anand:
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2795
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
I know slashdotters pride themselves on running old machines because they don't need all that fancy stuff but windows 3.1... come on. How can you be productive when you can't load document files that people email you (provided they're running a semi-modern version of office)? With desktops so cheap these days (especially if you're willing to go with a celeron or sempron) there is no excuse for running such old hardware. I mean for real slashdot cred you should be running NetBSD; windows 3.1 just makes you sound lazy.
Since the NDA expired I've complied a list of official benchmarks, there are 43 on there already; Top 3 imho are those from Techreport, HardOCP and Anandtech
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 progressed with the user-friendliness they have today without Microsoft Windows, I'll continue to use Microsoft Windows".
I personally believe that we should acknowledge Intel for making a revolutionary product, and look forward to AMD's response. Being a fanboy just means that you purposely put blinders on yourself for something as trivial as hardware... something normally reserved for politics or religion.
cd
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.
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?
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 people uses the crappy linux desktop. But keeping buying AMD, and they won't have any incentive to make better CPUs
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 have a multi-CPU solution. AMD, meanwhile, rocks in this arena, with multiple CPUs being almost indistinguishable from single CPUs.
Lastly, if AMD comes out with 2-4MB cache CPUs, I think they'll at least be equivalent to if not better than the current Intel offerings, and that's with 2+ year old tech. I still eagerly await the next round of AMD CPUs, due in about 9 months, but that won't be for this next upgrade.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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!
...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!
Makin' money, makin' friends, makin' whoopee and wearin' Depends
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
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
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.
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 to keep up the competition. Or will AMD be a one hit wonder? I hope AMD will stay in there and keep Intel in check. I think Intel needs to be around to keep AMD in check.
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.
If you think