 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Intel's Core 2 Extreme/Duo Processors July 13, 2006 |
|
 |
|
| |
Summary: Today's the day media outlets such as us are finally able to unveil all the details on Intel's next-generation Core 2 processors. The new chips are built on Intel's brand new Conroe CPU core, boasting more performance thanks to several improvements. In this article we go over what's changed in the new CPUs, discuss pricing, and evaluate performance. Inside you'll find benchmark numbers for both single-GPU and multi-GPU setups with ATI CrossFire. Do you really need a Core 2 processor to drive two X1900 XTX cards at 2048x1536? Find out in this article! (Hint: You won't want to skip the flight sim benches in this article)
 Introduction | Page:: ( 1 / 21 ) |
Why are we devoting so much time to the Pentium Pro in an article on Intel’s latest Core 2 processor you ask? Because the Pentium Pro’s P6 microarchitecture eventually went on to become Intel’s best-selling CPU, powering the guts behind the Pentium II and eventually the Pentium III, and in some ways you could definitely argue that some of the basic attributes found in today’s Core 2 CPUs dates back to the good ‘ol P6 Pentium Pro. Before we elaborate further on that though let’s briefly discuss Core’s predecessor, the Pentium 4/D
[image]
| <% print_image("01"); %> | <% print_image("02"); %> |
It has been over five years since Intel first launched their Netburst microarchitecture used in the Pentium 4. Netburst was designed in part to solve the Pentium III’s then biggest weakness, its inability to scale well beyond 1.2GHz. At the time the Pentium 4 debuted, the Pentium III was basically stuck right around 1.0GHz.
To solve this problem, Intel dramatically increased the number of pipeline stages in Pentium 4, going from 10 stages in the Pentium III to 20 stages in the original Pentium 4. By increasing the number of pipeline stages, Intel sacrificed the number of instructions that the CPU could execute per clock cycle (IPC) for higher clock speeds. Remember, as a general rule of thumb a CPU’s performance comes from two key areas: instructions per clock cycle (IPC) and clock speed. The formula is:
Performance = IPC x Clock Speed
With its 20-stage pipeline, Intel's Pentium 4 microarchitecture sacrificed the amount of work performed per clock for more stages. The upside of the P4’s twenty stage pipeline was that it allowed the processor to scale to clock frequencies that were much higher than Pentium III when using the same manufacturing process. The downside was that the Pentium 4 was doing less work per MHz.
Quite simply, with Pentium 4 Intel designed the P4 to run at high clock speeds to make up for the lower amount of work performed per clock cycle, the "IPC" from the above formula. Sheer clock frequency would essentially make up for the lower IPC from the processor performance equation. Of course, what Intel didn’t envision was what would happen when the Pentium 4 scaled to very high clock speeds. In order to keep processor yields high at faster clock speeds, they added 11 stages to their Prescott Pentium 4 CPU core (for a total of 31). At the time Prescott debuted in February, Intel was shooting to hit 4GHz by the end of the year. Ultimately though, as the Pentium 4’s clock speeds cranked up closer to 4GHz, power consumption became harder to keep in check, while the processor also began to generate an excessive amount of heat (this was partially due to increased gate leakage Intel encountered at 90-nm). A solution was needed and it was needed quickly.
Meanwhile, while all this was going on, Intel’s mobile design team in Israel had just successfully developed Pentium M, internally codenamed by Intel as “Banias”. (Pentium M) Banias improved upon the P6 microarchitecture, topping out at lower clock speeds than the Pentium 4, but still delivering good performance while also drawing much less power. Follow-up parts improved performance even further by integrating larger caches, and earlier this year Intel improved Pentium M even further by cranking up the bus speed to 667MHz FSB and incorporating SSE3 instructions among other improvements. This CPU, codenamed Yonah, is the Core Duo CPU that have been embraced by Apple.
For their Core 2 family of CPUs, Intel’s essentially taken the playbook used so successfully in the Core Duo and tweaked it into their latest next-generation CPU, previously codenamed “Conroe”. Up for review today are two of Intel’s higher-end Conroe CPUs, the Core 2 Extreme X6800 and the Core 2 Duo E6700. Let’s take a look at what’s new with these processors, and Core 2 in general.
| Core 2 Features | Page:: ( 2 / 21 ) |
Let’s take a look at Core 2’s key new features:
Intel Wide Dynamic Execution – Delivers more instructions per clock cycle, improving execution and energy efficiency. Every execution core within Core 2 is wider, allowing each core to complete up to four full instructions simultaneously using an efficient 14–stage pipeline (compared to 31 stages in Pentium D). Previous Pentium D/M CPUs were limited to just three simultaneous instructions.
Intel Intelligent Power Capability – Includes features that further reduce power consumption by intelligently powering on individual logic subsystems with the CPU only when required.
Intel Advanced Smart Cache – This includes a single, unified L2 cache that’s shared by both cores. This shared L2 cache helps to reduce power by minimizing memory traffic and increase performance by allowing one core to utilize the entire cache when the other core is idle.
Intel Smart Memory Access – Yet another feature that improves system performance by hiding memory latency and thus optimizing the use of data bandwidth out to the memory subsystem. This is accomplished in part via new cache prefetch algorithms, which allow the processor to distinguish as well as advanced prefetchers that reside in the L1 and L2 caches.
Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost – Now all 128–bit SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 instructions execute within only one cycle. This effectively doubles the execution speed for these instructions which are used widely in multimedia and graphics applications.
Other key pieces to Core 2 include:
Dual-Core Processing – Like Pentium D, Core 2 features two independent processor cores integrated on-chip. Each core runs at the same clock frequency, and shares the L2 cache as well as front-side bus.
2MB/4MB L2 Cache – Intel has outfitted Core 2 with up to 4MB of L2 cache. Lower-end Core 2 processors feature 2MB of L2 cache.
1,066MHz FSB – Like some Pentium Extreme Edition processors, Core 2 features a 266MHz quad-pumped front-side bus, for 1,066MHz effective. This provides up to 8.5GB/sec of peak bandwidth to the CPU.
Intel Virtualization Technology – Intel Virtualization Technology enables one hardware platform to function as multiple "virtual" platforms. For businesses, it offers improved manageability, limiting downtime and maintaining worker productivity by isolating computing activities into separate partitions. In the home, it allows creating unique user environments for multiple family members looking to use the same platform simultaneously.
Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology – An enhancement to Intel’s 32-bit architecture to enable the processor to access larger amounts of memory. With appropriate 64-bit supporting hardware and software, platforms based on an Intel processor supporting Intel EM64T can allow the use of extended virtual and physical memory.
Execute Disable Bit – Can improve protection against malicious "buffer overflow" attacks when properly enabled with a supporting operating system. Provides enhanced virus production when deployed with a supported operating system. The Execute Disable Bit allows memory to be marked as executable or non-executable, allowing the processor to raise an error to the operating system if malicious code attempts to run in non-executable memory, thereby preventing the code from infecting the system.
| The new CPUs | Page:: ( 3 / 21 ) |
With Core 2’s introduction, Intel’s unveiling a slew of new CPUs ranging in price from $183 all the way up to $999. The following chart summarizes the feature set of the new processors, as well as their pricing:
| Intel CPU Pricing Effective 7/23/06 | |||||
| Processor # | Clock Speed (GHz) | FSB | Cache | Packaging | Bulk Price |
| Core 2 EE X6800 | 2.93 | 1066 | 4MB | LGA775 | $999 |
| Core 2 Duo E6700 | 2.67 | 1066 | 4MB | LGA775 | $530 |
| Core 2 Duo E6600 | 2.4 | 1066 | 4MB | LGA775 | $316 |
| Core 2 Duo E6400 | 2.13 | 1066 | 2MB | LGA775 | $224 |
| Core 2 Duo E6300 | 1.86 | 1066 | 2MB | LGA775 | $183 |
| Pentium D 945 | 3.4 | 800 | 2x2MB | LGA775 | $163 |
| Pentium D 915 | 2.8 | 800 | 2x2MB | LGA775 | $133 |
| Pentium D 820 | 2.8 | 800 | 2x1MB | LGA775 | $113 |
| Pentium D 805 | 2.66 | 533 | 2x1MB | LGA775 | $93 |
| |||||
The Core 2 Duo E6700 is Intel’s highest-end Core 2 Duo CPU. The chip boasts a 1,066MHz FSB, 4MB L2 cache, and runs at 2.67GHz. Most importantly though for those of you on a budget, the chip sells for nearly half the price of an Extreme Edition X6800.
[image]
| <% print_image("03"); %> | <% print_image("04"); %> |
At the lower end of the Core 2 Duo spectrum are the E6400 and E6300 CPUs. These chips feature all the innovations found in higher-end Core 2 CPUs, only they ship at slower clock speeds and only contain half the L2 cache, 2MB versus the 4MB found in the more expensive Core 2 CPUs. Coming in at $224 and $183 though, these chips are much more affordable, particularly for a next-gen CPU, and we have a feeling they’ll probably be popular among enthusiasts on a budget. With its $316 price tag and 4MB L2 cache, the Core 2 Duo E6600 may also be a popular option for a lot of people.
Compatibility
Since they’re based on the same LGA775 packaging as the Pentium 4/Pentium D, Core 2 chips look physically indistinguishable from the older Pentium CPUs. To ease the transition to Core 2, many, but not all 975X motherboards are also compatible with the new CPUs, some with just a simple BIOS update. Motherboard manufacturers are quickly replacing their early non-compatible 975X motherboards with newer 975X motherboards that are ready for Core 2, so you’ll want to read the CPU compatibility list of any prospective 975X motherboard you may be considering carefully.
[image]
| <% print_image("05"); %> |
For chipsets, besides the 975X, Intel’s just released their P965 chipset, which is ready for Core 2. P965 offers several new features, including a new ICH8 South Bridge that features 6 3Gb/sec Serial ATA ports, Intel HD Audio, and 10 USB ports, but unlike 975X, the P965 chipset doesn’t support ATI’s CrossFire multi-GPU technology. This is because P965 is intended for the mainstream market, while 975X is for enthusiasts. ATI will also be releasing their next-generation RD600 chipset sometime in the late August/early September timeframe for Core 2.
On NVIDIA’s side, like 975X, nForce 4 SLI Intel Edition is technically Core 2-ready, although many early motherboards don’t offer the voltages necessary to support the new CPU and thus motherboard manufacturers have to replace their original boards with newer ones that are compatible with Core 2. ASUS for example is releasing their P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe to the market as we speak. Core 2 motherboards based on NVIDIA’s nForce 570 SLI and nForce 590 SLI are in the works from ASUS, DFI, ECS, and others and should begin hitting the market at the end of this month or the middle of August. We’ve been told that Dell’s XPS 700 for instance, will be powered by nForce 590 SLI.
In terms of cooling, existing coolers can also be used with Core 2. For our CPU testing, we used an off the shelf Zalman CNPS7700-Cu with Core 2 without running into any problems.
| System Setup | Page:: ( 4 / 21 ) |
System Setup
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 (2.8 GHz)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 (2.8 GHz)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2.6GHz)
Intel Core 2 Extreme Edition X6800
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965
Intel D975XBX Motherboard (975X)
MSI K9A Platinum (ATI Xpress 3200 AM2)
2GB Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C3
ATI Radeon X1900 XTX and Radeon X1900 CrossFire with CrossFire 6.6
Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2
DirectX 9.0c
Benchmarks
LAME MT MP3 Encoding (MS Compiler)
DivX Converter
3D Studio Max 8
Windows Media Encoder 9
3DMark06
F.E.A.R. 1.05
Pacific Fighters 4.04
Quake 4 1.2
Oblivion
SiSoft Sandra 2007
Call of Duty 1.3
Half-Life 2 Lost Coast
Cinebench 9.5
| Media encoding | Page:: ( 5 / 21 ) |
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9
DivX Converter
LAME MT MP3 Encoding
Notes
For video encoding tests, we encode a 165MB 720p video to a smaller sub-5MB file ready for streaming on the web. In this test both Core 2 processors manage to pull ahead of AMD’s Athlon 64 FX-62, with the Core 2 Extreme in particular finishing this test over 10 seconds faster than the FX-62. The Core 2 CPUs also pull ahead in DivX conversion and MP3 testing.
| Rendering | Page:: ( 6 / 21 ) |
3D Studio Max 8
Cinebench 9.5
Notes
The Core 2 CPUs continue to perform well in our rendering tests with 3D Studio Max and the Cinebench 9.5 benchmark.
| 3DMark 06 | Page:: ( 7 / 21 ) |
Futuremark 3DMark05
Notes
FutureMark’s 3DMark 06 is one of the few gaming-related apps on the market that’s capable of taking advantage of multi-threading, which explains why the FX-57 performs so poorly in comparison to the other dual-core processors we tested, including the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. You can really see the advantage of dual-core in 3DMark’s CPU test.
| F.E.A.R. | Page:: ( 8 / 21 ) |
F.E.A.R.
Notes
The Core 2 CPUs put up an impressive showing in F.E.A.R., managing to pull ahead of the FX-62 by 14% for the X6800 and 9% for the E6700. At 1600x1200 the burden shifts from the CPU to the GPU and performance is basically the same regardless of the CPU used.
While it sports pretty graphics, F.E.A.R., like most games hasn’t been programmed to take advantage of today’s latest dual-core processors, and as such the FX-57 is able to slightly outpace the newer X2 5000+. Let’s take a look at performance with one game that does take advantage of dual-core: Quake 4!
| Quake 4 | Page:: ( 9 / 21 ) |
Quake 4
Notes
Here we can truly see the benefits of dual-core processing, the Athlon 64 FX-57, the fastest gaming processor you could buy at the end of last year (alongside the X2 4800+), is trounced by the dual-core CPUs we tested. Meanwhile, the Core 2 CPUs continue to show their prowess, although at 800x600 the margins are a little closer here than they were in F.E.A.R. Next let’s take a look at another game that’s been patched to take advantage of dual-core, Call of Duty 2.
| Call of Duty 2 | Page:: ( 10 / 21 ) |
Call of Duty 2
Notes
Under Call of Duty 2 all the processors we tested here perform practically identical to each other, even at low-resolutions where the burden is traditionally placed on the CPU. We ran tests earlier this year with an earlier build of CoD 2 and found little or no improvements from dual-core, even with the latest build it looks like things haven’t changed much.
Flight sims are typically the most CPU-bound applications, so let’s move on to Pacific Fighters next!
| Pacific Fighters | Page:: ( 11 / 21 ) |
Pacific Fighters
Notes
The Core 2 processors really pulled away from Athlon 64 FX-62 in Pacific Fighters, at 800x600 the margin separating the FX-62 from the Core 2 Extreme is nearly 30! The Core 2 Duo finished ahead by 22%. Even at 1600x1200 we’re seeing a performance difference of over 25% for both processors.
| Oblivion | Page:: ( 12 / 21 ) |
Oblivion
Notes
We split up our Oblivion testing into two areas, outdoors and city. We’re running our city testing in the market district of Imperial Village, where we encountered several NPCs going about their daily chores. The outdoors area is the same mountains area we use for our video card testing.
In Oblivion the Core 2 CPUs put up the best performance in our city area at 800x600x32. Here the Core 2 Extreme finishes ahead of the FX-62 by 17%. Again, once the screen resolution is increased to 1600x1200, the burden shifts from the CPU to the GPU and the difference between the various CPUs flattens out.
| HL2 Lost Coast | Page:: ( 13 / 21 ) |
Lost Coast
| SiSoft Sandra 2007 | Page:: ( 14 / 21 ) |
| CrossFire w/Oblivion | Page:: ( 15 / 21 ) |
Oblivion
Notes
Even when running dual Radeon X1900 cards in CrossFire mode at high res we saw tangible performance gains with the Core 2 CPU when compared against AMD’s Athlon 64 FX-62. At 1600x1200x32 the X6800 outruns the FX-62 by 18% for instance in the city area. Up in the Jarrell mountains however outdoors performance is pretty similar across both AMD and Intel platforms.
| CrossFire w/FEAR | Page:: ( 16 / 21 ) |
F.E.A.R.
| CrossFire w/Pacific Fighters | Page:: ( 17 / 21 ) |
Pacific Fighters
Notes
Based on our single-GPU results, it should probably come as no surprise to see Core 2 continuing to scale with the CrossFire rig at high-res. Even at 2048x1536 with 4xAA/8xAF, a setting where you’re traditionally very GPU-bound, the Core 2 CPUs come out ahead by double-digit margins.
| CrossFire w/Quake 4 | Page:: ( 18 / 21 ) |
Quake 4
| CrossFire CoD2 | Page:: ( 19 / 21 ) |
Call of Duty 2
| CrossFire w/HL2 Lost Coast | Page:: ( 20 / 21 ) |
Lost Coast
| Conclusion | Page:: ( 21 / 21 ) |
But now comes the difficult part, availability. Here things are a little more uncertain. Intel expects the first boxed Core 2 Extreme CPUs and systems to be available on July 27th, approximately two weeks from today. Meanwhile, the first Core 2 Duo parts and systems should show up 30 days after that. This means that unless you’re willing to fork over $1,000 for a new Core 2 Extreme processor, you may be waiting until late August before you can get your hands on a Core 2 Duo processor or system. Considering how similar the Core 2 Duo is to the Core 2 Extreme, spending the extra $400+ is hard for us to justify. Is an unlocked multiplier and 2.93GHz clock speed really enough to justify the extra money? For some enthusiasts, yes, but for most users, the lower-priced Core 2 Duo chips are the more feasible purchase.
While the performance of today’s Core 2 already looks good, the future looks even better. Intel plans to take the Core 2 Extreme Edition to 3.2GHz by the end of the year, while the follow-up to today’s Core 2 Extreme, Intel’s Quad-Core SKU, Kentsfield is on tap for release in the first quarter of next year.
What’s AMD’s response? In the short term, price cuts. We’ve been told to expect severe cuts on the entire Athlon 64 lineup later this month, including AMD’s latest AM2-based X2 CPUs. Later this year AMD plans to introduce faster X2 and FX CPUs, while AMD’s also hard at work on their dual-core, dual-socket platform for enthusiasts codenamed 4x4. The 4x4 connotation indicates AMD’s plans for the platform to roll over anything that gets in its way, including Core 2 Extreme. If it’s able to pull this off is anyone’s guess at this point, and you can expect that any dual-socket, dual-CPU platform isn’t going to be cheap. AMD’s true answer to the Core 2 family really won’t come until their upcoming K8L core debuts next year.
So there you have it, Intel’s back in the leadership position when it comes to performance. Both Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Core 2 Duo E6700 clearly outperformed the best processor AMD currently has to offer. You can expect Intel’s hard at work cranking out as many Core 2 processors as they possibly can, as clearly they’ve got quite a gem on their hands with their latest CPU.