black_edition
Power Member
Esse E6500 é para sair no Q4 há dois ou três roadmap em que aparece , agora o caso do E6300 com 4MB isso nunca vi nada a não ser um ES na XS.
Cumps
Cumps
OFICIAL: Intel Core 2 Duo Reviews e Comentarios
- Autor do tópico pnabais
- Data Início
mascarilha
I folded Myself
na overclokers.UK nos restantes conroe (E6600 , E6700) ja mudaram aonde dizia arriving..... para :
Arriving week commencing July 24th 2006
ou seja a partir de dia 24 julho ( 2 feira) podem xegar a kualker momento .
cumps
Arriving week commencing July 24th 2006
ou seja a partir de dia 24 julho ( 2 feira) podem xegar a kualker momento .
cumps
VoRtAn_MaDgE
A.S.Team performed
Isto já deve ser velhinho e já devem ter visto mas como eu só vi agora temos pena...
Só amostra do poderio do bixo... graphics set to low quality para os fps dispararem por aí acima.
Só amostra do poderio do bixo... graphics set to low quality para os fps dispararem por aí acima.
Zarolho
Power Member
Conroe vs. AM2: Memory & Performance
Conclusion
While DDR2 Memory does not exhibit the same bandwidth or performance on the AM2 and Conroe platforms, they do perform at the same timings and voltages when going from one platform to another. This was clearly demonstrated in benchmarking tests performed on AM2 and Conroe platforms. This means readers can examine test results performed on a Core 2 Duo test bed with XYZ memory, and reasonably expect that XYZ memory to perform at the same speeds and the same memory timings and voltages on an AM2 platform - provided those settings are available.
There are always the variations in chipset and BIOS that can cause problems with a memory on one brand/model of motherboard and no problems on another brand/model, but that is also true even if you are planning to use the DDR2 on the same type of platform. We have sometimes seen where a brand of memory runs very well on an MSI platform, for example, but where it would not run at all on a DFI platform using the same chipset and CPU. Those types of compatibility issues will always happen, but in general if a memory tests well on Conroe it should do just as well on AM2.
This fact will make our memory testing much simpler, and we plan to perform all upcoming memory testing on the currently more flexible Core 2 Duo test platform. AM2 buyers can expect similar results with the same DDR2 memory on their AM2 motherboards.
A few conclusions about AM2 performance compared to Core 2 Duo performance are also inescapable in looking at our test results. First, Intel has done a remarkable job of concealing the issue of not having an on-processor memory controller. The intelligent look-ahead for memory works very well, and it makes the chipset-based Core 2 Duo memory controller appear to be as fast as the on-processor AM2 in many cases. This does not change the fact that the AM2 memory bandwidth is really greater than Core 2 Duo or the fact that AM2 scales better in memory, exhibiting a steeper slope in performance increase as memory speed increases than does Core 2 Duo. That just means as Memory Speed increases AM2 will benefit more and Intel will eventually need to move to an on-processor controller.
Probably the hardest conclusion for many will be the fact that increasing memory speed, increasing clock speed, and increasing CPU speed alone will not be enough for AM2 to catch up to Core 2 Duo in performance. The performance gap that remains when overclocking AM2 to 2.93GHz at 266 clock speed with DDR2-1067 is still huge. A die-shrink from 90 to 65nm and the additional cache that will allow will definitely help, but we are even skeptical there with Core 2 Duo already overclocking to 4GHz and beyond. No doubt AMD will find a solution, but it is now clear this will not be an easy fix for AMD.
The deep price cuts announced by AMD yesterday will definitely help. The new numbers indicate AM2 will be very competitive at the low end to low-mid of the processor food chain - a spot they have held in the past and where they have still managed to survive. The low end looks very competitive, and AMD is positioned close enough to mid-range in performance to keep Intel honest. There is no mistaking, however, that Intel Core 2 Duo owns the mid to high-end of the current processor market.
With this memory analysis, the memory playing field is hopefully a lot clearer for those shopping for DDR2 memory. Our next memory articles will compare memory performance of DDR2 on the Core 2 Duo Memory Test Bed. This began with the 6 high-performance memories and the 7 value memories tested in the Conroe Buyers Guide. It will continue with evaluations of the fastest memories available from both Corsair and OCZ.
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=1
Conclusion
While DDR2 Memory does not exhibit the same bandwidth or performance on the AM2 and Conroe platforms, they do perform at the same timings and voltages when going from one platform to another. This was clearly demonstrated in benchmarking tests performed on AM2 and Conroe platforms. This means readers can examine test results performed on a Core 2 Duo test bed with XYZ memory, and reasonably expect that XYZ memory to perform at the same speeds and the same memory timings and voltages on an AM2 platform - provided those settings are available.
There are always the variations in chipset and BIOS that can cause problems with a memory on one brand/model of motherboard and no problems on another brand/model, but that is also true even if you are planning to use the DDR2 on the same type of platform. We have sometimes seen where a brand of memory runs very well on an MSI platform, for example, but where it would not run at all on a DFI platform using the same chipset and CPU. Those types of compatibility issues will always happen, but in general if a memory tests well on Conroe it should do just as well on AM2.
This fact will make our memory testing much simpler, and we plan to perform all upcoming memory testing on the currently more flexible Core 2 Duo test platform. AM2 buyers can expect similar results with the same DDR2 memory on their AM2 motherboards.
A few conclusions about AM2 performance compared to Core 2 Duo performance are also inescapable in looking at our test results. First, Intel has done a remarkable job of concealing the issue of not having an on-processor memory controller. The intelligent look-ahead for memory works very well, and it makes the chipset-based Core 2 Duo memory controller appear to be as fast as the on-processor AM2 in many cases. This does not change the fact that the AM2 memory bandwidth is really greater than Core 2 Duo or the fact that AM2 scales better in memory, exhibiting a steeper slope in performance increase as memory speed increases than does Core 2 Duo. That just means as Memory Speed increases AM2 will benefit more and Intel will eventually need to move to an on-processor controller.
Probably the hardest conclusion for many will be the fact that increasing memory speed, increasing clock speed, and increasing CPU speed alone will not be enough for AM2 to catch up to Core 2 Duo in performance. The performance gap that remains when overclocking AM2 to 2.93GHz at 266 clock speed with DDR2-1067 is still huge. A die-shrink from 90 to 65nm and the additional cache that will allow will definitely help, but we are even skeptical there with Core 2 Duo already overclocking to 4GHz and beyond. No doubt AMD will find a solution, but it is now clear this will not be an easy fix for AMD.
The deep price cuts announced by AMD yesterday will definitely help. The new numbers indicate AM2 will be very competitive at the low end to low-mid of the processor food chain - a spot they have held in the past and where they have still managed to survive. The low end looks very competitive, and AMD is positioned close enough to mid-range in performance to keep Intel honest. There is no mistaking, however, that Intel Core 2 Duo owns the mid to high-end of the current processor market.
With this memory analysis, the memory playing field is hopefully a lot clearer for those shopping for DDR2 memory. Our next memory articles will compare memory performance of DDR2 on the Core 2 Duo Memory Test Bed. This began with the 6 high-performance memories and the 7 value memories tested in the Conroe Buyers Guide. It will continue with evaluations of the fastest memories available from both Corsair and OCZ.
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=1
Última edição:
Zarolho
Power Member
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 & E6400: Tremendous Value Through Overclocking
Final Words
If it weren't for AMD, we wouldn't have Core 2, and if it weren't for Core 2 then we wouldn't have affordable Athlon 64 X2s. Right now is one of the best times to purchase a new processor that we've seen in a long time -- assuming current prices hold and that availability of Core 2 Duo chips is reasonable in the next week or so. If you've been running a single core processor and are finally looking to make the jump to dual core computing, there's little reason not to at this point.
The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+ in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts. In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price. Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
The E6400 finds itself in between the X2 4200+ and X2 4600+ in price, but in performance the E6400 generally lands in between the 4600+ and 5000+. Once again, with these 2MB parts the performance advantage isn't nearly as impressive as with the 4MB parts (partly due to the fact that their native clock speed is lower, in addition to the smaller L2 cache), but even with AMD's new price cuts the Core 2 is still very competitive at worst. If you're not opposed to overclocking, then the E6400 can offer you more than you can get from any currently shipping AMD CPU - our chip managed an effortless 2.88GHz overclock which gave us $1000 CPU performance for $224.
There are two potential concerns with building a budget Core 2 Duo system. The first is availability, and hopefully we will have a clear answer on that subject in the near future. The other is motherboard cost. The ASUS P5W-DH we used in this article is currently the best overclocking motherboard we've seen for the socket 775 platform, but at $250 it is anything but cheap. We have seen quite a few of the P965 motherboards that can also overclock the budget Core 2 chips to reasonable levels, with prices hovering much closer to $140. Unfortunately, none of those boards can support SLI or CrossFire at present.
If you are simply interested in maximum processor performance, P965 with any of the Core 2 Duo parts is going to be very fast. Gamers on the other hand are probably going to at least want to think about SLI/CrossFire, which means they might need to pay more for an appropriate motherboard, especially if overclocking is a primary concern. We're also waiting to find out how nForce 500 for Intel does in the overclocking arena; at present, there's definitely concerns about whether or not the NVIDIA motherboards can reach the high FSB speeds that are required for overclocking everything but the X6800.
The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 levels, however the smaller cache does limit performance a bit. That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=1
Final Words
If it weren't for AMD, we wouldn't have Core 2, and if it weren't for Core 2 then we wouldn't have affordable Athlon 64 X2s. Right now is one of the best times to purchase a new processor that we've seen in a long time -- assuming current prices hold and that availability of Core 2 Duo chips is reasonable in the next week or so. If you've been running a single core processor and are finally looking to make the jump to dual core computing, there's little reason not to at this point.
The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+ in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts. In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price. Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
The E6400 finds itself in between the X2 4200+ and X2 4600+ in price, but in performance the E6400 generally lands in between the 4600+ and 5000+. Once again, with these 2MB parts the performance advantage isn't nearly as impressive as with the 4MB parts (partly due to the fact that their native clock speed is lower, in addition to the smaller L2 cache), but even with AMD's new price cuts the Core 2 is still very competitive at worst. If you're not opposed to overclocking, then the E6400 can offer you more than you can get from any currently shipping AMD CPU - our chip managed an effortless 2.88GHz overclock which gave us $1000 CPU performance for $224.
There are two potential concerns with building a budget Core 2 Duo system. The first is availability, and hopefully we will have a clear answer on that subject in the near future. The other is motherboard cost. The ASUS P5W-DH we used in this article is currently the best overclocking motherboard we've seen for the socket 775 platform, but at $250 it is anything but cheap. We have seen quite a few of the P965 motherboards that can also overclock the budget Core 2 chips to reasonable levels, with prices hovering much closer to $140. Unfortunately, none of those boards can support SLI or CrossFire at present.
If you are simply interested in maximum processor performance, P965 with any of the Core 2 Duo parts is going to be very fast. Gamers on the other hand are probably going to at least want to think about SLI/CrossFire, which means they might need to pay more for an appropriate motherboard, especially if overclocking is a primary concern. We're also waiting to find out how nForce 500 for Intel does in the overclocking arena; at present, there's definitely concerns about whether or not the NVIDIA motherboards can reach the high FSB speeds that are required for overclocking everything but the X6800.
The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 levels, however the smaller cache does limit performance a bit. That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=1
Zarolho
Power Member
Intel confirms Core 2 Duo rollout
CHIP FIRM Intel officially announced the introduction of 10 Core 2 Duo and Core Extreme microprocessors for desktops, workstations and notebooks.
Intel said it has over 550 customer system designs underway, with the CPUs built on 65 nanometre technology.
Five of the family are aimed for desktops, five for notebook and mobile users. The products were formally codenamed "Cointreau" and "Merom".
The chips support 64-32 instructions, so called smart cache which shares L2 cache, wide dynamic execution, and instructions that speed up multimedia transactions.
The mobile chips have a better version of Speedstep, a method for powering down the processor to increase battery life, and other power saving devices.
Machines using the desktop chips will be available in early August, said Intel, while notebooks will become available at the end of that month.
The "Cointreau" chips clock from 2.93GHz down to 1.86GHz, all using a 1066MHz system bus, and with L2 caches of 4MB for the higher clocked chips and 2MB for the lower clocked chips.
The "Merom" chips clock from 2.33GHz down to 1.66GHz with bus speeds of 667MHz and cache of either 4MB or 2MB for the two lowest SKUs (stock keeping units). µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33302
CHIP FIRM Intel officially announced the introduction of 10 Core 2 Duo and Core Extreme microprocessors for desktops, workstations and notebooks.
Intel said it has over 550 customer system designs underway, with the CPUs built on 65 nanometre technology.
Five of the family are aimed for desktops, five for notebook and mobile users. The products were formally codenamed "Cointreau" and "Merom".
The chips support 64-32 instructions, so called smart cache which shares L2 cache, wide dynamic execution, and instructions that speed up multimedia transactions.
The mobile chips have a better version of Speedstep, a method for powering down the processor to increase battery life, and other power saving devices.
Machines using the desktop chips will be available in early August, said Intel, while notebooks will become available at the end of that month.
The "Cointreau" chips clock from 2.93GHz down to 1.86GHz, all using a 1066MHz system bus, and with L2 caches of 4MB for the higher clocked chips and 2MB for the lower clocked chips.
The "Merom" chips clock from 2.33GHz down to 1.66GHz with bus speeds of 667MHz and cache of either 4MB or 2MB for the two lowest SKUs (stock keeping units). µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33302
_JP_
Power Member
Na XS andam a dizer que dá para mudar o multi dos Conroe...se é verdade ou não, talvez alguém aqui que entenda mais disto do que eu possa dizer....
Originally Posted by overcrash86
Thanks to Franck@X86 for his help, he had help me to find how to manage the multiplier :
approximately translated :
-use an MSR Editor same as CrystalCPUID
-Edit the MSR : 0x000001a0
-Set the bit 16 to 1 -> 0x61850089
into the power management of windows set always on
then have fun !!!
A pergunta que se põe é, como que os conroe abaixam tanto a latência? Se o controlador é no ***** e não no CPU?
Então a diferença para o Pentium D é gritante!
Duvido muito disso, penso que o resultado deve estar "aldrabado" pela cache do conroe ou é algum bug... externamente nada muda do P-4 para o conroe... Os dados levam o mesmo tempo para sair da memória e chegar ao CPU, visto quer no conroe, quer no P-4 965 terem o mesmo FSB e mesma memória/timmings/mhz
Já no everest os AMD deram kabazada...
Última edição:
Zarolho
Power Member
Não estou a ver o problema... É evidente que a baixa latencia provem da cache "unificada" e também da baixa latencia do FSB. Em relação aos resultados, são o que são, são numeros não teoria e já foram mais do que comprovados no XS e noutros sites da net.destr0yer disse:
O FSB sempre foi suficientemente rápido na transmissão de dados e com latencias baixas (Intel PAT), o grande "bottleneck" nos sistemas Intel, eram os longos e numerosos pipelines do CPU.
Um vez rectificada e alterada a solução, os resultados falam por sim... O FSB "velho" e "obsuleto" ainda está para as curvas...
O que me espanta é existir ainda duvidas nesta fase do "campeonato"em relação á real capacidade do Conroe...
Última edição:
isso de mudar o multi deve ser um bocado perigoso nao?
btw, o controlador e na MB mas o numero de pipes foram reduzidos pa cerca de metade (li isso nao sei onde..) e as boards antigas nao dao nos conroe...ptto o controlador pode ter sido aperfeicoado ou assim?[size=-1]tou a inventar lol[/size]
btw, o controlador e na MB mas o numero de pipes foram reduzidos pa cerca de metade (li isso nao sei onde..) e as boards antigas nao dao nos conroe...ptto o controlador pode ter sido aperfeicoado ou assim?[size=-1]tou a inventar lol[/size]
mascarilha
I folded Myself
Intel unveils Conroe and Merom, with pricing only available for Conroe
![[_Silence_]](/data/avatars/m/2/2146.jpg?1408069810){kind=avatar}
[_Silence_]
OC Legend
A cena do multi era pós ES na altura, e apenas multis inferiores ao default. N tem perigo nenhum.....
SilveRRIng
Power Member
A principal razão para a superioridade dos conroe a nivel de latências é um "disfarce" proporcionado pelo excelente motor de prefetch, ajudado pela cache unificada que eles possuem. Ainda assim, já se disse em reviews, que quando a AMD corrigir estes pontos (maybe K8L), voltar-se-á a verificar as vantagens do memory controller on-die.destr0yer disse:Então porque a discrepançia em relação a dois benchmarks?
Não é haver duvida, todos sabemos que a AMD está totalmente derrotadaAgora que o maior trunfo da AMD (Controlador de memória embutido + HTT também foi esmagado pelo "velho" e "obsoleto" FSB)