OFICIAL: Intel Core 2 Duo Reviews e Comentarios

Não podia deixar de indicar esta review, em especial a escolha que fizeram para a imagem "de capa" do artigo:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/
amd_owned_160px.jpg



:D:D
 
Dei uma vista de óculos pela review do Tom e pelo o que vejo este Conroe dá ratada a qualquer CPU AMD, é mesmo caso para dizer K.O.

E tendo em conta o binómio Preço v Qualidade o conroe bate qualquer aspiração da AMD, qto julgam que vai ser o preço de venda do Core 2 Duo E6300 em Portugal? 260€? Se este cpu overclockar +/- (propocionalmente) o mesmo que vimos na thread do Tom vai ser um excelente CPU.

Parabens a Intel. E viva a concorrência!! (força AMD tu consegues!!! :-D)
 
Pelas diversas review que vi, a AMD é mesmo liquidada, mas para quem tem FX, a diferença não é assim tanta, para mim não compensar os €€€ que se vai perder, mas para os restantes cpu's da AMD........... o meu kerido X2 3800+ basicamente é liquidado pelo E6300, basicamente a Intel fez um belo serviço, e ainda bem, pois já não se via algo assim desde a xegada dos A64.

Agora, esperemos que a AMD faça o seu trabalho e que mostre mais, pois basicamente está aparecer que a Intel á uns tempinhos atras......e o 4x4 não é que vai mudar isto, pode ser, mas apenas no topo.

Vere-mos mais resultados, mas para já, está um excelente trabalho, principalmente q relação performam-se/clock, que mostra bem a diferença entre default e com OC.
 
Final Words


Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 didn't lose a single benchmark in our comparison; not a single one. In many cases, the $183 Core 2 Duo E6300 actually outperformed Intel's previous champ: the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. In one day, Intel has made its entire Pentium D lineup of processors obsolete. Intel's Core 2 processors offer the sort of next-generation micro-architecture performance leap that we honestly haven't seen from Intel since the introduction of the P6.


Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all.


We're still waiting to get our hands on the E6400 as it may end up being the best bang for your buck, but even the slower E6300 is quite competitive with AMD's X2 4200+ and X2 3800+. If AMD drops the price on those two parts even more than we're expecting, then it may be able to hold on to the lower end of the performance mainstream market as the E6300 is not nearly as fast as the E6600.


As impressed as we are with Intel's Core 2 processor lineup, we are still very concerned about availability and street pricing. To quote from our last Core 2 preview article:
While Intel's Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors will be released at the beginning of Q3 of this year it will take some time for all of Intel's shipments to be Conroe based. The scary statistic is that by the end of this year, only 25% of Intel's Performance Mainstream desktop processor shipments will be based on Conroe. The remaining 75% will still be NetBurst based, meaning they will be Pentium 4, Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition.
...
For the Dells of the world, Conroe availability shouldn't be too much of an issue because companies like Dell get first dibs. For years of not going with AMD, all while demanding something more competitive from Intel, you better believe that Dell is going to soak up every last Conroe that it can.
The problem then becomes what happens after Dell and HP have eaten their lunch; unfortunately the concern is that aggressive pricing won't be enough to reduce retail demand for Conroe. What we're worried about happening is a very small supply of Conroes on the retail market in late Q3/early Q4, resulting in much higher street prices than what you see on page 2. In the worst case scenario for Intel, Conroe's limited retail availability could result in a price to performance ratio equal to or worse than AMD's Athlon 64 X2.
Despite pulling in the official launch date for Core 2 processor benchmarks, shipment dates for the CPUs haven't changed. According to Intel:
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor based systems and boxed product are expected to be available on the day of launch, 27 July. Intel Core 2 Duo processor based systems and boxed product [through places such as Newegg] are expected to be available from 7 August. Each OEM has their own product introduction / transition cycles based upon their target market segment and current product offerings. We expect some to offer product in August with more introductions extending through September. Check with the OEMs of your choice to get their specific message on system availability.
From what Intel is telling us, you shouldn't be able to so much as purchase Core 2 processors until after the first week in August, although you'll be able to get complete systems before then. At the same time, we're hearing that distributors already have some Core 2 parts in stock and will begin shipping very soon. While we tend to believe Intel's assessment of availability, we're hoping it's conservative.


If Intel's availability statements are true or even worse, overly optimistic, then don't expect to be upgrading to a Core 2 system anytime soon. However, if all goes well, although Vista may be delayed until 2007, Intel's Core 2 processors will give you a very good reason to upgrade this year.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19




A minha duvida e curiosidade actualmente vai totalmente para o passo imediato da AMD, qual será a resposta da AMD apartir de hoje ao Core2..?!?!

A baixa de preços que tanto se fala e anseia não me parece de todo suficiente e eficaz... Reparem no actual topo de gama da AMD, o FX-62 ombrea com o E6600 da Intel, embora este ultimo seja mais eficiente e performante clk/clk do que o FX-62.

Tendo em conta o preço anunciado para o E6600 de $316 (qualquer coisa a rondar os 300€), a questão que se coloca de imediato naturalmente á AMD é..... Vamos ter FX-62 a rondar os 300€ ou no minimo abaixo da fasquia dos 500€?!?!...

AMD, AMD... Where are you?!:wow:
 
Memory Latency: No Integrated Memory Controller Necessary

One thing we pointed out in our earlier preview coverage of Intel's Core 2 Extreme is that the new processors have extremely low latency memory access, despite relying on the same memory controller as the previous generation of Intel CPUs.


Without an on-die memory controller Intel's Core 2 processor must use the memory controller in its chipset, which currently either means the 128-bit DDR2 memory controller in Intel's 965 or 975X chipset. The confusing thing is that although the Core 2 processors use the same memory controller as the old NetBurst processors, memory latency has been improved tremendously:

anad1tb.gif



Intel's Core 2 processors now offer even quicker memory access than AMD's Athlon 64 X2, without resorting to an on-die memory controller. While Intel will eventually add one, the fact of the matter is that it's simply not necessary for competitive memory performance today thanks to Intel's revamped architecture.


Intel attributes the significant reduction in memory latency to two things: the Advanced Smart Cache and Smart Memory Access features of the Core 2 processors. "Advanced Smart Cache" is the silly sounding marketing term for Intel's shared L2 cache, which helps reduce memory latency by keeping all cache to cache traffic off of the FSB and increasing L2 hit rate by only storing one copy of data needed by both cores. "Smart Memory Access" refers to Intel's memory disambiguation and the new data prefetchers that are found in the Core 2 processors. The result is better masking of memory latency, giving Intel many of the benefits of AMD's on-die memory controller but without actually including one.


AMD has committed to enhancements similar to what Intel has made in its upcoming K8L processors. That may change the latency picture once again, but until then Core 2 is more than competitive.



http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=5
 
Última edição:
blastarr disse:
Esta review do Xbit é curiosa, pois em vez de ir pelos modelos high-end -aqueles que menos gente terá em vista para comprar, por causa dos preços elevados- testaram o modelo de entrada de gama (E6300, 1.86GHz e 2MB L2):

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html


Excelente review, obrigado blastarr pela informação, pensava no E6600 mas sendo assim, chega e sobra perfeitamente, nunca soube o que era um 4400+ dual core, quanto mais um FX62, mas pelos vistos vou ficar a saber :P

E por uma fracção do preço :D

:x2:
 
CPU Bound Gaming Performance

While we always try to run our gaming benchmarks in CPU reviews as a balance between being CPU and GPU bound, there is some merit to using CPU bound gaming scenarios as a true measure of the gaming power of a CPU.

The previous pages of gaming benchmarks were run at 1600 x 1200, which struck a good balance between being CPU and GPU bound on our CrossFire setup but here we’re looking at exactly how good of a gaming CPU the Core 2 Duo is. By running these tests at 640 x 480 with the same CrossFire setup as before we’re ensuring that the performance bottlenecks in these titles shift as far as possible from the GPU and onto the CPU.

These tests aren’t designed to tell you how fast these CPUs are at running these games, but rather how quickly they can run through the physics and AI code when not waiting on the graphics card at all.

We chose to look at two CPUs: the Core 2 Extreme X6800 and the Athlon 64 FX-62, to get an idea of how strong each architecture was at pure physics/AI processing in games. We also omitted any games whose performance didn’t change by dropping the resolution from 1600 x 1200 to 640 x 480 (meaning that those games were already predominantly CPU limited in our previous tests).

anad26so.gif


In terms of sheer ability to process physics and AI as well as feed a hungry graphics subsystem, Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 is anywhere between 22 and 55% faster than AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62.

While this doesn't mean much for real world gaming, it does cement the fact that Intel's Core 2 processor is significantly faster at the type of code current 3D games will throw at it. The very same benchmarks that Intel used to complain about favoring AMD, now favor Intel just as much; oh how times have changed.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=17
 
Tendo em conta o preço anunciado para o E6600 de $316 (qualquer coisa a rondar os 300€), a questão que se coloca de imediato naturalmente á AMD é..... Vamos ter FX-62 a rondar os 300€ ou no minimo abaixo da fasquia dos 500€?!?!...
lol era ver um FX 62 a 400 euros.... e qual seria o preco dos x2 3800+? :D
 
Nem creio que possam ir por aí. Isso era baixar a gama FX para as gamas "normais" da AMD. Em termos de imagem da empresa, não era a melhor coisa a fazer...digo eu.
 
To a acabar de ler as reviews todas.

as reviews do [H] pareciam-me um bokado...Amd , mas curtia tb que ele tivesse usado uma 975x e n 965.
keeep on reading.
 
Overclocking

.....


Curious about our overclocking successes, we asked Intel why Core 2 CPUs are able to overclock close to the same levels as NetBurst processors can, despite having less than half the pipeline length. Intel gave us the following explanation:
NetBurst microarchitecture is constrained by physical power / thermal limitations long before the constraint of pipeline stages comes into play. The microarchitecture itself would continue to scale upwards if not for the power constraints. (In fact, we have seen Presler overclocked to 6 GHz in liquid nitrogen environments. At that level, power delivery through the power supply & board itself begin to limit further scaling of the processor.)
Intel's explanation makes a great deal of sense, especially when you remember the original claims that NetBurst was supposed to be good for between 5GHz - 10GHz. NetBurst never got the chance to reach its true overclocking prime as Intel hit thermal density walls well before the 5GHz - 10GHz range and thus Intel's Core architecture was born. Intel's Core 2 processors once again give us an example of the good ol' days of Intel overclocking, where moving to a smaller manufacturing process meant we'd have some highly overclockable chips on our hands. With NetBurst dead and buried, the golden age of overclocking is back.


Enthusuasts have not seen overclocking like this since Socket 478 days, and in fact Core 2 may be even better. The 2.4GHz E6600, which outperformed the FX-62 in most benchmarks at stock speed costs $316, and overclocked to 4Ghz with excellent air cooling. With that kind of performance, value, and overclocking the E6600 will likely become the preferred chip for serious overclockers - particularly those that are looking for champagne performance on a smaller budget.


It is important, however, not to sell the advantages of the X6800 short. AnandTech never recommends the fastest chip you can buy as a good value choice, but X6800 does bring some advantages to the table. It is the only Conroe that is completely unlocked. This allows settings like 266(stock FSB)x15 for 4.0GHz, settings that keep other components in the system at stock speed. This can only be achieved with the X6800 - other Core 2 Duo chips are hard-locked - and for some that feature will justify buying an X6800 at $999. For the rest of us overclockers E6600 is shaping up to be the chip to buy for overclocking.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18
 
farcry.png


halflife.png


fear.png


:wow: :wow: Só no farcry são mais de 50 FPS com OC contra o suposto competidor, o X2 3800+

Acho que vou dispensar o dobro da L2...este ainda é quase metade do preço do 6600.
 
kidloco disse:
Nem creio que possam ir por aí. Isso era baixar a gama FX para as gamas "normais" da AMD. Em termos de imagem da empresa, não era a melhor coisa a fazer...digo eu.

Pior seria ficar de "braços cruzados a ver a caravana passar"... Se a baixa de preços dos actuais A64 não for significativa e equiparavel aos Core2, a AMD "sangra"... A não ser que a AMD tire algum coelho da cartola até Setembro de modo a dar algum equilibrio á concorrência...

A baixa de preços dos actuais A64 na minha opinião não me parece suficiente, talvez no imediato, mas a médio-prazo não.
 
Depois de dar uma olhada nas reviews, acho piada que as reviews sejam ainda do stepping B1.
Ou seja temos paletes de reviews de processadores que ninguem vai poder comprar... priceless.
 
InterTwined disse:
Depois de dar uma olhada nas reviews, acho piada que as reviews sejam ainda do stepping B1.
Ou seja temos paletes de reviews de processadores que ninguem vai poder comprar... priceless.
Bem.... O stepping B5 (ultimo) é de longe o mais estavel e perfomante de todos os stepping ES que foram testados até ao dia de hoje.

Dai que se conclui, que os Core2 retail serão bem superiores aos B1... :004:
 
Zarolho disse:
Bem.... O stepping B5 (ultimo) é de longe o mais estavel e perfomante de todos os stepping ES que foram testados até ao dia de hoje.

Dai que se conclui, que os Core2 retail serão bem superiores aos B1... :004:
Stepping 5 =B1
Stepping 6= B2

:)
 
InterTwined disse:
Stepping 5 =B1
Stepping 6= B2

:)
Afinal estavas a referir a revisão do stepping... e não propriamente o Stepping... Ok, i get it!

Stepping 6?!... Ainda não vi nenhum stepping 6... Está correcto?!...

De qualquer forma não vejo qualquer problema com as reviews, mesmo não sendo da revisão mais recente.
 
Zarolho disse:
Pior seria ficar de "braços cruzados a ver a caravana passar"... Se a baixa de preços dos actuais A64 não for significativa e equiparavel aos Core2, a AMD "sangra"... A não ser que a AMD tire algum coelho da cartola até Setembro de modo a dar algum equilibrio á concorrência...

A baixa de preços dos actuais A64 na minha opinião não me parece suficiente, talvez no imediato, mas a médio-prazo não.

Baixar a gama Athlon é uma boa opção. Baixar a gama FX já não creio. Os extreme dos P4 sempre foram caros, mesmo que os (baratos) Athlon fossem melhores.
 
Back
Topo