Duel of Dualcores: Wolfdale vs. Phenom X2 vs. Conroe

[Fr3ak]

The German hardware magazine PC Games Hardware compared the 3 CPU types with single player benchmarks of Crysis. The E8400 which comes with 333 x 9 and 3 GHz was downclocked to 266 x 9, so it ran with the same clockspeed than the E6600 and the Phenom X4 9600 which had 2 cores disabled. The pictures say 9700, but I think it was a 9600 which is what CPU-Z reports too.

The text is again in German, but the pictures speak for themselves I guess.

Source: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=622892

Link to the pictures ("nächstes Bild" means next picture, clicking on the picture will enlarge it):
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=...=741790&page=1

[happychappy]

Wolfdale is shaping up nicely

[turtletrax]

Wow... 6 to 10 FPS difference between Wolf and Phenom. That is huge

[s3rv3r]

the PHENOM in cpu-z is the 9600

[Fr3ak]

Nobody is perfect I already stated that in my first post

The pictures say 9700, but I think it was a 9600 which is what CPU-Z reports too

[dinos22]

the fun begins when you overclock them

i believe that any chip is only worth it's max overclock no matter the model number in CPUz

[Oliver]

Good review, have you tested them Oliver?.

Best Regards.

[wedfighter]

the fun begins when you overclock them

actually the fun ends for phenom

@fr3ak
nice info ftw

[Fr3ak]

The Phenom didn't overclock too well. 2.7GHz was 06 stable and the max I could booth with while overclocking fron the BIOS. AMD OVerdrive always crashed when I tried to oc with it, so there might be some BIOS issues limiting the overclock, but I dont think we will see much more than 3 GHz from the Phenom any time soon.

On the other hand, I don't think it will be a problem hitting 4 GHz on air with the E8400. I havent tested it yet, but I will try it out under my SS over the weekend, doing air cooled OC next week. The QX9650 I tested was able to hit 4,375 MHz on air 06 stable, so I think 4 GHz on the E8400 shouldn't be much of a problem using 24/7 voltages.

[Cooper]

How did you disable two cores? Is this option available in BIOS or it is done somehow else?

[RPGWiZaRD]

I'm definitely getting a Penryn, that it's this big FPS difference between Conroe and Penryn at same clock speed even in Crysis, imagine what it will be like when comparing a max clocked Conroe vs max clocked Wolfdale in other CPU demanding tasks too. In average Wolfdale perhaps will clock 400 ~ 500MHz higher than Conroe too so.

My plan is getting an E8400 as I expect it to be quite cheap 200 EUR or so at launch and sell my current E6750 for hopefully around 140~150 EUR here in Finland (it's expensive here), so perhaps sth along 50~60 EUR loss and then my goal is 4.2~4.3GHz stable (I think it's very possible judged by what I've seen by the E8500 and E8400 results so far). At 4.3GHz it would be ~15% clock speed advantage and in CPU demanding tasks Penryn seems to be even ~10% faster clock for clock than Conroe so I'd get around 25% performance boost for 50~60 EUR spent, works for me and I just love playing with new hardware that clocks nicely. 4.3GHz C2D 24/7 stable on air would have a "satisfaction value" for me too.

[kiwi]

Why downclock? Better compare easily achievable 4GHz+ Wolfdale and see the difference grow

How did you disable two cores? Is this option available in BIOS or it is done somehow else?

msconfig

[Fr3ak]

Benchmarks of a E6850 vs. the E8400 will follow. I didn't do the benchmarks, I am busy with other stuff right now, but I will try to OC the E8400 on both air and SS/LN2 until next week.

The benchmarks above should only demonstrate the clock for clock performance of the different architectures.

[Skyline GT-R]

Nice comparison And after seeing this maybe I'll preorder an E8400 now for only 170€

[Levish]

I'm definitely getting a Penryn, that it's this big FPS difference between Conroe and Penryn at same clock speed even in Crysis, imagine what it will be like when comparing a max clocked Conroe vs max clocked Wolfdale in other CPU demanding tasks too. In average Wolfdale perhaps will clock 400 ~ 500MHz higher than Conroe too so.

It's a 800x600 bench intended to show cpu bound differences/strengths, at normal resolutions of 1280x1024, 1680x1050, 1600x1200, 1920x1200 the difference would be very hard to measure I think.

[Donnie27]

Benchmarks of a E6850 vs. the E8400 will follow. I didn't do the benchmarks, I am busy with other stuff right now, but I will try to OC the E8400 on both air and SS/LN2 until next week.

The benchmarks above should only demonstrate the clock for clock performance of the different architectures.

Nice work, my Wallet hates you LOL!

[Kingcarcas]

the fun begins when you overclock them

i believe that any chip is only worth it's max overclock no matter the model number in CPUz

+1

[RPGWiZaRD]

It's a 800x600 bench intended to show cpu bound differences/strengths, at normal resolutions of 1280x1024, 1680x1050, 1600x1200, 1920x1200 the difference would be very hard to measure I think.

And your point was? I'm interested in CPU performance, not GPU, so high resolutions doesn't interest me but FYI I usually play at 1280x960 so should be a slight difference anyways. And there's better CPU benchmarks than Crysis even at 800x600 too.

[stealthbomber]

What he is saying is there those framerate advantages in reality just isn't there, unless you do really game at 800x600 of course.

[RPGWiZaRD]

What he is saying is there those framerate advantages in reality just isn't there, unless you do really game at 800x600 of course.

Well I took it for granted that I think every1 at XS forums knows it by now, some1 always has commented on that in like every CPU review with low resolutions.

If you want to bench CPU performance low res is the way to go. There are other applications where CPU performance is more important than GPU so PC games in low res is also an "indication" how the CPUs performs like in the CPU dependant applications. If the only thing you're doing with your comp is to play PC games on your 22" or 24" LCD then I guess it won't be that interesting but then you would be better focusing on graphics cards instead.

Just saying, no need to comment on the obvious, it gets so repetitive.

[Fr3ak]

Crysis is ver GPU limiting. Even the internal CPU benchmark is. With a gaming resolution of 1280 x 1024 with all details and/or AA/AF, the differemce between the CPUs is not that big. To show what the CPUs are capable of, you have to reduce the resolution. It might not be useful if you only play Crysis, but for other games, the faster CPU in Crysis will most likely be a fast CPU there as well.

I also do GPU-benchmarks with a higly overclocked quadcore, even if most people wont run the CPU that fast, but I want to make sure to show video card performance in that benchmark and not what Fps someone would get using a CPU @ stock paired with the specific video card.

Usually there are both variants being tested: First with a CPU and GPU at stock, then depending on what is tested CPU or GPU performance.

[deathman20]

Wow thats a difference in speed. Not just a little amount but a decent amount. Besides the fact they surely will beable to OC even higher. But as said thats low res.. is there a higher res they tested this on?

[RPGWiZaRD]

Nice comparison And after seeing this maybe I'll preorder an E8400 now for only 170€

WTF, it's listed for only 170€? Where? (German or dutch site I suppose )

I have a hard time believing Intel would push the prices this low at launch though, I mean E6850 which has same frequency 9x333 costs like 210 EUR on the cheaper sites today and E8400 is better and a new product... ~200 EUR is the lowest I could expect, anything lower would just be a surprise and only reason to do so that I could think of would be to make the life harder for AMD on the desktop market.

[flopper]

WTF, it's listed for only 170€? Where? (German or dutch site I suppose )

I have a hard time believing Intel would push the prices this low at launch though, I mean E6850 which has same frequency 9x333 costs like 210 EUR on the cheaper sites today and E8400 is better and a new product... ~200 EUR is the lowest I could expect, anything lower would just be a surprise and only reason to do so that I could think of would be to make the life harder for AMD on the desktop market.

http://www.pimspcshop.nl/page.htm?de...RDER)&id=8981&

cheap and under 200euro.

I guess the 45nm make them much cheaper to make and sell

[Donnie27]

Well I took it for granted that I think every1 at XS forums knows it by now, some1 always has commented on that in like every CPU review with low resolutions.

If you want to bench CPU performance low res is the way to go. There are other applications where CPU performance is more important than GPU so PC games in low res is also an "indication" how the CPUs performs like in the CPU dependant applications. If the only thing you're doing with your comp is to play PC games on your 22" or 24" LCD then I guess it won't be that interesting but then you would be better focusing on graphics cards instead.

Just saying, no need to comment on the obvious, it gets so repetitive.

QFT! Should be stickied, Hi Res for GPU, Low Res for CPU.