Hello!
Just wondering why you dont show Linpack benchmark results anymore?

I have updated the results for The Panorama Factory to correct an error that made the performance of the X2 6000+ in the align function look worse than it was. The correct graph and article text are now online.

Oh please. Any Core 2 lays waste to any of these "high-end" X2's in price, power - anything.

Additionally, it's so rediculously easy to overclock a C2D - completely oppisite with chips like this "6000" nonsense - who wouldn't OC their Core 2, even just a few megahertz?

.>>>>.where is the E6600? Your conclusion is very wrong without it. E6600 is like the 6000+ and 150$ cheaper!<<<<

Ha, ha, ha,

Intel trolls are upset because 6000+ is almost $100 cheaper yet still manages to beat even E6700 in very important 3D rendering tests.

Come to think of it, I wasn't too thrilled at the conclusions to Scott's last review I read, either, the one about the Dell XPS M1210.

Without competing products to compare it to, it's kind of hard to make a decision. Other semi-ultraportables such as the Lenovo V3000 100, , Sony VAIO C13/15, Toshiba Tecra M6/Portege M500, Fujitsu Lifebook P7, Compaq B1900, or if you're moving upmarket (judging by the price of the Dell as configured), IBM X60, hp nc4400 or Sony VAIO SZ, and that's just off the top of my head.

However, I acknowledge that TR is not a laptop review site, and that review units are hard to come by. I'd personally be happier if TR were to concentrate on its strengths rather than to branch out into areas it is not equipped to handle.

Peace,
V.

I thought it was an excellent review, the rest of the lil bickering bitches go post on THG.

I have no problems with the methodology of the review. And Scott has explained why the 6600 and 5600+ are in absentia.

What I don't agree with, however, is the conclusion Scott arrived at. Anyone can post benchmarks. What I've come to expect from TR, however, is the informed editorial voice at the end of the review "telling it like it is".

In all honesty, would TR recommend the 6000+ in any of its rigs? I certainly don't see it going in the God Box, and can't condone it going into any of the others.

Since we can't expect AMD to put out a million dollar ad campaign that proudly proclaims "Still no. 2!" , I'm counting on TR to give their objective, informed opinion (a review which provides a conclusion based on a sample of 2 processors in the market is not what I call informed). Scott, you have only the high standards you've set in the past to blame. :p

Considering its clock speed advantage over the E6700 its not as rosy as Damage has painted it here.
Turn up the Conroe to an equal 3Ghz and watch it demolish the AMD chip in every test.
As for the final comments on "having less overclocking headroom"...yeah right....you'd be lucky to get a 300mhz overclock out of it whereas
the E6700 will almost always comfortably sustain a 1GHZ overclock.
Hardly a slight advantage....

There are two critical flaws in this review:

- the much cheaper E6600 is missing (which, btw, Xbitlabs has found to compete well with the 6000+)

- the written comments are very forgiving where the 6000+ falls behind its competition (I'm sorry, but being not that much worse really shouldn't cut it.)

Personally, I think this latest X2 is entering prescotian territory - losing to its peers even at almost twice the power consumption. K8L can't come soon enough for AMD.

typo on page 11 - GromaCs!

The E6700 is $649 CDN at Canada Computers.

If the X2 6000 is going to be ~$90 CDN cheaper I would seriously consider it - especially after taxes taht would make a $110 difference. That's a nice 250GB HDD for the same price of 1 chip.

Why is everyone harping on the E6600 to be in the review? Techreport is NOT anandtech or any other technical website. Everyone has their way of testing and reporting. Do you bitch and complain about every newspaper to the other editorials? For heaven's sake. . . . . . .

And where was everyone when the PD's were taking the ass whooping of a life time? I've been reading these boards since 2002 and I don't recall this bunch of nonsense on an everyday basis over a piece of metal and plastic. (Please do not refer to Porkster)

How about this . . .round up all of the processors and just open an excel spreadsheet, outlook, and a word file. Throw something exciting in there like surfing the net and make graphs for that.

Seriously Damage..where is the E6600? Your conclusion is very wrong without it. E6600 is like the 6000+ and 150$ cheaper!
Your conclusion besides the power consumption and price looks like something that could have been the conclusion of a E6600 vs a E6700.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-6000.html
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_athlon_64_x2_6000/

(Even 64bit its still "just" E6600 performance.)

Your "competitors" can do it right, why cant you? And why try to glorify a loser chip as the 6000+? Had it been around 300$ sure, then besides the power consumption it would be worth it! But at 450$ its a BAD BUY! Unless you wanna buy the same performance for 50% more cash.

Its a no brainer that the E6700 is abit over 50% more costly than the E6600 and gives less than 10% more performance.

So please add the E6600, or remember it next time.

The trend toward performance/watt per dollar is very important, right? When are we going to see reviews with some mention of this?

I like the benchmarks you're running here now. They seem a bit esoteric at first, but they're relevant for some purposes, and it's just plain fun to read about a cool test when most other sites have the same 3DMark benchies.

I'm curious how you guys got around the problems with setting up Vista for benchmarking. Care to share?

I enjoyed the article thanks. Shows a good upgrade path for those that are using AM2 and don't want to ditch their board for it. Just give it a few months for the price to drop.

Cheers
Jyp

This was a good article which I think succeeded admirably in avoiding "fanboy" extremes either way...;) Thanks for the level-headed look.

A couple of minor quibbles, though...

On the configuration settings page, I note that the Core 2 processor is described like this:

Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz

whereas the AMD x2 is described like this:

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHz (90nm)

I'm wondering why it is that the process size is considered important for the Athlon but not for the Core 2. This is especially important, I think, as it explains the energy-consumption statistics presented later in the article. It's no more reasonable to compare the energy use between the 2.66GHz 65nm Core 2 and the 3GHz 90nm x2 than it would be to compare it between the 2.66GHz 65nm Core 2 and a 3GHz 90nm Prescott. In both scenarios the 65nm cpu will win in energy consumption for obvious reasons. This has more to do with process size than it does with architecture, imo.

On that note, an interesting comparison to have included here would have been to throw the results for a 3/3.2GHz 90nm Prescott system into the mix, just for perspective...;)

Next, the system bus for the Core 2 cpu is described like this:

1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped)

while the system bus for the x2 cpu is described like this:

1GHz HyperTransport

...For consistency, shouldn't the x2 system description have read,

"2GHz HyperTransport (1GHz uni-directional)", or else "1GHz HyperTransport (2 GHz bi-directional)"...? Or, at least something a bit more descriptive of the way that HyperTransport works, since it seemed important to explain 266MHz "quad-pumped"...?

Just minor points, certainly, and it is surely true that this 3GHz 90nm x2 is representative of the "old school." I think it's important to note that Core 2, however, is Intel's "new school," and to see what AMD's "new school" is going to be requires us to wait on Barcelona and thereafter.

Again, though, this was a nice and balanced article.

both CPU's are lame..and out of my price range. The review is subpar for TR standards. Nothing great to see here. Just 2 SKU tested and nothing more. Well, enough. I'm out on my way.

Considering that the majority of respondants here are probably NOT in the market for $300-500 processors and won't be any time in the immediate future, the belly-achin' about the absence of an E6600 sounds like the laziest kind of armchair quarterbacking.

At any rate, good review TR, as usual! I know from limited experience how much work these things are, and kudos for including a wide array of benchmarks while keeping the results (and graphs) simple and comprehensible. Looking forward to more results in the future, when your time allows.

Good review, as always, but the status quo hasn't changed. Only a fanboy would go AMD for anything other than budget computing.

Am I missing something here? These are dual core CPUs, but the CPU utilization graphs on each benchmark show four cores.

How'd you manage that?

X2 6000+ offers a compelling alternative to the E6700

Compelling? Maybe in the same way a siren is compelling. Come closer, though, and you'll notice this one has heavy makeup to hide her wrinkles, and her boobs are sagging. Either way, though, your ship still ends up smashed on the rocks. :p

Jebus, the fanboys come out and cry when their champion product doesn't do super well.

Guess what? X2 6000+ is a direct compentior to E6700 in the marketplace. If you really want E6600 results just cut the E6700 results by 10% and power consumption by like 10-15W.

E6600 is a little slower and cheaper, but enthusiast do not get an E6600 for stock performance. They overclock the bejesus out of them which in turn toasts the X2 6000+. The X2 6000+ most certainly little to no overclocking headroom.

Not all that unrelated. I read a article on slashdot earlier today, since you switched over to Vista have you considered running with 4GB of memory? It seems a bit extreme for a XP machine or anything else, but after reading this it seems like what you want for Vista.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

Ocing capability not mentioned???

Damage, FWIW, it might be really cool if you did overlays of graphs when possible - such as the latency graphs. It would make differences pop out and punch you in the face. Just a thought.

Please digg:

http://digg.com/hardware/Athlon_64_X2_6000_faces_Core_2_Duo_in_Vist...

Thanks.

All of this competition gets me excited! Bring on K10 AMD!

quote: "we like to scare off newbies here at TR in order to drive advertising revenues down. (It's all about the tax write-off.) As part of that effort, here's a look at some 3D graphs showing access latencies when going to L1 cache (yellow), L2 cache (orange), and main memory (er, burnt sienna)."

that gave me a chuckle!

nice article. good to see some new benchmark programs!

Its a shame to see AMD's best and greatest get its ass handed to it by some midrange Intel. K10 better be as good as they hype it to be.