Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Preview

[PAGETITLE=Introduction] [Top Ad] It hasn't been a full year since we saw Intel launch their Core 2 Duo processors, but we will soon be seeing a line-up refresh. This is one product that really needs no introduction, but seeing as this is a refresh, refreshing everyones minds seems appropriate. Intel launched the Core 2 Duo to much fanfare last July. Months prior to this, enthusiasts were drooling over leaks of performance reports, which fortunately, turned out to be right on the money. The entire Conroe line-up is built on a 65nm process, with the mainstream products offering 4MB of L2 cache. Improved over the previous Pentium 4/Pentium D line-up was better power efficiency resulting in a lower TDP and better overall temperatures. This is appreciated, as two cores under the same IHS can potentially create an unwanted room heater. All but the lowest end Core 2 Duos take advantage of a 1066FSB. This is where this refreshed line-up comes into play, as it ushers in 1333FSB computing. This noticeable speed bump is all done while retaining the same TDP. All Conroe 1333FSB processors are identified by by a 50 at the end of the product name, hence E6750, which is effectively taking over the spot of the E6700. Nothing has changed except for the FSB and speeds, except the ratio of course, which had to be altered in order to compliment the upgraded frequency. One thing that should be cleared up is that most overclocking enthusiasts have already accomplished the same speeds we are seeing today, with most being exceeded. In fact, there is nothing stopping anyone from popping in an E6600 and overclocking using a 333FSB and 8 multiplier. That would effectively give you the exact same speed as the E6750 we are taking a look at today. You might be wondering where the benefit is, with this official speed bump. Primarily it will benefit those non-overclockers most. There is no comparison to equal processor speed at 1066FSB and 1333FSB. That added FSB frequency should make a much more noticeable performance difference than the CPU frequency boost itself. This boost also helps usher in the DDR3-era, since these new processors will be able to utilize a 1:1 ratio with DDR3-1333 modules, a common DDR3 standard. Aside from the obvious speed benefit with the new processors, there is another aspect that most are going to enjoy. The price. According to reports, the processor we are taking a look at today will retail for an average of ~$200 at launch. One popular e-tailer recently leaked their prices, which backed up these claims. So here we have an E6750 at 2.66GHz with a 1333FSB... for $200? This is probably -the- reason why excitement should be in the air. Compare that to the current E6700 price, which hovers around the $300 mark. We will touch a lot more on pricing and other specifics in our conclusion. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Line-Up, Pricing] The new processors don't have a hard launch date yet, but will be launched later this summer. Therefore, this is more of a performance preview than a review, but it will show you what to expect should you purchase one at launch. Before we move on, here is a table to better help you understand the entire Conroe line-up, including these new offerings. Just bear in mind that once this refreshed line-up hits the market, some other models may be phased out. CPU Model Clock Speed FSB L2 Cache TDP Cores Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 * 3.0GHz 1333MHz 4MB x 2 130w 4 Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 130w 4 Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 130w 4 Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 105W 4 Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333MHz 4MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 * 2.66GHz 1333MHz 4MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.60GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 * 2.33GHz 1333MHz 2MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 * 2.33GHz 1333MHz 2MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 1066MHz 2MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz 1066MHz 2MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.2GHz 800MHz 2MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 2.0GHz 800MHz 2MB 65W 2 Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 1.80GHz 800MHz 2MB 65W 2 Note that all listed with an * denotes that it is one of the new processors slated for release this summer. The QX6850 is tentatively priced for $999, the E6850 for $266, E6750 for $183 and the E6550 for $163. Upon launch, the other part of line-up is expected to go down in price. If proven true, the Q6600 is expected to be priced identically to the E6850 at launch. As mentioned in the intro, the new releases retain the same TDP as the previous releases. When the CPU voltage was set to "Auto", the actual voltage used was 1.344v. The CPU is able to run with less voltage, and we will tackle that more in our overclocking section. E6750 - Stock speed of 2.66GHz(Click for full CPU-Z report) Most of the 1333FSB reviews you see around the web today will be of the E6750 for the fact that it is likely to be the most desired pick of the new line-up. The E6850 costs about $80 more for a 340MHz boost, something that can be accomplished with this CPU without even increasing the voltage. However, for CPU overclocks of 4.0GHz and higher, the E6850 will be the preferred chip for the 9x multiplier. The E6750 has a 6 - 8 multiplier, meaning that your motherboard will need to handle a 500FSB to hit 4.0GHz... a tough task. We've covered all the basics, so let's compare this new CPU to our E6600 and Q6600 processors on hand. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Testing Methodology, SYSmark 2007] [Top Ad] Throughout all of our benchmarking tests, regardless of what we are reviewing, testing is done in a clean and stand-alone version of Windows XP Professional with SP2. The exception is in our SYSmark 2007 tests, which uses Windows Vista Ultimate. No Windows Updates are applied for the sake of time, unless one is required for a piece of hardware on the computer. We've recently updated our methodology, to reflect a more real-world experience. Instead of tweaking Windows to a minimalist state, we leave all initial processes running, as it is a realistic scenario. The primary form of computer latency is a network, so all network devices are disabled prior to any testing. This is done in addition to: Desktop and scrap files are cleaned up, including emptying of recycle bin. No virus scanner or firewall is installed in the stand-alone installation. Computer has proper airflow and room temperature is 80°F or less. Games that are used for benchmarking have their average frames per second recorded with the help of FRAPS 2.82. Here is the specs of the machine used for todays testing: Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz. Compared Processors Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz Motherboard: ASUS P5K3 Deluxe WiFi-AP Memory: Kingston 2GB KHX11000 (DDR3-1333 7-7-7-20 1.7v) * Video: ASUS 8800GTX 768MB (NVIDIA 158.22) Sound: Onboard HD Audio. Storage: Seagate 7200.9 320GB Etcetera: Windows XP Professional SP2, Windows Vista Ultimate. Cooling: Corsair Nautilus 500 * 1066FSB processors are run with DDR3-1066 6-6-6-15 1.6v. The refreshed line-up is consists of mere speed bumps, so this preview will not be as long as it would be if it were a complete architecture change. Also, throughout our testing we are comparing only three CPU's since that's all we have on hand. The Q6600 is a Quad-Core processor so it will no doubt beat the other two in almost every test. SYSmark 2007 Preview SYSmark is an industry leading system benchmarking tool, which is completely automated but utilizes real-world tests. It installs common applications such as Microsoft Word and Excel, Photoshop CS2, 3DS Max, SketchUp! among others. SYSmark grades the performance of the system with various methods, but most notably how well it could handle different operations. Systems with more than one core will benefit in the tests, since there is a lot of multi-tasking throughout. Once the test is completed, it will provide you with an overall score, in addition to showing areas where the computer excelled. SYSmark can offer some odd results, but overall they scale accordingly to having a better CPU. The 3D test confuses me as the exact same GPU is used, however the E6600 scored far less. Our E6750 performed as expected though, beating the E6600 by two points overall. Not surprisingly, our Quad-Core beat the others in most of the tests, especially the VideoCreation. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Nero Recode, 3D Studio Max, Cinebench] Nothing can prove the performance of a PC better than real-world benchmarks. The only downside to real-world tests is that it's difficult to compare to a friends computer, unless they happen to have the same software and media files that you are encoding/converting. We can show direct differences though, since we run the exact same tests on each processor. Nero Recode To test video encoding capabilities, we ripped our "Lamb of God - Killadelphia" concert DVD and then used Nero Recode to convert it into something that can be burned on a normal sized DVD. The direct DVD rip is 7.7GB, and Recode compresses it into a 4.5GB one. The high-quality mode showed a definite improvement with the E6750, proving to be 11% faster than the E6600. Given the fact that the clock speed is 11% greater, it's to be expected. 3D Studio Max If there is one audience who can benefit most from additional cores and CPU frequency, it's the multi-media crowd, and that's where our 3D Studio Max benchmark comes into play. We take a model that consists of 406 objects and 106,000 vertices, and render it at a high 3200x2400 resolution. Neither Dual-Core was a match for the Quad-Core, but the E6750 once again showed a nice increase over the E6600. This won't make a large difference in small renders like this, but larger projects it could mean the difference of ten minutes, or hours. Cinebench Like 3D Studio Max, Cinebench emulates a similar scenario, where you...

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Preview

Page 156 –

Rob Williams