Intel-1.86ghz core-2-duo delivers

mpjesse

Splendid
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.
 

quantumsheep

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2005
2,341
0
19,790
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!
 

mpjesse

Splendid
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!
 

quantumsheep

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2005
2,341
0
19,790
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.
 
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.
 

the_vorlon

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
365
0
18,780
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...
 

JonathanDeane

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2006
1,469
0
19,310
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
 

Vinny

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2004
402
0
18,780
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. :(
 

mpjesse

Splendid
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.
 

custompcz

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2006
158
0
18,680
Even the AM2 3600+ release will not save them.

http://www.maxitmag.com/tech-gear/processors/intel-core-2-duo-e4300-to-go-head-to-head-with-am2-3600%2b-x2/

Low end price point & high end performance are all covered by Intel this time.

AMD is doomed, doomed, doomed......
 

bixplus

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2006
398
0
18,780
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_List.aspx?ClassValue=Motherboard&ProductID=2314&ProductName=GA-965P-DS3
http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25662