New processor 'popular' IntelCore2Duo: testing and evaluation!

The new microarchitecture platform that Intel aspires to be in the next few years is Core. In 2006, the production of 2 Conroe processors (for desktops) and Merom (for laptops) are the technologies expected by experts.

Please introduce a review of the ExtremeTech technology article about the Intel Core2 Duo processor, from the Conroe line, for desktop computers, with the "affordable" market segment. This product will be officially launched in Vietnam in early August 2006.

PV Extremetech went to Santa Clara, went to a modern Intel lab to do a series of practical tests. However, Extremetech also said, should not consider this as a real review and need to wait until the day the processor is officially announced.

Preparation work and test evaluation cycles

As we mentioned, these test reviews are implemented on systems built and installed by Intel. We are allowed to review all system settings, device drivers, BIOS and applications - if there are any strange applications running, we won't have any trouble without playing show them. Intel has installed all applications for our test evaluation work and all are ready to run immediately, and although we cannot use our own applications, there is no What is the secret about the applications Intel has built for us? They are all popular applications, not special versions optimized for Intel processors.

Only one point is considered unfortunate that Intel does not have AMD's current top processors using socket AM2 as a control. Instead, an FX-60 processor will be clocked from 2.6GHz to 2.8GHz. In our experience, the performance of such a system will not be too far different from that of an FX-62 processor using a 2.8GHz speed AM2. Intel's representative explained that it was because the FX-62 processor was not yet fully available on the market when Intel installed systems to test this test, until the processor If this is widely available, Intel does not have enough time to install new systems and then test it thoroughly to ensure that they are installed exactly as their products. Intel. Below is the configuration of the systems participating in this test evaluation:

Component components Intel's test rating system AMD's evaluation system Core 2 Duo E6700 processor with a default speed of 2.66GHz Athlon 64 FX-60 dual-core clocked up to 2.8GHz Table Intel 975X motherboard and chipset ASUS A8R32-MVP Crossfire 1GB DDR2 667 memory 1GB DDR 400 Graphics Radeon X1900 Crossfire Radeon X1900 Crossfire Windows XP Pro SP2 operating system Windows XP Pro SP2
Last time we evaluated the test with the most advanced Core 2 Extreme processor, but this time we will compare the highest-end processor in Intel's popular line of products with the Athlon processor. 64 dual core speed 2.8GHz. This Intel processor also has 4MB of L2 cache, but the clock speed is lower than the 2.93GHz speed of the Core 2 Extreme processor. Of course, its price will also be lower. Both systems have similar configurations with dual Radeon X1900 Crossfire graphics cards using the latest drivers.

General performance - PCMark05

The PCMark05 test program includes a comprehensive set of assessment standards, each of which is designed to test an independent subsystem such as memory, processor and hard drive. This test will automatically detect the processor you are using and download dynamic processor-optimized libraries when testing each function. An Athlon 64 processor can fine-tune the coding table to run best on its architecture while a Pentium 4 processor running the same test can run many different optimized encoding tables. for that processor. Many tests are small enough to fit into the L2 cache capacity of new processors, so those tests that run at higher clock rates will have better results. It is an ideal view of performance. In the real world, application optimizations may be very different.

PCMark05 does not have any specific optimization features for the Core microarchitecture platform because the platform has not yet been announced when PCMark05 was developed. Even so, the evaluation score is very impressive. The Core 2 Duo E6700 processor has a lower speed but has an overall PCMark score and better processor performance than the pulsed FX-60 processor. We don't believe in memory points because Intel's test system uses DDR2 memory while AMD's test system uses DDR memory. Currently, AMD processors have fully supported DDR2 memory.

Multimedia encoding and POV-Ray

Version 3.7 of the POV-Ray open source image overlay tool supports multi-thread processing and SSE commands. We enable the 'all CPUs' option in the POV-Ray program with the latest beta version (version 13) and record the results of Pixels Per Second (PPS-number) pixels per second).

Performance improved 44% with the Core 2 Duo processor compared to a system that is more similar to the more expensive FX-62 system (if AMD doesn't discount too much).

Test the DivX 6.2 encoding application with the DivX Converter tool with the DivX product, handle a 24-second movie, 1080p standard and a Home Theater Profile about children eating fruits. Testing the Windows Media Encoder application is slightly different. Process a 2-minute video footage of people surfing on the beach with a standard resolution of 720x480, converted with Windows Media Encoder 9 tool to 320x240, 282Kbps. The audio encoding is Window Media Audio 9.1 and the video is the Advanced Profile WMA9.

The Core 2 Duo processor continues to demonstrate impressive top performance. Core 2 Duo processor with 2.66GHz speed running DivX encoding test application 22% faster and WMV9 application is 17% faster. These are extremely impressive numbers when comparing slightly different processors. We really wanted to compare the Core 2 Duo processor with the true FX-62 processor, but we still believe that no big difference will occur.

Performance of the game

FutureMark's latest 3D benchmark, 3DMark06 is the general testing program we use to evaluate video card performance. It is the only test program we use that is not a real game. Although this program does not represent 100% of the download volume of games (currently as well as in the future), it still creates a corresponding amount of download quality in-game graphics for video cards, so chapter This process is very suitable for us to do testing. This new version also focuses on processors much more than the 3DMark05 version.

Intel is just a little bit more in this test - with this, it is mainly a graphic evaluation program. It is worth mentioning here that the new Core 2 Duo processor delivers 9% higher performance in processor testing, although clock speed is less than 5%.

Remember the first one or two years of Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 processors, when do you see the best AMD microprocessors creating 20-30% faster performance in almost all? which games are you playing?

These tables clearly show the difference. We ran games at 1024x768 resolution and turned off the AA and AF features to help systems not be limited by the stack performance of the GPU (graphics processor), but we were dark Multipurpose all other graphics options (surface resolution, special effects .) to ensure that the system channel is always maximized as high as possible.

The difference in performance in games is very important, we had to run a few times most of the games just to make sure that the results were correct. After that, we had to check the game versions to make sure all were installed with the latest updates. We are talking about 15% to 30% and even 54% in the case of Half-Life 2: The Lost Coast. The difference in performance in this case is too high so we had to run the test up to 4 times on each test system and had to check the system settings for each run.

Excited with Core

We are excited about the Core microarchitecture platform. The above performance numbers are extremely potential. Keep in mind that the AMD system we tested has almost the same performance as AMD's most advanced system today, the FX-62, while the Core 2 Duo processor is not a microprocessor. most advanced logic of Intel. Instead, the system is only Intel's second-highest processor, behind the Core 2 Extreme system. Yet this processor still produces a higher performance than AMD's system.

Of course, these numbers are still too early. Although we are confident that the systems that we test are not the systems that Intel specifically assembled to achieve such outstanding results, we are not yet ready to certify. 100% for this product until we have the opportunity to test these systems in our own laboratories and on systems installed by ourselves.

It is worth mentioning that the Intel system that we tested operates much quieter than the AMD pulsed FX-60 system. We do not have to be in an ideal environment to be able to assess the most realistic noise level but still can see this immediately because the Intel microprocessor has a power consumption of 65W while the AMD processor is 110W. These early test results show that Intel's ability to improve performance while lowering its power consumption in its products is increasingly being realized. As always, we will have more objective reviews when we have our own systems for testing.