Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Processor: Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.0 GHz)

Tom's New Reference System
By

The fastest and also the most efficient processor is Intel's Core 2 Duo. We selected an upper mainstream model as our reference CPU: the Core 2 Duo E6850 at 3.0 GHz core clock speed and FSB1333 system speed (333 MHz bus). This 65 nm processor is based on the Conroe core, which was introduced in the summer of 2006. With 4 MB of united L2 cache and two processing cores, it provides excellent performance at an acceptable cost. The Core 2 Duo E6850 can typically be overclocked to at least 3.4 GHz, and many users have been reporting up to 4 GHz in various forums.

We also looked at the Core 2 Quad models, which are available at speeds of up to 2.66 GHz. Depending on the type of review, we might also use one of these. However, looking at how applications currently scale from two to four cores, we did not see the necessity of going for a quad core processor right now. The next generation reference system will certainly be based on a quad core chip, which could be based either on AMD's upcoming 45 nm quad core called Deneb (Socket AM3, 6 MB L3 cache, DDR3-1600+) or Intel's Core 2 successor currently code-named Nehalem. The latter will be a native quad core with a DDR3 memory controller on die. Since both are still more than half a year away, we'll stick to the Core 2 Duo E6850 as our reference for now.

Display all 4 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    prodevel , September 16, 2008 6:34 AM
    I happened to buy smart or dumb enough to pretty much buy this rig a few - several months after it came out... I'm just now looking into OC'ing it. If anyone's got good links to tut's I'm game
  • 0 Hide
    prodevel , September 16, 2008 6:51 AM
    *I bought this rig several months ago and have LOVED it. I'm just now looking into OC'ing it. If anyone's got good links to tut's I'm game.*

    THANKS!

    Not sure what happened there w/the prev...
  • 0 Hide
    Hothr , February 13, 2009 1:05 PM
    Why do you use awful color schemes like this in your graphs? Yesterday's $1,250 machine benchmark graphs were the first I had actually been able to easily read. Light/Dark + Blue/Green/Red makes SO much sense. I can easily tell which system is which, and which bar is the overclocked bar. Blue, Green, Red, Purple shows no information on whether it is overclocked or not, and does not provide an easy way to tell which system is which.
    To make things worse, the key at the bottom of every graph (that I have to look at every time) is always in a different order.

    Can we please have more graphs like the $1,250 build?
  • 0 Hide
    Hothr , February 13, 2009 1:07 PM
    wrong article, sorry.