Print 58 comment(s) - last by qwertzuiop.. on Nov 4 at 10:38 PM

Core 2 Duo, the sequel

Intel’s latest roadmap outlines plans for Conroe’s 2007 refresh. The upcoming refresh of Intel’s Core 2 Duo processor will arrive at the same time as the upcoming Bearlake 3 series of chipsets. This will be the first time Intel has refreshed its recently released Conroe architecture. The refresh is quite minor this time around. Nevertheless the Conroe refresh raises the front-side bus up to 1333 MHz and adds Intel Trusted Execution Technology.

Intel Conroe Refresh
E6850 3 GHz
1333 MHz 4MB
E6800 2.93 GHz 1066 MHz 4MB
E6750 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz 4MB
E6650 2.33 GHz 1333 MHz 4MB

Three refreshed models will debut with the upcoming Bearlake 3 series chipsets. These models include the Core 2 Duo E6850, E6750 and E6650 clocked at 3 GHz, 2.66 GHz and 2.33 MHz respectively. At this point in time it doesn’t appear Intel has any plans for its Core 2 Extreme lineup, in terms of dual-core processors that is. Kentsfield Core 2 Extreme QX6700 will remain as Intel’s flag-ship enthusiast product.

In addition to the refreshed Conroe Core 2 Duo lineup, Intel will release one more 1066 MHz front-side bus endowed Core 2 Duo product. The upcoming Core 2 Duo E6800 will arrive clocked at 2.93 GHz—similar to Intel’s Core 2 Extreme X6800. The processor is expected to be Intel’s flagship processor for mainstream segments. Aside from the locked multiplier, the Core 2 Duo E6800 is identical to the Core 2 Extreme X6800.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Pirks on 10/17/2006 3:17:50 PM , Rating: 1
where did you get that clock data on X2 6000?

By webdawg77 on 10/17/2006 3:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
AMD’s mainstream dual-core lineup will receive a couple new updates as well. Also arriving in November will be new Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 5600+, and 5400+. This will be AMD’s first new Athlon 64 X2 processor launch since the launch of the socket AM2 platform—Athlon 64 X2 5200+ excluded. These processors will have 3.0 GHz and 2.8 GHz clock speeds respectively.

By Pirks on 10/17/2006 6:49:10 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, you can call single core PCs a low end budget drap or whatever - I don't care what ppl call 'em as long as $150 single core Athlon 64 beats any $150 dualcore to death in the games I play. When dual-core friendly games appear next year or maybe in 2008 - THEN it'll be different story. maybe.

By ScythedBlade on 10/17/2006 5:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
They won't ... they can easily just up the clockspeed. My Allendale is running at 3.6 Ghz ... no sweat, on air. What makes you think Intel won't just increase the Ghz ...

It's so sad. AMD WAS good, but it was crap at being overclocked. COMPLETE CRAP. This is my first built Intel computer ... and a 69% overclock from 2.13 to 3.6? ... Dude ... it's nowhere near the 200 and 400 unstable Mhz overclock I got on AMD processors ... (Dude, you can even get a 50% overclock [>1000Mhz] at less than STOCK voltages) And I'm using "value" memory for my Intel system, too.

By othercents on 10/17/2006 5:41:07 PM , Rating: 4
It's so sad. AMD WAS good, but it was crap at being overclocked.

Last year everyone was singing the praises of AMD and how Intel could not be overclocked, but now everyone is bashing AMD and singing the praises of Intel. Keep in mind that Intel released a new processor design and AMD has not done one yet. They will and when it happens I would expect everyone to start bashing Intel and singing the praises of AMD again.

This reminds me of the stock market where everyone talks bad about the one stock that is really low. However if you are smart and BUY low then when the it starts to climb you will make money. Counter intuitive. However I can't wait to see what AMD comes up with especially their total package with ATI chipset and video cards.


By ScythedBlade on 10/17/2006 7:52:45 PM , Rating: 3
Actually ... ummm ... I didn't "hand-pick" stuff ... in fact, I was only expecting my thing to go to at most 2.4Ghz ... all my parts are mainstream/cheap stuff ... it just turns out that the stuff pwns ... (Intel's stuff was VERY overclockable ... except it just didn't yield performance during the Netburst era) ... There's the counter to your post, anyhow.

By ScythedBlade on 10/17/2006 9:31:16 PM , Rating: 1
24 hours orthos

wait, how about i just put an end:

refer to


By Etern205 on 10/18/2006 10:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
The reason why your rig fails from overclocking is because you do not know how to overclock correctly. Overclocking a rig does not mean you just over clock a cpu and that's it. There are other things to consider as well such as ram and FSB. Also stock cooler are no use once you OC a cpu, you need better 3rd party cooler or some might go for water cooling.

By ScythedBlade on 10/18/2006 6:44:06 PM , Rating: 3
The stock cooler that Intel gives you is enough. My temps never reach throttle point (76C or so), so thats how. I also got 2 Gbs of Patriot ram for 120 dollars ... but now at newegg, they upped the price to 250. Damn em .... making THAT much more profit .... wholesale price was probably very cheap.

By Unknown255 on 10/18/2006 6:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, the value ram tested on Anandtech have been reaching high clocks, but the DDR ram when you bought it might have not been so good. Therefore, it's most likely the ram's fault. Then again, you might have a bad CPU from a batch ... and you can always divide it less for a better CPU overclock. From what I can see from forum browsing, however, is that many more people are getting over 1Ghz overclocks on Core 2 Duo, even on value ram (most likely because of the increased latency on the 965 chipset helps also) than 400 Mhz overclocks on AMD processors (referring to older Athlons anyway).

{BTW, I found this great deal a long time ago on You can get a kick-ass Arctic Freezer Pro 64 or 7 at At 17 dollars and possibly better than the Zalman 9500 at cooling, I would consider it cheap.}

By qwertzuiop on 11/4/2006 10:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
You can also clock down the RAM to lower dividers than 1:1 (I think the least ist 2:3 on the Boards that use dividers) w/o loosing as much performance as you lost on the nForce 2 based socket A systems.

By Jedi2155 on 10/18/2006 1:42:12 AM , Rating: 3
Why spend money on the aftermarket? Its because you can get better than top of the line performance at a signifcantly lower cost. You can't buy a 3.6 GHz Core 2 Duo, even if you could it would cost/benefit is far less than just overclocking something that is a quarter of the cost.

I may be the extreme, but I am contemplating getting a Quad Core due to the fact that my multi-tasking seems to be constantly putting dual cores to 100% usage. However the market is out there and I'm just trying to say that i'm one of them waiting anxiously for quad-cores.

I'm a big gamer as well and i've done my fair share of research into multi-threaded gaming which is currently showing that a lot of developers are getting into it. More and more games like Company of Heroes are also supporting dual core and we can only wait to see more.

By Pirks on 10/18/2006 1:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
well, I've got the impression that one needs expensive water cooling to buy E6300 and then reach same speed as an extreme C2D chip (stock 3 GHz for X6800 or close to 3 GHz... forgot the number), and in the end it'll cost the same amount of dough. so my premise was that C2D extreme (X6800 that is) equals to decent OC watercooling setup price-wise. am I wrong here?

By Joepublic2 on 10/18/2006 5:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. I have a 6300 (1860Mhz) @ 2870Mhz (passed dual prime at 3325Mhz with a friend's DDR2-1000). At default vcore (1.325v), it reaches 60C dual prime95 with the stock cooler (which is perfectly fine). Both cores are prime stable with 1.2v @ 2870Mhz; it doesn't break 52C with the stock heatsink's fan only spinning up halfway. My results aren't atypical, either.

By Pirks on 10/18/2006 8:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
well, if this is really easy to hit 3 GHz with E6300 on air... I guess I should try it then. or maybe wait a little till 65nm athlons are out and see if it's gonna be as easy to hit 3GHz with them as well. thanks anyway, I'll try to find info on some soft OC setups where you can change CPU/RAM/GPU clocks right in windows w/o reboot so that I'd be able to OC system for some heavy game but run it slow and quiet most of the time (i.e. when I don't play) - any thoughts/advice on that aspect?

By Jedi2155 on 10/20/2006 9:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
I remember Anandtech hit 4 GHz with a ES E6600 on Air (Sunbeam's Tunic Tower 120 Cooler). I've found that one should be able to easily hit 3 GHz with a good motherboard and good air cooling.

By JackPack on 10/17/2006 5:46:24 PM , Rating: 1
LOL. Too "extremist."

How's your K6 working out for you?

By thecoolnessrune on 10/17/2006 9:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
actually I have a K6-2 400Mhz being used as a test server (its installing Ubuntu right at this moment) it seems to be working out pretty good :P

By Pirks on 10/18/2006 1:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
I have no issues with 2.2 GHz K7 Barton playing games (UFO: Aftershock is the only one that needs much fastyer CPU) and I can watch Hi Def video up to 1080p, but NOT with stock windows/qt codecs - gotta get some "aftermarket" codecs, so to say (coreavc - hint hint!)

Faster How?
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2006 3:20:49 PM , Rating: 1
Why does the E6650 run at 2.33GHz? A faster FSB but slower overall clock speed doesn't make it faster. The current E6600 runs at 2.4GHz. So how do they figure the slower clocked one deserves the higher model number?

Besides, I'm already running my E6600 at a 1333FSB @ 3.0GHz.

RE: Faster How?
By Spivonious on 10/17/2006 3:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering that myself. Perhaps the faster bus gives more overall performance than the faster CPU clock? Someone should take an X6800 and clock it to 333x7 and compare it to the 266x9 E6600.

RE: Faster How?
By Spivonious on 10/17/2006 3:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a minute, we can already do that since it's a lower multiplier. I'll let you know when I get home :)

RE: Faster How?
By soydeedo on 10/17/2006 3:49:22 PM , Rating: 1
note the higher cache. iirc the jump from 2mb to 4mb equates to a rough 10% increase in performance so that combined with the increased fsb should hopefully up the ante a little. =)

wonder if it'll be as oc friendly though once that happens...

RE: Faster How?
By webdawg77 on 10/17/2006 3:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
The E6600 already had 4MB of L2 cache.

RE: Faster How?
By soydeedo on 10/17/2006 4:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
oh doh. for some reason i was thinking of the 6300. i guess since it was at the bottom of the list there. hah.

RE: Faster How?
By MonkeyPaw on 10/17/2006 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 4
Intel's model numbers have never been directly connected with performance. The party line from Intel says that the model numbers are intended to uniquely identify each model based on specific features (like core speed, bus speed, cache size, CPU extensions, TDP, etc). That doesn't make such a scheme right, nor does it does make it easy for the average customer to figure out, but Intel never claimed a higher model number equals a faster processor. Just more technological name games.

RE: Faster How?
By JackPack on 10/17/2006 5:43:06 PM , Rating: 3
A 266 MHz increase in FSB more than makes up for a 67 MHz loss in core frequency. Of course, you'll have a couple of outliers, but overall, the E6650 number is accurate.

RE: Faster How?
By othercents on 10/17/2006 5:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
A Processor refresh even if it is the exact same ghz and same bus could still increase performance especially if they made some core changes which they probably did.


Well, this totally sucks...
By althaz on 10/18/2006 1:22:05 AM , Rating: 3
This a bit of a blow to overclockers. Especially those looking at the E6600. Overclocking means increasing the FSB. As an example, my E6300 is at 3.29Ghz which means I"m running a 1880Mhz FSB (470x4). The only thing that tops out there is my RAM, which is tied to FSB speed (so it's at 470x2, or 940Mhz). Now, assuming I had a capable E6600, I'd be able to hit 4.23Ghz (I probably wouldn't but let's just say I did). With the new one (E6650), I'd be stuck at 470x4 (1880)FSB with a clockspeed of 470x7, ->3.29Ghz, which is what my E6300 is doing comfortably right now. Suxorz I say. Suxorz. Stock performance should go up marginally, but you'll require more expensive memory (DDR2-667 minimum) and some motherboards (some of the ones without an Intel chipset) won't be able to run them at all. Glad I already got mine.

RE: Well, this totally sucks...
By Lazarus Dark on 10/18/2006 4:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
these basically look like factory overclocked procs to me.
Intel sees everyone was ocing conroe super stable and said lets do that and then sell them more expensive to the non overclockers. so we all get cheaper c2d's while the unsuspecting are duped into buying more expensive factory oc'd chips.

but I feel sorry for anyone buying the new asus 590 mobo or any nf570 mobo. they simply wont support these high fsb's. thats why i wait for 680i.

RE: Well, this totally sucks...
By ShapeGSX on 10/18/2006 10:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
You guys aren't calculating things correctly.

These new chips could have higher multipliers than the Core 2 Duo chips that are on the market now.

RE: Well, this totally sucks...
By Helbore on 10/18/2006 2:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't all processors "factory-overclocked processors?" I mean, if a chip performs well, it becomes a high-clocked CPU and is sold at a premium. If it performs poorly, it get a low clock rate and is sold as a budget CPU. They don't make lines of 2.33Ghz, 2.6Ghz and 3Ghz processors. They make one line and split them up according to the quality at which they come out (and many go in the bin!)

Overclocking is just us doing what the Intel (or AMD) QA department does, except we have different standards to work by. The pro QA dept is more stringent about compatibility and reliablity with other stock components and we run our QA tests with 12" high coolers and indusrial-strength fans, dipped in liquid nitrogen baths ;)

RE: Well, this totally sucks...
By Joepublic2 on 10/18/2006 5:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
While what you said is true, a lot of the time CPUs are clocked far below what they're capable of in order to create a market segment. Higher clocked processors aren't necessarily more expensive because they're one in a thousand; they're often expensive because they're not crippled out of the box like their lower clocked brethren.

decreased OC potential
By ksherman on 10/17/2006 4:07:40 PM , Rating: 4
you know, we are likely to see a decrease in OC potential with these new chips. Think about it...

Previously, with a locked multiplier, in order to overclock, we had to bump the FSB a ton. With these new chips, they have A) increased the "default" FSB, meaning we wont be able to push it as far (past the default,% wise) and with a decreased multiplier, we will be further limited.

RE: decreased OC potential
By Chillin1248 on 10/17/2006 5:31:57 PM , Rating: 3
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the C2D chips able to lower their multiplier but not raise it? I seem to remember ASUS giving their motherboards this feature.


RE: decreased OC potential
By StevoLincolnite on 10/18/2006 10:49:34 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, theres a handy utility for Intel processors that use Speed Step technology. (Or what ever they are calling it now). It mainly used for Dothan and Yonah based Pentium M laptops. BUT I think the Core based series is based upon that processor deseign anyway, What I am getting at is that this handy little program messes with the Speed Step, Allowing you to select higher multipliers. (Managed to get my Acer Aspire 1680 1.6ghz Yonah to 2.4ghz!) If you google around a bit I'm sure theres something around. Even if you "Pencil" something on the processor. (A-la the AMD thunderbird processors). Or cover a pin. (Pentium 3 coppermine I think). Where there is a way, someone will find ways around Intel and AMD's Multiplier lock.

What's the point?
By RussianSensation on 10/17/2006 4:20:57 PM , Rating: 5
The slides published by web-site claim that Intel will release Intel Core 2 Duo processors with E6850, E6750 and E6650 with 3.0GHz, 2.66GHz and 2.33GHz clock-speeds respectively and 1333MHz processor system bus in Q3 2007 Source:

1. I just got E6400 and will hopefully overclock it past 3.0ghz (so FSB will > than 1333 even). So why wait until Q3 of next year to get the same 65nm processors?

2. I would be far more interested in second generation dual core processors by late 2007 if anything.

Also having 3.0ghz by Q3 2007 seems ridiculously slow. I would have expected c2d to be close to 3.6ghz by end of next year given samples often overclock to those speeds today. With improved yeilds over time, 3.6 shouldn't be a problem. I guess they are going to milk the market for as long as they can.

RE: What's the point?
By natewildes on 10/17/2006 4:46:23 PM , Rating: 3
The point is that for overclockers, the price of the lower FSB chips will fall, meaning you pay less for a chip you can OC to the same OC of a similar 1333MHz FSB chip. Assuming the possible percentage overclock drops, and the actual overclock stays the same, that is.

By Smurfer2 on 10/17/2006 6:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Are these the 45nm Wolfdale processors or not?

RE: Wolfdale
By Russell on 10/17/2006 7:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not. Those are supposed to have more cache.

These will come out before the Wolfies and, as such, won't be very good buys at the time (even though they look that way now).

RE: Wolfdale
By coldpower27 on 10/17/2006 7:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
These are Conroe refreshes, Wolfdale and Ridgefield 45nm Core 2 Duo's have an unknown release date at this time.

RE: Wolfdale
By Smurfer2 on 10/17/2006 8:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't think they were, but my latest info on Wolfdale puts their release in the same time frame, with faster clock speeds. Guess we will see how this plays out.

Nice, but...
By exdeath on 10/17/2006 3:06:10 PM , Rating: 1
I want quad core!

I've implemented custom thread pooling as it would be used in a game oriented scenario and I'm predicting all 4 cores would hit 100% CPU utilization.


RE: Nice, but...
By djtodd on 10/17/2006 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I'm waiting for quad-core before I upgrade.

RE: Nice, but...
By therealnickdanger on 10/17/2006 3:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
I've got a "lowly" G965 board and E6300. My next upgrade will be a C2Q... when their prices are forced downward by the refresh.

RE: Nice, but...
By VooDooAddict on 10/17/2006 7:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've fighting not buying a e6300 and a G965 to save for the C2Q... Unfortunetly my main little SFF (Socket754 nForce3 Soltek) is becoming unstable.

Sounds like Nvidia nomenclature...
By wingless on 10/17/2006 6:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
I know im not the only one that thinks all this sounds rather familiar. Nvidia names their cars in a similar fashion. I cant wait until the 7XXX series if thats the case!

RE: Sounds like Nvidia nomenclature...
By stmok on 10/18/2006 12:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? They're all doing it!

ATI, Nvidia, AMD, Intel...4-digit marketing labels is the current "in" thing for tech companies. :)

By Pirks on 10/17/2006 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 1
I love the fact that Intel dual-cores won't be called Extreme anymore - that'll move prices in the right direction, hehe

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA
Related Articles
Intel "Bearlake" Plans Unveiled
October 17, 2006, 1:24 PM
Intel "Kentsfield" Performance Explored
September 25, 2006, 6:35 PM
Here Comes "Conroe"
July 13, 2006, 12:47 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki