Conclusion: Overclockers Wait! Everyone Else Go For It

Ad

Core 2 Duo Wolfdale remains an excellent new CPU that provides substantial performance while reaching new records in efficiency. We drove the processor all the way up to 4.3 GHz, which has been the limit for our test sample. Since this is only the beginning of the 45-nm generation, we expect future models and future steppings to deliver even better overclocking margins. We’re also not sure whether it was the CPU core or the system bus that created the bottleneck that prevented higher clock speeds from being reached, as 4+ GHz can oftentimes be reached with the predecessor, Core 2 Duo E6000 Conroe. However, the 45-nm Wolfdale was optimized for performance per Watt instead of clock speed, and it clearly beats the 65-nm Conroe in all efficiency benchmarks and delivers better performance at decreased power consumption both in idle and under maximum load.

We found it amazing to see the dual-core Wolfdale beat the quad-core Yorkfield when it comes to SYSmark performance per watt. Clearly, combining two Wolfdale dies inside a physical processor, which is how Intel creates a quad-core processor, does provide much better performance (as you could also see in the overclocking charts), but the power consumption increases more than the level of performance. Even better thread optimization might help, but the results underscore our previous conclusion: Core 2 Duo E8000 is the most reasonable processor choice unless you really need much more performance. Please look at our CPU Charts for performance comparisons between the new Core 2 Duo Wolfdale processors and a long list of AMD and Intel CPUs.


Talkback
mactronix 22/02/2008 11:57
Hide
-0+
mactronix
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?
Wild9 24/02/2008 03:02
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Quote :Unlike AMD, which must produce its 90-nm processors closer to their technical and thermal limits to stay competitive, Intel plays on its manufacturing prowess, which is at least 12 months ahead of that of AMD.


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 ;)
Wild9 24/02/2008 03:21
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Quote :However, AMD’s overclocking margins haven’t been as large compared to what Intel’s modern processors offer.


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.
Wild9 24/02/2008 11:54
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Is it me or doesn't there appear ot be much of a difference between the 266 and newer 333MHz FSB speed?
darthpoik 26/02/2008 12:28
Hide
-0+
darthpoik
wild9 :
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.

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



Google Ads