Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

xbitlabs: Contemporary Dual-Core Desktop Processors Shootout

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 19, 2006 10:29:29 PM

Nice link

Peace
July 19, 2006 10:50:41 PM

Holy sh!t batman! Check out the power consumption numbers!
Related resources
July 20, 2006 1:40:49 AM

It really put's things into perspective. Good review.
July 20, 2006 2:24:48 AM

Good article.

Before reading this and other things and now prices have finally come down here on 939 Dual cores, I was thinking of doing a 'quick' upgrade on my current machine (more for a bit extra than because its struggling).

Now I think I'll just wait and consider the investment in a new Conroe/platform when a wider variety of motherboards are released and things bed down a bit. The E6400 and E6600 look great bang for buck chips.
July 20, 2006 2:39:30 AM

Quote:
Holy sh!t batman! Check out the power consumption numbers!


Unfortunately, Intel was about 1 year late for the duel.
July 20, 2006 2:42:03 AM

Nice spin there BaronBS. AMD can't compete with this until K8L which is coming in 2008.
July 20, 2006 2:47:13 AM

Quote:
Nice spin there BaronBS. AMD can't compete with this until K8L which is coming in 2008.


Quad core FX may pop up before you know it. Right around the time1333-1600MHz DDR2 will hit. Maybe SLI RAM is designed for quad. I haven't heard about nVidia putting this on Nforce5 Intel - not saying they wouldn't purposely or anything.
July 20, 2006 2:51:56 AM

Quad FX will only help in certain apps and it'll be quite expensive.

Quote:
Right around the time1333-1600MHz DDR2 will hit.


No official support.
July 20, 2006 3:15:11 AM

Quote:
Quad FX will only help in certain apps and it'll be quite expensive.

Right around the time1333-1600MHz DDR2 will hit.


No official support.


I say FX but K8 was always meant to be quad. That would really start to saturate the DDR2 bus. Without K8L. I hope to see signs of it soon. 8x8 won't be K8L and the news from AMD says Q1 or so(ABC news).


SLI RAM is being standardized by JEDEC. Corsair is already running at 1200(Corsair). OCz probably is also. Haven't been to their site but both are SLI RAM partners with nVidia.
July 20, 2006 3:17:28 AM

Intel must be seriously underrating their processor's TDPs if the X6800 is getting 66W. 8O
July 20, 2006 3:18:09 AM

Quote:
I say FX but K8 was always meant to be quad. That would really start to saturate the DDR2 bus.


Unlikely, an X2 isn't even bottlenecked on DDR400.

Quote:
SLI RAM is being standardized by JEDEC.


Exactly.
July 20, 2006 3:20:06 AM

Pffft, everyone knows that Intels TDP figures are only 75% of the real power draw. :roll:

Its impressive though, they can keep the 65w TDP and at least hit 3.0ghz. Woodcrest is speced for 80w, so its got a lot of headroom.
July 20, 2006 3:42:59 AM

It certainly does. :) 
July 20, 2006 4:10:29 AM

One word: Yummy.
Synergy6
July 20, 2006 4:38:50 AM

Good infor. Like the E6600.
July 20, 2006 4:48:04 AM

Those numbers are sexy for CPU :roll: . Harder, better, faster, stonger.....[/Daft Punk] 8O
July 20, 2006 4:54:47 AM

wow..

When you look at the price/performance graph the top 3 core2's are literally alone - in a good way :) 

The E6600 is clearly the best value for the money.

The FX62 and the old PentiumD 965 are all alone also, in a very bad way :( 
July 20, 2006 5:16:48 AM

Quote:
wow..

When you look at the price/performance graph the top 3 core2's are literally alone - in a good way :) 

The E6600 is clearly the best value for the money.

The FX62 and the old PentiumD 965 are all alone also, in a very bad way :( 


Yes, I agree. The E6600 is my price range.
July 20, 2006 5:18:17 AM

Which CPU are you buying Baron? Probably the E6800 right?
July 20, 2006 5:29:47 AM



Rough sketch of what I think are the processors to buy in this bunch.
July 20, 2006 5:38:42 AM



is my way of looking at it. Red is the top field, only E6600 and E6400 in there. Then the pink with lots of CPUs. Then a final hard-to-see field which includes all but the "extreme" CPUs. Always were a waste of money.
Synergy6
July 20, 2006 5:49:45 AM

I agree, I was thinking more price ranges, but even then there are really only 2 I would look at which are 100-200 and 200-300. Which, for 50 bucks extra the 6600 is worth the jump.
July 20, 2006 6:17:10 AM

I'd like to know how Intel can justify leaving the 965 at $1000. It doesn't make sense when there are $300 chips out that can meet or beat it.
July 20, 2006 6:31:54 AM

Quote:
I'd like to know how Intel can justify leaving the 965 at $1000. It doesn't make sense when there are $300 chips out that can meet or beat it.


Slap an "enthusiast" label on any tech product, even a turd, and you can flog it for $1000 ... people are stupid.
July 20, 2006 8:32:08 AM

Quote:
Understanding the saracasm you often so cleverly on display....I have not found a reference that defines Intel's TDP as 75% of max.... I think that is a folk tale....


The horde were big on it. The most P4s exceed their TDP. Everything else has been under their TDPs.
July 20, 2006 8:42:43 AM

Quote:
I'd like to know how Intel can justify leaving the 965 at $1000. It doesn't make sense when there are $300 chips out that can meet or beat it.


The 965 wont be $1000 when Conroe is officially released.
July 20, 2006 1:34:31 PM

OMFG! How come the Intels power consumption is always lower than the TDP theyre rated at and AMDs is higher? :lol:  :lol: 
July 20, 2006 2:32:30 PM

This is how I see it.



The angle of the line. If it's angle more to the performance side then it's good and if angle more to the price side then it's not good. But let's keep in consideration each cpu's overclocking capabilities as well.

I think the E6300 is the best when it comes to performance-to-price ratio at stock and the 965 is the worst one.
July 20, 2006 3:57:29 PM

Quote:


is my way of looking at it. Red is the top field, only E6600 and E6400 in there. Then the pink with lots of CPUs. Then a final hard-to-see field which includes all but the "extreme" CPUs. Always were a waste of money.
Synergy6


I really like your masup. To be more accurate, the orignal rectangle should be stretched to squre. To retain rectangle shape, you should use ellipse instead of circile.
!