Xbitlabs reviews Wolfdale

[Epsilon84]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale.html

Nice. The E8400 @ $183 looks like the sweet spot. :up:

[Leeghoofd]

Seems great, but I really want to see a retail version there and see if all do 540FSB again ... I doubt it, secondly many of the QX9659 have issues over certain voltages will the wolfdale also be hurt by that ?

I took the quadpath and I hardly think i will ever go back again to a dual core...

[YukonTrooper]

E8200 please! I wonder how these will perform in my P965-DS3...

[naokaji]

E8400 and Q9450 for me pls... then swap depending on what i'm doing:up:

[Jacky]

"Our Core 2 Duo E8200 test sample could only work at 3.2GHs at its nominal Vcore setting"
Still a lot of deviation in the process, no?
Well as soon as they get it sorted out... I mean anything else is really IMPRESSIVE.

[Eastcoasthandle]

Meh! something is not right. The E8500 has a .5 multi advantage over the E6850 thus the increase in performance is negliable at best. And, it appears that getting a decent OC'er will depend on lot (IE: crap shoot). The lower power consumption is a welcome thing however, the heat output is roughly the same (assuming an OC of at least 3.6). At 3.0 you lose 6.9Watts and lose 4C underload. That's not bad if you don't overclock though! But I am concerned when you are at 3.6 and higher though!

[Kunaak]

hurry up and release them already.
I just want my new CPU :)

[Epsilon84]

Meh! something is not right. The E8500 has a .5 multi advantage over the E6850 thus the increase in performance is negliable at best. And, it appears that getting a decent OC'er will depend on lot (IE: crap shoot). The lower power consumption is a welcome thing however, the heat output is roughly the same (assuming an OC of at least 3.6).

It's 166MHz faster plus has a ~6% IPC boost, which puts it about 10% faster than an E6850 at the same cost.

How is the heat output the same though? HK/MG runs much cooler than stock silicon, at the same clocks/voltages the E8500 will run much cooler than an E6850.

[Shintai]

I´m just crazy with the power consumption :D

[Omastar]

E8200 please! I wonder how these will perform in my P965-DS3...

Er, P965 doesn't support 45nm processors, does it? Is it just a BIOS flash thing? Because there's no official 1333FSB support on that chipset.

[Shintai]

Er, P965 doesn't support 45nm processors, does it? Is it just a BIOS flash thing? Because there's no official 1333FSB support on that chipset.

P965 supports them.

http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/

The 1333 is considered OC tho. But if you take a lowerend 1066FSB 45nm CPU its done 100% by the book.

[JoeBar]

Can't wait... :slobber:

[YukonTrooper]

Er, P965 doesn't support 45nm processors, does it? Is it just a BIOS flash thing? Because there's no official 1333FSB support on that chipset.
The Gigabyte DS3 does. Quad, 1333FSB and 45nm. Can't speak for other P965 boards.

[[XC] gomeler]

*yawn* Getting tired of waiting to play with some 45nm deliciousness. Hello 5GHz I hope..

[Epsilon84]

The E8500 is at 3.16 not 3.00 as benched in that review which makes me believe that heat output will be roughly the same as you OC at 3.6. and above!

I have no idea what you are talking about. The E8500 was benchmarked at the correct 3.16GHz, not 3.0GHz.

Power consumption is SIGNIFICANTLY down on the E6850, be that stock or overclocked.


The Gigabyte DS3 does. Quad, 1333FSB and 45nm. Can't speak for other P965 boards.

Asus P965 boards do as well, as someone else pointed out previously. It seems P965 is certainly capable of 'unofficial' 1333FSB / Penryn support, it does need a BIOS update though.

[Eastcoasthandle]

I have no idea what you are talking about. The E8500 was benchmarked at the correct 3.16GHz, not 3.0GHz.


No, you don't have any idea do you :rolleyes:
I misread the chart but in any case I wait to see OC results of 3.6 to 4.0 first instead of making any predictions as to heat output as you have done! Having a .5 multi advantage over the E6850 the increase in performance is negliable at best. I will continue to read more reviews as they come, specially when it comes to games running at 1680x1050 and higher. In any case, having corrected myself it's still Meh! I see no real advantage owning a E8400 over a E6850 at this point!

[DrMambo]

The 8500 looks pretty impressive. I'll wait for a few more reviews before I make any real judgment, but I'm liking the low wattages and temps.
The 8400 looks to be the best price (in NZ), so I'll be looking out for some oc'ing on that.
As far as I can tell they didnt mention what sort of cooling they were using in that review, but I'll assume it was stock cooling, or at least air. Looking good for some nice water :D

[Epsilon84]

No, you don't have any idea do you :rolleyes:


So says the one who can't read a simple chart. :rofl:

Dude, you are seriously confused.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-wolfdale/pcons-2.png

Tell me how a Wolfdale can be anywhere near an E6850 in power consumption. In fact the E8500 does 3.6GHz+ at STOCK voltage. :rolleyes:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-wolfdale/cpu-3657.png

[Jamesrt2004]

In fact the E8500 does 3.6GHz+ at STOCK voltage. :rolleyes:


I doubt all chips will do this tbh

[Epsilon84]

I doubt all chips will do this tbh

Well, what are you expecting then? 3.6GHz is 'only' a 14% overclock over the stock 3.16GHz on an E8500...

[Power5]

Uhh, they do realize that the 8200 was a much higher fsb than the 8500 at max clock? They didnt even test the 8200 to see its FSB wall, but since all the wolfdales are the same except for the multi, I would assume they can all run the same FSB speeds. An extreme wolfdale priced about $50 above the 8500 would be awesome. :up:

[Eastcoasthandle]

...
I can correct myself if I misread something :confused:
I think you are a little slow, I was referring to the heat output at overclock settings which wasn't shown at that OC. And as someone else already mentioned, not all E8000 series CPUs will OC the same special with this ES. I have read many review were they were able to OC a CPU without raising the vcore and people weren't able to do it so that means nothing to me. So, in all it is you who is "seriously confused" :ROTF:

When you get a CPU at 4.3 at 70C I'm simply not impressed with the heat output.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/maxover.png

I look forward to more reviews and hope to see some OC results at 3.6 to 4.0 to get an idea of how much heat is produced.


Of course, this is not a bad result at all, but nevertheless, Core 2 Duo E8200 yielded significantly to its elder brother, Core 2 Duo E8500. So, it turns out that Wolfdale overclocking success depends a lot on the CPU sample.
Source (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_12.html)

[Epsilon84]

I think you are a little slow, I was referring to the heat output. And as someone else already mentioned, not all CPU will OC the same :ROTF:

Heat output = power consumption. It doesn't require a genius to figure that a cooler running CPU @ stock would be a cooler running CPU @ overclocked settings also. :rolleyes: :ROTF:

Before calling anyone slow... it might be a good idea to check your own speedometer. :up:

[mascaras]

E8400 @ 4ghz (450x9) @ 1.47v Prime stable (15 minuts) >> http://www.expreview.com/img/review/45nmE8400/oc450.jpg

also 4Ghz ( 500x8 ) @ 1.47v Prime stable (15 minuts) >> http://www.expreview.com/img/review/45nmE8400/oc500.jpg


source >> http://en.expreview.com/?p=68&page=4


regards

[RPGWiZaRD]

Very well written article from X-bit. Nothing new for me besides some technical aspects I haven't paid attention to.

E8400 I really want one, thanks Intel for bringing more performance and better overclockability and better thermals for same price. :up:

With a TRUE 120 the temps had prolly been around 60C load at the overclocked setting, so 70C with that cooler at that clock speed and volts aren't amazingly impressive but I'd say quite good and acceptable but still there's some indication of leakage if we compare to stock frequency. But again they didn't meantion the ambient temp and described the place and ambient cooling used etc.

[Eastcoasthandle]

Heat output = power consumption. It doesn't require a genius to figure that a cooler running CPU @ stock would be a cooler running CPU @ overclocked settings also. :rolleyes: :ROTF:

Before calling anyone slow... it might be a good idea to check your own speedometer. :up:

Your previous post had nothing to do with your reply to mind :ROTF:. Although you show pics of an OC at 3.6XX there was no information regarding the heat. Which was what I was talking about from the very start. Then you went on to imply all E8500 will overclock without increase in vcore. Inwhich you was corrected by another user :rolleyes:. Now you are talking about heat output= power consumption. Ok whatever :rofl:

[Eastcoasthandle]

E8400 @ 4ghz (450x9) @ 1.47v Prime stable (15 minuts) >> http://www.expreview.com/img/review/45nmE8400/oc450.jpg

also 4Ghz ( 500x8 ) @ 1.47v Prime stable (15 minuts) >> http://www.expreview.com/img/review/45nmE8400/oc500.jpg


source >> http://en.expreview.com/?p=68&page=4


regards
Thanks thats the information I was looking for :up:

[KTE]

The E8500 is obviously a higher binned core, hence its higher overclock. You can easily see this with their stock voltages, the E8500 3.16GHz is at 1.136V 1.05VID and E8200 at 2.66GHz at 1.2V. Big difference. They are also ES, ES Yorkfields were known to be much better and lower stock voltage/VID than what retailed.

Hence when oc'ing, the E8500 gets lower than many QX9650 (quads!) get at 1.5V, but still higher than E8200 which gets roughly what many E6750 and E6850 get. The FSB wall is the biggest problem with E550, E6750 and now all Penryns below 9x multi, hence the sub 4GHz oc's. It won't be temperatures that's for sure. I've been waiting to buy these since they were expected and still waiting. Hope the prices are decent, stock not short so to make them worth buying over E6850/E6750.

6% performance per clock difference av. is pretty good for a quick iterational change though and power consumption is very nice compared to the K8.

[Epsilon84]

Your previous post had nothing to do with your reply to mind :ROTF:. Although you show pics of an OC at 3.6XX there was information regarding the heat. Which was what I was talking about from the very start. Then you went on to imply all E8500 will overclock without increase in vcore. Which you then corrected by another user :rolleyes:. Now you are talking about heat output= power consumption. Ok whatever :rofl:

Seriously, is English your first language?

You are trying to claim that an overclocked E8500 @ 3.6GHz+ will show similar 'heat output' (aka power consumption :rolleyes: ) to an overclocked E6850. I disagree, based on the evidence at hand. Even if both chips are at the same voltage, the E8500 will inherently run cooler due to the benefits of the 45nm shrink. I stand by my claim that an E8500 will overclock further and with lower power consumption than an E6850.

I strongly suggest you read up on the benefits of High-k/metal gate, it might help your ignorance on this issue of 'heat output'. :up:

[Eastcoasthandle]

Seriously, is English your first language?

You are trying to claim that an overclocked E8500 @ 3.6GHz+ will show similar 'heat output' (aka power consumption :rolleyes: ) to an overclocked E6850. I disagree, based on the evidence at hand. Even if both chips are at the same voltage, the E8500 will inherently run cooler due to the benefits of the 45nm shrink. I stand by my claim that an E8500 will overclock further and with lower power consumption than an E6850.

I strongly suggest you read up on the benefits of High-k/metal gate, it might help your ignorance on this issue of 'heat output'. :up:
No, I wanted to see more benchmark reviews to see if it did or didn't. You jumped the gun on your outburst towards my post before reading them. Now you have to resort to name calling to save face :ROTF:. This is about as immature as it gets. In any case mascaras provided a review that answers some of the questions I had. Something you failed to do and, there was no way for you to as you have no understanding of my post(s). At the very least have done nothing more then name calling/misread my post. It goes to show you who can and who can't actually provide additional information in this thread!
Hint: My post had nothing to do with the ins and outs of High-K/metal gate...another off topic post answer in response to my post.
Cheers :up: :D

[Epsilon84]

No, I wanted to see more benchmark reviews to see if it did or didn't. You jumped the gun on your outburst towards my post before reading them. Now you have to resort to name calling to save face? This is about as immature as it gets. In any case mascaras provided a review that answers some of the questions I had. Something you failed to do and at the very least have done nothing more then name calling/misread my post. It goes to show you who can and who can't actually provide information in this thread! Cheers :up:

Everything points to Wolfdale having significantly lower power consumption at stock or overclocked. If you still think otherwise, I'll just agree to disagree with you in that regard, since logical thinking is clearly beyond you.

Now, please stop derailing this thread. Get the last word in if you must, but I've wasted enough time responding to your nonsense already. As they say, ignorance is bliss...

[Eastcoasthandle]

Everything points to Wolfdale having significantly lower power consumption at stock or overclocked. If you still think otherwise, I'll just agree to disagree with you in that regard, since logical thinking is clearly beyond you.

Now, please stop derailing this thread. Get the last word in if you must, but I've wasted enough time responding to your nonsense already. As they say, ignorance is bliss...

More name calling I see. And yet you still can't answer my question but more then willing to argue with me about my post, LOL. As I've said before another user provided a link that shows what I'm looking for. And, it is not I but you who derailed this thread with that little show you put on. In any case I hope to see even more reviews of these CPUs. :up:

[Movieman]

Hey, let it go Gentlemen.
You've each made your point so time to take a breath and be adult on this.
I'm asking nicely as I prefer to be nice if at all possible so lets do it nice.
Thanks for reading.

[YukonTrooper]

C'mon guys, new processors! No need to fight. :)

[Pacha]

so damn sexy CPUs :D

E8400 here I come
let's hope for 4.4G 120€ :woot:

[C0ncrete]

Available in Australia!

Just ordered my 8400!

[grimREEFER]

meh, doesnt make sense to not get a quad core these days.
and i thought divx 6.8 had sse4 optimizations ...but u cant tell from the results, and the reviewer says it doesn't.

[JumpingJack]

I can correct myself if I misread something :confused:
I think you are a little slow, I was referring to the heat output at overclock settings which wasn't shown at that OC. And as someone else already mentioned, not all E8000 series CPUs will OC the same special with this ES. I have read many review were they were able to OC a CPU without raising the vcore and people weren't able to do it so that means nothing to me. So, in all it is you who is "seriously confused" :ROTF:

When you get a CPU at 4.3 at 70C I'm simply not impressed with the heat output.

<image deleted>

I look forward to more reviews and hope to see some OC results at 3.6 to 4.0 to get an idea of how much heat is produced.


Source (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_12.html)

Interesting... a pretty heated debate, however, you are on the wrong end and your arguments are incorrect.

Nonetheless, getting to 4.3 GHz with air cooling sufficient to keep the overclock is indeed impressive. The heat generated is nothing to be surprised about, the core voltage went from 1.05 V to 1.45 (or so volts) to and the clocks go from 3.16 to 4.3 Ghz, 1.15 Ghz increase from stock ... and that is not impressive to you ??? :confused:

P = C*V^2*F, so for the power going from stock to 4.3 at 1.45, the power (heat produced) should go up about by a factor of 2.6 just in the dynamic power. So it is a hefty increase, and though leakage has been reduced in this device, there is still leakage at the junction and subthreshold leakage that are exponentially dependend on voltage.

Considering you are not impressed, that would suggest you have or have seen other CPUs overclocked to such a degree that has lower thermals, if so it would be interesting if you could post that data, I believe it would be a first and a world record.

So to see overclocked settings and power, Anand published a terrific article on a quad core, you could roughly 1/2 those numbers for the dual core part:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3184

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/penrynoc_12040751228/16151.png
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3184&p=3

Finally, a bit of a problem with your perception of 'heat output', you are judging this based on the raw temperature alone, if I understand the context of your post.... given that there are a few problems with this assertion. a) the ODTM is on the hottest part of the die so it is not directly related to total power dissipated, b) we do not know how well his HSF was mounted nor do we have a good impression on ambient conditions. c) Given that his stock measurements gave an idle temp of 33 deg C at 3.4 Watts while a 29 Watt 6400+ gives 28 degC ... this is very supicious... many explanations for it, but the most viable one is core temp is not calibrated against this particular die correctly. d) This is is the biggest and most important part of where you are wrong -- temperature, while relate' to heat, is not 'heat output', but the result of the power produced by the CPU and the power dissipated by the heat sink, which depends upon reaching a steady state, which in turn depends on the energy content of the heat sink itself.

So a bit more analytical thinking on the actual data would have actually drove you to a more skeptical conclusion -- and based on what I see, your conclusion is more or less wrong.

Jack

[gallardo]

New and improved processors at same prices... good thing. It's rather surprising that Intel doesn't gauge prices too much with AMD sucking as it is.
Anyway, 160$ for a dual core... still a little too expensive imo. E21x0 are under 90$ and they go to 3GHz easily. Price difference is too big for the diff in performance.
*waits for quad at 100$

[adamsleath]

Available in Australia!

Just ordered my 8400!

wot the !
:shocked:
:'( - i want my yorkie:(

*waits for quad at 100$sensible, but could be a long wait:(
stuffit; i get my new mountainbike tomorrow :rocker:

http://www.itestate.com.au/products_detail.asp?code=PD00005273 - dunno if in stock 239aud. e8400. C0 SLACL ?

e6750 :wave:

[TEDY]

New and improved processors at same prices... good thing. It's rather surprising that Intel doesn't gauge prices too much with AMD sucking as it is.
Anyway, 160$ for a dual core... still a little too expensive imo. E21x0 are under 90$ and they go to 3GHz easily. Price difference is too big for the diff in performance.
*waits for quad at 100$

keep waiting you're gonna get old :rofl:

[YukonTrooper]

New and improved processors at same prices... good thing. It's rather surprising that Intel doesn't gauge prices too much with AMD sucking as it is.
Anyway, 160$ for a dual core... still a little too expensive imo. E21x0 are under 90$ and they go to 3GHz easily. Price difference is too big for the diff in performance.
*waits for quad at 100$
From an enthusiast's perspective you have a point, but you have to remember our market segment is tiny. They don't price according to OC ability. That would be nice though.

[gallardo]

Well... for an average joe, it doesn't matter if it's an E6600 or an E2140. Solitaire will run just fine on both. Usually, for the average joe that represents over 50% of the market if you tell him that the E2140 is just about the same as the E6600 but a lot cheaper, he'll choose the E2140.
Then there's the "snob" market who just chooses whichever is more expensive not because of performance, but because they can afford it.

From an enthusiast's point of view the situation remains just about the same. The average enthusiast will just choose whichever has the most bang for the buck and the "high end" enthusiast will choose whatever is the best because he wants to bash a record.
The current (and I think maybe all time) best bang for the buck processor is the E2160 (E2140's multi is a bit too small and the price difference between them is like 5-10$). Dual core Conroe, tiny watt consumption and it overclocks like some of the best (66% overclock easy). Heck, they even throw in a cooler for 80$. :up:
That's what I would've liked to see from Intel: an E6600 for the price of an E2160. I swear I wouldn't have been mad that I just bought an E2160! :D

[YukonTrooper]

Haha I'm with you all the way. Let's write an open letter. ;)

[flopper]

New and improved processors at same prices... good thing. It's rather surprising that Intel doesn't gauge prices too much with AMD sucking as it is.
Anyway, 160$ for a dual core... still a little too expensive imo. E21x0 are under 90$ and they go to 3GHz easily. Price difference is too big for the diff in performance.
*waits for quad at 100$

If Intel raised prices AMD would sell a lot more.