• Dual-core design . The CPU combines two independent cores working in parallel within the same packaging. These cores work at the same clock speed and share 2MB L2 cache. They are connected to the chipset using the same Quad Pumped Bus working at 1066MHz frequency and featuring 8.5GB/s bandwidth.
• Intel Wide Dynamic Execution . Each of the two processor cores can process four instructions per clock cycle.
• Intel Smart Memory Access . The enhanced data prefetch mechanism allows to reduce the idling time of the processor execution pipeline.
• Intel Advanced Smart Cache . Intellectual L2 cache is shared between the two processor cores depending on their load at the given moment of time. Moreover, the shared L2 cache speeds up data transfer rate between the cores and reduces the front side bus workload, because no data needs to be transferred via the system memory any more.
• Intel Advanced Media Boost . The processor works faster with SSE3 instructions because it can perform the binary operations with 128-bit SSE registers within one clock cycle.
• Intel Virtualization Technology (Intel VT) . This virtualization technology allows modeling the work of several virtual platforms on a single hardware system.
• Intel Enhanced Memory 64 Technology (Intel EM64T) . The processor supports x86-64 extensions that allow addressing over 4GB of system RAM and support the work with 64-bit general purpose registers.
• Execute Disable Bit . The OS is protected against harmful spyware and viruses that use “buffer overflow” error to gain control over the system.
• Lower heat dissipation and power consumption . Core 2 Duo processors are manufactured with the newest 65nm technological process. Thanks to their architecture and a number of power saving technologies they boast the typical heat dissipation of 65W.

To give the new technology a good run down, we ran a series of tests in the MaXit labs to compare the results with those obtained on an similarly priced and specified AM2 based system. The Intel and AMD chips were also taken up from their factory speeds to give an idea of the performance possible by overclocking. Stock cooling was used throughout. The Intel chip had plenty of room for further overclocking and went on to reach a prime95 stable speed of 2.86GHz . Not bad for an entry level processor costing only £135!

Testbed:

Core 2 Duo system

• Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 ES @ 1.86 GHz and 2.5 GHz
  
• ASUS P5W DH Deluxe motherboard

AM2 system

• AMD Athlon64 3800+ X2 @ 2.5 GHz
• ASUS M2N32 SLi Deluxe motherboard

Common hardware

• 2 x 1 GB Team Xtreem PC2 5300 DDR2 RAM
• 256 MB Connect 3D ATi Radeon X1800XT (Catalyst 6.6 Drivers)
• 80 GB Maxtor DiamondMax 10 Hard Drive
• Antec True Power 2.0 550W EPS 12v PSU
• Windows XP Professional SP2

Testing methodology:

We chose several synthetic tests to give us a general idea of the performance trends which could be expected with most CPU and GPU intensive tasks. In addition to these tests, we also made up a few real-world tests in which we simulated a few scenarios that you would likely to be faced with in day to day computing such as gaming and MP3 encoding.

We decided to raise the stakes a bit and decided to compare the E6300 running at its default clockspeed of 1.86 GHz with an AMD 3800+ X2 overclocked to 2.5 GHz. We felt it would be interesting to see how it would fair against the opposition which had  a clock speed advantage of almost 700 MHz.

However to be fair, we also ran the benchmarks on the E6300 at 2.5 GHz to give a clock to clock comparison.

A summary of the tests chosen follows below:

Synthetic Benchmarks:

3D Mark 06
Futuremark's 3D Mark 06 is an excellent way to measure 3D performance of your rig. The game tests are based on the same algorithm used in programming real games, so you can be sure that if your PC does well in this benchmark, it shouldn't have any problem coping in real games.
The CPU test in 3D Mark 06 is very useful in providing information on how you will fair in games that are significantly dependant on processor performance.

3D Mark 2001 SE
Although considered obsolete by some people as a measure of GPU performance, it still makes an excellent tool for measuring processor performance. The fact that graphics cards are  faster than ever means that this test is predominantly CPU limited.

Super Pi
This benchmark is useful in comparing the floating point performance of different CPUs. It times how long it takes to calculate the value of pi to a preset number of digits which can be selected by the user. For our test, we used the 8M calculation which calculates the value to 8 million digits.

SiSoft SANDRA
SANDRA's CPU arithmetic and multimedia benchmarks are a good way to compare the general performance of a variety of processors.

Real World Tests:

MP3 Encoding
In today’s digital age, practically everyone owns an MP3 player. MP3 encoding is a fairly CPU intensive task and is benefited hugely by a faster processor. To do our test, we ripped Moby - Play from the original CD to MP3 files using Windows Media Player 10. We timed how long it took on each system using a stopwatch.

Archiving/File Compression
It's fairly common these days for us to compress files and folders to share or use for backup purposes. Like MP3 encoding, this is a CPU intensive task. After ripping Moby - Play to MP3 files, we archived the folder (which happened to be 200 MB) into a .rar file using WinRAR 3.6. Again, the process was timed on each rig using a stopwatch.

Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. v1.02
To compare how the different rigs would compare in games, we ran the built in time demos in Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. and recorded the number of frames per second in each case.
Both Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. were ran at medium quality at a resolution of 800 x 600, to ensure that the CPUs were the bottleneck.

Results:

It can be seen that with both processors at 2.5 GHz, the E6300 takes the lead and score 5.3% higher than the 3800+ X2. However at 1.86 GHz, the E6300 lagged 22% behind the 3800+ X2. Maybe we were being a little too optimistic while deciding to give a 700 MHz advantage to the opposition....
Although this is a 3D benchmark, we must emphasise that it is still considerably CPU dependant.

In 3D Mark 06's CPU tests, clock for clock at 2.5 GHz, the E6300 takes a significant 15% lead over the 3800+ X2. At 1.86 GHz, the E6300 lagged 13% behind the 3800+ X2 which is pretty respective considering the circumstances. That's a smaller difference between the E6300 and 3800+ X2 clock for clock

With a 22% advantage, the E6300 really shines leaving the 3800+ X2 for dead in 3D Mark 2001 SE with both at 2.5 GHz. Even with the E6300 at stock, it scores practically the same as the overclocked 3800+ X2 trailing behind by a negligible 41 points. That's hardly a 0.1% difference, which is extremely respectable.

The Super Pi tests really showcase Intel's new processor with phenominal results.

Once again with bothe CPUs at 2.5 GHz, the 3800+ X2 is smoked by the E6300 which is 33% faster in the Super Pi test. Even the E6300 at stock managed to put the opposition to shame, finishing the calculation a sizable 13% faster!! The E6300 should really blitz through aplications which are FPU dependant.

 

 

At 2.5 GHz, the E6300 scores 26% more than the 3800+ X2 in Dhrytstone.  The E6300 at  1.86 GHz holds its own in this test, lagging 6% behing the AMD.

Whetstone took us by surprise, as clock for clock, theres only 3% seperating the two contenders. On the other hand, at stock, the E6300 trails behind scoring 23% less than the 2.5 GHz 3800+ X2. It seems both CPUs will perform simmilarly clock for clock in this test.

At 2.5 GHz, the E6300 is an astonishing 191% faster in integer operations and 44% faster in floating point calculations according to SANDRA's multimedia benchmarks. What's even more impressive is that the stock E6300 managed to beat the 3800+ X2 by 8%.

Real World Performance

The E6300 is once more the leader in this test and is 10% faster at MP3 encoding than the 3800+ X2 with both CPUs at 2.5 GHz. At stock, the E6300 managed to beat the 3800+ X2 by 7%.

 

A similar story is seen in file compression, with the 2.5 GHz E6300 faster by 19%.

Even at stock, the E6300 beat the X2 by 5%.

Let's now have a look at gaming performance:

The E6300 is once again the undisputed champion in gaming, with an advantage of 13% and 9% in doom 3 and F.E.A.R. respectively. This was at 2.5 GHz mind you. At 1.86 GHz, the E6300 did lag behind the AMD in both games by 9% and 8% respectvely.

Final thoughts:

From the benchmarks, there is absolutely no doubt that the E6300 is superior to the 3800+ X2. Clock for clock,i t was top dog on every single test. Even at stock the E6300 held its own and even managed to beat the overclocked X2 in some tests. We have no doubt that if the 3800+ X2 had been run at its stock frequency of 2 GHz, it would have been caned by the stock E6300 in every test. The overclocking potential of the new Intel Core Duo 2 chips is quite remarkable. On stock cooling you should be able to squeeze out another gigahertz of power for free providing you have the right system components to take it all the way. Image some watercooling or a little phase change on this chip! Considering that both CPUs cost around the £135 price range, there is absolutely no reason why you should pick a 3800+ X2 over the E6300.

Intel has really got a winner on their hands. Long gone are the days of Netburst. The new Core architecture is here to stay, and it looks like Intel have regained the performance crown for 2006/07.

 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment