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

[RPGWiZaRD]

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

Yes of course 45nm should probably make it a bit cheaper to produce but 173€ pre-launch for a CPU like this is amazingly low however you put it (in fact it's what I paid for this E6750 if I remember correctly). Too bad this site doesn't ship to other than Netherlands & Belgium, otherwise I might had placed an order right now. Hope other sites will follow the example. In US this deal would correspond something like a 220~$230 pricetag on sites such as newegg.

At least I know which CPU will be my next one now, Q9450 was the interesting one for me before but the price and the fact that 8x will cause mobo bottleneck probs when overclocking with a Penryn I'd rather just pick the cheap E8400 with 9x multi and aim for 4GHz+ (well max out the CPU rather than mobo) with barely losing any money selling my current CPU.

[Donnie27]

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

WOW!

[saaya]

too bad they didnt bench with an athlon 64 x2
i wonder if it would be faster or slower than phenom

[[XC] gomeler]

too bad they didnt bench with an athlon 64 x2
i wonder if it would be faster or slower than phenom

Do you really want to know, it could be very depressing

[Fr3ak]

Benches of a Athlon X2 at 2.4GHz will follow Most likely tomorrow.

[Periander6]

too bad they didnt bench with an athlon 64 x2
i wonder if it would be faster or slower than phenom

Since the x2 6400 generally beats out the e6600 the answer is pretty obvious.

[Pacha]

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

nice! I love it even cheaper than I expected
I'm going to pick one in January if they can really reach high clocks easily

[Cold Fussion]

Since the x2 6400 generally beats out the e6600 the answer is pretty obvious.

It doesn't matter because this was done clock for clock at 2.4ghz.

[villa1n]

Benches of a Athlon X2 at 2.4GHz will follow Most likely tomorrow.

that should be interesting.. although i m not sure if its fair.. are there any comparisons with an e6600 vs a q6600 with 2 cores disabled?(if that is possible) native quad was never meant to be a dual core.

[Shintai]

that should be interesting.. although i m not sure if its fair.. are there any comparisons with an e6600 vs a q6600 with 2 cores disabled?(if that is possible) native quad was never meant to be a dual core.

Unlike Q6600, X4 got all 4 cores with a shared L3. So no changes from X2, X3 or X4 as such.

With Q6600 vs E6600 you could end up disabling the "wrong" cores. Either with 2 single cores oN MCM with 4MB each, or 2 cores on same with shared 4MB.

[flopper]

Yes of course 45nm should probably make it a bit cheaper to produce but 173€ pre-launch for a CPU like this is amazingly low however you put it (in fact it's what I paid for this E6750 if I remember correctly).

At least I know which CPU will be my next one now, Q9450 was the interesting one for me before but the price and the fact that 8x will cause mobo bottleneck probs when overclocking with a Penryn I'd rather just pick the cheap E8400 with 9x multi and aim for 4GHz+ (well max out the CPU rather than mobo) with barely losing any money selling my current CPU.

I seen a few sites that offer pre order.

Its a new price introduction however, we saw it with the conroe update where the 1333 was cheaper than the old ones.
I got my current one with a good deal and i guess I drop it for a good wolfdale at at least 9x since if anything is true they will go beyound 4ghz with ease.

AMD is struggling, there is nothing I can view as a contender for overclockers.
Six pack Joe is another matter if amd can get cold chipsets and cold cpu´s out the door they can do well.

I look forward to push one to 4.5ghz or so.

[villa1n]

Unlike Q6600, X4 got all 4 cores with a shared L3. So no changes from X2, X3 or X4 as such.

With Q6600 vs E6600 you could end up disabling the "wrong" cores. Either with 2 single cores oN MCM with 4MB each, or 2 cores on same with shared 4MB.

Yeah that makes sense, didnt think there was a way to target.. hrm, but in that regard then, with the phenom, are any clock cycles wasted checking the dead cores?

[grimREEFER]

y use games to compare cpu's when there are specific programs like cinebench designed for that.
see, u can give me the cinebench results, and i can infer how good they are for gaming based on that. also, i can then compare it to that of my own pc, or other pc's. with game benches, im gonna have to get an identical graphics card, identical graphics driver, run the bench with identical settings just to compare results lol. and there is probably more variation in the game benches too.

[RPGWiZaRD]

Yea Cinebench, console emulators for PC (often graphics is taken care by CPU calculations, making CPU requirement quite high ) are good CPU benchmarks. But low res PC gaming is also quite fine but Crysis is a bit too GPU demanding, would gladly see a bit older game used if using a pc game.

[Shintai]

Yeah that makes sense, didnt think there was a way to target.. hrm, but in that regard then, with the phenom, are any clock cycles wasted checking the dead cores?

No, they wont waste any cycles. They are completely inactive.

[grimREEFER]

Yea Cinebench, console emulators for PC (often graphics is taken care by CPU calculations, making CPU requirement quite high ) are good CPU benchmarks. But low res PC gaming is also quite fine but Crysis is a bit too GPU demanding, would gladly see a bit older game used if using a pc game.

yea, but the cpu benchs like cinebench are more accurate and precise, and far more easy to replicate, cause things like what graphics card is being used and what drivers are being used dont play any real role in the score.

[RPGWiZaRD]

yea, but the cpu benchs like cinebench are more accurate and precise, and far more easy to replicate, cause things like what graphics card is being used and what drivers are being used dont play any real role in the score.

Are you familiar with emulation scene? At least I've been for many years and I'm a betatester for PCSX2 PS2 emulator for example and to me this is the perfect CPU benchmark since it produces graphics which is mostly taken care of by CPU, only the graphics plugin utilizes a bit of the graphics card but it's not enough to show any impact at all on the CPU performance, I mean I could downclock my 7900GTO to well below stock clocks and see 0 FPS decrease in most games, some are more gfx demanding than others though so it can vary a bit. It's either CPU or GPU that is the limiting factor, and depending on plugin and by enabling better quality settings the GPU load quickly rises so you can use it to bench GPU too if you like if using high enough quality.

I've compared my AMD Opteron 165 @ 2.8GHz and Intel setup both at stock vs stock, both at 2.8GHz and also 2.8GHz AMD vs 3.75GHz C2D and then at AMD @ 2.8GHz and heavily tweaked (as usual) with as tight timings as possible vs Intel setup at completely stock settings in bios so 2.66GHz with slacky timings etc. there was to my suprise even ~35% clock for clock advantage to Intel (I had expected maybe ~20% lol). Whit tweaked and maxed out settings on the Intel setup the difference rises to about ~40% clock for clock advantage as at C2D 3.75GHz vs AMD 2.8GHz there was a pretty consistent 72~75% advantage in most games to the Intel setup. The coders had AMD dual core setups at the time they've done huge improvements (such as adding dual core support) and there's nothing in the code that would make it more "Intel" optimized by any means, it's just shows the raw CPU performance with zero impact by GPU performance.

It's easy to make exact comparisions with PCSX2, I simply make a save state, load it at the different configs or setups and it loads the exact same spot and I've even matched the same polygon count to be as accurate as possible. I usually test different games in different spots to see how it behaves like and it's been a very consistent FPS advantage for the Intel setup. Same thing with overclocking, the FPS increase is pretty linear with the overclocked CPU amount.

I recommend these articles if you want to read more about it. They're old by now and and concerning a bit outdated PCSX2 version but yea it still explains quite good what I'm saying here.
http://forums.ngemu.com/pcsx2-offici...es-matter.html
http://forums.ngemu.com/pcsx2-offici...so-matter.html

Will of course do a comparision between this E6750 and E8400 Wolfdale later on, I'm guessing 10~15% clock for clock FPS boost for Wolfdale in this app, will be interesting to see what it actually will be like though.

[villa1n]

Are you familiar with emulation scene? At least I've been for many years and I'm a betatester for PCSX2 PS2 emulator for example and to me this is the perfect CPU benchmark since it produces graphics which is mostly taken care of by CPU, only the graphics plugin utilizes a bit of the graphics card but it's not enough to show any impact at all on the CPU performance, I mean I could downclock my 7900GTO to well below stock clocks and see 0 FPS decrease in most games, some are more gfx demanding than others though so it can vary a bit. It's either CPU or GPU that is the limiting factor, and depending on plugin and by enabling better quality settings the GPU load quickly rises so you can use it to bench GPU too if you like if using high enough quality.

I've compared my AMD Opteron 165 @ 2.8GHz and Intel setup both at stock vs stock, both at 2.8GHz and also 2.8GHz AMD vs 3.75GHz C2D and then at AMD @ 2.8GHz and heavily tweaked (as usual) with as tight timings as possible vs Intel setup at completely stock settings in bios so 2.66GHz with slacky timings etc. there was to my suprise even ~35% clock for clock advantage to Intel (I had expected maybe ~20% lol). Whit tweaked and maxed out settings on the Intel setup the difference rises to about ~40% clock for clock advantage as at C2D 3.75GHz vs AMD 2.8GHz there was a pretty consistent 72~75% advantage in most games to the Intel setup. The coders had AMD dual core setups at the time they've done huge improvements (such as adding dual core support) and there's nothing in the code that would make it more "Intel" optimized by any means, it's just shows the raw CPU performance with zero impact by GPU performance.

It's easy to make exact comparisions with PCSX2, I simply make a save state, load it at the different configs or setups and it loads the exact same spot and I've even matched the same polygon count to be as accurate as possible. I usually test different games in different spots to see how it behaves like and it's been a very consistent FPS advantage for the Intel setup. Same thing with overclocking, the FPS increase is pretty linear with the overclocked CPU amount.

I recommend these articles if you want to read more about it. They're old by now and and concerning a bit outdated PCSX2 version but yea it still explains quite good what I'm saying here.
http://forums.ngemu.com/pcsx2-offici...es-matter.html
http://forums.ngemu.com/pcsx2-offici...so-matter.html

Will of course do a comparision between this E6750 and E8400 Wolfdale later on, I'm guessing 10~15% clock for clock FPS boost for Wolfdale in this app, will be interesting to see what it actually will be like though.

Although it is nice to isolate components from each other, and that has its merits, extreme isolation does not really have much pragmatic usefulness to us, aside generating a "stat". Computers are not single tasked machines... well unless you are just building a rig for folding ^^, but that aside, how well it works with the components at hand is just as important.
As well, the cross section of stats generated are what give an overall picture, i dont think we should be looking to find one be all end all cpu test, as that will never exist, by virtue of the fact, architecture's are not the same, and have advantages, and disadvantes. I do feel this is a good test for cpu's though, reading through those posts you linked, and would be a nice addition to create a more comprehensive crossection.

[p8ntslinger676]

sadly my q6600 wouldnt clock worth beans (wouldnt even hold 3.6 stable) not to mention the fact that it was running well below ambient on my 24/7 water/tec setup(about 5*c idle and 15*c load), hell my e6600 clock to 4.0 on regular water no problem, stupid things a dud, i cant wait for a new drop in upgrade hopefully ill get some decent clocks this time

[Fr3ak]

3 GHz E6850 vs. E8400 using Crysis benchmarks again and the CPU test of 3D Mark 06:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=...=742471&page=1

[Eastcoasthandle]

3 GHz E6850 vs. E8400 using Crysis benchmarks again and the CPU test of 3D Mark 06:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=...=742471&page=1

I think that's a E6700 OC to 3.0 vs E8400

[Fr3ak]

Yes, I am sorry, but it doesn't make any difference 333 x 9 is 333 x 9 with a Conroe, independant of the model name

[flopper]

I just hope there isnt a fsb wall at 450 or such since that would truly suck.

[Fr3ak]

I can assure you that there is no FSB wall up to 540 MHz using a single stage

That was tested with a multi of 9.

[fotme]

Yes, I am sorry, but it doesn't make any difference 333 x 9 is 333 x 9 with a Conroe, independant of the model name

yeah but what about the ram?
evenhow this testbed is at least faster than 6850.

Around 6-8% perf diff, add the price diff, around 35% cost /perfomance..not bad at all

Doing some draft calculations, in crysis, conroe has a bit better scalability