The PC industry can also breathe a collective sigh of relief about power and thermal issues now that Core 2 has arrived. Intel finally has a firm handle on those problems. These processors consume less powerand thus produce less heatthan desktop Pentiums have for quite a while. The E6700 system's total power draw when fully loaded was 156 W, only 14W more than the Pentium Extreme Edition system drew while sitting idle. What's more, even the high-end Core 2 processors' power use was in line with that of the Energy Efficient versions of the Athlon 64 X2. That leaves room for many good things to happen, from less expensive cooling systems to quieter, smaller enclosures and even some righteous overclocking. Combine the low power draw with the performance we've seen, and the Core 2 is clearly the most energy-efficient desktop processor around.
As much as I appreciate the performance and efficiency of these new CPUs, though, I can't endorse forking out a cool grand (minus one) for a Core 2 Extreme X6800. These top-end CPUs are always iffy values, even if they're insane performers. Meanwhile, the prices on the first two Core 2 Duos are very reasonable for what you get. At $316, the Core 2 Duo E6600 looks like a tremendous deal, provided you can get your hands on one. The E6700 is pricier at $530, but it'll beat the much more expensive FX-62 at almost every turn.
In fact, after seeing the Core 2 in action, many folks may be wondering how AMD is going to keep up. The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ currently lists for more than the Core 2 Duo E6600, and that's just not gonna cut it. Fortunately, AMD has confirmed to us that a major price move is coming in July. We don't have the specifics just yet, but they say they intend to maintain a competitive price-performance ratio. That may mean we'll see the dramatic price cuts rumored to be coming, which would be a good start.
For its next trick, AMD needs to get its 65nm fab process going ASAP. I've heard prognostications that AMD won't be able compete against Core 2 chips with its current AMD64 microarchitecture. That may be the case, but I'm not entirely convinced. The contest we've seen in the preceding pages pitted CPUs manufactured on AMD's 90nm process against CPUs made on Intel's 65nm process. The Netburst fiasco at 90nm has made us forgetful about the benefits of process shrinks, but they can be substantial. AMD could be in a much stronger position if it gets to 65nm quickly.
Regardless of what happens with its competition, though, the big story here is that Intel has replaced its troubled Netburst microarchitecture with a world-beater. The Core microarchitecture and the chips based on it are a huge improvement, and a fitting end to the era of the Pentium.
351 comments — Last by Z-Gradt at 2:52 AM on 07/21/06
| A closer look at the new AMDRory Read and his cohorts chart a new course | 63 | |
| Intel's Core i7-3960X processorSandy Bridge goes Extreme, with BMX bikes and energy drinks | 182 | |
| A quick look at Bulldozer thread schedulingIs it really best to share? | 106 | |
| Life in the lab with Noctua's CPU coolersInvestment-grade luxuries | 64 | |
| AMD's FX-8150 further overclockedThe big diesel gets water cooling | 147 | |
| AMD's FX-8150 'Bulldozer' processorAn all-new microarchitecture initiates a new era for AMD | 588 | |
| AMD's A8-3800 Fusion APULlano slides into a smaller power envelope | 59 | |
| Inside the second: A new look at game benchmarkingNew methods uncover problems with some GPU configs | 163 |
| Friday night topic: The trouble with Best Buy | 138 |