why are the new intel core 2 duo processors so good?

tomanders91 · 30 Nov 2006 at 21:24

just wondering, for example the ntel Core 2 DUO E6300 "LGA775 Allendale" 1.86GHz, why are these apprently so good and better than amd with only 1.86ghz? i always thought more ghz was better? just how exactly are they better?

Jokester · 30 Nov 2006 at 21:31

In simple terms, they do more work per clock than the A64 or the old P4 before it.

Jokester

slap ed · 30 Nov 2006 at 22:24

i have got a t5500 core 2 duo 1.66ghz in laptop that does the same super pi score as my amd x2 4600 at 2.6 ghz in my desktop machine so clock for clock its doing the same work at 1ghz slower

FreeStream · 30 Nov 2006 at 22:58

Jokester said:
In simple terms, they do more work per clock than the A64 or the old P4 before it.

Jokester

^^

P4s have something silly like 28 stage pipeline
AMDs have 18/22
Core 2 Duos have 12/14

Shorter pipeline = more work done at the same clock speed

lay-z-boy · 30 Nov 2006 at 23:55

p4 has 31 stage pipeline

As we all know the idea was for clock speed to make up for the long stages.

But it didnt work out as planned

i have got a t5500 core 2 duo 1.66ghz in laptop that does the same super pi score as my amd x2 4600 at 2.6 ghz in my desktop machine so clock for clock its doing the same work at 1ghz slower

thats strange, your x2 seems to have a problem if it gets beaten at that clock speed by a 1.66 c2d.

stigggeh · 1 Dec 2006 at 00:13

snip.

lay-z-boy · 1 Dec 2006 at 00:14

owning a t7600 and an x2 at 2.75 i would say it is, x2 still pulls ahead in most things.

slap ed · 1 Dec 2006 at 09:34

lay-z-boy said:
owning a t7600 and an x2 at 2.75 i would say it is, x2 still pulls ahead in most things.

the 4600x2 did 38sec 1mb super pi at stock and overclocked i got it down to 33 secs this t5500 does 33 secs at stock , i would be interested to hear what your x2 gets @ 2.75 . i dont think 33 secs is far wrong for x2

councilofdespai · 1 Dec 2006 at 14:39

In other words AMD made Intel take a good look at themselves in order to raise the bar and define new a architecture that can take the battle to AMD.

tomanders91 · 1 Dec 2006 at 14:49

so even a E6300 is better than say a AMD 3800 @ 2.4ghz? when the intel is at 1.86ghz?

benjo plz. · 1 Dec 2006 at 14:51

slap ed said:
i have got a t5500 core 2 duo 1.66ghz in laptop that does the same super pi score as my amd

What score does it get? (I have a T2300 in my laptop and want to see if there's any big difference).

Scoobie Dave · 1 Dec 2006 at 15:01

tomanders91 said:
so even a E6300 is better than say a AMD 3800 @ 2.4ghz? when the intel is at 1.86ghz?

Easy, the E6300 is still faster at stock, you would have to overclock your AMD 3800 to at least 2.8+GHz to get similar performace. Thing is the Conroe clocks so well that there is no competition.

And I know this as I have just upgraded from AMD last night.

Had to pick my jaw up from the floor when I started to run some bench marks! :eek:

tomanders91 · 1 Dec 2006 at 15:08

ok i might aswell get the E3600, may need someone to talk me through overclocking it though, as ive read that guide but still a bit confused.

Gashman · 1 Dec 2006 at 15:43

this is ridiculous, what is it with people and saying conroe is THAT MUCH faster than K8, its not as fast as people make it out to be, reading benchmark at the moment and its not even beating K8 in some applications, even though its a crap test and people know FINE WELL K8 NEEDS very low latency memory to work at its fastest and they keep testing it against the non-latency dependant conroe with CL4/5 memory, its totally ridiculous, conroe fans need to realised AMD only need to get about 10% more performance out of K8 and its equal to conroe (before you go having a hissy fit look at benchmarks, really look how close it is, yeah sure K8 is clocked slighly higher but your making it out like conroe is so obserdly faster than K8) put conroe at 3.0Ghz against the new K8 rev. F2 at same clock speed (with low latency memory) and i bet theres a couple of % between them :rolleyes:

Edit: http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62_uk/index.html

benjo plz. · 1 Dec 2006 at 15:52

They're a lot cheaper?

slap ed · 1 Dec 2006 at 21:45

Phnom_Penh said:
What score does it get? (I have a T2300 in my laptop and want to see if there's any big difference).

read a couple off posts above you

benjo plz. · 1 Dec 2006 at 22:14

slap ed said:
read a couple off posts above you

Mine gets 35.9. I'll stick in a better processor when they cost less

.

Jabbs · 1 Dec 2006 at 23:15

Core2 ownz amd atm simple as that, my £113 6300 is sitting nicely at 3 gig which leaves anything amd has for dead, plenty of good comparisons on here and pretty much everywhere decent you look will say the same thing.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=9

ReeceKB · 1 Dec 2006 at 23:43

*sigh* I cant wait to get mine

Corasik · 2 Dec 2006 at 12:06

Gashman said:
this is ridiculous, what is it with people and saying conroe is THAT MUCH faster than K8, its not as fast as people make it out to be, reading benchmark at the moment and its not even beating K8 in some applications, even though its a crap test and people know FINE WELL K8 NEEDS very low latency memory to work at its fastest and they keep testing it against the non-latency dependant conroe with CL4/5 memory, its totally ridiculous, conroe fans need to realised AMD only need to get about 10% more performance out of K8 and its equal to conroe (before you go having a hissy fit look at benchmarks, really look how close it is, yeah sure K8 is clocked slighly higher but your making it out like conroe is so obserdly faster than K8) put conroe at 3.0Ghz against the new K8 rev. F2 at same clock speed (with low latency memory) and i bet theres a couple of % between them

Edit: http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62_uk/index.html

But a 2.66Ghz conroe's not even top of the range, and even so, its still faster than an Athlon64 clocked at 3Ghz in the large majority of tests. The top end Conroe is a 2.93 and AMD have nothing currently that compares to that.

And sure, AMD can refresh their chip and squeeze some more performance out of it, but so can Intel.

Four new Conroes are on intels roadmap, clocked at 2.33GHz, 2.66GHz, 2.93GHz and 3GHz - the E6650, E6750, E6800 and E6850. All four contain 4MB of shared L2 cache. The E6800 runs on a 1,066MHz FSB - the other three support the 1,333MHz bus speed.

The increase in FSB speed alone will probably give a decent boost, especially in heavy multitasking.