All Processors Feeds

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500

1209656232

The new dual-core variants of Intel's 45nm Penryn CPU family look like a no-brainer. For the most part, that's how how it turns out.

The top E8500 model is clocked at an impressive 3.16GHz, which translates into single and dual-threaded performance to match any processor on the planet. It's also impressively efficient compared to the outgoing 65nm generation of Core 2 Duo CPUs from Intel.

Improved performance

Despite running a few hundred MHz faster than the old 2.93GHz X6850 dual-core chip, the E8500 consumes 30 watts less under full load.

It's also significantly quicker in every benchmark than the X6850. Part of that is no doubt thanks to the faster frequency, but the addition of 2MB of cache memory, now a borderline-silly total of 6MB, doesn't hurt. The same goes for the faster 1,333MHz bus. It's all gravy.

Of course, Intel would also claim that the various tweaks made to the Penryn architecture boost the clock-for-clock performance of its latest cores, too. You know, the new Radix 16 divider, enhanced SuperShuffle Engine and all that jazz.

In practice, it's effectively impossible to isolate each of the upgrades and deduce exactly how much benefit they bring.

Power at an attractive price

What we can say, however, is that the overall performance advantage of the E8500 over the X6850 is always above 10 per cent and sometimes as much as 20 per cent.

That's despite the clock speed differential of just eight per cent. And remember, the E8500 is less than £200. At launch a little over 18 months ago, the X6850 was the world's fastest PC chip and cost a cool £600. That's progress for you.

The good news doesn't end there. We can also report that the E8500 is every bit as good an overclocking chip as you would hope; hitting 4GHz on air cooling is a cinch. Up the volts a bit, and even higher speeds are possible.

All of which just leaves one lingering doubt. The full-fat, 12MB cache Q9450 quad-core chip can be had for just £30 more. Sure it's clocked a little lower at 2.6GHz. But for any system that's remotely multi-purpose, the Q9450 is probably a better all-round bet.

AMD Phenom X3 8750

Jeremy Laird — 1209121510

Put yourself in AMD's shoes. Things haven't been going to plan. Your crucial quad-core chip arrived late, ran slow and had a nasty little hardware bug. What's more, you're being beaten silly by Intel's Core 2 processors. What do you do? How about a triple-core chip to distract attention from the mess you're in?

That's the cynical take on the launch this week of the Phenom X3, the new triple-core revision of AMD's Barcelona processor architecture. And it's not entirely fair. It might be true that the X3 would not have happened if the Phenom project as a whole wasn't floundering. But it's still a smart move by AMD and presents punters with an intriguing new alternative.

Processor pitch

For starters, it gives AMD a unique sales pitch and a product that neatly transcends the direct comparisons that have been so unflattering for the initial quad-core Phenom X4 models. Indeed, it's extremely unlikely that Intel will copy it.

Intel's quad-core processors are actually composed of a pair of dual-core dies sandwiched into a single package. Creating a triple-core model would therefore require some fairly hideous hackery. But even if it didn't, such is Intel's crushing dominance, it's doubtful it would bother. Let AMD have a monopoly on triple-core products. See if Intel cares.

More to the point, by pricing the new X3 range to take on dual-core Intel Core 2s, AMD probably reckons it can offset Phenom's core-for-core performance disadvantage. If the X3 delivers more bang for your buck, what do you care whether the whole triple-core thing is a bit of a gimmick? What really matters is the performance it pumps out, not how it's achieved.

Bugged out

So, is the new Phenom X3 actually a chip we can actually recommend? Certainly we're pleasantly surprised to find that retail examples of AMD's triple-ganger sport the all important '50' suffix. That indicates they're based on the latest B3 spin of the Phenom architecture and hence free from the infamous TLB bug. As we've reported earlier, the BIOS work around AMD implemented to patch the bug typically sapped performance to the tune of 10% and sometimes as much as 30%.

It seems the “buggy” B2-based Phenom X3s that AMD announced a few months ago are destined to go only to system builders and won't be sold as boxed processors. Hence in almost regards save core count, the new X3 Phenoms are identical to the latest revision of the X4 line. In fact it's based on precisely the same quad-core processor die but with one core disabled.

With that in mind you might think the X3 is an effort to increase yields and profitability by rescuing dies with one dud core from the scrap heap. But apparently not. When we put that very question to AMD it was flatly denied.

Whatever, our first experience of the X3 comes in the form of the 8750 model. At 2.4GHz its the quickest option at launch and like other Phenom X3s packs 512K of L2 cache memory per core and a shared pool of 1.5MB of L3 cache. It's also a socket AM2+ chip and in theory is compatible with the large installed base of AM2 motherboards. In practice, we strongly recommend you consult you board's maker before assuming it's good to go for X3s.

Triple whammy

But how does it perform? For the most part, just as you would expect for a Phenom chip short on cores to the tune of one. In heavily multi-threaded applications such as video encoding or professional rendering, the benefit over competing dual-core Intel processors is clear to see. The X3 8750 is quicker than the price-parity Core 2 E6750 in such workloads.

That said, it's worth noting that some multi-threaded apps like Window Media Encoder are currently foxed by the odd-numbered core count and will only make use of a pair of the cores. It's a minor glitch that's likely to be addressed in the near future. But there are two more serious counts on which the X3 fumbles.

Firstly, in single and dual-threaded software, including the vast majority of games, it's much, much slower than the Intel competition. But even more troublesome is the close proximity of the X3's quad-core sibling in AMD price list.

Precise UK retail prices will emerge over the next week or so. But it certainly looks like the premium for an identically-clocked X4 chip will only be around £20. Add another £10 and you're in Intel quad-core territory. All of which means the X3 is an interesting new option that just needs a little shaved off the asking price to really make sense.

AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE

Jeremy Laird — 1208271471

The launch of the original Phenom X4 quad-core processor was blighted by a hardware bug and disappointing clockspeeds. Can the new Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition and its revised B3 stepping salvage the situation for AMD?

It's hard to know just how much AMD has been hurting following the frankly disastrous introduction of its quad-core CPU architecture. But here's one metric of its current predicament that is rather revealing. Back in 2005 AMD's entry-level dual-core chip, the relatively feeble Athlon 64 X2 3800+, commanded a £275 sticker. Today, the brand new Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition flagship quad-core model is priced to sell at £155.

Phenom's weakness

And lest you have forgotten, Phenom is a big old beast that must surely be costly to manufacture. All four cores, plus a memory controller, HyperTransport I/O and 3MB of cache memory are packed into a single 65nm processor die. Making matters worse, AMD has been having difficulty clocking the chip up to competitive speeds. Despite claims to the contrary, therefore, we suspect the upcoming triple-core Phenom X3 model is an attempt to lift production yields out of the trash can.

Intel's latest quads, by contrast, are composed of a pair of dual-core dies and are built using finer 45nm production technology. Thanks to the great per-cycle performance of the Core 2 architecture, Intel also has the luxury of not needing to push its chips to limit in terms of clockspeeds. All of which takes the pressure off yields as a whole for the stupidly successful Core 2 family.

But back to the matter at hand, namely the new Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition. Arguably the most significant aspect of this new chip, which benefits from the new B3 stepping of AMD's quad-core architecture, is the removal of the nasty little TLB bug.

TLB bug is gone...

As we've reported on numerous occasions, the TLB bug is a hardware erratum effecting the chip's translation lookaside buffer. In certain scenarios, it can cause systems to fully lock up. In reality, that's likely to be an extremely rare occurrence. But the mere possibility forced AMD to create a BIOS-based work around that disabled the faulty circuitry.

You might think that was problem solved. But in testing the BIOS fix compromised performance by around 10 per cent on average and as much as 30 per cent in isolated benchmarks. With Phenom struggling to reach competitive and the chip's rather conservative architecture not delivering competitive clock-for-clock performance, the bug added to a rather inauspicious compendium of shortcomings.

Nevertheless, the TLB bug can now be crossed off that list. With the B3 stepping it has been banished – at least for all Phenom processors with the '50' suffix in the product number. The X3 triple-core chips will keep the '00' suffix and remain TLB bugged.

But what about clockspeeds? Here the news is less gratifying. Though the new 9850 Black Edition model does raise Phenom's game, the move is from a rather pitiful 2.3GHz to merely mediocre 2.5GHz. To put that into perspective, the slowest model in Intel's latest 45nm quad-core range is clocked at the very same speed. The fastest Intel quad-core CPU now weighs in at 3.2GHz.

Excellent multi-core scaling

As for the 9850's actual performance, it's a tale of two halves. In isolation it delivers a pretty solid experience. The 2.5GHz clockspeed is just enough for decent single-threaded performance. Meanwhile, AMD's integrated memory controller ensures low latency and extremely data high bandwidth to all for cores which makes for excellent multi-core scaling.

Unfortunately, however, the 9850 does not exist in isolation. Currently priced around £155 it must compete with the entry level quad-core chip from Intel's 65nm range, the Q6600. It may only run at 2.4GHz, but the Q6600 still has the measure of the fastest Phenom in most benchmarks. Admittedly, the 9850 does match the Intel opposition in our H.264 video encoding test. But it's squarely beaten in the intensive Crysis CPU gaming gauntlet and Cinebench rendering benchmark, for instance.

Of course, all of that applies to operation at stock frequencies. As a “Black Edition” chip, the Phenom X4 9850 has an unlocked multiplier designed for simple overclocking. However, although AMD appears to have released a little more headroom on this latest quad-core model, the 2.8GHz we achieved remains a modest overclock in the context of what Intel's quad's are typically capable of. Any Core 2 Q6600 you buy today will hit speeds well in excess of 3GHz.

So, AMD's revised Phenom CPU in the form of the new 9850 model is certainly a step in the right direction. But it's simply too incremental to significantly close the gap to Intel. For that we'll have to wait until AMD releases its upcoming 45nm shrink of the Phenom later this year. By then, of course, Intel is expected to be shipping its brand new quad-core chips based on the ominous looking Nehalem architecture. It's not going to get any easier for AMD.

	AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE	AMD Phenom X4 9600	Intel Core 2 Q6600
Crysis	51fps	47fps	62fps
Cinebench R10	1min 54secs	2mins 1sec	1min 41secs
H.264 video encode	35fps	33fps	35fps
Memory bandwidth	9.91GB/s	9.63GB/s	5.2GB/s

Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2180 2GHz

1202661276

Spare a thought for this feeble, emaciated little chip. The E2180 potters along at just 2GHz, packs just 1MB of cache and suffers a comparatively glacial 800MHz bus. Glacial, that is, compared to the 3.2GHz of Intel's own Core 2 Extreme QX9770.

Surprisingly capable

Funny thing is, however, even at stock clocks, this processor delivers a decent experience. Thank the fact that it's based on Intel's Core 2 architecture for that, despite the 'Pentium' branding.

Consequently, it has just enough juice for gaming and hi-def video. But the way this beastie overclocks is something else. How about over 3GHz using an air cooler and stock voltages? This chip cranks out performance comparable to any of Intel's pricier dual-core models. And all for a whiff over £50. Impressive.

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 3GHz

1202637764

If you want the finest PC processor money can buy, look no further than Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770. Or at least that would be true if you could actually buy it, which is still not possible as we write. Intel has been wowing the press for many months with samples. A full retail launch is long overdue.

Pricey but worth it?

Assuming it is available by the time you read these words, can it possibly be worth over £800? Thanks to a higher 3,2GHz core clockspeed and a uniquely quick 1,600MHz bus frequency, it's clearly the fastest stock-clocked processor on the planet.

The boosted core voltage also makes it easier to hit really high overclocked numbers. But overall, the end user experience is essentially the same as the Q9550 - a model that costs one third the price. Nuff said.

Intel Core 2 Q9550 2.83GHz

1202637497

Four extremely powerful processor cores running at 2.83GHz, 12MB of cache, 1,333MHz bus speeds and the latest 45nm process technology. That's the short version of what makes this an astonishingly powerful processor. It is literally state of the art. As the first mainstream member of the 45nm Intel quad-core range, it's also reasonably affordable.

No disappointments

Granted, it will be joined by the even cheaper 2.66GHz Q9450 and 2.33GHz Q9300 models soon. But if you can stretch to the anticipated £250 price tag, you won't be disappointed.

Whatever you throw at it, whether it's the latest games or some heavy duty multi-tasking, it'll keep trucking. Even better, it boasts almost as much overclocking headroom as the more expensive QX6950 model.

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 3GHz

1202637185

What price performance? That's the question you always have to ask yourself when considering Intel's uber-expensive Extreme processors. For the QX9650, the answer, sadly, has to be too much.

Unjustified price

Largely that's due to the arrival of the much cheaper Q9550 model. An extra £400 is an awful lot of money to pay for the 170MHz of additional clockspeed and unlocked CPU multiplier the QX9650 offers over its cheaper sibling.

In all other regards it sports an identical 45nm quad-core feature set. In our testing it wasn't even much quicker for overclocking - 3.5GHz plays 3.4GHz.

What's more, if you are going to spend an insane amount of money, it makes sense to go the whole hog, bag the QX9770 model and enjoy the knowledge that you've managed to buy the fastest processor possible.

AMD Phenom 9600 2.3GHz

1202636974

In simple terms, there are two routes to processor performance. Either crank up the clockspeeds or build an architecture that can crunch lots of instructions in a single clock cycle. Unfortunately for AMD, the new Phenom falls flat on both counts.

Not much of an improvement

For now, the 2.3GHz clockspeed of this chip is the best AMD can do. But the real problem is that the processor architecture that underlies Phenom is only slightly faster, in clock-for-clock terms, than AMD's outgoing Athlon 64 chips.

Even running at 2.9GHz, Phenom lags significantly behind the mainstream 2.83GHz competition from Intel, much less Intel's top chip tweaked to run at 4GHz. The harsh truth is that AMD will have to shave as much as £50 off the price tag to make the 9600 truly attractive.

Intel Core 2 E6750 2.66GHz

1202636709

At first glance, the E6750 looks like the obvious compromise between price and performance in the Core 2 dual-core range. Available for around £120, it boasts a healthy 4MB slab of cache, a solid clockspeed of 2.66GHz and a snappy 1,333MHz bus frequency.

Twice as fast

But is it worth double the price of its entry-level sibling, the E2180? In a word, yes. At stock clockspeeds, it's as much as twice as fast. Frankly, there's performance to spare for most work loads. Even the most demanding hi-def video codecs, such as H.264, pose no threat.

The E6750 brushes such piffling computations nonchalantly aside. What's more, don't let the older 65nm process technology put you off. Thanks to Intel's ongoing development of the Core 2 architecture, this chip has bags of overclocking headroom.

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770

1201165481

AMD's bottom must be extremely red and rather sore. After all, Intel has been giving it a relentless spanking since the launch of the Core 2 processor in mid 2006. Unfortunately, respite for AMD's long-suffering cheeks is unlikely. With the release of yet another flagship CPU from Intel this month, the punishment surely looks set to continue.

That said, the launch of a new range-topping chip from Intel isn't usually cause for much rejoicing. It's often a case of a few hundred extra MHz of operating frequency, a silly price tag north of £500 and piddlingly poor value for money. Yes, the latest Intel Extreme chip can usually be relied upon to increase the gap to AMD. But you'd be starkers to buy one.

In many ways, the new Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is no different. Note, in particular, the clockspeed bump of just 200MHz. But this chip really is something special. Most of all it delivers on the immense promise of Intel's new 45nm silicon production process.

Welcome improvements

Partly that's down to an increase in front-side-bus frequency to 1,600MHz. Bus bandwidth is probably Intel's only remaining weakness and it's a particular problem in the context of four extremely data-hungry processor cores packed into a single CPU package. A real solution to the problem won't arrive until the release of the all new Nehalem architecture slated for the end of the year. Any increase in bus throughput on the existing architecture is welcome.

But the upgrade that really sexes up the QX9770's enthusiast credentials is an increase in core voltage. As regular readers will recall, the existing QX9650 process proved that the 45nm process was spectacularly power efficient. But with a conservative stock voltage of 1.25 volts it also left us wondering to what extent Intel was sandbagging.

The answer is: a lot. The QX9770's core voltage has been upped to 1.35 volts. That's enough to allow our sample to reach over 4GHz without touching the voltage setting in the BIOS. Yup, that's in excess of 4GHz at stock voltages and using air-cooling. Yikes.

Of course, there's nothing stopping owners of the QX9650 from applying the same voltage boost themselves. But voltage tweaks are a bit of a black art at the best of times. At worst they can leave you with a dud chip. Whether all that makes this £800 chip good value, however, is another matter.