Higher Clock Speeds, No TLB Issues and Better Pricing: The New Phenom
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 27, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Wolfy, How Fast Art Thou?
One of the first things we did when we got our hands on Intel's 45nm quad core parts was determine if they were any faster than the 65nm chips at the same frequency. It turns out that the performance difference wasn't huge, but the power savings at the (theoretically) same cost makes the move to 45nm a step forward.
We never did the same for the 45nm dual core (Wolfdale) parts, so here you go.
The new retail Wolfdale (45nm dual core) based CPUs come with a super low profile, very quiet heatsink:
The old heatsink (left), the new heatsink (right)
It's so cute
Intel is taking power and performance per watt more seriously now than ever before, you can expect its next designs (Nehalem and beyond) to be even more impressive in this regard.
The average performance increase for Intel's 45nm Wolfdale based Core 2 Duo is exactly 4%, which isn't quite as big as what we saw in the Q9300 vs. Q6600 comparison but still something. There are definite, tangible gains in some applications but we're mostly looking at single digital percentage improvements here.
Let's have a look at power:
| System Idle Power | System Load Power | |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 (2.66GHz) | 114W | 138W |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66GHz) | 116W | 158W |
Power improves, but not as much as the Q9300 did over the Q6600, partially because cache sizes have actually gone up in this case (4MB to 6MB) while they went down with the Q9300 (8MB to 6MB).
We're not expecting to see price parity between the 45nm and 65nm Core 2 Duos until Q3 of this year, waiting will obviously give you a faster, cooler running chip - but not necessarily by a huge amount.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What!!!! How darest though speak such blasphemy!AMD is your king! Bow to PHENOM!!! :) LOL
sorry feeling a little silly today.
hvypetals - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Why are the Intel core 2 duo's outperforming the intel quad core cpus?Is it because the games cant see beyond a dual core?
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Thats why I got the E8400 and clocked it to 3.6 ghz, it was cheap and it does very well for gamers....ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Oh wait I could have saved 20 bucks and got a much slower AMD. Crap...ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Then I would have had an AWESOME slow CPU instead of a CRAPPY much faster CPU....Roy2001 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
Wow, that's superb logic!fitten - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Most games can't "see beyond" one core, much less two, three, or four.nycromes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
This is what I expected from AMD and from all of you here making comments. It has always astounded me that people will act like these chips are the equivalent of a 500mhz chip compared to Intel's chips. Its like saying my car has 375hp and yours only has 370, my car is soo much better than yours. The difference is there, but for most people, the difference is quite negligable.The differences amount to almost nothing depending on application. Sure there are better parts out there, but competition drives markets to innovate and will bring down prices. Oh how awful. The intel fanboys can ride their high horses still, but AMD releasing better products benefits us all. Try taking your heads out of that little box and looking at the big picture.
I like to see AMD working on new products and hopefully they can get more competitive. We all need to be hoping for this so we don't see slowdowns in development and skyrocketing chip prices. I mean, look at the GPU industry compared to a few years ago and tell me that the situation is great for consumers. More competition = happier consumers. nuf said.
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
you are right, and you obviously dont game. Intel=FPS=FTWmark3450 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What a complete strawman. Look at the data, the best Phenom chip is getting beated by the q6600 by 20% in real world performance, not the 1% in your idotic horsepower strawman attack.Yes everyone understands that the lack of competion isn't good. The reason people bitch at AMD is that they want AMD to have a competative offereing, but that data clear says they don't. They know because of that there isn't going to be any competition in the CPU market for a long time. Yes that isn't good, but sticking your head in the sand and denying the reality of the situation doesn't help.