Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Review
Features & Specs of the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800Specifications Intel quotes the following specifications for the Core 2 Extreme X6800
Notable Facts of the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800
Key Core 2 Extreme X6800 Features One of the first things I learned back in the day about a CPU was that all the calculations a CPU performs are tied to the clock cycle. One trick for making a CPU faster is to allow more instructions to be executed per clock cycle. While a few years back we were running one instruction per clock cycle, or possibly two per cycle, the new X6800 is able to run four instructions per clock cycle. The Pentium processors that the Core 2 parts are replacing were only able to issue and execute three instructions per clock cycle. This fact marks one of the places the Core 2 platform gains some of the performance it holds over its Intel brethren from the past. Another advancement that allows the new Core 2 Extreme processor to be so much faster than the previous Intel Extreme Edition is having both cores on one die. The X6800 also has a shared level 2 cache that is 4 MB in size, this shared cache allows both cores to see the data that is in the cache for the other core. This keeps the cores from each having to load their own copies of the same data and helps to reduce bus traffic in the system. Unlike the AMD FX-62 I’ll be comparing to today, the Core 2 X6800 doesn’t have an integrated memory controller. Integrating the memory controller into the core helps to reduce traffic and increase performance because it moves the task of controlling the memory from the northbridge to the core itself. There is much more to the changes from the older Intel CPUs to the new Core 2 processors, if you want more information check the Intel site, these are basically the highlights. System Specifications Building the system up with the X6800 was easy and fun. I used the following components in my system: Intel System
AMD System
The LGA775 socket is much different looking for those used to the AMD AM2 or socket 939. If you have never used a LGA775 CPU, the pins are not on the CPU but rather the pins are actually on the socket on the mainboard. This means that you have to be very careful with both the mainboard and the CPU. A bent pin on the CPU socket on your mainboard can damage both your CPU and your mainboard. I have never been a fan of the mounting method that Intel uses for the LGA775 heatsink and fan. I personally find it much easier to mount fans on the AM2 and socket 939 boards. That said the method Intel uses does work. If you are upgrading your system and buy a boxed Intel CPU it will likely include a heatsink and fan combo. Benchmarks I used a number of different tests to benchmark the performance of the X6800 I will post screen shots from the test results pages as well as comparative numbers from the top-of-the-line AMD FX-62. Sandra 2007 SiSoftware Sandra 2007 has a number of very telling benchmarks for the testing of CPUs and I used them all to get an idea of the performance for both X6800 and the FX-62 from AMD. Previous to reviewing the X6800, the FX-62 was the fastest processor I had tested. Notice I said previous to the FX-62, I am a big AMD fan from way back so it pains me a bit to admit the X6800 owned the FX-62 in virtually every way possible in Sandra 2007 benchmarks. SiSoftware Sandra- Arithmetic Benchmark Results Performance Test Status Processor Features As you can see from the image above (click for larger view) the FX-62 did outperform the X6800 in the Whetstone test by a bit, in all other numbers the X6800 reigned supreme. SiSoftware Sandra- Processor Multi-Media Benchmark Results Performance Test Status Processor Features There was simply no contest between the FX-62 and the X6800 in Multimedia synthetic testing, the X6800 ran away and never looked back. SiSoftware Sandra- Cache & Memory Benchmark Benchmark Results Float SSE2 Cache/Memory Results Breakdown Performance Test Status Processor Features Chipset 1 Logical/Chipset 1 Memory Banks
Again Intel ran away with this benchmark, to compare the AMD FX-62 had a Combined Index of 18899 MB/s as compared to the X6800's 25246 MB/s score. SiSoftware Sandra- Memory Latency Benchmark Results Performance Test Status Processor Chipset 1 Logical/Chipset 1 Memory Banks To compare the AMD FX-62 had a 100ns memory latency and a speed factor of 92.6.
Super Pi Super Pi is one of those benchmarks that computer types quote like car guys quote 0-60 times. Super Pi does a great job of giving the idea of the performance abilities of CPUs allowing us to compare systems. Intel was so far ahead on this benchmark that AMD might as well have been a no show. X6800 Super Pi Results AMD FX-62 Super Pi Results As you can see the differences in the Super Pi times for the two CPUs are very significant with the X6800 beating on the FX-62 like Intel was Tonya Harding's boyfriend and AMD was Nancy Kerrigan. CPU Mark 2.1 Much like Super Pi, CPU Mark 2.1 is another application that allows us to compare CPU performance amongst different CPUs to get an idea of the performance of the processors. Intel again wins overall in this benchmark, though the FX-62 beat the X6800 in test 2, the floating-point operations test nearly doubling the Intel score. The other two tests in the CPUMark series were big wins in Intel's favor. X6800 CPUMark 2.1 Results FX-62 CPUMark 2.1 Results AMD N-Bench 3.0 AMD has a nice application called N-Bench 3.0 that they distribute for CPU testing and performance comparison. I guess that I figured being an AMD sponsored application that perhaps the results would be more slanted towards an AMD processor. I was wrong, the X6800 keeps pummeling the FX-62 like an oaken staff assaults an unwary pinata. X6800 N-Bench Results FX-62 N-Bench Results FEAR Testing After the plethora of synthetic benchmarks that I ran on the X6800, I decided to run FEAR to see how well the X6800 performed in real world usage. For this test I turned all the settings to their lowest options and ran the FEAR in game test loop at 640x480. I also ran the same test at the same settings on the FX-62 based system as well. I knew that the X6800 felt way faster in game than the FX-62, but the results were neigh embarrassing even more so for an AMD fan like myself.
Verdict With only a few exceptions the Intel Core 2 Extreme absolutely dominates the FX-62 from AMD. In daily use the Intel X6800 feels faster, applications load faster, the computer boots faster its just all around faster. There is no doubt whatsoever that Intel reigns supreme in the land of high performance CPUs. AMD currently lags so far behind in performance that it is the virtual opposite of what was said a mere year ago when the FX-60 and the first LGA 775 dual-core extreme edition CPU were fighting it out for the top honors. Is the X6800 fast, hell yeah it's fast. Is it expensive, hell yeah it's expensive. Is it worth it, hell yeah its worth it. If you want the fastest CPU you can get for your desktop, Intel has it. Come on AMD, I can't wait to see your response.
Test System Specifications:
|
|||||||
|
All I4U News Categories
Wrist Dreams
Visit our Wristwatch news site Wrist Dreams to learn about the latest luxury and technology watches on the market. Stay up to date with Wristwatch news by subscribing the Wrist Dreams RSS Feed:
