Source: Tom's Hardware UK – Keywords: processor, cache, size
Categories: Hardware
Core 2 Duo Variants
Intel has a plethora of desktop processors on the market. While there are still some Pentium 4 and Pentium D processors around, the majority builds on the Core micro-architecture. We clearly recommend against purchasing any Pentium 4 or Pentium D processor, although their clock speeds of up to 3.8 GHz may look attractive. Any Core 2 processor at 2.2 GHz and up is capable of beating even the fastest Pentium D models (so does the Athlon 64 X2), because Core 2 offers much better performance per clock.
Thanks to its lower clock speed levels, Core 2 is more energy efficient. While the Pentium D 800 top models used to eat up to 130 W, only a Core 2 Extreme quad core can exceed 100 W. All dual-core processors are rated at 65 W. In addition, the idle power requirement of a Core 2 Duo processor is even lower, which is also due to the reduced idle clock speed (max. 1.2 GHz for Core 2 Duo/Quad versus 2.8 GHz for Pentium D/4 processors). The reduced power consumption is also made possible by improved transistor designs with reduced leakage current.
Right now, there are E and X models available. E represents the mainstream processors while X stands for Extreme Editions. A Q stands for a quad core, which Intel builds by putting two dual-core dies into one physical processor package. E6000 processors have 4 MB L2 cache if their model number is >E6400, or if it ends on -20 (e.g. E6320). Models ending on -00 (e.g. E6600) run at 266 MHz system clock speed (FSB1066), while the -50 parts (E6750) are specified for 333 MHz (FSB1333). The latter requires a P35 or X38 chipset and delivers marginally better performance. E4000 runs at 200 MHz system speed (FSB800) and only has 2 MB L2 cache. The 1 MB versions are being sold as Pentium Dual Core E2140, E2160 and E2180, running at 1.6 to 2.0 GHz. Apart from the name and some features that Intel disabled for the low-cost models, these Pentium Dual Cores are identical to Core 2 Duo devices.
| Processor Number
65 nm |
Cache | Clock Speed | Front Side Bus | Virtualization Technology | Trusted Execution Technology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6850 | 4 MB L2 | 3 GHz | 333 MHz | X | X |
| E6750 | 4 MB L2 | 2.66 GHz | 333 MHz | X | X |
| E6700 | 4 MB L2 | 2.66 GHz | 266 MHz | X | |
| E6600 | 4 MB L2 | 2.40 GHz | 266 MHz | X | |
| E6550 | 4 MB L2 | 2.33 GHz | 333 MHz | X | X |
| E6540 | 4 MB L2 | 2.33 GHz | 333 MHz | X | |
| E6420 | 4 MB L2 | 2.13 GHz | 266 MHz | X | |
| E6400 | 2 MB L2 | 2.13 GHz | 266 MHz | X | |
| E6320 | 4 MB L2 | 1.86 GHz | 266 MHz | X | |
| E6300 | 2 MB L2 | 1.86 GHz | 266 MHz | X | |
| E4600 | 2 MB L2 | 2.40 GHz | 200 MHz | ||
| E4500 | 2 MB L2 | 2.20 GHz | 200 MHz | ||
| E4400 | 2 MB L2 | 2 GHz | 200 MHz | ||
| E4300 | 2 MB L2 | 1.80 GHz | 200 MHz |
- Previous page Large Caches: Performance Or A...
- Next page Test Setup
- Budget Overclocker - AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition
- Parallel Processing, Part 1: CPU Cores
- Keeping Your CPU Going If Your Cooler Fails
- [IDF]Centrino 5 Explored
- AMD K10: The Architecture of the Revival?
- Feeling the Squeeze: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6400 Black Edition
- Can CPUs (Finally) Make PCs Faster as Well as Quieter?
- Overclocking to new limits: Testing the new Core 2 Stepping
- Do More Cores Beat More Clock Speed?
- Extreme FSB: Taking the E6750 Beyond 4 GHz
- HELP WITH COMPAQ 5000
- Require aid in choosing a system
- Dell Latitude CP - upgrading as uch as possible
- HP Brio BAx (BIOS HW.27.10(QHW.10.01)) problem....
- Dell Shipping 8400 w/Pentium 4 Stepping E0?
- Error writing to C - long
- XP Failed Again!!
- KB891711
- System Resources?
- Compile Benchmark request: please help
If possible, I'd like to see comparisons between the AMD and Intel CPU's with the cache disabled. Would the performance loss on the AMD processors be less as they have 512Kb/1Mb in comparison the Intel's 1/2/4Mb and due to the integrated memory controller?
Or is the Core2Duo's architecture so much more superior that it will still beat the "more elegant solution"?
Is the question not whether cache is benfical but whether it is good use of the silicon real estate. When the Athlon upgraded from the Thunderbird core to the Palomino core with no increae is cache size it got about 5% faster for a minor increase in the transitor count (37 million to 37.2). When they upgraded from Thoroughbred to Barton which double the cache from 256kb to 512kb resulted in a huge transitor count increase from 37.6 to 54 million for a 5% speed increase. Based on this it seems to me that adding cache is a lazy but expensive way to increase performance by the chip manfactures and it would be better if they spent more time looking at other ways to improve their chips.
Just a bit of a shame you didn't add to the conclusion that the PRICE difference between the processors compared to the PERFORMANCE difference between them.
Short: Price-performance
Because PP-wise:
E2160 $72.00
E4400 $129.99
X6800 $985.00
Prices from Newegg (in most countries the differences are even bigger)
So the av. difference at the same clock speed between the E2160 and the X6800 is about 10% and the price difference is nearly a horrible 1400%!!
Like most reviews IF you add anything like this, the conclusion will probably be:
If you've got a budget then consider taking the cheapest E2100 serie. If you want to build your-average PC take a E4000 serie and well, if you've got a wallet you found to empty then hit it with a grand to get rid of it before the cops find out.
Anyway, my point is that I think Toms should inform people about reasonable price performance differences. If more review sites do this then manufacturers will ofcourse keep higher prices, but will see a drop in buys of these products and see their mid-range products being bought and used very well. (or they'll start producing low -and mid-range products that are very limited so they can't compete at any rate with the high-end parts).
Just my two cents...
Actually the first processor to have on-die full speed 256kb L2 cache was the AMD K6-III, not the Intel Pentium III Coppermine.
The K6-III was released in Febuary 1999, Coppermine Pentium III's didn't appear until late October.