Performance Per Watt Normalized To 3.0 GHz And Pentium 4 630

Once again we’d like to look back at one of the first Intel processors that reached 3 GHz. The Pentium 4 630 wasn’t the first one ever to reach that clock speed (that was the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz on socket 478), but it was the last 90-nm Pentium 4 generation for socket 775. If we look at the SYSmark performance per Watt of the 45-nm Core 2 Duo E8400 in relation to the Pentium 4 630, the performance per Watt result has increased by over 460%!
Diagram: Performance Vs. Power Consumption
The diagram requires some explanation. The x axis shows the time required to complete the entire benchmark, while the y axis shows the power required at any given point of time during the benchmark run.
The brown line represents the Pentium 4 630, which required almost one hour and 40 minutes. The purple line stands for the 90-nm dual core Pentium D 830, which finished in one hour and 32 minutes. The green curve represents the 45-nm Core 2 Duo Wolfdale, which took one hour and 15 minutes. Finally, the blue and the yellow lines stand for the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 45-nm quad core and the QC6850 65-nm quad core while the red line stands for the Core 2 Duo E6750. All of them took roughly one hour and 10 minutes to finish the benchmark.
The results may be confusing, as Wolfdale (E8400) should finish this workload quicker than its predecessor Conroe (E6750). And in fact it does finish the individual workloads quicker, as you could see in the SYSmark 2007 benchmark results in the benchmark section above. But we found that SYSmark 2007 often waits for system idle tasks to complete before it initiates the next workload. You can easily track this in the green curve, as the processor is clearly running idle after four minutes, after 25 minutes, after 50 minutes and again after one hour and five minutes. We repeated the benchmark several times and haven’t found out why this happened, but we can conclude based on two facts that:
E8400 does perform better than E6750 in the individual SYSmark workloads; E8400 achieves much better performance per Watt despite being idle for several minutes during the duration of the SYSmark test.
- Previous page Power (Wh) Consumed During An Entire...
- Next page Conclusion: Overclockers Wait!...
- Wolfdale Shrinks Transistors, Grows Core 2
- Intel Skulltrail II - Overclocking and Power Consumption
- Intel Skulltrail I - Feeling the Power of 8 Cores
- Intel Skulltrail III - Eight against Four Performance Comparison
- Comparing AMD CPU Efficiency
- AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition – A New Hope?
- Phenom vs. Athlon Core Scaling Compared
- Intel Power Consumption Then and Now
- The Phenom vs. Athlon Core Shootout
- Ultimate Budget Overclocking Box - A 3.5 GHz Core 2 System with a...

I will admit to not really being a regular overclocker but isnt the whole point about getting the best out of your hardware and in essance getting something for nothing.
from that view point i would have thought it would have made sence to at least include the 8200 for comparison, If not have done the whole article on it instead of the 8500. Or am i missing the point?
Intel has no dedicated inter-connect, no onboard MMU. All inter-core communication for both dual and quad-core CPU's has to go via the FSB. Intel is late catching up because it got complacent.
Also, AMD CPU's at the bottom end still overclock well and are very cheap. I don't think everything is in Intel's favour
Socket 939 90nm Athlon64 3200+ (2.0GHz) can hit 2.7GHz or more on air. Same for Socket AM2 65nm Athlon64x2 4000+ (2.1GHz).
..not bad considering it's a generation before C2D.
Is it me or doesn't there appear ot be much of a difference between the 266 and newer 333MHz FSB speed?
Intel has no dedicated inter-connect, no onboard MMU. All inter-core communication for both dual and quad-core CPU's has to go via the FSB. Intel is late catching up because it got complacent.Also, AMD CPU's at the bottom end still overclock well and are very cheap. I don't think everything is in Intel's favour
Am I wrong in thinking the intel dual core does have inter core communication on chip. It is the quad core that communicates via the fsb for but only between the two core 2 duo dies.