Core 2 duo processors. Processors. Test platform: ASUS F3Ja

Core 2 Duo knocks out Athlon 64: game over?

The Intel processor line is based on a completely updated micro-architecture. Technical details new processor with Conroe core were announced back in March 2006, and first tests proved that Intel is not joking: Core 2 Duo should become the undisputed leader in performance and in terms of performance per watt. Well, it's time to separate the facts from the rumors.

Intel is not just talking about changes in the new micro-architecture of processors, but about a radical update. The company's engineers took some elements of the current Pentium D NetBurst micro-architecture and added to it the ingredients that made the Pentium M and Core Duo mobile processors so popular in the market, as a result of which a new micro-architecture was born Core 2. A key goal was to achieve the ideal balance between performance and power consumption. In principle, this goal is a direct result of the good performance-per-watt ratio of AMD processors, as well as criticism Intel platforms for excessively high power consumption and cooling requirements.

Computer industry specialists were hardly surprised by the fact that the processors outperformed the Athlon 64. Let's not forget that the Core 2 Duo is a completely new and modern processor, and the Athlon 64 X2 architecture has been on the market for a long time. After two years of the Athlon 64's dominance, Intel made every effort to release a new superior product that could crush its competitor.

Well, sit back and put sharp objects away from you. Intel has become the new leader in performance. Re-describe technical and architectural details of the kernel Core 2 Duo "Conroe" we will not, but those who require them can visit our article with spring IDF. This time we will carefully consider the test results, conduct an analysis and draw conclusions. Let's see what impact it can have on AMD.

Core 2 Duo processor versions

On July 27, four models will be released for mass market and one high-end processor. The leader in performance will be the Core 2 Extreme X6800 (be prepared to part with a lot of money if you want to buy this one), and the main striking force will be the models from E6300 to E6700.

All Core processors 2 Duo operates at a Front Side Bus (FSB) clock speed of 266 MHz, while most Pentium 4 and Pentium D models use a 200 MHz bus. Since quadruple the amount of information (QDR) is transmitted per clock cycle, we get a pleasant FSB1066 frequency with a throughput of 8.5 GB/s. With the exception of entry-level processors, all models are equipped with 4 MB of L2 cache, which is used by both processor cores. All processors support Intel 64-bit extensions (EM64T), multimedia instructions (SSE2 and SSE3), virtualization technology (VT), and execution disable bit (XD). In addition to these features, all models support the latest energy management technologies such as Thermal Monitor 2 (TM2), Enhanced Halt State (C1E) and Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST).

Core 2 Extreme X6800

CPU Extreme Edition is the only model that allows you to change the multiplier. Therefore, it is easy to overclock.

Core 2 Duo line

Core 2 Duo processors operate at frequencies from 1.86 to 2.66 GHz.

Unlike all 90 and 65 nm Pentium processors 4 and Pentium D models consume significantly less energy. All Core 2 Duo processors have a maximum thermal dissipation of 65 W, while for the Pentium D line it varies from 95 to 130 W. This is the maximum possible heat dissipation, but, as our tests show, the average power consumption of the Core 2 Duo has been halved, and the minimum power consumption at low load and with power management mechanisms enabled looks much better.

All Intel systems on Extreme Edition processors usually consume at full load not less than 300 W. The situation has changed. If you replace this processor with a high-speed Core 2 model, you will get greater performance (see tests), and system power consumption will not exceed 220 W. We get a 30% reduction in heat dissipation, which directly impacts cooling requirements.

As our test results show, the micro-architecture differs significantly in power consumption. Switching to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 reduces overall power consumption at maximum load by 30% (compared to the Pentium Extreme Edition 965), and during idle time by 12% with SpeedStep or 28% without it. The numbers are all the more impressive considering that Intel chipsets typically consume more power than those of the Athlon 64, so the processor must be truly energy efficient to reduce this much.

Even if you overclock the Core 2 Extreme from 2.93 to 3.46 GHz, the overall power consumption will not increase much. An 18% increase in such frequency leads to only a 7% increase in energy consumption.

Core 2 Duo die size and number of transistors

Core 2 Duo Power Management Technologies

Intel has learned a lot from its mobile processors Pentium M Banias (90 nm) and Dothan (65 nm), especially in the areas of power consumption and energy conservation requirements. Today, most PC users are very careful about energy consumption, as they do not want to pay for the energy they consume or endure the noise of fans. Therefore, Intel used a fairly large number of power management functions in its Core 2 desktop processors. The basis for creating an economical processor was the 65-nm process technology ( low voltage), as well as fewer transistors and a reduced core size.

Uses a whole range of technologies to reduce energy consumption.

• Intel SpeedStep
• Ultra Fine Grained Power Control
• Reducing bus width
• PSI-2

Intel SpeedStep

SpeedStep technology requires support from the BIOS and at the OS level. After turning it on operating system will be able to change the processor frequency, reducing the multiplier. For Pentium 4 or Pentium D, the multiplier is reduced to x14, which in the case of FSB800 (physical frequency 200 MHz) results in a processor frequency of 2.8 GHz. Since Core 2 runs at a different voltage, with more high frequency FSB and lower clock frequency, improvements have been made in the area of ​​multiplier changes.

Core 2 Duo processors with SpeedStep technology enabled can move to a x6 multiplier, which corresponds to a physical frequency of 1.6 GHz on a 266 MHz system bus (FSB1066). At the same time, the core voltage is reduced to 0.9 V. A parallel reduction in voltage and clock frequency can significantly reduce power consumption and heat dissipation.

SpeedStep is enabled when the processor load drops below a certain threshold. To optimally regulate processor performance and heat dissipation, models can operate at all multipliers from x6 to their maximum.

After activating SpeedStep technology, the processor operates at just 0.9 V and a frequency of 1.6 GHz.

Ultra Fine Grained Power Control

Core 2 processors are able to turn off those areas of the processor that are not needed this moment. Moreover, this technology is relevant not only in situations where the processor is working under low load or even idle, but also in scenarios with high load: some logical blocks may be idle, although the processor can perform some heavy work.

Reducing bus width

Although all buses have a width of 128 bits, it is not always in demand. Since the buses are designed for the worst-case scenario, Intel decided to add a feature that allows the buses to be split by turning off part of them. To transfer eight bytes, a width of 64 bits is sufficient, so the second half of the bus is not used, which saves energy.

Core 2 Duo platform-related power saving features: PSI-2, DTS, PECI

An economical processor is not enough yet. All energy saving mechanisms will only work effectively in a suitable environment. Intel has integrated three more platform-related features.

• Indication of processor power consumption/PSI-2 (Power Status Indicator).
• Digital thermal sensors/DTS (Digital Thermal Sensors).
• PECI (Platform Environment Control Interface).

All three features have their origins in the mobile (PSI) or server sectors, and all have been significantly improved before arriving in the Core 2 micro-architecture.

PSI-2 reports CPU power requirements

Each Core 2 processor contains a chip that monitors power requirements. If your motherboard is equipped with a PSI-2 controller, it can receive the signal and regulate the load of the voltage regulators, using them most efficiently. When processor power consumption decreases, the PSI-2 controller detects this and can turn off one or more voltage regulators. So the stabilization module always works with maximum efficiency.

Digital Thermal Sensors (DTS)

Core 2 processors use four temperature sensors (two per core). They have now gone digital, resulting in a reduction in size compared to the previous, analog generation of sensors. With sensors now located closer to hot spots, they can track temperatures faster and more accurately.

Now that the temperatures are available, the control chip can use this information to influence system components, such as case fans. The processors use a single-core bus that passes this information to the control chip, which can be easily configured via Motherboard BIOS fees. Depending on the temperature of the processor, the CPU cooler fan or other case fans can increase or decrease their speed, either manually or automatically.

It could be argued that with so many manual or automatic decisions affecting fan speed, we will never know if the fans are producing enough flow. But PECI has everything under control: after you build or purchase your new PC, the control chip will automatically adjust all the fans to match your temperature settings.

However, PECI has its drawbacks: you need a PECI-compatible motherboard that has a corresponding control chip, or it is simulated by sending a false signal to the processor (most likely this will be the case for cheap motherboards). If there is no signal, then systems on Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Extreme simply will not boot! Actually, this is one of the reasons why even old motherboards have to be replaced with the 975X, although technically they can support .

Heat dissipation Core 2 Duo

The "boxed" Intel cooler, which is included with the processor, provides sufficient cooling and is relatively low level noise.

All "boxed" processors come with the same cooler as the Pentium D. It has a copper core, and numerous fins create a large heat transfer surface. The cooler is connected to the motherboard via a 4-pin plug, and the board controls its rotation speed depending on the processor temperature. Even with a high load on the processor, the rotation speed did not exceed 2400 rpm. A very low level compared to 4500 rpm for the Pentium D 840. If there are no other noisy fans in the system, then the same hardware (including the “boxed” cooler) with a Core 2 Duo processor will work quieter than a computer with Pentium D.

Core 2 Extreme with SpeedStep enabled...

We recommend enabling SpeedStep technology as it reduces the processor frequency to 1.6 GHz when idle. In this case, the fan rotation speed is reduced to 1500 rpm. And the average processor temperature was only 25°C. Almost indoor!

To enable SpeedStep, just change the control scheme Windows power supply from "Home/Desktop" to "Portable/Laptop".

No drivers are required to enable SpeedStep: just activate the correct scheme Windows power management. But still check if the SpeedStep option is enabled in your computer's BIOS.

Intel Core 2 Extreme with SpeedStep technology drops the CPU temperature to approximately 25°C.

...against AMD Athlon 64 FX-62

Under high load, the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 heated up to 64 °C.

Of course, we took the current top-of-the-line AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 processor and ran the same sequence of temperature tests. At high load the processor temperature was 64°C, and at low load it was 31°C (Cool & Quiet technology was activated). As you can see, temperatures are significantly higher than those of Core 2 Extreme.

AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 with Cool"n"Quiet technology enabled: 31°C.

Overclocking Core 2 Duo

Core 2 Duo Pricing and Availability

Conclusion

Let's start with the facts. Once Core 2 Duo processors hit the market, the following will happen:

• they will become the fastest x86 processors (both single- and dual-core models);
• this will lead to the fact that the Pentium D and previous models will become antiques;
• they will turn out to be best choice for lovers of high performance, despite the rather high price;
• they will outperform the competing Athlon 64 line (X2 and FX) in all areas, even in games where AMD's position has traditionally been strong;
• they will consume less power than conventional desktop processors;
• transforming the platform from a power-hungry monster into a solution that provides an excellent performance-per-watt ratio.

We think it's unlikely that Core 2 Duo processors will become saturated right from the start, so don't expect a full range in every store. However, Intel is being looked at very carefully today, especially after the announcement of a decline in profits. For this reason, we believe that Intel will do everything possible to ensure a stable supply of processors.

Is AMD doing that bad? In no case. Intel has won the performance race for now, but it should still look at releasing more attractive platforms for enthusiasts and gamers (ATi Crossfire and nVidia SLI). Additionally, AMD's Damon Muzny told us that the company is looking to adjust processor prices to provide better price/performance. And although we do not know specific prices, the reduction will be very significant. So be careful when purchasing! And that's not all: there are AMD processors Athlon 64 X2 with lower power consumption (65 W and 35 W), which will help AMD compete well in the digital home space. In winter, Intel will introduce the first quad-core processor, and AMD should release the first 65-nm models. Therefore, another battle for productivity awaits us.

Core 2 Duo in Russia

Surely one of the most pressing issues for our Russian readers will be the availability of Core 2 Duo systems, as well as the processors and motherboards for it on sale in our country. The first deliveries of Core 2 Duo should begin after the official announcement at the end of July, but we would not expect the first ready-made systems to appear on sale until mid-August or even early September. A little later, computers based on Core 2 Duo will appear in retail stores retail networks such as "MIR", "M.Video", "Tekhnosila" and others.

A system unit with a Core 2 Duo E6700 in a Kraftway thermal chamber demonstrates an impressively low temperature under load.

We have already contacted leading Russian assemblers and received from them the first samples of finished Core 2 Duo systems. You will soon be able to find the test results of these computers in our "" section. Follow the daily "" and "" sections and you will learn everything you need to know about the new Intel Core 2 Duo processors.

Test stand in a Kraftway thermal chamber

Testing new and old models by new version test method

3D visualization

As expected, there is no increase from increasing the number of cores to more than two, but the clock speed and processor architecture matter. Well, cache memory too, but its “lack” can be compensated for by a higher frequency - the E7400 catches up with the E8200, while the E7600 overtakes it. In general, there is nothing surprising in the fact that Intel abandoned the expensive E8200 as soon as the same level of performance was obtained from cheaper processors with a higher clock frequency. As for the rest, we see that even for working with professional 3D modeling packages it is quite enough inexpensive processors. Of course, in the case when this particular computer is used exclusively for its creative component, and the final rendering is carried out on a dedicated render computer or even an entire render farm.

Rendering 3D scenes

Because here the difference is already striking - no dual-core processor is capable of competing with high-performance triple-core or even low-end quad-core devices. The ratio of the results is such that in order to catch up with at least the Q8200, dual-core processors would have to master a frequency of 4 GHz, with the current maximum of 3.33 GHz (note that a processor of the Core 2 Duo family can be overclocked to such frequencies independently is not accepted - Core 2 Quad is also quite suitable for overclocking, and the Phenom II X3 720 is not at all - even the multiplier is unlocked for increase :)). As, in general, it was expected: for these tasks no reasonable number of cores is “extra”: an increase in rendering is observed even in cases when we “feed” eight physical cores to the task, executing 16 threads simultaneously (i.e. ., for example, a system on two Xeons). And in desktop systems the saturation point is even further away. The increase is not linear, and the clock frequency has an effect (which is why, for example, the Q8200 and X3 720 showed almost the same result), but the general picture is obvious.

Scientific and engineering calculations

In this group of applications it is also obvious, but it’s not in favor of multi-core crystals: it’s better to have a couple of cores, but operating at a higher clock frequency. In addition, it is clearly noticeable that 2M cache memory is clearly not enough, which greatly spoils the results of the Pentium or Core 2 Quad Q8000, not to mention the Athlon II, where this volume is equally divided between the cores and cannot be used to exchange information between them, and Now more than 3M - it seems that there is no need. However, again, the differences between the processors are so small that it is irrational to make a choice based on this group of applications - here, perhaps, even Celeron would be quite appropriate. Although, it would seem, this is a “serious” group of programs, and not some kind of “home multimedia”.

Raster graphics

Here we generally have some kind of increase from increasing the number of cores, but we cannot say that it is significant. Result? The Pentium E6300 demonstrated the same performance as the Core 2 Quad Q8200, and the Core 2 Duo E7600 was on par with the Core 2 Quad Q9300. Yes, of course, dual-core processors operate at a higher clock frequency than quad-core processors comparable in overall performance, but the difference is not so great as to consider the latter more adequate solutions for these tasks. In short, to work with raster graphics Even average models of dual-core processors are quite enough, and almost the only factor that can prevent you from choosing them is their dominance among solutions maximum performance quad core crystals. Yes, all this is very familiar - at one time it was in this way that both Intel and AMD “squeezed” single-core processors out of the market. Now, however, this is being done in a softer form - in particular, older Core 2 Duo models are still ahead of their “composite” relatives in frequency, sometimes by a lot, which allows them to “save face”, but the trend is more than noticeable. Even on familiar and long-established platforms, not to mention promising ones - in particular, three quad-core processors are already ready for LGA1156, while dual-core processors will have to wait until next year.

Data compression

More than two cores are not necessary, a lot of cache memory is necessary, so the clear winner was the Core 2 Duo E8200. But a comparison of the results of the E7400 and E7600 forces us to speak not quite decently about the transition to DDR3 for LGA775. As we saw last time, even switching from DDR2 1066 to DDR3 1333 leads to a decrease in performance in this group of tests, but for processors with FSB 1066, using DDR3 generally gives a disastrous result: this memory frequency is also achievable for DDR2, throughput It turns out, accordingly, the same, but the delay is much less. Why don't we see such a fiasco with Pentium? The E5300 generally has an FSB 800 and was tested with DDR2 800. So, purely objectively, the E6300 is capable of “digesting” faster memory, but in this case, as they say, all the steam went to waste - to compensate for the harmful effect of DDR3. As a result, we got bash for bash (the existing increase in results is observed due to the higher clock frequency), well, thanks for that.

Compilation (VC++)

The number of cores, their frequency and, to some extent, cache memory capacity are the components of success, and when at least two of these points are present at the same time, it’s generally good: this is not the first time we’ve seen how a fairly high-frequency triple-core AMD processor is capable of equal compete not only with the Core 2 Duo (which is due to its rank), but also invades the habitat of junior quad-core devices from both companies. Dual-core processors are much slower. And any, but especially Pentium :) At the same time, the “giant” amount of cache memory allows the Core 2 Duo E8200 to play as much as 400 MHz of the frequency that separates it from the older representative of the E7000 line.

Java

Here the results are even more “canonically correct”, since triple-core processors are not trying to compete with quad-core processors. However, this doesn’t make things any easier for dual-core ones. And if we also take into account the smaller requirement of the Java virtual machine for cache memory capacity, everything is completely deplorable for their older families.

Audio encoding

And one more “finishing blow”, but not the last. Something else is more interesting here - as we have seen more than once, in this subtest AMD processors are traditionally worse than otherwise similar solutions from Intel. However, the “secret trick” in the form of the third core allows them to compete almost on an equal footing in the middle class. It’s a pity, of course, that we couldn’t get a Core 2 Duo E8600 in order to slightly shift the picture towards a more or less usual one :) However, it is obvious that the best thing this expensive processor could do is to slightly overtake the X3 720, but not at all come close to a level similar to the “Phenom” at a price of the Core 2 Quad Q8200.

But you can look at the current situation from a completely different perspective. The slowest modern processor we have is the Athlon II X2 250. It has the worst result when encoding OGG Vorbis. So, it is “only” 32, which means that an hour-long album will be compressed by this processor... in less than two minutes. Those. In terms of absolute results, it's hard to think of a situation in which audio encoding speed would make a real difference. About ten years ago, you had to copy an audio disc to your hard drive in the form of files for half an hour, and then leave the computer for several hours so that it could compress it into MP3. Today, the slowest operation will almost always be getting the source code, but you can compress it quickly. For example, in parallel with receiving or uploading the final files to a portable player.

Video encoding

But here everything goes somewhat beyond the everyday assumptions that for video encoding you need to have a multi-core processor. It turned out this way due to the fact that two of the five codecs (at least the versions we use) are relatively cool about the number of cores of more than two, one is completely ready to be content with one core, and even of the remaining two “the degree of utilization” The third and fourth cores are not the same. Mainconcept, when switching from C2D E7600 to C2Q Q8200, works 20 percent faster (that is, the doubling of cores is quite noticeably compensated by the difference in clock frequencies), but x264 shows “as it should” - under the same conditions the increase is more than one and a half times! If everyone were like this, we would get a picture like in the previous group, but due to the influence of the “burden of years”, not everything is smooth. However, again, the difference in one of the codecs is such (in two more, when comparing the same processors, we get an almost equivalent “exchange” of cores per frequency), that it becomes obvious that even “in the overall standings” the best of serial dual-core processors can no more than getting even closer to the younger quad-core processors, but not overtaking them. Moreover, to the greatest extent we owe this to the most “heavy” tasks, which it makes sense to speed up by all means and means :)

Gaming 3D

Until recently, it was believed that games were exactly the area where high-frequency dual-core processors with a large amount of cache memory and a fast system bus (all these requirements are best met by the E8000 family) are capable of easily not only fighting, but also defeat the younger “cut-off” quads with a crushing score. So - this is not entirely true. Yes, “on average” (as in the case of video encoding) Core 2 Duo or Athlon II X2 processors look good, but as soon as we turn to detailed results for individual games, the optimism begins to fade. Simply because the frame rate in games, unlike, for example, the time it takes to render a 3D scene in a modeling package, is much more difficult to usual comparison according to the rules of arithmetic. Games are interactive applications, therefore, they always have a certain lower limit of comfort, which cannot be crossed. At the same time, when coding or rendering, often a smaller value is just a smaller value. For example, if you encode films at night, in small quantities and from time to time, it makes no difference whether the work is completed in three hours or five: you will see the result only in the morning, and it will be impossible to “load” the computer with work, due to the lack of this the most extra work. Not so in games where “pushing” the comfortable limit simply means that playing this game with these settings on this computer, in fact, impossible. So, for example, with the settings we selected for testing, you should not try to play GTA IV on a Pentium or Athlon II :) An average FPS of around 30 or less with the corresponding minimum is not at all what we would like to see. The picture is similar in FarCry2, although less catastrophic. Moreover, replacing the processor with a Core 2 Duo E7600 still does not allow us to reach the 35 FPS limit in these two games. For comparison: Core 2 Quad Q8200 - approximately 49 and 39 FPS, Phenom II X3 720 - 52 and 39, respectively. The results of the Core 2 Duo E8200 are pleasing to the eye, especially considering that this is a junior (and already discontinued) processor in the E8000 line, and the older ones will be even faster, but do not forget that these devices are simply more expensive. So what to choose within the same limited budget for modern games is, it seems to us, a rhetorical question. For not the most modern ones, even more so - a Pentium, or even a Celeron, is usually enough.

Total

Above, we intentionally did not comment on the results of the “oldies” included in today’s testing - everything is already clear with them :) Yes, the Core 2 Duo E6600 was once the object of desire for many users, but now it can only compete with the Pentium. But, by the way, it is capable, despite the fact that three years have passed since its release :) And, obviously, there is no big point in replacing it today with one of the modern dual-core processors. If you really want to increase productivity (that is, there really isn’t enough of it), it would be wise not to overdo it with savings.

Moreover, at current prices, dual-core processors, even when buying a system from scratch (that is, when there is no computer at all or there is one, but it is too outdated - for example, on a Pentium 4 or a similar processor) will not always be a justified choice. Of course, very often it doesn’t make sense to “reach out” for four cores, but at approximately the same (or even lower) price, this is not the worst option. At least then it won’t be “excruciatingly painful” when trying to launch GTA IV or some other new product from game makers. Yes, of course, such applications are usually obtained not at all because programmers use multithreading so well - they are often the result of poor optimization, but, honestly, what difference does it make? As they say, no matter how sick you are, as long as you die. The question “why is it so slow” is not of interest to all users - most simply want to solve their problems without bothering their heads with looking for the culprits (especially since, once found, the latter will still not return your money for an unsuccessful purchase :)).

Although all this is true if we talk specifically about purchasing. From the point of view of dry theory, we are simply once again faced with the fact that the optimization of applications for multiple computing cores is still far from being done in the best way. That is why the performance increase when increasing the number of cores to three or four does not always give a noticeable effect, and sometimes does not give it at all. Or it gives one that can be compensated by simply increasing the clock frequency, which, obviously, is easier for processors with fewer cores. And from this point of view, processors Core line 2 Duo E8000 might be a better choice for a typical home computer. They could... if, quite objectively, they weren’t too expensive :) 6M full-speed cache memory is very great from a performance point of view, but disgusting from a cost point of view. So much so that two crystals with 3M on each may well turn out to be cheaper. And, at a lower clock speed, it is still faster. So if earlier the main recommendation for choosing sounded like this: “Buy a quad-core processor if you know why you need it, buy a dual-core processor in all other cases,” now everything has changed places in it :) “Buy a dual-core processor if you are absolutely sure that you need the programs will cost you, buy a quad-core in all other cases.” Well, or you can limit yourself to a three-core one: as we can see, the Phenom II X3 720 looks very good given the limitations of today's software - it is not as reduced in clock speed and cache capacity as the Core 2 Quad Q8200, which allows it to sometimes outperform the latter even in multi-threaded applications .

Of course, all these “torments of choice” are true only for one (even a very popular one) price segment: 130-200 dollars. Above it, everything is quite clear: the domain of medium and older quad-core processors. Until recently, Core 2 Duo E8500/E8600 also invaded there, but it is obvious that next to the Core i5 750, for example, they have absolutely nothing to catch there. So, perhaps, this family has as little time left to live as the Core 2 Quad Q9x50 based on it. And below $130, there are no three-core processors yet (unless there are some old models, such as the Phenom X3 in stock) - the entire budget sector is completely occupied by dual-core models with the occasional outdated single-core one. However, there, most often, completely different questions have to be resolved - not “Which processor will be faster?”, but “How much more can I try to save painlessly?” It can be seen that if this desire is limited at least by Pentium, the result will be quite good - comparable to what buyers of processors in the middle and even upper (without fanaticism, such as extreme series) price ranges received a couple of years ago. But we’ll check what we can expect from the updated Celeron a little later, fortunately for now there are still a few “blank spots” left for us in the LGA775 processor family.

About processors with code names Conroe a variety of rumors were constantly circulating. Already for a long time in the camp Intel problems grew. Processors and Pentium Ds were consistently inferior to their AMD Athlon 64 rivals, and for good reason. It turned out that people simply no longer need processors with high clock speeds and excessive heat generation, because the more heat the processor generates, the more it has to be cooled. As a result home computer turned from a quiet and unnoticeable device into a roaring “box”, being next to which was not a test for the faint of heart.

And this is not to mention the electricity bills, because the older Pentium 4 and Pentium D models were distinguished by their excessive “appetite”. Against the backdrop of these problems, processors looked more and more advantageous, which provided greater performance with less, and dynamic frequency reduction technologies central processor allowed us not to waste processor power. In addition, automatic fan speed control features make computers with Athlon 64 processors very quiet and fast - exactly what their Intel rivals lack.

The first sign indicating that Intel understands the current problem was the release of a single-nuclear Pentium M processor(based on the new Centrino architecture). This processor, intended for use in laptops, departed from the prevailing Intel scheme of “higher frequency - higher performance.” The frequency of Pentium M processors was relatively low, but due to the new architecture, the performance they demonstrated was truly impressive. Processor Pentium M 770 with a clock frequency of 2.1 GHz confidently outperformed the Pentium 4 540 processor running at 3.2 GHz. And all this with much lower power consumption. The efficiency of the new processor was so high that some hobbyists even attempted to install them in desktop computers. However, the availability of suitable motherboards for this was very low, so this idea did not gain much popularity.

And finally, when it became clear that Intel was preparing to release a new generation processor with Conroe architecture, everyone froze in anticipation. And for good reason: the result exceeded all expectations. New generation dual-core processors turned out to be unprecedentedly fast and “cold”, with low heat generation and energy consumption. And their performance indicators were stunning: Core 2 Duo processors(Fig. 2.8) are faster than all other processors, including the Pentium 4, the dual-core Pentium D and its main competitor, the dual-core processor Athlon 64 X2. How were such impressive results achieved?

Core 2 Duo processor technologies

Core 2 Duo processors inherited many key technologies from their Pentium M predecessors, and also added their own. Let's look at some of them.

• Intel Wide Dynamic Execution. A technology that executes more instructions per clock cycle, increasing program execution efficiency and reducing processor power consumption.
• Intel Intelligent Power Capability. A technology by which individual processor core modules are activated to perform certain tasks, which reduces processor power consumption.
• Intel Advanced Smart Cache. The technology uses L2 cache memory common to all processor cores, which reduces processor power consumption and increases its performance. If necessary, one of the processor cores can use the entire cache memory while dynamically disabling the other core.
• Intel Smart Memory Access. Technology for optimizing subsystem operation random access memory, due to which its response time is reduced and throughput is increased.
• Intel Advanced Media Boost. Technology for processing 128-bit SSE, SSE2, SSE3 and SSE4 instructions, commonly used in graphics and multimedia programs.

As you can see, a lot of work has been done to make the Core 2 Duo a truly cost-effective and fast processor. Other characteristics include FSB frequency 800, or 1333 MHz, L2 cache capacity of 2 or 4 MB. Let's look at the main characteristics of Core 2 Duo processors for desktop computers in table

pay attention to Core 2 processor Extreme X6800 - this rather expensive processor is four-core and actually consists of two Core 2 Duo processors in one chip. The performance of such a processor in programs that support multi-threaded execution is truly impressive: performance can double compared to a regular dual-core Core 2 Duo. Core 2 Duo processors supporting DDR2 memory are installed in motherboards with LGA775 socket and Intel 965 and Intel 975 family chipsets.

So, let's summarize - Core 2 Duo processors with the new architecture have arrived in earnest and for a long time. Not only processors for desktop computers are produced, but also for laptops; it is planned to release even single-core versions of them, which will be called Core 2 Solo. The era of Pentium processors is ending, and already in 2008, most new computers will have various versions of Core 2 Duo installed (we are, of course, talking about computers whose owners preferred Intel processor, not AMD).

The Core 2 Duo E8400 processor solution is average both in price and in parameters for 2008. It is its capabilities and parameters, as well as reviews about it, that will be discussed in detail in this review.

CPU positioning

In 2008, processors were divided as follows:

High-performance solutions that consisted of 4 computing cores. These included Core 2 Quad from Intel and Phenoms from AMD. It’s worth noting right away that these chips performed well in multi-threaded applications. But in software for one computational thread, they lost to single-core chips that had a higher frequency.

The middle CPU segment was represented by dual-core solutions. From Intel, in this niche were the “Cor 2 Duo”, that is, the hero of our today’s review - the Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E8400. From AMD, in turn, the two-module Phenom and Athlon were oriented towards this market segment. These chips functioned perfectly both with multi-threaded programs and with software that was tailored for single-core CPUs.

The initial segment was occupied by single-core solutions. Representatives of Intel in it were Pentiums and Celerones. Well, in contrast to them, AMD produced Atlons and Septrons.

Equipment

There were 2 types of delivery kits for this chip. The first of them was TRAY. It included the following:

CPU in protective plastic packaging.

Warranty card.

Sticker for the front panel of the PC case.

User manual.

The second version was called BOX. It included, in addition to the previously given list, a cooling system with thermal paste. It should be noted right away that the standard cooling system is designed to operate the CPU at the parameters declared by the manufacturer. But for overclocking it is recommended to use an improved air cooling system.

Chip socket

The Core 2 Duo E8400 chip was installed in the main and only processor socket from Intel at that time - Of course, you can still purchase a new motherboard for it, but the warehouse stocks of semiconductor crystals have long been sold out. From the perspective of current requirements for PC hardware resources, it can be noted that such solutions are assigned to the budget segment. Most programs will run on it, but not at maximum settings.

Technology

This was one of the first to be manufactured using 45 nm technology. Now, of course, this numerical value will no longer surprise anyone. Modern silicon CPUs are already manufactured using the 14 nm process technology. But in 2008, such an engineering move made it possible to reduce the chip area and increase the number of transistors, and this, in turn, increased productivity computer system by 10-15 percent.

Cache

Of course, the cutting-edge processor solution in 2008 was the Core 2 Duo E8400. Therefore, it had a substantial two-level cache memory. Its first level was tied strictly to a specific module and was divided into 2 parts. The first part, 32 KB, was used to store instructions, and the second, exactly the same size, stored data. But the second cache level was common to both computing models and simultaneously stored data and instructions. Its size was 6MB and not every processor of that time could boast of such a characteristic.

RAM

Like most processors, only one type of RAM supported the Core 2 Duo E8400. Its characteristics indicate the possibility of working only with DDR2. This type of RAM is outdated both morally and physically. It was replaced quite a long time ago by DD3, which is now slowly being replaced by DDR4.

Accordingly, one cannot expect impeccable performance from this dual-processor solution: RAM will be precisely the parameter that will slow down the operation of the computer system as a whole.

Thermal nuances

This model has a declared thermal package of 65 W. This value is not something unusual even today - the thermal package is exactly the same for most modern processors. The maximum permissible temperature for such a silicon crystal is 72.4 degrees. During normal CPU operation at maximum load, it can reach 50 degrees. But when overclocking, it is better to control its value. There are often cases when the cooling system cannot cope with the heating of the chip and its temperature almost instantly reaches 75-80 degrees. After such experiments, the processor usually fails and you have to buy a new CPU.

Frequency and performance

Standard Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 – 3.00 GHz. In this indicator, the E8400 is practically in no way inferior to the modern one, which has this indicator of 3.3 GHz. That is, PCs based on this hero can easily be classified as today’s office machines. But if you replace regular system cooling to an improved one and install a more powerful power supply in the computer, then you can overclock this chip to 4 GHz without any problems. And this is already a significant increase in performance and the ability to run almost all modern games, including demanding ones (albeit with not maximum settings).

Architecture

As noted earlier, this processor belonged to model range"Kor 2 Duo". It included 2 64-bit computing unit, each operating at 3.0 GHz. Intel's Turbo Boost technology was not supported by this chip. As a result, it could not dynamically change its clock frequency. The same applies to automatic shutdown of an unused computing core. Therefore, in terms of energy efficiency, it will be quite difficult to compete with modern 2-core E8400 chips.

Overclocking

2 Duo E8400 came with a locked multiplier. As a result, it was impossible to overclock it by simply increasing the multiplier. In this case, it was necessary to reduce the frequencies of all system components except the system bus. Its clock frequency had to be gradually increased in the future. Without any problems, this made it possible to achieve 4 GHz for the central processor. But before carrying out this simple operation, it was necessary to install a specialized software(“AIDS-Fan” for monitoring the temperature and operation of the cooling system, “CPU-Z” for determining the achieved processor frequency values, “AIDA 64” was used to test the stress resistance of the computer system). It was also necessary to replace the cooling system with a more advanced one and with improved parameters and check the power of the power supply, which should be at least 700 W. Only after this it was possible to start overclocking. If necessary, it was possible to overcome the previously specified limit of 4 GHz, but in this case it was necessary to further increase the voltage supplied to the CPU to 1.4 V or more. But this is not entirely good, and in this mode the E8400 semiconductor crystal failed much faster. Therefore, such experiments can be carried out only as a last resort.

Price

The starting price for the CPU Core 2 Duo E8400 was $183 for the BOX version and $153 for the TRAY version. At the end of sales, the cost of these semiconductor crystals decreased by $4 and became equal to $179 (BOX) and $149 (TRAY). In 2008-2009, the cost of these chips fully corresponded to the level of their performance.