Intel's Core 2 Duo processors

Well, I found the review informative, but nothing out of the ordinary (the ordinary being the myriad other reviews around the net)...

So far, I thought HardOCP's review was a bit better (why didn't you guys include some real world - with max playable settings and that stuff- gaming data? you usually do with video cards review IIRC) , perhaps because they draw different conclusions that those of other sites:

* Yeah, Conroe is a beast for video encoding.

* For most other uses of a PC, there's no real usage benefit of Conroe over a X2. For Real usage I mean that in a blind test, you'd likely not notice any difference among the X2 and Conroe powered systems. That includes gaming.

* Power usage is a mixed bag. Conroe's max load PU is much better, but X2 idle usage trumps Conroe... My PC stays about 99% of time it's on idling, so X2 is a better alternative. OTOH, if you only turn your PC on to game, Conroes is a much better bet.

All in all, the only real advantage Conroe has over X2 is price. For all I'm reading, if I had to upgrade my PC now, I'd get a Conroe, no doubt (although I'd wait to see what price drops AMD has on their sleeve). For those who already have high-end X2 CPUs (and are not heavy on video editing), there's really no need to panic and grab a Conroe...you'll see little or none real usage performance.

I'm feeling that we have hit a wall in CPU power...the last and greatest from Intel (and make no mistake, I think it's a beast and I'm fighting the urge to change my X2 4200 for one of them) doesn't make your computing or gaming experience any different than the previous great one.

 

Iago, I see where you're coming from, but you fail to note a crucial thing. Best playable settings stuff (like we do for graphics cards) is used BECAUSE graphics cards are the key determinant in any of that.

If you want huge gaming performance increase, buy a new graphics card, not a new chip. If your system needs an overall boost, then Conroe beats the AMD line by more than 30% in cases, for a lot less money.

I guess I see what you're saying, but honestly if Tim reviewed the way you're discussing, it would be way worse and introduce considerable bias. You need to try and remove the graphics acceleration from the equation to determine how much the CPU will improve things, that won't be done by doing "best playable," all the weight will fall right back on the graphics cards. You'll also see everything bunch right back up again with little to no difference, because the graphics card makes all the difference in higher resolution or higher effects processing.

Basically, by doing what you're describing above, we'd utterly bury the CPU's performance in graphs that mean next to nothing.

 

Iago, I do see where you're coming from and that is why I made reference to the fact that performance in games at high resolution (i.e. GPU limited) is not necessarily going to improve when you add a faster processor into the equation.

We didn't do 'best playable' for Conroe because we think it is beyond the scope of the review... however, I did add thoughts about the gaming performance at higher resolutions, stating that it isn't going to make much difference. That's based on my experience with the real-world game testing we do for video card reviews. I'm pretty sure that the situation is different in the world of multi-GPU (which usually is CPU limited) - I'm looking forwards to doing some testing on that front.

One thing that HardOCP's review lacked was a collaborated conclusion for the four articles that were published. I think the information given was good, but it just lacked an overall conclusion rounding up all of the findings.

 

The only thing that right now is questionable is Core 2's life expectancy. I mean how long will the chip last before it just dies off like other intel chips. Atleast i know if i built an X2 rig that it would give me awhile without problems but since Core 2 is fresh new what happens after a few months of punishment from gaming a few hours a day. Im just saying dont jump into the boat before youve checked it for leaks.

 

Im sorry infered but I cant even understand you're argument. Are you implyinig that Intel produced CPUs are somehow of inferior build quality because I can assure you that that's not the case. Intel is arguably the worlds leading CPU manufacturer and pioneer of process technology. It also has the most FABs for making silicon globally. Basically: it'll last as long as any Intel CPU to date, unless you start pumping a lot of voltage through it for a long time, which will affect ANY CPU because of electromigration and overrated stress. As for just being at load at normal voltages: they are made to be used.

X2s werent specifically built for gaming, they are just another processor that, in comparison to netburst worked a hell of a lot better for enthusiasts and gamers.

 

Could I suggest an article that would be usefull in a month or so once all the mobo's start catching up.. Basically, a nice article with a range of different setups based arround the core 2 duo. Mobo, memory and each of the processors in the range. Just to help us not so technically minded people work out which bundle is best to go for with our budget and needs.

 

Will: When we get the boards in the labs we'll evaluate them accordingly, as always. Stress test/oc/features, the usual.

Im wondering if the 2M cache cores will oc better due to less trannies, negating the difference in cache for clock speed. Get a 2.13 up to 2.8 or whatever and you've got a £180 processor for £800 performance since they scale better than netburst and A64s.

 

Bindibadgi: What infered is trying to say is: "Has anyone stress tested these for extended periods of time in a high useage environment?" We all know that CPUs can fail and since core is an entirely new arcitecture there are inherantly a LOT more risks of problems.

 

There's some amazing overclocks appearing on ExtremeSystems.org 4Ghz on air cooling is one of the better results *drools* I seriously hope these overclocks are even half of what the retail versions manage, an E6600 at 3.4Ghz or so will be an amzing system.

Some one else as a E6600 to 4.6Ghz here

 

YOur right i worded my argument wrong all i was trying to say is that right now this very second i would go for something i know does this. All these people are talking about INtel owning AMd and everyone shuold buy into COnroe. IM just saying i know The X2's do ok with gaming so i would buy them right now then in a few months if conroe is still on top i would go for it. Conroe and its architecture are just too new for me to think its perfect and i should right this second go and buy into it.

 

Mad props to the boys at Intel for a wicked sick CPU, and you chaps here at Bit-Tech for a quite nice review.

Competition drives the market. That's really what it comes down to. I'm probably not going to upgrade to Conroe, simply because I don't have the money to play uber-system-of-the-week. If my system was a generation older, however... I'd probably be upgrading to a Conroe in less than a month.

 

Great article again by Mr Bigglesworth.

the conroes are good but not as good as people expected to be. Atlest intel have caught up to AMD.

 

Wow. Intel is taking back the crown by force. Glad I got my Abit AB9 Pro on the way right now. Think I will grab myself an E6600. For a $300 cpu to match or exceed a $1000 dollar cpu in som cases, or coming barely under it...is amazing.

 

Dunno what to say to conroe because everyone has said it all already. The one that got me was the price!!! I think the architecture will definately be around for awhile!

LOL, Since I am still running a socket A rig, all I can say is...time for an upgrade? rar...rar...!

 

I see your points, and can't really disagree with them. I'm fully aware of the GPU bottleneck in normal resolutions with modern games. Furthermore, what Da Dego says about the bias it's true...the guys from HardOCP are already getting more than enough "AMD-biased" flaming for their article.

My point was that I love Bit Tech graphic cards review 'cause instead of just a pile of numbers, I know I can get a real, accurate feeling of how my experience is going to improve or not if I get a new 300€ card. That's why I like HOCP's too...FRAPS benchmarks and the like are fine, but I really can't tell the difference between 50 and 60 FPS (wich is normally labeled as *huge advantage* every time you read a GPU review).

So, I expected some similar comments when Conroe arrived. Being the notable improvement over last generation CPUs it is, and with all the hype is surrounding it, numbers and synthetic benchmarks alone don't do it...I really need to know if, say, substituting my trusty X2 for one of those is going to give me some kind of *wow!!!* feeling when I turn the rig on, if I'm going to really notice having a faster system on my day to day, or it's just going to be a underwhelming experience. That's something I really miss from most reviews.

Still, as I said before, I too understand that my expectations were probably a bit unrealistic. There's really no way to accurately measure Conroe's improvements without devoting serious resources to number crunching I didn't want my initial comment to come like I was bitching at the review at all...

 

Clarification understood I guess that's the problem with CPUs. We're dealing with such a multi-component system that it's difficult to simply isolate something so integral without essentially nothing more than a big table of numbers.

I dunno, in my opinion a CPU making most things in your computer run 5-10% faster IS a big improvement, much less 30% and up for some things. The numbers are just that, numbers...but they also point to how well the system is going to function under general loads, various software situations, etc. It's not like a graphics card, though, like you mention...you can't see that you can now enable 3 more effects and still get a 5-10% framerate increase. But imagine everything you do getting a boost, and it really adds up.

That's the thing with CPUs...they're not the pretty or bling components, they don't really make your game look much better or your movies play with a better picture. If anyone has any ideas on benchies that would illustrate this sort of thing more easily, so you can see at a glance what pickup you'll really experience, I'm sure we'd be interested to hear.

 

It took inel this long to put the pentium M on the front line.

Nice article you guys!

 

As far as I know, there's none

But for the review in sites I trust, the reviewer's word usually is enough for me. In you personal experience (I'm assuming you've had some time with a Conroe PC...please correct me if I'm wrong), did you feel any improvements in speed and responsiveness (is that a word? )when using it? I mean, does the PC seem to start up faster, do .rar archives decompress/compress noticeably faster, are program installs a breeze...?

I guess than decoding a DVD with DVD-Shrink must be way faster, but other than that, I'm not much into video editing. Do you think you'd be able to tell if a system has a, say, X2 3800 or Core 6400 in a blind test?

So far, whenever I've changed a CPU in the past, I've been able to tell the difference easily. My first partial disappointment was dropping a PIV 3.4 Ghz for my current X2 4200...yeah, the temperatures dropped (that on itself was very imporant for me at the time, but it's quite close between X2 and Core right now), but other than that, it didn't feel like a great improvement at all. For all the hyped AMD gaming advantage, I learnt the hard way that CPUs are close to irrelevant in gaming, and AMD dual core didn't feel much different than PIV hyper-threading in day to day use (perhaps those coming from single core Athlons noticed it more)...in most of my daily uses, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference (save for the noise levels required to keep the PIV in check). Would it be any different if I went back to Intel now? Of course, if I built a rig right now, there'd be no contest at all, but for those of us that love to have cutting edge parts and already have a modern CPU, could it be worth taking a look at Core?

 

I'm AMD fanboy and I'm glad this is happening. Looks like AMD will have to go back to the old days where their CPU's were dirt cheap and competitive. This will definetly help CPU's to advance and improve.

And the thing I'm most curious about is what innovation will AMD bring to battle. I myself believe that AMD will not go for RAW power. They'll probably just add some 'magical' memory controller or something else to improve CPU's integration with other components.

 

Thats ridiculous......I'm pretty sure INTEL did that.....FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS! They are the worlds biggest CPU manufacturer for god sake. Just because AMD held the "Gamers Choice" award for so long everyone thinks INTEL are totally incompetent.