Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Preview from Taiwan
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Gary Key on June 6, 2006 7:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Memory Latency and Bandwidth
We've never been able to look at some of the low level characteristics of Intel's Core architecture, and although we didn't have enough time to do a thorough run of low level benchmarks we were able to run ScienceMark 2.0 in order to get an idea of how the Core 2 Extreme stacked up against the FX-62 in terms of memory latency and bandwidth.
We had seen Conroe performance results that showed the new architecture being able to offer fairly competitive memory access latencies to AMD's architecture, without the need of an on-die memory controller. Our ScienceMark 2.0 results confirm just that:
While AMD still offers lower memory latency, the Core 2 Extreme X6800 is very close in comparison - especially considering that it has no on-die memory controller. With lower clock speeds than its Pentium D siblings and a faster FSB, memory access latency is reduced tremendously with Conroe. On a larger scale, through a very effective cache subsystem as well as memory disambiguation, Conroe can offer significantly improved memory performance compared to its predecessors, including the Athlon 64 X2/FX.
ScienceMark's memory bandwidth results offer a very telling story, showing us the bandwidth limitations of Intel's FSB architecture. While the FX-62's peak theoretical bandwidth is not achieved in real world, you can see how AMD's Direct Connect architecture offers higher limits for chip-to-chip communication.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
134 Comments
View All Comments
neweggster - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
If that was the case then you wouldn't be posting on a enthusiast website meant to show performance and benchmarks of new technology, surely you took the time to get registered to post.
If you hadn't been so interested in this community then why make a posts. I see nobody else bashing enthusiasts on these forums, lol its out of context someone coming here saying we are like grade schoolers because we are interested in technology.
Take a clue, technology runs this world and the people in it, also it is mainly a big market where 100's of thousands of people work in this type industry. Perhaps if you don't like the people who post here who are so eager for the next best thing then don't come reading the stuff lol. PEACE!
Makaveli - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
first of all I love technology And I think both companies are great. my complaint is u lil kids and your fighting over pointless shit all the time. its never ending. I actually like coming to the forums to read stuff that is intelligent and that I can learn from. All the fanboyism shit gets old quick. The point of my post is Who give a flying fuck which cpu is faster. as long as it fits in your budget and meets your needs. That is one of the reason's I hardly go to tom's Hardware anymore they use to be now the forum is over run with lil kids and my intel this my AMD this. None of these companies Care what u think they just want your money. yet u guys fight like your in a war for there loyalty. I just wish some of u would grow the fuck up.end of my rant.
Xenoid - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
We have all seen the top AMD vs the top Intel cpu, but for those of us who don't own 5 Ferraris and a Maybach, when can we expect realistic reviews.I would like to see the lower 3 Conroes (2.4ghz in particular as it has the bigger cache) vs normal AMD cpus in the same price bracket.
As for my fandom since I have to explain it or else face certain flaming, I own 3 Intels and 3 AMD cpus. That will be all.
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Not really worth it as the $530 chip is gonna beat the FX anyway. At same price point it won't be even worth comparing.
And congrats to AT(especially Anand) for making an early and non-biased review.
bob661 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
I don't think that's what he meant. I think he wants to see some more realisticly priced Conroe's and X2's. Of course, if you actually read what he said, you would know that.IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Doesn't matter, because at this rate, it won't be worth considering at the same price point, so why look. He can see, but its like those people who wants to see CPU performances at 2048x1536 4xAA/8xAF when there will be no difference between top of the line and Celeron D. It's already know, do you just have to see it??
smitty3268 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Well I would still be interested in a full review, of all the speeds of Conroe with a few X2's thrown in the mix as comparison points. Which I'm sure is what AT's final review will be like.Presumably AMD is also going to do some significant price cutting until K8L is released in order to stay competitive. Anyone know this for sure?
neweggster - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Toms Hardware has the slower 2.66 conroe up against the Fx-62. Im sure AMD is lowering prices, already seen significant drops in AMD CPU's in past week.Xenoid - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
I don't read Toms.To rephrase what I said for the ignorant masses, I want to see the lower clocked Conroes compared to X2s of the same price (300~) and hopefully we will have that when it is released.
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Not really worth it as the $530 chip is gonna beat the FX anyway. At same price point it won't be even worth comparing.
And congrats to AT(especially Anand) for making an early and non-biased review.