Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor

Investing in new PCs with Intel® Core™2 processor family can mean big savings for your business. Delivering faster performance, greater energy efficiency, and more responsive multitasking, desktop PCs with Intel® Core™2 processor family can help your whole company be more productive.

By combining breakthrough processing speeds with advanced power saving features, desktop PCs with Intel® Core™2 processor family let you get more done in less time than ever before reducing energy costs by an average of 50 percent.¹ Processors built with Intel's unique 45nm technology offer excellent performance as well as unique energy-saving features that help PCs meet ENERGY STAR² requirements. That means reduced power consumption for desktop PCs and lower energy costs for your company.

The Intel Core 2 Duo Is Finally Out!

The long-awaited Intel® Core 2 Duo has finally arrived here in Malaysia. As you know by now, the Core 2 Duo brand will cover both the desktop and mobile processors. The Intel® Core 2 Duo desktop processor was codenamed Conroe, whereas Merom is the codename for the mobile processor.

The event kicked off with an introduction by Intel Malaysia's PR Manager, Norhizam Kadir. Then Intel's Marketing Manager, Charlotte Lamprecht took over the show, introducing the new processors and showing the advantages of the new Core architecture over the previous Netburst architecture.

Needless to say, lots of numbers were thrown out. Not surprising for a company in an industry obsessed with numbers. But it's evident that Intel wants us to quickly forget about the Gigahertz mindset they started us on, and start thinking in terms of performance per watt.

Intel also roped in Malaysia's 2005 World Cyber Games champion, Albert Lim, to speak at the launch. He was the first to own an Intel Core 2 Duo processor in Malaysia and needless to say, he loved it. Who wouldn't? The system, armed with a $999 Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800 processor, was sponsored by Intel. It had better be good if it costs so much!

To convince us it was not pure marketing talk, Intel gave us a few realtime demonstrations of the new Core architecture versus the old Netburst architecture. They showed how an average Core 2 Duo processor will not only beat the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processor, but also do it with a much lower power consumption and at a much lower price point.

For some reason, Intel refrained from comparing the Core 2 Duo against processors from the big green monster, as the WCG champion Albert Lim was wont to describe AMD. They only concentrated on showing just how revolutionary the new Core architecture is, compared against the old Netburst architecture.

Intel Core 2 Duo

Let's take a step back in time to when CPUs were easy to understand. Comparing different processor to easy, the higher the clock speed of the chip, the faster it was. That's all there was to it, 3GHz was better than 2.4GHz, and that's all one needed to know. The numbers game has of course been relegated to a historical footnote by newer core technologies that re-wrote the rules - anyone remember the shock of a Core 2 Duo processor out pacing a pentinium 4 chip at twice the speed?

Moving from single core to dual-core processors had an immediate benefit in many computing situations; background appl could run on one core, while the other focused on the tasks at hand. Moving from two cores to four cores hasn't been quite the universal panacea for processing power. Only a few applications make effective use of all that parallel processing goodness....

Which brings us to the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400, a 3.0GHz dual-core processor based on the 'Wolfdale' core that is being manufactured on the 45nm process. This socket 755 processor packs in 6MB of L2 cache and operates with a 1333MHz Front Side Bus speed. The Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 retails for around $199 CDN ($170 USD, £113 GBP), which makes it considerably more affordable than quad-core processors with equivalent clock speed and cache.

So how does the E8400 compete against the new quad-core chips from AMD and Intel? While more cores can make a big difference in multi-threaded applications, they can also trip over themselves and slow down single-threaded applications. For everyday computer users, a fast dual-core CPU might be all the processing power you really need, let's find out!

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Processor Tech Specs Core 2 Duo E8400 Clock: 3.0 GHz Codename: Wolfdale Cores: 2 L1: 2 x 64K L2: 6MB Multiplier: 9x FSB Bus: 1333 MHz Package: LGA775 Socket: 775 organic mPGA Core: 45nm Transistor: 400M Power: 65 Watts Vcore: 0.850-1.3625V Cost: $203 CDN

Intel's Core 2 Duo E8400 processor is physically similar to the Core 2 Duo E6750 (Conroe) and Socket 775 Pentium D processors that came before it. All of these processors use the Land Grid Array 775-pad package. intels move to a 45 nanometer manufacturing process means the silicon die here is approximately 104mm2 in area and contains around 410 million transistors. While the Core 2 Duo E8400 is a Socket 775 CPU, it isn't compatible with all Socket 775 motherboard due to different voltage requirements and processor power envelopes.

Currently the Intel X48, X38, P45, P35, G35, G33 and G31 chipsets have native support for 45nm 'Wolfdale' processors and will support the 1333MHz Front Side Bus speed. Motherboards with older chipsets may support Wolfdale processors like the E8400 processor though BIOS updates, although compatibility isn't universal. As always, check the vendor's support page before you pick up any new parts.

Due to its 45nm die-shrink, the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 processor can be clocked at higher speeds yet maintain the same thermal design power (TDP) as the older 65nm E6000 series of processors. The typical TDP for the Core 2 Duo E8400 processor is 65W.

1333 MHz Front Side Bus Speed / 45nm Wolfdale Core

Wolfdale processors are currently Intel's fastest dual-core processors. You can identify a Wolfdale processor by its family series. The Intel E5000, E7000 and E8000-series are all based on the Wolfdale core, and share the same 45nm

The Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 is a member of the highest end family. All E8000-series processors have 410 million transistors, 6MB of L2 cache, run at a 1333MHz front side bus, and have a TDP of 65W. The lower end of the Wolfdale dual-core processor families scale down accordingly: the E7XXX family of processors have 3MB of cache and run at a 1066MHz FSB, and the Intel E5XXX family, which has 2MB of cache and runs at 800MHz FSB.

Intel Socket 775 'Wolfdale' 45nm Processors
Processor Models	Thermal Design Power	Clock Speed	FSB	L2 Cache Size	Price (USD)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600	65W	3.33 GHz	1333MHz	6MB	$266
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500	65W	3.16 GHz	1333MHz	6MB	$183
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400	65W	3.0 GHz	1333MHz	6MB	$163
Intel Core 2 Duo E8300	65W	2.83 GHz	1333MHz	6MB	$163
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200	65W	2.66 GHz	1333MHz	6MB	$163
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190	65W	2.66 GHz	1333MHz	6MB	$163
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500	65W	2.93 GHz	1066MHz	3MB	$133
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400	65W	2.8 GHz	1066MHz	3MB	$113
Intel Core 2 Duo E7300	65W	2.66 GHz	1066MHz	3MB	$133
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200	65W	2.53 GHz	1066MHz	3MB	$113

Intel has also added some new instruction sets for its Wolfdale (dual-core) and Yorkfield (quad-core) 45nm processors. The new SSE4 (Supplemental Streaming SIMD Extension, if you were wondering) instructions consist of 47 new vector instructions, most of which focus on improving the processor's co-ordination with graphics and video acceleration.

Hardware has also improved, better for applications like VMware. Intel's improved assisted virtualization is better at managing requests from the virtual manager, which allows both the virtual machine and the native to make calls to the hardware without conflicting with one another. The larger, 6MB cache on the high-end Wolfdale processors is also very useful in these environments.

Intel's also talked a lot about how power efficient these new 45nm Wolfdale processors are going to be - so of course PCSTATS is going to put their claims to the test...

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

Core 2 Duo E8400 Workhorse CPU

In this age of quad-core processors, can a dual-core processor really cut it? CPU manufacturers AMD and Intel have repeatedly emphasized that multi-threaded applications are the future of computing, and that both companies will soon relegate single and dual-core processors to entry-level markets. As quad-core processors become more widely adopted in the mid-range and high-end, we're going to see more developers taking advantage of them with multi-threaded software. There are already a few bleeding-edge applications like Bibble that do this.

Right now, however, these applications are few and far between. Most of the utilities, office applications and day-to-day software that's on the average computer won't know what to do with extra CPU cores and will be served by a processor with more cache or higher clock speeds.

Keeping this in mind, the spotlight is clearly on Intel's family of Core 2 Dup E8000-series Wolfdale processors. The Core 2 Duo E8400, with its 3.0GHz clock speed, 1333MHz FSB speed and 6MB of L2 cache, remains a force to be reckoned with. In tests like Sysmark that test common, real-world office applications, the E8400 was generally a little faster than the Phenom II X4 955 and a little slower than the Core i7 920. All processors are absolutely fast enough for average desktop applications likely to be encountered in the office or at home. The same holds true during gaming, where the majority of titles are more suited to high-frequency dual-core processors rather than parallel quad-core processors.

With a current street price of $199 CDN ($170 USD, £113 GBP) the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 is $100 cheaper than the AMD Phenom II X4 955 and $150 than the least expensive Intel Core i7 processor. While the quad-core processors can definitely outclass the Core 2 Duo E8400 in certain scientific simulations, 3D rendering and video encoding benchmarks, they just don't deliver as much everyday value as a speedy dual-core processor.

Under the hood, the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 isn't revolutionary. While the original Conroe E6000-series processors were manufactured on a 65nm process, the Wolfdale chips are produced at 45nm. Shrinking the chip has kept the E8400's power draw levels low, just 65W, so under full CPU load it actually draws less power than lower-performing processors. Intel has also added new SSE extensions, lower power states, and better hardware virtualization support.

Overclocking the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 was dead simple, with only a minor bump in voltages required to move the processor from 3.0GHz up to 4.05GHz when using the stock Intel cooler. While we didn't do any official benchmarks at that speed, a 4GHz E8400 is enough to give the Core i7 920 a run for its money in many single and dual-core applications.

Given the benchmark results I think it's safe to say two things are clear. The Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 processor is handicapped against triple and quad-core processors in tests that are multi-threaded. In standard desktop applications that people use everyday, like Word or email, surfing the web or doing spreadsheets, the Core 2 Duo E8400 is more than powerful, and a very good value. While those that specialize in content creation may have already embraced quad-core processing, most everybody else will find that a speedy dual-core CPU like the Core 2 Duo E8400 is a better value.

Intel Core 2 Duo microprocessor

The architecture is called Core, processor family is Core 2, the product names are Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme. In the past we've talked about its architecture and even previewed its performance, but today is the real deal. We've all been waiting for this day, the day Intel lifts the last remaining curtain on the chip that is designed to re-take the performance crown from AMD, to return Intel to its days of glory.

It sure looks innocent enough:

Core 2 Duo (left) vs. Pentium D (right)

What you see above appears to be no different than a Pentium D. Honestly, unless you flip it over there's no indication of what lies beneath that dull aluminum heat spreader.

Core 2 Duo (left) vs. Pentium D (right)

But make no mistake, what you see before you is not the power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it's the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years. No, you're instead looking at the most impressive piece of silicon the world has ever seen - and the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested. What you're looking at is Conroe and today is its birthday.

Intel's Core 2 launch lineup is fairly well rounded as you can see from the table below:

CPU	Clock Speed	L2 Cache
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800	2.93GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700	2.66GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600	2.40GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400	2.13GHz	2MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300	1.86GHz	2MB

As the name implies, all Core 2 Duo CPUs are dual core as is the Core 2 Extreme. Hyper Threading is not supported on any Core 2 CPU currently on Intel's roadmaps, although a similar feature may eventually make its debut in later CPUs. All of the CPUs launching today also support Intel's Virtualization Technology (VT), run on a 1066MHz FSB and are built using 65nm transistors.

The table above features all of the Core 2 processors Intel will be releasing this year. In early next year Intel will also introduce the E4200, which will be a 1.60GHz part with only a 800MHz FSB, a 2MB cache and no VT support. The E4200 will remain a dual core part, as single core Core 2 processors won't debut until late next year. On the opposite end of the spectrum Intel will also introduce Kentsfield in Q1 next year, which will be a Core 2 Extreme branded quad core CPU from Intel.

Core 2 Extreme vs. Core 2 Duo

Previously Intel had differentiated its "Extreme" line of processors by giving them larger caches, a faster FSB, Hyper Threading support, and/or higher clock speeds. With the Core 2 processor family, the Extreme version gets a higher clock speed (2.93GHz vs. 2.66GHz) and this time around it also gets an unlocked multiplier. Intel officially describes this feature as the following:

Core 2 Extreme is not truly "unlocked". Officially (per the BIOS Writers Guide), it is "a frequency limited processor with additional support for ratio overrides higher than the maximum Intel-tested bus-to-core ratio." Currently, that max tested ratio is 11:1 (aka 2.93G @ 1066 FSB). The min ratio is 6:1. However, do note that the Core 2 Extreme will boot at 2.93G unlike prior generation XE processors which booted to the lowest possible ratio and had to be "cranked up" to the performance ratio.

In other words, you can adjust the clock multiplier higher or lower than 11.0x, which hasn't been possible on a retail Intel chip for several years. By shipping the Core 2 Extreme unlocked, Intel has taken yet another page from AMD's Guide to Processor Success. Unfortunately for AMD, this wasn't the only page Intel took.

Manufacturing Comparison

The new Core 2 processors, regardless of L2 cache size, are made up of 291 million transistors on a 143 mm^2 die. This makes the new chips smaller and cheaper to make than Intel's Pentium D 900 series. The new Core 2 processors are also much smaller than the Athlon 64 X2s despite packing more transistors thanks to being built on a 65nm process vs. 90nm for the X2s.

CPU	Manufacturing Process	Transistor Count	Die Size
AMD Athlon 64 X2 (2x512KB)	90nm	154M	183 mm^2
Intel Core 2	65nm	291M	143 mm^2
Intel Pentium D 900	65nm	376M	162 mm^2

Intel's smaller die and greater number of manufacturing facilities results in greater flexibility with pricing than AMD.

Intel Core 2 Duo

Netburst is dead, and long live Core ! This is something Intel announced a little over a year ago. The Netburst architecture introduced with the Pentium 4 in November 2000 is now replaced by a new architecture called Core, available for desktop, mobile and server platforms.

Intel will release new Xeons in the days to come and at the end of July the Core 2 Duo LGA 775 processors. This is a great opportunity for BeHardware.com to study the release of Core architecture but also the performances of the Core 2 Duo product line in practice.

« The Core legacy »

To understand the technical aspects in Core architecture, it’s important to look at the past. We go back to the past few years to the end of 2000. At this time, the entire line of Intel processors (desktop, server and mobile) relied on P6 architecture, which was introduced 6 years ago with the Pentium Pro. Despite improvements going along with new versions it eventually started to run out of steam. This was especially true compared to AMD and the Athlon, which won a very symbolic and marketing race in Gigahertz. It was urgent for Intel to release a new architecture to replace the P6.

The introduction of a new architecture isn´t an easy task. It must, from its release, show at least as a good performance compared to the most advanced products based on the previous architecture and also (and mainly) have a potential for evolution in the next five or six years to come. This is the average time required to make R&D investments profitable and has been Intel´s way of proceeding since the start of its company even if the presence of competitors has tended to accelerate product renewal. The objective is to avoid reproducing the Pentium III EB 1.13 GHz mishap that pushed the P6 architecture to its limits in such a way that the processor had to be recalled and withdrawn from the market.

This was probably the main worry in evolution in the definition of Netburst architecture. Netburst has been conceived to provide growing performances throughout its lifespan. Let´s see how it was done.

Intel Core 2 Duo E7200

Introduction

Core 2's family just keeps growing. Intel has really capitalised on a winning architecture. While Netburst got a few upgrades, there were never as many different variations of the same architecture to come out of the silicon giant.

Core 2 began back when Conroe started a revolution in the way we work with dual core processors. AMDs true dual core Athlon X2 showed us that the old version of slapping two dies on a single package really didn’t work, and despite Intel’s attempts, Pentium D really was the worst CPU to ever come off the production line.

Since then, Intel has finally learnt that a true dual core CPU could exist on its aging FSB system, but a new approach would be needed. This brought us the Core 2 Duo CPU. This works by placing the two cores on the same silicon wafer (unlike the Pentium D or Pentium Extreme Edition) and having them connected and communicating with each other through the Level 2 cache, which is a shared resource and depends on the model of the Core 2 CPU as to how much L2 cache you get.

The original Core 2 Duo based on Conroe architecture had 2MB of shared Level 2 cache. Whole Penryn based CPUs came with 6MB. This is a huge jump in size, but what about a cheaper option? Well, Intel has now come out with its latest addition to the Core 2 line; welcoming the Core 2 Duo E7000 series. This new CPU is designed to take a more mainstream and value-end stand. Its intention is to compliment and replace the already popular E4000 series of Core 2 CPUs. Today we will be testing out what the Core 2 Duo E7000 series is capable of and will pit it against its direct competition; AMD’s Phenom X3.

Intel Core 2 Duo E7200

Intel helped launch their 45nm processors with the QX9650 in November, and then proceeded to release their mid-range Dual-Cores in late January and finally, their low-end and mid-range Quad-Cores late last month. So you might be asking, "where are the low-end Dual-Cores?" Good question, and one we'll help answer today.

The E7200 will be the first "value" model that Intel will launch, and for the most part, it's kind of like a Q9300 split right down the middle. The difference is that while the Q9300 utilizes a 1333MHz FSB, the E7200 sticks to the "stock" option of the 65nm models, at 1066MHz FSB. This in itself is a big improvement, since the most comparable 65nm Dual-Core, the E4700, uses an 800MHz FSB.

The rumored launch date for the E7200 is next month, but that conflicts with the "Q2" launch date that Intel's press relations gave us. Similar to the 45nm Quad-Core launch, Intel likely still has many 65nm low-end Dual-Cores and would like to clear some of them out first, before officially launching the E7200 and others. So at this point, the release date is up in the air, but it will probably prove a lot sooner than later.

With its unique 9.5x multiplier, the E7200 hits a stock clock frequency of 2.53GHz and includes 3 MB of L2 cache, 1.5 MB per core. This is unlike the mid-range Dual-Cores, such as the E8400, which includes 6 MB of L2 cache. Whether or not that decrease will affect performance is something our benchmarks will help explain.

Closer Look at the Core 2 Duo E7200

Like the E4xxx series before it, the E7xxx series is designed for value-conscious consumers who want a solid CPU that will help get the job done. They don't boast extreme performance, but as we've come to find out well over the past few years, even Intel's lower-end Core 2 Duo offerings are well worth the time... even with overclocking out of the picture.

The E7200 still contains a 65W TDP, so while it's a lower-end model, it's not meant to be more energy-efficient over the mid-range E8xxx series. Thanks to 45nm enhancements however, improved efficiency should result in an overall wattage drain decrease over previous 65nm products.

Processor Name	Cores	Clock	Cache	FSB	TDP	1Ku Price	Available
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775	4	3.20GHz	2 x 6MB	1600MHz	150W	$1,499	Now
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770	4	3.20GHz	2 x 6MB	1600MHz	136W	$1,399	Now
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650	4	3.0GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	130W	$999	Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550	4	2.86GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	95W	$530	Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450	4	2.66GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	95W	$316	Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300	4	2.5GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	95W	$266	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500	2	3.16GHz	6MB	1333MHz	65W	$266	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400	2	3.00GHz	6MB	1333MHz	65W	$183	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200	2	2.66GHz	6MB	1333MHz	65W	$163	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190	2	2.66GHz	6MB	1333MHz	65W	$163	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200	2	2.53GHz	3MB	1066MHz	65W	~$133	May 2008

The E7200 would prove a great choice for most anyone, regardless of the intention. It would fit well in a general-use PC, it could well handle high-definition content in an HTPC, and even has the power to deliver superb gaming performance, as we'll see later. For the projected $133 USD (to retailer) price, the E7200 looks to be one heck of a offering.

Top Left: E7200, Top Right: E8400, Bottom: QX9650

To recap, while we are unsure of the actual release date and price, we wouldn't be surprised to see it launch next month with a $133USD (/1,000) price tag. Rumors have been rampant, so it could very well happen. We're just not willing to put money on it quite yet.

So, let's get right to some benchmarking! On the following page, we explain in-depth how our testing methodology works, then we'll jump into our SYSmark and PCMark tests, followed by many more.

Intel Dual-Core Processors Go 45nm

When AMD released the quad-core Phenom processor series last November, Phenom shocked the industry with low performance numbers and clock frequencies. If that was not enough, AMD then had to deal with the TLB erratum number 298 that presented a BIOS workaround that fixes the issue for a large performance loss. Even during this bad news, other headlines from November to February revolved around video cards, as both NVIDIA and ATI launched new series that both marked significant improvements over previous generations. With all the media focus going to the new video cards and how bad Phenom is doing, almost no one noticed the refresh of their Core 2 Duo processor lineup. The old 65nm Conroe dual-core processor that we have all come to know and love has been replaced by a new 45nm Wolfdale dual-core processor! The Intel Wolfdale based processors have the same technology benefits that LR has already talked about in previous articles, so if you don't know about High-k + metal gate transistors or Intel's lead-free technology you have some catching up to do.

With a die size of just 107mm² and 410 million transistors, it is smaller than its predecessor, the Conroe, as it had a die size of 143mm² with 291 million transistors. The above pictures are not to scale, but they show what the layout of the dies look like. Most of the 119 million new transistors are for the larger 6MB L2 cache on the Wolfdale as the Conroe had just 4MB. Other transistors are dedicated to the new SSE4 instruction set and the super shuffle engine. The TDP rating (Thermal Design Power) for the chip impressively stays the same, though, at just 65W. For comparison, the fastest single desktop processor that Intel has to offer right now is the quad-core Intel QX9770, which has a TDP rating of 136W. All of the Intel dual-core Wolfdale series processors are rated at 65W TDP and have 6MB of L2 Cache.

Processor	Cores	Frequency	L2 Cache	Bus Speed	Multiplier	1ku Price	Street Price
E8500	2	3.16GHz	6MB	1333MHz	9.5	$266	$285
E8400	2	3.00GHz	6MB	1333MHz	9	$183	$207
E8200	2	2.66GHz	6MB	1333MHz	8	$163	$172
E8190	2	2.66GHz	6MB	1333MHz	8	$163	N/A

Intel currently offers four Wolfdale processors and, as you can see from the table above, half multipliers are back in action as the Intel E8500 has a multiplier of 9.5. Of the four dual-core Wolfdale processors you might be wondering what the difference between the E8200 and the E8190 is as they have the same basic features. Basically, the E8190 lacks Virtualization and Trusted Execution Technology. Many people don't even know what virtualization is, so one can expect prices on the E8190 to eventually be less than that of the E8200. It should also be pointed out that some rumors are going around that Intel will have a Core 2 Duo E8300 with an 8.5x multiplier and an E8600 with a 10x multiplier coming out later this year.

Today, we will be testing out the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 processor against six other processors, but keep an eye on the $269.99 Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor and $259.99 AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition Processor as these processors are in the same price range.

intel core 2 due

Introducing the contenders

In the blue corner we got the E7400 ( retailing around 120-150 euros ). In the red corner the awesome E8600 (in many shops available at twice the price of the E7400 ) Both CPU's are based on the "Wolfdale" core and therefore are both 45nm Dual cores. Main differences are the amount of Level 2 cache ( 3 vs 6Mb ) and the FSB ( 266 vs 333FSB ) More technical details are in the table below :

As you can see there's not much separating these 2 CPU's, besides the 0.5 extra multi (E7400) and the Virtualisation Technology available for the E8600.

The main objective of this article is to find out if the cache is really worth the premium price. The FSB difference between both CPU's can be corrected by running a small OC. For those that do not want to touch any of the bios settings, testing will be also conducted at the following speed : 10 X 266FSB = 2.66Ghz (so basically at E7300 speeds). Second test will be done at E8600 speed : 10 X 333FSB = 3.33Ghz. Most enthusiasts run these CPU's daily at 4ghz or higher. I opted for 2 different FSB speeds ( 10 x 400 and 8 x 500 ) This approach was chosen to determine if the Level 2 cache gets any benefits from a higher FSB and secondly to see if there's a better scaling in favour of the E8600 with its larger cache.

Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 vs E8600

Introducing the contenders

In the blue corner we got the E7400 ( retailing around 120-150 euros ). In the red corner the awesome E8600 (in many shops available at twice the price of the E7400 ) Both CPU's are based on the "Wolfdale" core and therefore are both 45nm Dual cores. Main differences are the amount of Level 2 cache ( 3 vs 6Mb ) and the FSB ( 266 vs 333FSB ) More technical details are in the table below :

As you can see there's not much separating these 2 CPU's, besides the 0.5 extra multi (E7400) and the Virtualisation Technology available for the E8600.

The main objective of this article is to find out if the cache is really worth the premium price. The FSB difference between both CPU's can be corrected by running a small OC. For those that do not want to touch any of the bios settings, testing will be also conducted at the following speed : 10 X 266FSB = 2.66Ghz (so basically at E7300 speeds). Second test will be done at E8600 speed : 10 X 333FSB = 3.33Ghz. Most enthusiasts run these CPU's daily at 4ghz or higher. I opted for 2 different FSB speeds ( 10 x 400 and 8 x 500 ) This approach was chosen to determine if the Level 2 cache gets any benefits from a higher FSB and secondly to see if there's a better scaling in favour of the E8600 with its larger cache

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 45nm Wolfdale CPU Review

Size Doesn't Matter: Intel goes 45nm

Happy moments nowadays in the Intel offices around the globe as they have been pulverizing the competition since the day the Core2Duo series saw the daylight. Looking back in the Madshrimps archives, we found our first contact with the C2D processors almost two years ago.

The then so powerful AMD Athlon 64 processing units were practically blown away when the new high-end chips of Intel hit the forums as the results were that impressive that everyone started saving up to have one of those Intel bad boys. Thanks to the massive amount of L2 cache, which was four times the size AMD ever equipped their high-end CPU with; one just felt that Intel made a giant leap forward. Since we saw the first C2D's arrive at our Madshrimp facilities, we have seen various different models passing by, the one more impressive than the other. In fact, we saw Intel compete with itself in an attempt to produce the best cost-effective AND the best performing processor on the market.

The desktop Core 2 Duo series falls apart in four different sections, namely the E2xxx, the E4xxx, the E6xxx and of course the Q6xxx series, where the last group is in fact two E6xxx category CPU's pasted together to form a quad-core. All of these processors have their own advantages and each of them are worthy to be called 'a smart investment', however it seems that Intel is really trying to gain every penny out of the C2D on 65nm production procedure.

It has been a few months now since the newer C2D chips have arrived: the 45nm Yorksfield and Wolfdale processors. The Yorksfield Quad Core CPU we tested here, so this only leaves us with the Wolfdale .

Before we continue our review, I'd like to spend a few words on the shop that made it possible to review this E8500 ES, namely Alternate Belgium. Alternate used to be a Germany-only webshop, but it has expanded over Western-Europe and since a few months, there have a brick and mortar store in Belgium as well. As they insist on good service, Alternate uses a large stock which you can order online for quick turnaround. (according to the information on the website, you receive your products the next day if ordered online before 15h00!). For our Belgian readers, please visit www.alternate.be in order to find out more about Alternate Belgium.

Thanks to Alternate.be, we managed to lay our hands on an E8500 ES CPU, one which is not widely available yet. By the time this review gets published, the E8500 paper launch should have been transformed in an actual launch and everybody should now be able to buy one.

Let's have a quick look at what the E8500 'white box' has to offer us ->

Intel Core 2 Duo

Introduction:

Intel Core 2 Duo does not really need much of an introduction at this time more than a year after its début. The CPU price war and further price reduction last July together with the collapse of DDR2 price in recent months has become a little paradise for computer shoppers. So much so, the E4500 has not even touched the interest of many hardware review sites with 1333FSB, Quad Cores and X38 chipset dominate most of the headlines.

However, with $1 price difference; E4300, E4400, and E4500 differ only in multipliers of 9, 10 and 11 respectively may be worthy to look into. Particularly, the new M0 stepping found in all E4500.

While I was looking for the processor S-spec, I was surprised to find out Intel has changed almost all the C2D S-spec core Voltage to read 0.85 to 1.5V. Interesting! I snapped a few screen shots for keep sake.

I've read a couple quick snaps on how well the E4500 overclocks; so well that it was hard to believe. Yet, another reported disappointing result. Let's find out, shall we?

Intel Core 2 on 45nm:

Introduction

A little over a year ago we saw Intel take back the performance crown when they launched their new CPU based off the Pentium M series, dubbed “Core 2 Duo” this CPU held 2 physical cores inside one heatspreader, and it’s performance was stellar even at lower clock speeds. Build on 65nm process the Core 2 Duo could be manufacturered at reduced cost and proved to have quite a bit of headroom in the speed department. The top of the line model was the Core 2 X6800 clocked at 2.93Ghz with 4Mb L2 cache and 266Mhz FSB.

Since then more affordable CPUs have been added to the Core 2 line-up, with lower end models receiving less L2 cache to reduce cost, newer revisions released this year got a FSB bump to 333, and we have one in for test here today too, the Core 2 E6850 is clocked at 3Ghz (9x333) and has 4Mb L2 cache; this CPU surpasses the performance of the original X6800 but costs only ~$280 at time of writing. AMD has yet to reveal a CPU which can match the Core 2 in price/performance, and while Intel it still in the lead, they are not sitting by idly.

Back in October last year Intel released a press statement regarding the switch to 45nm manufacturing process, the 65nm CPU had a code name “Conroe”, the 45nm CPUs got a new one: Penryn. We are now at the end of October 2007 and Intel is going public with 45nm processors, you’ll see a large collection of reviews and articles on the web this week, covering not only the Penryn, but also its larger brother, the “Yorkfield”. The latter is a Quad Core CPU, and where the Penryn has 1x6Mb L2 cache, the Quad Core has 2x6Mb L2.

The CPU Intel provided us was an Engineer Sample of the QX9650 CPU, running at 3Ghz with 333 FSB (a multiplier of 9x), with an estimated retail price of $999. Still on socket 775 this new CPU should work on most recent motherboards.

Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 vs E6300

Introduction

I have to admit: I was one of those people who wanted a C2D as fast as possible. Due to my student life, I didn't have the budget to buy myself the first series of the X6800, E6700 or even the E6600. No, I had to settle with the slowest of them all: E6300, running at 1862Mhz. As the lowest and thereby cheapest product of the first line of C2D chips, the E6300 is equipped with the same features like its bigger brothers, but it has only the half of L2 cache on board (2MB instead of 4MB).

Pretty soon it became clear that the E6300 was good enough for the budget gamers, but due to the multiplier limit to 7 and the lower cache, it never reached the same performance as a E6600 or higher. The maximum multiplier of 7 limits the overclockers among us, because at that time, no motherboard could do over 500Mhz FSB easily. With the breakthrough of Intel's I965 and the new P35 chipset, these CPUs now reach higher speeds, unthinkable when they were first released. But is the old low-end CPU still a good deal for the budget gamers?

As time passed by, Intel released more and more C2D models, all with different clock speeds, L2 caches and FSB speeds. These new low-end C2D chips, the E4300 and E2160, run stock at 200Mhz FSB instead of 266Mhz. To reach 1.8Ghz, they have a multiplier of 9, ideal for higher overclocks.

With help of Leon from Dollarshops I got my hands on a brand new E2160 and set out to compare its performance to the E6300. Both CPUs are still available in stores with prices for the E6300 ranging from €140~160, and from €80~100 for the E2160.

Specification Comparison

In the performance tests on the next pages you’ll find out if the lower CPU speed (-66Mhz) and lower L2 cache (-1Mb) will translate into a noticeable performance drop.

Test Setup and Test Methodology

Comparing the performance at stock speed as well as overclocked, I increased the FSB high enough so that each CPU was running at 3Ghz, additionally I pushed the E2160 a bit further to 3.3Ghz. Do note that with the E2160 the memory was running slightly faster. Overclocking was done with the stock Intel heatsink which kept the CPUs running stable even at speeds over 3Ghz.

About me

I m a cool funny guy from india.I like to give u information all about Computers.

Contact Us

For any further assistance mail me:-

hiren_gala@ymail.com

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for http://intelhiren.blogspot.com

The privacy of our visitors to http://intelhiren.blogspot.com is important to us.

At http://intelhiren.blogspot.com, we recognize that privacy of your personal information is important. Here is information on what types of personal information we receive and collect when you use and visit http://intelhiren.blogspot.com, and how we safeguard your information. We never sell your personal information to third parties.

Log Files
As with most other websites, we collect and use the data contained in log files. The information in the log files include your IP (internet protocol) address, your ISP (internet service provider, such as AOL or Shaw Cable), the browser you used to visit our site (such as Internet Explorer or Firefox), the time you visited our site and which pages you visited throughout our site.

Cookies and Web Beacons
We do use cookies to store information, such as your personal preferences when you visit our site. This could include only showing you a popup once in your visit, or the ability to login to some of our features, such as forums.

We also use third party advertisements on http://intelhiren.blogspot.com to support our site. Some of these advertisers may use technology such as cookies and web beacons when they advertise on our site, which will also send these advertisers (such as Google through the Google AdSense program) information including your IP address, your ISP , the browser you used to visit our site, and in some cases, whether you have Flash installed. This is generally used for geotargeting purposes (showing New York real estate ads to someone in New York, for example) or showing certain ads based on specific sites visited (such as showing cooking ads to someone who frequents cooking sites).

DoubleClick DART cookies
We also may use DART cookies for ad serving through Google’s DoubleClick, which places a cookie on your computer when you are browsing the web and visit a site using DoubleClick advertising (including some Google AdSense advertisements). This cookie is used to serve ads specific to you and your interests (”interest based targeting”). The ads served will be targeted based on your previous browsing history (For example, if you have been viewing sites about visiting Las Vegas, you may see Las Vegas hotel advertisements when viewing a non-related site, such as on a site about hockey). DART uses “non personally identifiable information”. It does NOT track personal information about you, such as your name, email address, physical address, telephone number, social security numbers, bank account numbers or credit card numbers. You can opt-out of this ad serving on all sites using this advertising by visiting http://www.doubleclick.com/privacy/dart_adserving.aspx

You can choose to disable or selectively turn off our cookies or third-party cookies in your browser settings, or by managing preferences in programs such as Norton Internet Security. However, this can affect how you are able to interact with our site as well as other websites. This could include the inability to login to services or programs, such as logging into forums or accounts.

Deleting cookies does not mean you are permanently opted out of any advertising program. Unless you have settings that disallow cookies, the next time you visit a site running the advertisements, a new cookie will be added.