backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by ksherman.. on Jul 14 at 9:31 PM
DailyTech's roundup of reviews from around the web for Friday

Intel Core 2 Duo
@ Anandtech
@ PC Perspective
@ Phoronix
@ Hardware Secrets
@ Hot Hardware
@ MadboxPC
@ Bytesector
@ Overclockers Australia
@ The Tech Report
@ GotFrag
@ Trusted Reviews
@ Legion Hardware
@ TweakTown
@ ExtremeTech
@ Legit Reviews
@ Sharky Extreme
@ GamePyre
@ Hardware Analysis
@ Sudhian
@ MadShrimps
@ Firing Squad


Motherboards
Foxconn WinFast 6100K8MA-RS Motherboard @ Hardware Secrets
ECS KA3-MVP Extreme Motherboard @ motherboards.org

Memory
OCZ 2GB PC2-8000 Titanium Alpha VX2 @ Techgage

Enclosures & Cooling
Ultra MicroFly Micro ATX Case @ 3dGameMan

Power Supplies
picoPSU - The World's Smallest PSU @ VIA Arena

Mobile Devices
Palm Treo 700p @ XYZ Computing

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
hardocp
By unparalleled intellect on 7/14/2006 1:33:32 AM , Rating: 1
You are missing hardocp's series of GPU... I mean CPU reviews. You know, the ones where they intentionally cripple Intel by turning off the power saving features.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/division.html?divisi...

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE...
"The ONLY difference that we experienced is that we did have to lower a couple of settings with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform compared to the Intel platforms. This was the internal and external shadows. Luckily the shadow sliders there are “notched” so it is easy to know exactly what position they are in. With the Intel CPUs we were able to have this 5 notches up which is in the middle of the slider for those shadow options. When we tried these same settings on the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform we found performance to be overall lower than the Intel CPUs and not playable. By moving those sliders down a couple of notches to 3 notches on the slider performance was now playable."




RE: hardocp
By Ard on 7/14/2006 1:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
They didn't cripple them at all, they simply showed what you can expect to see when you're playing at high resolutions. And unless I missed something, they showed Core to put out less power than AMD's CPUs. In any event, yes, we all know that Core 2 is going to be faster at lower resolutions, but, last time I checked, no real gamer plays at resolutions below 1280x1024. More to the point, once you hit that resolution and start turning on AA/AF, you're going to wind up with a very GPU limited scenario, which means that no amount of CPU power is going to improve your FPS.

So what's HardOCP's point? That there is no sensible reason in jumping to Core 2 if you already have a good setup and all you do is game. If you're doing editing, encoding, and things of that nature, then there certainly is. But if all you do is game, then Core 2 isn't going to benefit you unless you're sitting there playing at 1024x768.


RE: hardocp
By Lakku on 7/14/2006 1:53:21 AM , Rating: 2
Well, ES 4 is a bad example for them to be using to compare CPUs. It's extremely GPU bound, and they aren't even testing it at high resolutions. It's at 1280x1024. The apples to apples comparison puts Core 2 around 6 to 8fps ahead on average, for a CPU costing half as much. These tests from HardOCP are good for GPUs, but not CPUs. Why? Because it's not fair to cripple a CPU because of the GPU, since when you put in a new video card, say G80 or R600, the Core 2 will give you more benefit as it outperforms the FX-62 by a good margin when not GPU bound. So yes, even with a good setup, it can make sense to jump ship, unless of course you have an FX-62. If you don't, and most don't, the Core 2 makes a lot of sense at around 500 dollars.


RE: hardocp
By unparalleled intellect on 7/14/2006 2:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that's my point. It isn't really a CPU review.

However, their crappy power consumption review was what my remark on crippling was about. They turned off Intel's power saving tech and conducted that test. That's plain stupid in my opinion.


RE: hardocp
By unparalleled intellect on 7/14/2006 2:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE...

Read the results. Hardocp may be the only site out there that shows power consumption numbers in that range for that set up. I don't really care who uses less power. But the fact of the matter is that the power saving tech should not be crippled. I fail to see why their site is the only one of what I have read that does this.


RE: hardocp
By Ard on 7/14/2006 2:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
Well, to be fair, they disabled all power saving tech, SpeedStep and CnQ. As to why, they said it had something to do with it impacting the numbers. In either case, Core 2 still draws less power by far. The power saving tech would have just widened the lead.


RE: hardocp
By Kougar on 7/14/2006 2:54:54 AM , Rating: 3
Uh, so what is the point of doing this though regardless? I can't think of a single reason why this would be done by a user except when overclocking. I do not see a single reason to disable those features and then use them as final results unless they intentioanlly want to skew the numbers, which they did a convincing job of. To date those are the worst power figures I've seen yet, and I've seen quite a few. I haven't even dared look to deeply into their main program benching article...


RE: hardocp
By coldpower27 on 7/14/2006 3:49:31 AM , Rating: 2

It's not use, the resuls there jsut don't give me any useful information.

I already know at 16x12 4XAA/8XAF in new games the 7900 GTX i s the bottleneck.

I would never turn off EIST, so completely useless review...


mobile?
By Visual on 7/14/2006 10:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
a somewhat offtopic question, but when are mobile variants of the core 2 duo supposed to come? how will they be called?

are the performance/watt differences high between core duo and core 2 duo? in favor of which one?

is there a chance we could soon see a laptop using the desktop core 2 duo chips?




RE: mobile?
By NerV04 on 7/14/2006 12:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
i think its called merom...
which is the one im really waiting for :)

and i think its supposed to be compatible with existing core socket....is that right?


RE: mobile?
By ksherman on 7/14/2006 1:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
it is supposed to be pin compatible with current Yonah Core Duos.

I too eagerly await Merom. Esp if it has performance numbers like the Core 2... *drool*

I sure hope Apple puts it in their MacBook... they certainly will in the MacBook Pro....


RE: mobile?
By shecknoscopy on 7/14/2006 1:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
... or commell's mini-itx boards'll still take it.

Actually, anybody know if the Yonah-compatible boards'll need new voltage regulation to accept Merom (ala' the last generation Pentium D boards not being viable with Conroe)? Or, if I were to come across a MODT yonah board, could I just grabs me a merom and plop 'er in?

...not sure why I resorted to an accent in the last line there, but ours in not to wonder why...


RE: mobile?
By ksherman on 7/14/2006 3:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
asi stated, im pretty sure that yonah and merom are pin compatible. So supposedly, any board that takes a Yonah, also takes a Merom, provided the BIOS supports the new chip.


RE: mobile?
By shecknoscopy on 7/14/2006 4:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, sure. Pin compatibility is good and all, as is a BIOS refresh, but there's still the issue of whether voltages can be properly regulated for the new, lower-V chip. If you were to plop a conroe into, say, an ASUS P5N32, I'm not sure you'd be happy with the result. Well, maybe if you were a hardcore AMD fanboy, but if you were looking for a working processor/mobo, the results'd be "less than optimal." My question's really whether the same is true for Yonah/Merom, or if it *really* is just an issue of a BIOS refresh.


RE: mobile?
By ksherman on 7/14/2006 9:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
yes, all it will take is a BIOS support to get a Merom working in current Yonah compatible boards. Its a little different than the Conroe compatibility. Intel made it easy for the notebook manufacturers not to have to redesign the laptops they just designed


oc results?
By Visual on 7/14/2006 6:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
lots of conroe reviews, in fact too much to bother checking them all :p
so, which ones have some 4ghz benches?




RE: oc results?
By jmke on 7/14/2006 7:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
RE: oc results?
By Visual on 7/14/2006 11:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
that are "trendlines", i.e. worthless speculation.
they only managed to get their core 2 x up to the pitiful 3.6ghz, shame


Hexus
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 7/14/2006 7:38:14 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Hexus
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 7/14/2006 7:40:19 AM , Rating: 3
Overclocking
By ksherman on 7/14/2006 10:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
any of those reviews overclock a E6400 or E6300?

It was missing from the AT review and am interestd in those two chips overclocking ability.




RE: Overclocking
By jmke on 7/14/2006 10:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
X-Bit Labs OCs lower Conroe

you will run into a motherboard related FSB wall before you reach the CPU limit, E6300 up to 2.94Ghz with 420Mhz FSB (7x multi)


RE: Overclocking
By ksherman on 7/14/2006 11:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
thanks for the heads up! looks like the sweet king is the E6600 though... it is *only* $361. Unfortunately that looks to be over my limit... maybe the E6400 will do me good someday... for now i will have to drage around on my ancient X2 3800+... :-)


AnandTech?
By OddTSi on 7/14/2006 1:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
Where's the AT review?




what a load of hype.
By raven3x7 on 7/14/2006 7:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
How come many of these "reviews" contradict each other and differ from each other so much that configuration alone can't be the reason. I say we wait till Core2 gets released for the real deal. I have no doubt that Core2 will be better than A64X2 but most if not all of these "reviews" are simply unreliable




RE: what a load of hype.
By jmke on 7/14/2006 7:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
how are they "unreliable"...


ChileHardware
By juanflaiter on 7/14/2006 8:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Intel Core 2 Roundup:
E6600, E6700, X6800 v/s FX-62, FX-60, 5000+, 4600+, 4000+

http://www.chilehardware.com/modules.php?op=modloa...




RE: ChileHardware
By ksherman on 7/14/2006 9:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
en espanol :-)


Hell Yea
By Aeros on 7/14/2006 12:55:14 AM , Rating: 2
Woot!




Core 2
By JackPack on 7/14/2006 1:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
By crystal clear on 7/14/2006 4:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
Intel decides to release a B2 stepping of its conroe processors.
Reviews done by websites on Engineering Samples are not be
relied on,because many problems exist that made Intel come
up with the B2 stepping.




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki