Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel-1.86ghz core-2-duo delivers

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 19, 2006 8:57:43 PM

Quote:
Check out this little man, the new PD805


Except that the E6300 actually performs at the stock speed.
July 19, 2006 9:08:16 PM

Wow your not wrong. The X2 3800 gets smoked by the conroe.
July 19, 2006 9:47:21 PM

where the hell do you see the PD805 in there? am I missing something?

oh wait... i see... you're saying the E6300 is the "new" 805. gotcha...

yep, those conroes are good overclockers.
July 19, 2006 10:24:12 PM

One thing that we have to take into account here is that the overclock on the Conroe chip was larger than the overclock on the x2 3800+ (1.86 - 2.5 for Conroe, 2-2.5 for x2 3800+). So at stock speeds the difference wouldnt be AS big as those benchmarks make it to be.

I know the Conroe is going to be an amazing chip, those benchmarks are just a tiny bit biased though!
July 19, 2006 10:26:14 PM

Impressive, i'm getting one of those.
July 19, 2006 10:53:47 PM

Quote:
One thing that we have to take into account here is that the overclock on the Conroe chip was larger than the overclock on the x2 3800+ (1.86 - 2.5 for Conroe, 2-2.5 for x2 3800+). So at stock speeds the difference wouldnt be AS big as those benchmarks make it to be.

I know the Conroe is going to be an amazing chip, those benchmarks are just a tiny bit biased though!


True. But I think the idea was to give a clock for clock comparison of both companies' low end dual core processors. Since Conroe is more IPC focused than its predecessor, I think it's a fair comparison. Though, one could make the argument that Intel's true low end dual core processor is now the Pentium D.

Kinda sad that the more appropriate comparison may be the Pentium D vs. the X2. X2 isn't even in the same league as Conroe. My how quickly things change!
July 19, 2006 11:12:30 PM

Quote:
One thing that we have to take into account here is that the overclock on the Conroe chip was larger than the overclock on the x2 3800+ (1.86 - 2.5 for Conroe, 2-2.5 for x2 3800+). So at stock speeds the difference wouldnt be AS big as those benchmarks make it to be.

I know the Conroe is going to be an amazing chip, those benchmarks are just a tiny bit biased though!


True. But I think the idea was to give a clock for clock comparison of both companies' low end dual core processors. Since Conroe is more IPC focused than its predecessor, I think it's a fair comparison. Though, one could make the argument that Intel's true low end dual core processor is now the Pentium D.

Kinda sad that the more appropriate comparison may be the Pentium D vs. the X2. X2 isn't even in the same league as Conroe. My how quickly things change!

Aye, all good points there. I think a better comparison when Intel's D9** series price drops come into effect this july would be a D945 or something similar vs the x2 3800+, as both are from the same technological "generation".

Although i believe that the D9** series are still better bang for buck than the x2 chips, especially when considering overclocking. The D930 even beats the D805 in price vs perf ratio! Which is no easy thing to do!

My advice for AMD would be to hurry up with the release of the x2 3600+ so they have a dual core to compete in the low end market.

Sorry if some of this doesn't make sense, it's been a long day. Up since 6 and it's now 12. Really should hit the hay.

QuantumSheep.
a c 99 à CPUs
July 19, 2006 11:12:50 PM

Well, not here since oth were OC'd. Since we know that the Conroe is something like 10-15% more efficient per clock, this is a pretty much foregone conclusion. But since both chips are roughly the same price on Conroe's launch day, why not compare them non-OC'd and see what the better one is. I bet it will be pretty even.
July 19, 2006 11:17:26 PM

Quote:
Aye, all good points there. I think a better comparison when Intel's D9** series price drops come into effect this july would be a D945 or something similar vs the x2 3800+, as both are from the same technological "generation".

Pentium D 945 vs. X2 3800+ vs. E6300
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html
July 20, 2006 2:16:35 AM

Quote:
Check out the E4300. I think it may play well in this budget/performance space as well.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3372


Is the E4300 "official" or is it just a OEM part?

If it's official it actually might be better thgan the E6300.

Starting out at the 800 mhz FSB and over clock to 2.4 ghz would put the bus at 266/1066 so all the ram, graphics cards etc would still be at stock speeds.

Lets say they price it at $139 (The E6300 is $183) OCed to 2.4 you get FX62 performance for under $183!

KIller chip... leaves the X2 3800 deader than dead if it turns out to be true...
July 20, 2006 2:45:04 AM

Did you get banned? Thats a shame. Good to see you're still spreading your usual BS.
July 20, 2006 2:50:53 AM

Quote:
One thing that we have to take into account here is that the overclock on the Conroe chip was larger than the overclock on the x2 3800+ (1.86 - 2.5 for Conroe, 2-2.5 for x2 3800+). So at stock speeds the difference wouldnt be AS big as those benchmarks make it to be.

I know the Conroe is going to be an amazing chip, those benchmarks are just a tiny bit biased though!


True. But I think the idea was to give a clock for clock comparison of both companies' low end dual core processors. Since Conroe is more IPC focused than its predecessor, I think it's a fair comparison. Though, one could make the argument that Intel's true low end dual core processor is now the Pentium D.

Kinda sad that the more appropriate comparison may be the Pentium D vs. the X2. X2 isn't even in the same league as Conroe. My how quickly things change!

Dont forget the gobs of cache Intel threw in there and your talking about 65nm vs. 90nm, cmon get real.

Cache is good :)  if it helps so much maybe AMD should put some more in ? hehehe
July 20, 2006 3:10:17 AM

Quote:
During our test session we managed to overclock Intel Core 2 Duo by more than 50% without touching its Vcore and using an air cooler


8O
July 20, 2006 3:13:04 AM

Do they always have to OC? I'm sick of seeing every single Core 2 Duo chip OCed. Yes, I understand that those reviews were done for enthuisiats and that the Core 2 Duo OCs like mad... but most people do not know how to OC. :( 
July 20, 2006 3:24:37 AM

Quote:
One thing that we have to take into account here is that the overclock on the Conroe chip was larger than the overclock on the x2 3800+ (1.86 - 2.5 for Conroe, 2-2.5 for x2 3800+). So at stock speeds the difference wouldnt be AS big as those benchmarks make it to be.

I know the Conroe is going to be an amazing chip, those benchmarks are just a tiny bit biased though!


True. But I think the idea was to give a clock for clock comparison of both companies' low end dual core processors. Since Conroe is more IPC focused than its predecessor, I think it's a fair comparison. Though, one could make the argument that Intel's true low end dual core processor is now the Pentium D.

Kinda sad that the more appropriate comparison may be the Pentium D vs. the X2. X2 isn't even in the same league as Conroe. My how quickly things change!

Dont forget the gobs of cache Intel threw in there and your talking about 65nm vs. 90nm, cmon get real.

Well that's not really the point now is it? The most reasonable comparison is one based on price and performance. I'm sorry, but Intel's price/performance ratio (with Conroe) beats AMD's X2 and FX hands down. Just like AMD's price performance ratio beats the Pentium D hands down. It's all relative mate. You can sit there and compare technologies all you want, but at the end of the day most of us care about the price/performance ratio rather than what process the CPU is made or how much L2 cache it has.
July 20, 2006 3:59:21 AM

Quote:
Check out the E4300. I think it may play well in this budget/performance space as well.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3372


Is the E4300 "official" or is it just a OEM part?

If it's official it actually might be better thgan the E6300.

Starting out at the 800 mhz FSB and over clock to 2.4 ghz would put the bus at 266/1066 so all the ram, graphics cards etc would still be at stock speeds.

Lets say they price it at $139 (The E6300 is $183) OCed to 2.4 you get FX62 performance for under $183!

KIller chip... leaves the X2 3800 deader than dead if it turns out to be true...

Looks like that might actually be the case and looks to be targeted squarely at the 3600+. It also appears that they will be retail, and not just OEM. Most sites say they don't expect to see them before Q1 07, but the way Intel has been pulling in it's roadmaps, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw them by Xmas. Here's more links:

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx?bid=282
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/5993/index.html
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,4213.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/5949/
http://tw.giga-byte.com/Support/Motherboard/CPUSupport_...
http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/showthread.php?s=&threa...
July 20, 2006 4:02:58 AM

Quote:
Did you get banned? Thats a shame. Good to see you're still spreading your usual BS.


No way...is that MrsD? :lol: 
July 20, 2006 4:20:19 AM

Yep, same location, style name and system specs in the sig.
July 20, 2006 4:27:26 AM

Toooo funny. Some people just don't learn, huh?
July 20, 2006 4:32:32 AM

Quote:
Did you get banned? Thats a shame. Good to see you're still spreading your usual BS.


who is that supposed to be?
July 20, 2006 4:32:34 AM

Quote:
Toooo funny. Some people just don't learn, huh?
Like Mike?
July 20, 2006 4:35:43 AM

Exactly!
July 20, 2006 10:06:06 AM

As many accounts as his tiny morsel of brain can remember?
July 20, 2006 10:58:31 AM

Tip: If you p*ss off 90% of the forum users, and the mod's enough to get banned, and you make a new account....don't put the same lame location down...show some mentality. We already know that your head is in the toilet, so loose the underwater location.

PS. Were you and MMM siamese twins, split at birth?I'm going to assume that you were conjoined at the head, and both of you lost some brain matter in the surgery.
July 20, 2006 11:09:55 AM

Quote:
Check out the E4300. I think it may play well in this budget/performance space as well.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3372


Is the E4300 "official" or is it just a OEM part?

If it's official it actually might be better thgan the E6300.

Starting out at the 800 mhz FSB and over clock to 2.4 ghz would put the bus at 266/1066 so all the ram, graphics cards etc would still be at stock speeds.

Lets say they price it at $139 (The E6300 is $183) OCed to 2.4 you get FX62 performance for under $183!

KIller chip... leaves the X2 3800 deader than dead if it turns out to be true...

Looks like that might actually be the case and looks to be targeted squarely at the 3600+. It also appears that they will be retail, and not just OEM. Most sites say they don't expect to see them before Q1 07, but the way Intel has been pulling in it's roadmaps, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw them by Xmas. Here's more links:

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx?bid=282
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/5993/index.html
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,4213.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/5949/
http://tw.giga-byte.com/Support/Motherboard/CPUSupport_...
http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/showthread.php?s=&threa...

Another view about the E4300's possibly sweetness. :p 

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00999/

Could be the bargain of the century. :D 
July 20, 2006 11:32:49 AM

Interesting review, but for the many AMD users, this comment is misguided IMO:

"Considering that both CPUs cost around the £135 price range, there is absolutely no reason why you should pick a 3800+ X2 over the E6300."

For me, I would have to sell my A8N-Sli Deluxe and RAM which would probably get way below there value, then buy one of these expensive mbs that all seem to have problems here and there anyway .. .

I figured moving to the X2 3800+ (and itll be more like £105 hopefully) and better RAM would be £210 be cheaper than moving to the E6300. The difference in performance probably doens't warrant that, especially as I would need to learn all about Intel and how to OC with intel and stuff.

Anyone agree with me or am I talking rubbish?
July 20, 2006 11:59:13 AM

Intel didn't throw gobs of cache in the new cores for nothing. It seems like alot but they are split up between the cores.
July 20, 2006 12:24:54 PM

I am not sure I trust this review. On the games, they used Fear and Doom 3 @ 800 x 600 (ugggghhhhh) on Medium setting using an ATI x1800xt.

What can the processors do on high setting. on 1024x768 or 1280x1024? Since a lot of people are going with Flat Screens now, these are more typical screen resolutions. Does it change the outcome therefore they do not show it?

I have 3 computers in my house and I have a mixture of AMD and Intel as well as ATI and NVidia. I look at Performance/Price and I take into account the natural screen resolution of the flat screens in my house before buying.

Just my 2 cents
July 20, 2006 1:24:42 PM

Funny. I seem to remember plenty of people whining about comparing K8 with a 'product that doesn't even exist' when AnandTech's first benchies came out. Now that it's out you're all bellowing about how comparing Core 2 Duo to 90nm(which is all AMD has right now) it, like, totally unfair, and the only fair course of action would be comparing it to AMD's 65nm... which doesn't exist. Double standards, anyone?

Get real.
July 20, 2006 1:30:57 PM

They use low resolutions and medium quality so it dosent get bottlenecked at the GPU so then the CPU would only be performing at 70% load becouse its constantly waiting on the GPU. Running at lower res and quality will show the tru potential of the CPU.
July 20, 2006 2:56:29 PM

"Considering that both CPUs cost around the £135 price range, there is absolutely no reason why you should pick a 3800+ X2 over the E6300."

I think this is incomplete, It should end with "Considering that both CPUs cost around the £135 price range, there is absolutely no reason why you should pick a 3800+ X2 over the E6300 If youre getting a new system."(which isnt the majority of us.) I would love to upgrade to one of these babies, but at around $450 for the complete upgrade will make me wait.

Like alot of us are saying;Intel wins price/performance ratio hands down, BUT its not like you only need the cpu, you need an expensive mobo & new RAM.
July 20, 2006 3:12:12 PM

Quote:
Do they always have to OC? I'm sick of seeing every single Core 2 Duo chip OCed. Yes, I understand that those reviews were done for enthuisiats and that the Core 2 Duo OCs like mad... but most people do not know how to OC. :( 



http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e...



These reviews show a X2-3800 verses a 6300 both stock and overeclocked...

The E6300 beats the X2-3800 both stock and overclocked... end of story
July 20, 2006 3:21:59 PM

**in other words... no I wasn't banned, I just can not log in** :lol:  :lol: 
July 20, 2006 3:36:00 PM

Quote:
Did you get banned? Thats a shame. Good to see you're still spreading your usual BS.


Thats pure fact kiddo, do I need to post the processor specs little man?
Are you back to your usual flaming of people posting facts that you cant seem to grasp?
And no I didnt get banned, I keep getting an error about cookies and cant login so I made a new account, K nerd boy?

Wow, banned by a few cookies, huh? If we would've known that's all it took... :lol: 
July 20, 2006 3:38:24 PM

Yeah, and even though I am a total Intel fanboy, it is biased towards Intel. They don't mess with the results themselves, simply the way they display them. While it may look like the 3800 is getting totally PWNED in the benches (which it basically is), it's not as intense as it may seem. The graph markers are sometimes way into it to start out so the visual difference is bigger. Like this:


if you look at it, the actual numerical difference isn't that big, however when graphically presented, it seems much larger. While it ocul dbe argued this is to save space, not all of them do it, only the ones with narrow margins, which again could be argued that they're trying to show a higher-detailed difference. Still though, seems a little one-sided, though I will add that AMD is indeed getting its ass kicked.
July 20, 2006 3:44:01 PM

Quote:
Yeah, and even though I am a total Intel fanboy, it is biased towards Intel. They don't mess with the results themselves, simply the way they display them. While it may look like the 3800 is getting totally PWNED in the benches (which it basically is), it's not as intense as it may seem. The graph markers are sometimes way into it to start out so the visual difference is bigger. Like this:


if you look at it, the actual numerical difference isn't that big, however when graphically presented, it seems much larger. While it ocul dbe argued this is to save space, not all of them do it, only the ones with narrow margins, which again could be argued that they're trying to show a higher-detailed difference. Still though, seems a little one-sided, though I will add that AMD is indeed getting its ass kicked.


OMG i was just gonna say that, By the looks of it, it seems that the Intel More than DOUBLES the performance here. Which cleary isnt the case.
July 20, 2006 4:06:23 PM



Quote:
Once again the 3800+ X2 is smoked by the E6300 which is 33% faster in the Super Pi test. The E6300 should really blitz through aplications which are FPU dependant.


You always only read the pictures in a book, if you read the words with comprhension skills, you might understand the pictures better...
July 20, 2006 4:23:02 PM

Quote:
I am not sure I trust this review. On the games, they used Fear and Doom 3 @ 800 x 600 (ugggghhhhh) on Medium setting using an ATI x1800xt.

What can the processors do on high setting. on 1024x768 or 1280x1024? Since a lot of people are going with Flat Screens now, these are more typical screen resolutions. Does it change the outcome therefore they do not show it?

I have 3 computers in my house and I have a mixture of AMD and Intel as well as ATI and NVidia. I look at Performance/Price and I take into account the natural screen resolution of the flat screens in my house before buying.

Just my 2 cents


Ummm, at that resolution they are transfering more of weight from the GPU to the CPU. Obviously any decent graphics card today can handle those games at a low resolution. So the major difference in performance at that resolution would strictly be processor based. Which is the exact reason they benchmarked in 800x600.
July 20, 2006 4:27:03 PM

Quote:
Yeah, and even though I am a total Intel fanboy, it is biased towards Intel. They don't mess with the results themselves, simply the way they display them. While it may look like the 3800 is getting totally PWNED in the benches (which it basically is), it's not as intense as it may seem. The graph markers are sometimes way into it to start out so the visual difference is bigger. Like this:


if you look at it, the actual numerical difference isn't that big, however when graphically presented, it seems much larger. While it ocul dbe argued this is to save space, not all of them do it, only the ones with narrow margins, which again could be argued that they're trying to show a higher-detailed difference. Still though, seems a little one-sided, though I will add that AMD is indeed getting its ass kicked.


I'd have to agree that the graphs are very misleading... Personally all graphs should start at 0, thats probably the 'fairest' way of displaying performance.

Quote:
I am not sure I trust this review. On the games, they used Fear and Doom 3 @ 800 x 600 (ugggghhhhh) on Medium setting using an ATI x1800xt.

What can the processors do on high setting. on 1024x768 or 1280x1024? Since a lot of people are going with Flat Screens now, these are more typical screen resolutions. Does it change the outcome therefore they do not show it?

I have 3 computers in my house and I have a mixture of AMD and Intel as well as ATI and NVidia. I look at Performance/Price and I take into account the natural screen resolution of the flat screens in my house before buying.

Just my 2 cents


This has also been on my mind as well, but think of it like this. Obviusly games wont take full advantage of conroe even if your running sli or crossfire. But games in the future sure will, especially with physics becoming as big as they are. I say conroe will stay a good choice cpu for awhile, while AMD's procs slowly fall behind... that hurts because I used to be a fanboy for amd. My proof? Look at benchmarks in games at low quality. Conroe spanks. Usually 25-30% better than FX-62. AND conroe has lots of headroom. If anything it should be interesting to see what unfolds.
July 20, 2006 4:32:12 PM

Quote:
Did you get banned? Thats a shame. Good to see you're still spreading your usual BS.


Thats pure fact kiddo, do I need to post the processor specs little man?
Are you back to your usual flaming of people posting facts that you cant seem to grasp?
And no I didnt get banned, I keep getting an error about cookies and cant login so I made a new account, K nerd boy?You don't need to worry yourself about that....you aren't a person...you're a bot. The Bytch doesn't know about cookies. Go figure. Better spend more time in the kitchen, and less time thinking up stupid one- liners to post in here that you think make you look knowledgable. Back to the toilet bowl Bytch.
July 20, 2006 6:48:25 PM

It was meant as a joke. :lol: 
Forgot the smiley, sorry. :wink:

Yes, we do need them to stick around since they've "inspired" Intel, biting them squarely on the A$$.

Competition is a good thing. :) 
July 20, 2006 9:43:26 PM

Quote:
Did you get banned? Thats a shame. Good to see you're still spreading your usual BS.


Thats pure fact kiddo

Hmm. Are you mikes boyfriend? How come you're a guy and use the Mrs title?
July 20, 2006 11:06:55 PM

Quote:
Did you get banned? Thats a shame. Good to see you're still spreading your usual BS.


Thats pure fact kiddo

Hmm. Are you mikes boyfriend? How come you're a guy and use the Mrs title?

lol I don't know why but that made me laugh - but it did, so I rated it.

Yes some of the graphs are misleading (very badly done in some areas), but the end result is the same. The X2 family is outclassed in just about every single area by Core 2 Duo. Arguing about it will not change that fact you just have to look at the plethora of sites showing benchmark after benchmark showing this.
July 21, 2006 6:14:09 AM

I like how Mrs. D's remarks are:

whole lotta cache

and:

65nm

as the reasons Core performs so well. NEVERMIND this review is talking about the 6300, which has only two (2) MB of total L2 cache, the same as the Pentium D series and the Althon FX dual core series. I also don't see how the die shrink comes into play here. If he is trying to make some inference on how a die shrink allows for higher clock speeds, this is the POOREST example for which to use that argument. The 6300 is running at 1.83 GHz, which was easily attainable using Intel's 90 nm Yonah core. The die shrink itself had no hand in making the E6300 the monster it is, the design had everything to do with it. Too bad an ignoramus like Mrs. D will never understand this concept. :wink:
July 21, 2006 11:16:01 AM

Quote:
I like how Mrs. D's remarks are:

whole lotta cache

and:

65nm

as the reasons Core performs so well. NEVERMIND this review is talking about the 6300, which has only two (2) MB of total L2 cache, the same as the Pentium D series and the Althon FX dual core series. I also don't see how the die shrink comes into play here. If he is trying to make some inference on how a die shrink allows for higher clock speeds, this is the POOREST example for which to use that argument. The 6300 is running at 1.83 GHz, which was easily attainable using Intel's 90 nm Yonah core. The die shrink itself had no hand in making the E6300 the monster it is, the design had everything to do with it. Too bad an ignoramus like Mrs. D will never understand this concept. :wink:


Hehe.
!