Higher Clock Speeds, No TLB Issues and Better Pricing: The New Phenom
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 27, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Wolfy, How Fast Art Thou?
One of the first things we did when we got our hands on Intel's 45nm quad core parts was determine if they were any faster than the 65nm chips at the same frequency. It turns out that the performance difference wasn't huge, but the power savings at the (theoretically) same cost makes the move to 45nm a step forward.
We never did the same for the 45nm dual core (Wolfdale) parts, so here you go.
The new retail Wolfdale (45nm dual core) based CPUs come with a super low profile, very quiet heatsink:
The old heatsink (left), the new heatsink (right)
It's so cute
Intel is taking power and performance per watt more seriously now than ever before, you can expect its next designs (Nehalem and beyond) to be even more impressive in this regard.
The average performance increase for Intel's 45nm Wolfdale based Core 2 Duo is exactly 4%, which isn't quite as big as what we saw in the Q9300 vs. Q6600 comparison but still something. There are definite, tangible gains in some applications but we're mostly looking at single digital percentage improvements here.
Let's have a look at power:
| System Idle Power | System Load Power | |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 (2.66GHz) | 114W | 138W |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66GHz) | 116W | 158W |
Power improves, but not as much as the Q9300 did over the Q6600, partially because cache sizes have actually gone up in this case (4MB to 6MB) while they went down with the Q9300 (8MB to 6MB).
We're not expecting to see price parity between the 45nm and 65nm Core 2 Duos until Q3 of this year, waiting will obviously give you a faster, cooler running chip - but not necessarily by a huge amount.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
The Jedi - Monday, April 7, 2008 - link
I'm pretty much with you, but just to comment on this part:"As for price the q6600 is dropping all over the place... Frys had it for 180 yesterday, Microcenter has it for 200."
It's a common misnomer to see a sale price on something and then get it locked into your head that that price you saw one time is the price you should expect to pay for something from then on. For example if the company that rhymes with hell is advertising a PC with monitor for $299, even if it's THREE DAYS ONLY in the fine print, or like after rebate, people tend to get it stuck in their head that "a new computer" can be had for a mere $300, when a wiser person would know something that cheap would be like 3-year old tech/speed, likely with dead pixels and a 6-bit analog LCD panel, Windows Basic, stuff like that.
Companies sometimes have a sale on one thing hoping you'll buy items with it, which allows them to make money. Just wanted to throw that out there.
bigboxes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
How old are you? What's with all this "ownage" crap you are spewing? Do you really tie in your self worth to the cpu you use (feel free to substitute car, house, salary)? Most of us mature individuals who have actually reached adulthood just want the best performance for our dollar, not ownage just to inflate our e-penis.Nice article.
RamarC - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
it's "funny" that anand forgot that the e6750 is $180 (not $266) and that the 3ghz oem e8400 (sans cooler) is in-stock and available for $200. the e8400 would certainly push a couple of phenoms lower on the chart.and it's also "funny" that anand's comparing projected phenom prices (since they aren't available yet) with real street prices. wait until you can get street prices before claiming a better price/performance ration.
Margalus - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
apparently you didn't read the article. The amd chip is not as good as intel currently, but they aren't crap.And if you read the article you would have seen that they still recommended and intel cpu for a new system, so it definately wasn't written with payola in mind from amd.
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
We read it, cmon you didnt see any slant towards AMD? Come on, be honest :)And it sounded like they were about to cry when they recommended Intel (plus the long in the tooth comments geez, I mean really, Intels old crap sucks and should die but AMDs latest and greatest ALMOST beats Intels crap wow what logic, LOL). Hey I wish AMD were top dog again. I loved the Athlon XP's & 64's. But facts are facts....
hooflung - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Well look at it this way. Enthusiasts do not drive the market. System builders and servers do. AMD is able to bring competitive prices to the OEM channels and that will also translate to the server markets for the Phenom Opteron lineup.AMD is still largely competitive with Intel at the server level with the Phenom where TLB, the now strong point of the Phenom, is implemented better.
To keep your servers sponsored with a healthy company, IT departments will purchase desktop parts when refreshing hardware. It would be nice for AMD to be able to boast the crown but their company is still profitable, ie in business, by offering parts that sell well.
Also, its not wise to accuse Anand to being bribed. He's been saying this for a long time and he's enthusiastic that AMD is finally making good on their goals. Fanboi squat somewhere else.
michal1980 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
How is this NOT a fluff piece? A 'new' cpu (Thats only new because the first time around it had a bug) thats 4+ months late to the party.Is being beaten by processor that was launch over a YEAR ago.
In gaming the new processor has even been beaten by a X2 6400+!!!.
Thats CRAP. How old is that cpu?
and yet we get conclusions that this is more like the "Amd we're used to seing.. a competitive AMD"? Competitive excatly how? I'll grant you this will push intel to release there 45nm cpu's... But its not like intel is sweeting.
Futhermore, How can you come out and say the Q6600 is long in the tooth, when its better then the new stuff amd has on the market?
Long in the tooth because 12+ months after being released its faster then a brand new amd chip? long in the tooth because its easy to find one for 250, and on sale for less? Or just long in the tooth because It just beats the AMD right now, and doesn't whoop them by 20%+?
I'm standing by my claim this article is fluff/ BS . its written in a postive spin for amd.. When the AMD processor has clearly been beaten again/still.
Goty - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I love how fanboys like to conveniently "forget" about the few years that AMD was dominating Intel in pretty much every benchmark when it was the Pentium 4 against the Athlon64.VashHT - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I don't get what you're saying, are you implying that phenom is competitive because A64 dominated the P4? Funny how you can call someone a fanboy when you're bringing up 2 processors that don't matter in the current market.Goty - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
You kind of have to read the previous post wherein the author implies that AMD has never been competitive, which it has been numerous times. My example was merely the latest and had no bearing on the current generation of products.