System Checkup
We used our Core 2 Duo E8500 engineering sample (3.16 GHz at FSB1333 system speed) for our overclocking tests. Since we wanted the results to fit into our CPU Charts to allow for easy performance comparisons across various platforms and between both AMD and Intel, we worked with the components used when we first created these charts in the summer of 2007 instead of the new Reference Test System. While the CPU Charts system is still up to date (an X38 Gigabyte X38-DQ6 and a Foxconn GeForce 8800GTX), it also offers a nice setting to facilitate overclocking. The Gigabyte BIOS includes an auto overclocking setting, which automatically adjusts voltages once you increase the Front Side Bus speed. Note that the CPU Charts test system does not support DDR3 memory, but only DDR2-800 (which is not much of an issue from a performance standpoint). You really need high DDR3 memory speeds that DDR3-1600 offers to at least get a small benefit compared to DDR2-800. You will find the overclocking test setup below.
We used the Tom’s Reference System to analyze and compare the power efficiency of the new 45-nm Core 2 Duo E8000 processor against three older generations of Intel processors.
Our Reference System, however, which we use as the base line for many reviews and roundups these days, is based on DDR3 RAM. We used this system based on the Asus P5E Deluxe (X38 chipset) for the power consumption and efficiency analysis for Pentium 4, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processors. The RAM speed we selected was DDR3-800 for the FSB800 processor generation, as the 1:1 FSB-to-memory ratio is the fastest setting we could select, and DDR3-1066 for FSB1333 CPUs.
Core 2 Duo E8000 Overclocking
The overclocking approach for mainstream Intel processors is always the same; since you cannot increase the processor multiplier, you have to increase the second factor, which is the Front Side Bus. Every high-end motherboard based on Intel’s P35 or X38 chipset will allow overclocking from the default 333-MHz (FSB1333 quad pumped) to at least 450 MHz. Well designed motherboards will extend the threshold beyond 500 MHz.
- Previous page The Tale Of Wolfdale: Power...
- Next page First Step: 400 MHz FSB And 3.8 GHz
- 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...
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.
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.