Choosing the right processor (CPU) proves to be a daunting task. The deciding factor is usually games, since we don’t really need a very powerful processor for surfing and creating/viewing documents. Tom’s Hardware makes the task of picking the right CPU easier with their recommendations: Top Picks: Athlon 64 X2 5200+ [Brisbane, 65nm, 2.7GHz, AM2] (US$55) Dual-Core Pentium E5300 [Wolfdale-2M, 45nm, 2.6GHz, LGA 775] ($70) Athlon II X2 250 [Regor, 45nm, 2.8GHz, AM2+] ($80) Pentium Dual-Core E6300 [Wolfdale-2M, 45nm, 2.8GHz, LGA 775] ($80) Phenom II X2 545 [Callisto, 45nm, 3GHz, AM2+] ($90) Phenom II X3 710 [Heka, 45nm, 2.6GHz, AM3] ($100) Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition [Callisto, 45nm, 3.1GHz, AM3] ($100) Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition [Heka, 45nm, 2.8GHz, AM3] ($120) Core 2 Duo E7500 [Wolfdale-3M, 45nm, 2.93GHz, LGA 775] ($120) Phenom II X4 945 [Deneb, 45nm, 3GHz, AM3] ($170) Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition [Deneb, 45nm, 3.2GHz, AM3] ($190) Core 2 Quad Q9400 [Yorkfield, 45nm, 2.66Ghz, LGA 775] ($190) Core 2 Duo E8500 [Wolfdale, 45nm, 3.16GHz, LGA 775] ($190) Core 2 Quad Q9550 [Yorkfield, 45nm, 2.83GHz, LGA 775] ($220) Core i7 920 [Nehalem, 45nm, 2.66GHz, LGA 1366] ($280) Core i7 975 Extreme [Nehalem, 45nm, 3.33GHz, LGA 1366] ($1000) The budget processors picked were the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ and Dual-Core Pentium E5300, both having two cores, and a 2.7 or 2.6 GHz clock. These can be purchased for about $55 (X2 5200+) and $70 (E5300). In the other end of the scale, is the Core i7 975 Extreme, which features 3.33GHz, LGA 1366 socket, and a ridiculously high $1000 price tag. Only for the extremely rich. For the mid-priced processors, it would be a good idea to target the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition or Core 2 Quad Q9400. These can be had for around $190. Whatever processor you choose, keep in mind that the chipset of the motherboard or mainboard would also play an essential role for determining the overall efficacy and performance of your new system. Happy choosing! [Source: Tom’s Hardware | Best Gaming CPUs For the Money: August ‘09] Technorati Tags: processor, gaming, cpu, best bang per buck
]]>ExtremeTech builds a 'Bang for the Buck' based on the Intel Core i7 processor. The result was a combination of peripherals that give you the best value for your money.
Specifications:
Antec 300 case
Antec Earthwatts 650 PSU
ASUS P6T motherboard
Intel Core i7 920 processor
6GB (2x3 DIMMS) OCZ Gold DDR3 Triple-channel 1600MHz memory
Western Digital WD1001FALS Black Ed. 1TB HDD
Lite-On DH401S BD optical drive
AMD ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB graphics card
Creative SoundBlaster Titanium sound card
Logitech Wave keyboard
Logitech G5 mouse
Dell S2409W Widescreen 1920x1080 LCD Monitor
Creative GigaWorks T40 speakers
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit operating system
"This Bang for the Buck turned out more expensive than past efforts, but it's also more forward-looking. ... Even if you're only upgrading, we can't recommend higher each part in this system as it is, in our estimation, the best you can get for your money. Choose wisely, but consider this a guide.
" [ExtremeTech | Build a Bang for the Buck PC]
The total bill for this build was US$2040. Take note that the setup is not a 'budget value system', but a best value and performance for your money build. If you prefer a different component, such as an AMD processor (and appropriate mobo of course) or Nvidia graphics card, you can just change the specs to your liking, using the above components as a guide.
IceRocket : best bang per buck pc, intel core i7
]]>AMD Socket AM3 processors are now here. These are Phenom II CPUs that have support for both DDR3 and DDR2 memory.
Quad-cores:
Phenom II X4 model 810
US$175 2.6GHz 4MB L3 Cache
Phenom II X4 model 805
OEM only 2.5GHz 4MB L3 Cache
Triple-cores:
Phenom II X3 model 720 Black Edition
$145 2.8GHz 6MB L3 Cache
Phenom II X3 model 710
$125 2.6GHz 6MB L3 Cache
Common specs:
Socket AM3 (can be used with most AM2+ motherboards) DDR2 or DDR3 2.0GHz memory controller
Guru of 3D put the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720BE on the test bench:
"... try to mentally place the price and performance of Phenom II X3 and X4 processors in the Core 2 Duo and Quad range. Then it all makes sense. This is where AMD is really competing with Phenom II. And in this product range they certainly are very strong. ... The one processor that for me personally shined was, interestingly enough, the Phenom II X3, the 720 BE processor. I too have that weird stigma about having three cores instead of four, as much as you do. But the results didn't lie ... the X3 720BE is a very competitive Phenom II processor clocked at 2.8 GHz with that luxurious 6MB L3 cache. For roughly 145 USD you can get this BE edition and as such it will allow you to easily overclock it towards 3500-3800 MHz on the most cheap air-cooler one can think of. Again, this particular processor will be placed on the shelves for a only 145 USD and as such this really is an awesome deal." [Guru of 3D | AMD Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720BE review]
AnandTech had a close look at the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720:
"When AMD launched the Phenom II X4 940 and 920 I called it a True Return to Competition. With the rest of the lineup now more fleshed out, it's truly a return to competition. At every price point that AMD targets, it has produced a CPU competitive to Intel's offerings. ... The performance benefits aren't worth it for Phenom II, so while AM3 sounds cool, it's not necessary today. Thankfully AM3 CPUs will work in AM2+ motherboards, so you aren't forced into a relationship with DDR3 if you're not ready." [AnandTech | The Phenom II X4 810 & X3 720: AMD Gets DDR3 But Doesn't Need It]
PCPerspective reviewed the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720:
"This AM3 launch will be a disappointment to some, mainly because there is not a high end part that goes with it, nor do we see a massive increase in performance per clock by going to DDR-3 memory. It is still an immature, though stable, platform. Performance will eventually get up there once the motherboard guys figure out the new memory controller and AMD provides potential micro-code updates. ... The X4 810 is a nice part which will make quite a few folks happy. It does not run really hot, it does not pull all that much power, and it certainly performs well considering the price it is at. In most tests, in comparing to previous results from the Phenom 9950, it was about 5% faster overall than its predecessor at that same speed. ... The X3 720 is probably the most interesting part that this release is seeing. The three cores, slightly lower power consumption, better overclocking performance, and the performance of 3 cores for less than the price of a competitive dual core from Intel. Triple cores still have not seen a lot of acceptance from users and OEMs alike, but this particular product might turn a few heads. In most of the single threaded applications, the X3 720 fared about as well as expected against the Core 2 part." [PCPerspective | Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720 Processor Review]
Tom's Hardware tested the Phenom II X4 810 and Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition:
"If you take Socket AM3 out of the picture, the new Phenom IIs mainly serve to fill in and update AMD's processor lineup with its 45 nm technology. Because they drop right into AM2/AM2+ motherboards, you could almost ignore the fact that they sport 938 pins and just be happy AMD is augmenting the mid-range and entry-level nooks in the Phenom family with chips loaded with more cache, higher clocks, and significantly improved scalability. ... What does make sense is the Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition on an existing AM2/AM2+ setup, leveraging cheap DDR2 memory. Gone are the days of Core 2 Duo's dominance over the value-oriented gaming market. Now that AMD has its hat in the ring, there's a lot more to like about the oddness of three cores." [Tom's Hardware | Socket AM3: AMD's Phenom II Gets DDR3]
HardwareZone reviewed the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720 Black Edition:
"... the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720 'Black Edition' that we tested did not give us any surprises. Their results were in line with our expectations given what we have seen of the X4 940/920. Moreover, the X3 720 looks to be quite an interesting model, using its extra core to keep up with the Intel dual-cores and at the same time, making use of its higher 2.8GHz clock and larger L3 cache to edge ahead of the X4 810 for those non multi-threaded scenarios. Though we haven't tested its overclocking potential, having one less core usually allows for a better chance of further overclocking this Black Edition X3." [HardwareZone | AMD Does DDR3 - The AM3 Phenom II]
X-bit Labs had a close look at the Phenom II X4 810:
"... the main advantage of Socket AM3 processors is their flexible memory controller that can work with both: DDR3 as well as DDR2 memory. That is why you don't have to use the newly announced mainstream Phenom II processors in Socket AM3 systems. They will work perfectly fine in the existing Socket AM2+ or even Socket AM2 infrastructure. ... As for the AMD Phenom II X4 810 processor we discussed today, it is another incarnation of AMD's strategy to be offering higher performance at a lower cost. Our tests showed that its performance is comparable to that of Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200, while its price is a little lower. As a result, AMD currently has a great alternative to all least expensive quad-core Intel processors starting with the Core 2 Quad Q9400 model. In other words, AMD made a very significant step to offering a competitive lineup of processors that we have every reason to recommend as a good buying choice." [X-bit Labs | Meet Socket AM3: AMD Phenom II X4 810 CPU Review]
RegHardware reviewed the 2.6GHz X4 810 and a 2.8GHz X3 720 Black Edition:
"Our main finding is that DDR 2 and DDR 3 deliver the same performance with Phenom II, and it doesn't matter whether you use DDR 3 at 1333MHz or 1600MHz. If you're running your CPU at stock speeds then DDR 3 saves some 10W, but when you overclock the CPU the difference in power draw is negligible. ... The introduction of DDR 3 doesn't make a fundamental difference to Phenom II, but the new Socket AM3 processors deliver plenty of bangs for your buck and put AMD right back in the game." [RegHardware | AMD Phenom II Socket AM3 processor]
ExtremeTech tested the AMD Phenom II X4 Model 810 socket AM3 processor:
"From a buyer's perspective, the Phenom II model 810 is priced a little lower than Intel's Core 2 Quad Q8200. In most consumer and office applications, the two platforms essentially achieve performance parity. The exception, of course, is digital photography. If you're heavily into digital photography, you'll want to remain firmly in the Intel camp. ... The Phenom II model 810 represents a reasonable buy currently-but we expect its overall lifespan to be somewhat limited." [ExtremeTech | AMD Socket AM3 CPUs Ship--Phenom II 810 Review]
The best feature I see about these new Socket AM3 processors is that they don't necessarily need to be used with an 'official' AM3 motherboard. Most AM2+ motherboards would work just fine, although of course you'll still be using DDR2 memory (which at present DDR3 prices, is a financial advantage). These AM3 processors are indeed good news to folks who are looking for more value for their money. Those already running an AMD system with an AM2+ mobo just upgrade to the new processors without the need to upgrade to a new chipset. If you then decide to upgrade to a DDR3 system, you can do so later on.
IceRocket : amd, ddr3, phenom ii, socket am3
]]>SmallNetBuilder built two DIY NAS systems using an MSI Wind PC and a VIA ARTiGO A2000 Barebone Storage Server. [article link]
MSI Wind PC Specs:
Intel Atom 1.6 GHz processor MSI custom w/ Intel 945GC North Bridge, ICH7 South Bridge motherboard pqi 1 GB DDR2 533 SO-DIMM RAM Hitachi Deskstar HDS721680PLA380, 80GB 7200RPM 3.0 Gb/s SATA 8MB HDD Realtek 8111C (on board) Ethernet
VIA ARTiGO A2000 Specs:
VIA 1.5GHz C7-D processor VIA custom w/ VIA VX800 Unified Digital Media IGP chipset motherboard Transcend 1 GB DDR2 667 SO-DIMM Hitachi Deskstar HDS721680PLA380, 80GB 7200RPM 3.0 Gb/s SATA 8MB HDD VIA VT6130 (on board) Ethernet
Both had the same operating system: Ubuntu Server 8.10 Operating system, + mdadm + Webmin, on 2 GB USB Flash drive.
The two DIY NAS setups were compared to the following:
NETGEAR ReadyNAS Pro (Intel E2160 Dual-Core) Thecus M3800 Stream Box (AMD LX800 Geode) Cisco/Linksys Media Hub (Marvell 88F5182 "Orion" Soc)
(A How To guide for setting up a DIY NAS using Ubuntu Server can be found at SmallNetBuilder: Build Your Own Atom-based NAS - Part 2)
On Performance:
"I don't think I'm going to declare a clear winner here between the VIA C7 and Intel Atom. It looks that they are pretty evenly matched for performance and generally in the same class as the Geode LX800." [SmallNetBuilder]
"So if you're looking for a low-cost way to build a dual-drive NAS, you can choose a motherboard using an Intel Atom, VIA C7 or AMD Geode CPU and be pretty certain of getting better than 2X the performance you can get from any (current) off-the-shelf NAS." [SmallNetBuilder]
On Ease and Flexibility of Setup:
"... the MSI Wind PC is clearly a more cost effective way to build a two-drive NAS capable of producing write and read speeds in the 30 - 40 MB/s range than the ARTiGO A2000. As I write this, you can pick one up for around $140, while the going rate for the A2000 is $299. I think that for the extra $150 or so, I can live with having to kludge in the second drive." [SmallNetBuilder]
SmallNetBuilder's Rule of Thumb for Classifying NASes:
Marvell Orion based NASes will generally produce throughput in the mid-to-high teen MB/s
NASes using the VIA C7, Intel Atom or AMD Geode will provide read/write performance in the 30 - 40 MB/s range
When you move up to NASes based on Intel Celeron or Dual-Core or Freescale MPC854XE, you can see speeds of at least 50 MB/s and more like 70 MB/s.
If you are looking to put a NAS on your network, a cost-effective way would be to use a system with the Intel Atom, VIA C7, or AMD Geode. You could go the barebone route, such as what SmallNetworkBuilder did, or build it from scratch, letting you choose the components individually, and have the personlized look of your future DIY NAS.
IceRocket : diy nas, intel atom, via c7
]]>The new AMD Phenom II X4 processors have arrived. Initially, two models are available: AMD Phenom II X4 920 at $236 (2.8 GHz)
AMD Phenom II X4 940 at $278 (3.0 GHz)
Features:
Codename: Deneb Socket AM2+ - 940-pin organic micro Pin Grid Array (micro-PGA) L1 Cache (Instruction + Data): 128KB x4 (64KB + 64KB for each core) L2 Cache: 512KB x4 (quad-core); 512x3 (triple-core) L3 Cache: 6MB Shared L3 45-nanometer SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology One 16-bit/16-bit link @ up to 3600MT/s full duplex; or up to 14.4GB/s I/O Bandwidth Integrated DDR2 memory controller-up to 17.1GB/sec dual channel memory bandwidth PC2 8500 (DDR2-1066) ; PC2 6400 (DDR2-800); PC2 5300 (DDR2-667); PC2 4200 (DDR2-533); PC2 3200 (DDR2-400) DDR2 unbuffered
Guru3D was pleased with the Phenom II X4 processors, and gave them its 'Great Value' stamp of approval:
"AMD is back on track for sure. Now before we really dig into the conclusion, let's get one thing out of the way first. Make no mistake, AMD is still a step behind Intel. Intel recently introduced Core i7 and we've shown it throughout this review, among that processor series is the Core i7 920 processor, priced close to today's tested Phenom II X4 940. And again; make no mistake, the Intel Core i7 920 processor on average is simply faster. Especially in most desktop applications, hyper-threading kicks in hard for Core i7. It's however also a much more expensive upgrade." [Guru3D | AMD Phenom II X4 920 and 940]
Tom's Hardware gave it its seldom-granted Recommended Buy award:
"Compared to AMD's first quad-core processor, the Phenom, its Phenom II successor offers great improvements, particularly in the area of energy consumption. With all due respect to Intel and the performance milestones it has achieved, the Phenom II offers a better energy consumption profile than either the Core i7 or Core 2 Quad platforms. ... In the overall competition, where the first line of attack appears in the price segment between $250 and $400, the AMD Phenom II processors place smack in between the already fading Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, and the new Core i7 920 CPUs. Above all, a complete Core i7 system costs more than a Phenom II because that Intel configuration requires a high-end motherboard and triple-channel DDR3 memory." [Tom's Hardware | AMD Phenom II X4]
HotHardware gave the Phenom II X4 940 its Recommended stamp of approval:
"The new Phenom II X4 920 and 940 are easily the most powerful desktop processors released from AMD to date. They performed well throughout our entire battery of benchmark tests, besting AMD's previous flagship CPU, the Phenom X4 9950 virtually across the board. Unfortunately, the new Phenom II X4 920 and 940 could quite keep pace with Intel's Penryn-based Core 2 Quads or Nehalem-based Core i7s. The Phenom II X4 managed to pull ahead of the Q9400, Q9650, and i7 920 on a few instances, but overall Intel's platform was still faster. The gap has closed quite a bit, however." [HotHardware | AMD Phenom II X4 940]
AnandTech picks the Phenom II X4 940 over the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400:
"Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock speed to keep you happy in the long run. ... If you have a Socket-AM2+ motherboard with BIOS support for Phenom II there's no question - Phenom II is the best upgrade path for you. If you are trying to build a new system from scratch, I'd suggest waiting for either the Socket-AM3 CPUs or see what Intel does with its pricing later this month." [AnandTech | AMD Phenom II X4 940 & 920]
HardwareZone sees that the Phenom II can compete with the lesser Core i7 models:
"Once AMD frames the argument as a platform comparison, the Phenom II as part of the Dragon platform actually looks quite competitive with Intel's lesser Core i7 models. While the top Phenom II X4 940 is expected to retail for US$275, making it comparable in price to the Core i7-920, the cost of the motherboard and DDR3 memory pushes the Core i7 setup much higher. The Phenom II X4 920 meanwhile is at US$235. So you can either save some money for less performance or if you're willing to fork out a similar amount, upgrade the graphics, hard drive and even memory on the AMD setup to arrive at a similar or better performance level." [HardwareZone | AMD Phenom II]
X-bit Labs believes the new Phenom II X4 processors only bests the previous generation Phenom X4:
"However, all the changes in the AMD quad-core processor lineup seem significant enough only when compared against the previous generation Phenom X4, and not against their competitors. It took AMD way too long to switch to 45nm manufacturing technology and launch their Phenom II X4. They missed the window of opportunity and the launch of Phenom II X4 doesn't have the desired effect on the market. The new Phenom II X4 doesn't look too impressive against the background of contemporary Core 2 Quad and especially Core i7 CPUs. The results of our tests show that the top Phenom II X4 processors can only be worthy rivals to the Core 2 Quad CPUs from the "junior" Q8000 series. Unfortunately, Phenom II X4 cannot yet do better than that." [X-bit Labs | Phenom II X4]
ExtremeTech finds the Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition with a good price/performance ratio:
"Still, at its price, Phenom II is a reasonable alternative to Intel in most segments. We would generally avoid it for photo or video work, but for general productivity and gaming, it's a pretty cost effective answer to Intel. ... The bottom line is that AMD has finally caught up with Intel's last generation-sort of. So if you're looking to build a system that offers good price/performance and a relatively low entry cost, the AMD's Phenom II makes a fine choice. But if you want maximum performance, you'll want Core i7." [ExtremeTech | AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition]
PC Perspective sees the Phenom II to appeal to budget enthusiasts:
"Enthusiasts who lean towards AMD will have another toy to play with, and one they should have a good time hanging out with. The price is certainly right, and the base performance competes well with similarly priced Intel parts. We also have a good selection of motherboards that should appeal to the budget enthusiast, as well as higher end products that offer features comparable to high end Intel based boards for significantly less money. ... For the first 45 nm product out of the gates, AMD has at least executed on time and in a fairly efficient manner. I have not heard any rumors of major issues with the new design (eg. No TLB type errata), and the initial products are coming out at an aggressive clockspeed and thermal envelope." [PC Perspective | AMD Phenom II X4 940]
Comments on Overclocking:
"Value for money, that's what you need to remember, and the Dragon combo CPU/Mobo/GPU without doubt offers that. Also, and I just have to mention this, a pleasant surprise was the level of overclocking. If you make sure you have a decent cooler (we used the OCZ Vendetta 2 btw), it should be fairly easy to reach 3.7 - 3.8 GHz clock frequencies. Likely with decent water-cooling we'd end up at 4.0 GHz. So there's definitely some overclocking headroom as well. And most definitely more headroom to work with compared to the previous generation products." [Guru3D]
"With all of the information AMD has already revealed regarding the Phenom II's overclockability, we were eager to see what our particular chip could do. We didn't use any exotic cooling for our overclocking experiments, opting instead to see just how far the chip would go with a stock AMD PIB air cooler installed. With only a minor bump in voltage to 1.575v, we were able to take our particular CPU to almost 3.8GHz using the stock air cooler alone. That speed was achieved with an 18.5x multiplier and a 202MHz base clock; the components were installed in a basic mid-tower. The AMD Overdrive utility shown in the screenshot above did not report clock speeds correctly, but assuming thermal readings were correct (we don't think they were), the chip ran at about 50'C while overclocked." [HotHardware]
"The clocking situation improved greatly with our 940 once VCore rose to a final 1.52V. We actually hit 4GHz but needed 1.58V to do it. This resulted in a few crashes due to temperatures, but we also noticed our particular CPU sample just was not stable at 4GHz+ even with additional voltages and cooling. The results for the two Intel processors are simply superb in this particular test with the 9950BE managing a respectable 30% improvement in clock speeds, matching that of the Phemom II percentage wise." [AnandTech]
"With the expected greater overclocking headroom of the new Phenom II, one could find more enthusiasts jumping onto this platform. Taking the new chip by itself, despite its improvements over the original Phenom, it's not going to threaten the Core i7 directly performance-wise. Its greatest achievement is its reduced power consumption, especially when idle. Going to 45nm has been significant, not only in pushing up the clock speeds but also in lowering heat/power consumption. As we have seen, these excellent numbers have come from AMD's 125W Phenom II models. The upcoming 95W AM3 versions could feature more impressive power draw figures." [HardwareZone]
"So, new Phenom II X4 processors do have very good frequency potential: the top model overclocked by 26% with air cooling only. So, the new AMD processor seems to be quite fit for overclocking experiments. However, we would like to make sure that potential Phenom II X4 owners keep in mind: 3.8GHz frequency will not let a CPU on Stars (K10) microarchitecture work as fast as overclocked Core 2 Quad from the same price range could." [X-bit Labs]
"We initially ran into some pretty severe difficulties in overclocking the 940. ... When we set the BIOS memory settings to "Auto", which ran the memory at DDR2-800 speeds, we finally managed to push the model 940 to 3.5GHz with excellent stability, using the Arctic Cooling Freezer 64. With a more robust cooler and more voltage tweaking, we might have gone higher." [ExtremeTech]
"My results did not reach the 6 GHz heights that AMD showed off last month, but considering how poor of an overclocker I am, my results are quite respectable for air cooling and a minimal amount of effort. Using stock voltage I was able to take the Phenom II X4 940 to 3.5 GHz on air cooling. My final overclock was at 3.8 GHz with a voltage of 1.45v. This is pretty close to the 4 GHz mark that AMD says is quite achievable with a good portion of their parts on air cooling. Again, I am not the world's greatest overclocker and I am not a big fan of frying processors. 3.8 GHz with minimal effort is a nice accomplishment, and certainly the 3.5 GHz mark at stock voltage is probably the real winner here." [PC Perspective]
The bottom line is that the new AMD Phenom II X4 processors are not the "Core i7 killers" a lot of people hoped them to be. Despite that, the Phenom II, partnered with a 790GX chipset motherboards, prove to be a good budget enthusiast platform. Overclocking is more feasible with the Phenom II, when compared to the previous Phenom X4 processors, but the Core i7 processors are still easier to overclock. If you need to build a new system now, going with the Phenom II platform would be the one with the best value. If not, it would be best to wait for the soon to arrive AM3 socket processors.
IceRocket : amd phenom ii x4 45nm am2+
]]>AMD recently released its Athlon X2 7000 series processors. Initially, three (3) models make up the series: Athlon X2 7550 2.5 GHz, Athlon X2 7750 2.7 GHz, and Athlon X2 7750 BE 2.7 GHz (Black Edition, features unlocked multiplier).
Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition Features:
Codename: Kuma Socket AM2+ 65 nm production process Stars (K10) Microarchitecture 2 Cores 2.7 GHz Clock frequency L1 cache: 2 x 64+64 KB L2 cache: 2 x 512 KB L3 cache: 2 MB Dual-channel DDR2-800/1066 SDRAM Memory Controller 3.6 GHz HyperTransport bus frequency 1.8/2.0 GHz Integrated North Bridge frequency 95W TDP 450 mln Transistors
"What also really impressed me was unexpected, the ease in overclocking. As stated in our article, we used an uber low-end standard stock air cooler on the processor and still were able to clock it to 3200 / 3300 MHz. I would not be surprised to see many of you clock this puppy to 3.4 - 3.7 GHz fairly easy with nothing more than proper air cooling, and sure, that again brings more value to the table. ... None the less, with the Athlon X2 series 7000 AMD brings mature, stable and extremely affordable processors to the market. It'll be fast enough for most modern applications on a Vista platform, and as such comes very recommended. Also I just realized what an excellent and affordable processor this would be for a HTPC. Very nice." [Guru3D | AMD Athlon X2 7750 BE review]
"Objectively speaking, new Athlon X2 7000 series processors will hardly be able to improve AMD's market standing at this time. The thing is that even though the top Athlon X2 7750 from the Kuma generation turned out faster than the top Brisbane CPU, the advantage is not very significant overall. On average the improvement makes only 3-5%. Moreover, other Athlon X2 7000 series models will not be able to offer any improvement over the already existing Athlon X2 from 5000 and 6000 series. ... Unfortunately, Athlon X2 7000 have the same problem as the Phenom CPUs: the combination of low frequency potential and high power consumption do not let us see the progress that we could have seen otherwise." [X-bit Labs | AMD Launches "Phenom X2": AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition Review]
One of the most interesting aspects of the Athlon X2 7750 (and the other two Athlon X2 7000 series processors) is its pricing: the Athlon X2s will be cheaper than comparable processors (in terms of stock performance) from Intel. Those who need a dual core system can benefit from immediate savings on the processor when going the Athlon X2 7000 series route.
IceRocket : 7550, amd athlon x2 7750, black edition, kuma
]]>AMD recently released its Athlon X2 7000 series processors. Initially, three (3) models make up the series: Athlon X2 7550 2.5 GHz, Athlon X2 7750 2.7 GHz, and Athlon X2 7750 BE 2.7 GHz (Black Edition, features unlocked multiplier).
Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition Features:
Codename: Kuma Socket AM2+ 65 nm production process Stars (K10) Microarchitecture 2 Cores 2.7 GHz Clock frequency L1 cache: 2 x 64+64 KB L2 cache: 2 x 512 KB L3 cache: 2 MB Dual-channel DDR2-800/1066 SDRAM Memory Controller 3.6 GHz HyperTransport bus frequency 1.8/2.0 GHz Integrated North Bridge frequency 95W TDP 450 mln Transistors
"What also really impressed me was unexpected, the ease in overclocking. As stated in our article, we used an uber low-end standard stock air cooler on the processor and still were able to clock it to 3200 / 3300 MHz. I would not be surprised to see many of you clock this puppy to 3.4 - 3.7 GHz fairly easy with nothing more than proper air cooling, and sure, that again brings more value to the table. ... None the less, with the Athlon X2 series 7000 AMD brings mature, stable and extremely affordable processors to the market. It'll be fast enough for most modern applications on a Vista platform, and as such comes very recommended. Also I just realized what an excellent and affordable processor this would be for a HTPC. Very nice." [Guru3D | AMD Athlon X2 7750 BE review]
"Objectively speaking, new Athlon X2 7000 series processors will hardly be able to improve AMD's market standing at this time. The thing is that even though the top Athlon X2 7750 from the Kuma generation turned out faster than the top Brisbane CPU, the advantage is not very significant overall. On average the improvement makes only 3-5%. Moreover, other Athlon X2 7000 series models will not be able to offer any improvement over the already existing Athlon X2 from 5000 and 6000 series. ... Unfortunately, Athlon X2 7000 have the same problem as the Phenom CPUs: the combination of low frequency potential and high power consumption do not let us see the progress that we could have seen otherwise." [X-bit Labs | AMD Launches "Phenom X2": AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition Review]
One of the most interesting aspects of the Athlon X2 7750 (and the other two Athlon X2 7000 series processors) is its pricing: the Athlon X2s will be cheaper than comparable processors (in terms of stock performance) from Intel. Those who need a dual core system can benefit from immediate savings on the processor when going the Athlon X2 7000 series route.
IceRocket : 7550, amd athlon x2 7750, black edition, kuma
]]>X-bit Labs tested 16 different thermal compounds, and compared their efficiency on an overclocked Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (3.0GHz, 1.25V, 2x6MB L2 cache, 4x333MHz FSB, Yorkfield, C0) processor, and a HIS Radeon HD 4870 GDDR5 512MB / 256bit, @830 (300) / 3600MHz graphics card.
Thermal Compounds tested:
Arctic Silver 5
Pro-Thermal 81 IC Diamond 7 Carat AiT Cool Silver Arctic Alumina OCZ Ultra 5+ Silver (OCZU5STP)
OCZ Freeze Extreme (OCZTFRZTC)
Zalman ZM-STG1 ZEROtherm ZT-100 Noctua NT-H1 Tuniq TX-2 Arctic Cooling MX-2
Coollaboratory Liquid MetalPad
Coollaboratory Liquid Pro
Gelid GC1 SilMORE (usually bundled with some Scythe, Thermaltake, Xigmatek, Ice Hammer, OCZ CPU coolers)
"As for the winners, I can certainly single out liquid metal from Coollaboratory and Coollaboratory Liquid MetalPad with a few remarks regarding its proper use that should be taken into account. The new OCZ Freeze Extreme performed extremely well as a highly efficient, relatively inexpensive and very easy to work with. The good old Arctic Silver 5 still holds on to its leading position successfully, although now it has at least eight worthy competitors to worry about. Overall, it is very pleasing to see that there are more than 2-3 worthy thermal interfaces around. And of course, do not forget that thermal interface is simply a substance to fill into the micro-pores between the cooler base and the processor heat-spreader. You have to make sure that both these surfaces are very even, because no "millimeter" layer of thermal compound usually applied by newbies and several "experienced" testers out there will guarantee efficient cooling and objective cooler comparison." [X-bit Labs | Thermal Interfaces Roundup]
X-bit labs suggests that we stay away from the bundled SilMORE thermal compound, and try to avoid AiT Cool Silver, Pro-Thermal 81, and Zalman ZM-STG1.
IceRocket : arctic silver, coolaboratory liquid, grease, ocz freeze, thermal compound
]]>X-bit Labs tested 16 different thermal compounds, and compared their efficiency on an overclocked Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (3.0GHz, 1.25V, 2x6MB L2 cache, 4x333MHz FSB, Yorkfield, C0) processor, and a HIS Radeon HD 4870 GDDR5 512MB / 256bit, @830 (300) / 3600MHz graphics card.
Thermal Compounds tested:
Arctic Silver 5
Pro-Thermal 81 IC Diamond 7 Carat AiT Cool Silver Arctic Alumina OCZ Ultra 5+ Silver (OCZU5STP)
OCZ Freeze Extreme (OCZTFRZTC)
Zalman ZM-STG1 ZEROtherm ZT-100 Noctua NT-H1 Tuniq TX-2 Arctic Cooling MX-2
Coollaboratory Liquid MetalPad
Coollaboratory Liquid Pro
Gelid GC1 SilMORE (usually bundled with some Scythe, Thermaltake, Xigmatek, Ice Hammer, OCZ CPU coolers)
"As for the winners, I can certainly single out liquid metal from Coollaboratory and Coollaboratory Liquid MetalPad with a few remarks regarding its proper use that should be taken into account. The new OCZ Freeze Extreme performed extremely well as a highly efficient, relatively inexpensive and very easy to work with. The good old Arctic Silver 5 still holds on to its leading position successfully, although now it has at least eight worthy competitors to worry about. Overall, it is very pleasing to see that there are more than 2-3 worthy thermal interfaces around. And of course, do not forget that thermal interface is simply a substance to fill into the micro-pores between the cooler base and the processor heat-spreader. You have to make sure that both these surfaces are very even, because no "millimeter" layer of thermal compound usually applied by newbies and several "experienced" testers out there will guarantee efficient cooling and objective cooler comparison." [X-bit Labs | Thermal Interfaces Roundup]
X-bit labs suggests that we stay away from the bundled SilMORE thermal compound, and try to avoid AiT Cool Silver, Pro-Thermal 81, and Zalman ZM-STG1.
IceRocket : arctic silver, coolaboratory liquid, grease, ocz freeze, thermal compound
]]>AMD recently released its updated processor roadmap, showing products that will show up this year (2008), and until 2011.We will begin to see 45nm processors next year (2009), in the form of "Deneb" (4 cores, 8M cache, DDR2/3) and "Propos" (4 cores, 2M cache, DDR2/3) for the desktop. Notebook processors, on the other hand, will have "Caspian" (2 cores, 2M cache, DDR2) and "Conesus" (2 cores, 1M cache, DDR2).
For 2010, two mobile processors will be introduced: "Champlain" (4 cores, 2M cache, DDR3) and "Geneva" (2 cores, 2M cache, DDR3).
On 2011, 32nm processors are slated to be released. These are "Orochi" (4 cores, 8M cache, DDR3), "Llano" (4 cores, 4M cache, DDR3), and "Ontario" (2 cores, 1M cache, DDR3).
IceRocket : amd processor, caspian, conesus, deneb, llano, ontario, orochi, propos
]]>AMD recently released its updated processor roadmap, showing products that will show up this year (2008), and until 2011.We will begin to see 45nm processors next year (2009), in the form of "Deneb" (4 cores, 8M cache, DDR2/3) and "Propos" (4 cores, 2M cache, DDR2/3) for the desktop. Notebook processors, on the other hand, will have "Caspian" (2 cores, 2M cache, DDR2) and "Conesus" (2 cores, 1M cache, DDR2).
For 2010, two mobile processors will be introduced: "Champlain" (4 cores, 2M cache, DDR3) and "Geneva" (2 cores, 2M cache, DDR3).
On 2011, 32nm processors are slated to be released. These are "Orochi" (4 cores, 8M cache, DDR3), "Llano" (4 cores, 4M cache, DDR3), and "Ontario" (2 cores, 1M cache, DDR3).
IceRocket : amd processor, caspian, conesus, deneb, llano, ontario, orochi, propos
]]>The new Intel Core i7 processor is based on the Nehalem microarchitecture that has 1366 pins instead of the usual 775. Partnered with the Core i7 processors, is the Intel X58 Express chipset which features the LGA 1366 socket.
Intel Core i7 processor:
Codename: Bloomfield 4 cores 4 x 256KB L2 cache 8MB L3 cache Triple-channel DDR3 memory controller LGA 1366 socket (a.k.a Socket B) Core Frequencies - 3.2GHz (965), 2.93GHz (940), 2.66GHz (920) 130W Thermal Design Power Processor input voltage (VID) - 1.160v .045-micron manufacturing process MSRP - $999 (965), $562 (940), $284 (920)
Intel X58 Express chipset:
X58 North Bridge PCI Express 2.0 graphics bus, support for Multi-card configurations: 1x16, 2x16, 4x8, or other combination ICH10 South Bridge 6 serial ATA ports, eSATA 12 x USB 2.0 ports Intel Gigabit LAN Connect Intel High Definition Audio Optional: Intel Matrix Storage Technology Optional: Intel Turbo Memory with User Pinning
Various sites took a good look at the Core i7 processors, and the X58 Express chipset as well:
"Intel's new Core i7 series of processors is a modern marvel of technology that brings previously inaccessible performance to the consumer. In areas where multi-threaded applications are dominant, heavy multi-tasking is the norm or multimedia encoding is the primary function, the move to a HyperThreaded Core i7 part is a no brainer. But Intel's biggest problem might not have anything to do with AMD or another outside source: the fact is that the Core 2 Quad processors are still fantastic performers, widely available and pretty damn cheap. Anyone that has a quad-core system will likely not find a compelling performance benefit to upgrade from it to a Core i7 unless they subscribe to one of the usage models mentioned above." [PCPerspective | Nehalem Revolution: Intel's Core i7 Processor Complete Review]
"Nope, no need to make this a long conclusion at all. Core i7 architecture rocks, and it rocks hard. At launch, Core i7 will be available in quad-core trim. An eight-core version is penciled in for next year and that too will have all its cores crammed into a single die. So the basis that Intel is laying down today is just the beginning. It's like little seeds planted to grow into something big. The one thing that Core i7 needs though are mainboards with a cheaper chipset. At launch you'll be forced to buy the X58 series main board, and they will likely start at 200-250 USD, which is far away from mainstream performance and pricing." [Guru3D | Intel Core i7 920 and 965 review]
"In a few instances, the Core 2 Extreme is able to come close clock-for-clock, but overall there is no denying the Core i7 represents a significant step up in performance. Even at this early stage, we were also impressed by the X58 Express chipset-based motherboards we tested. Throughout our entire battery of tests, which took place over the better part of week, we did not experience any instability whatsoever and everything we connected to the boards 'just worked'. ... Ultimately, we can't help but be impressed by the new Core i7 processors. The performance, power profile, and overclockability are all very good even at this early stage. Intel clearly has another strong product in their line-up that will undoubtedly appeal to PC enthusiasts and multimedia professionals alike." [HotHardware | Intel Core i7 Processors]
"If you're a gamer, Core i7 offers incremental improvements; you'll want to make sure you have a robust GPU platform to take advantage of the new CPU. However, for content creation authors, Core i7 will likely represent a significant increase in productivity. If you're heavily engaged in 3D content creation, video authoring or photo editing, even the lower-end Core i7's are good choices. ... The bottom line is that Intel has shipped a winning combination in a new chipset and CPU platform. It's early in the lifecycle for Core i7, so we'll be looking forward to what comes next. Meanwhile, you won't go wrong with a Core i7 system, if you've got the budget and application mix to take advantage of it." [ExtremeTech | Intel Core i7 Review]
"Unlike the Core 2 Quads, which still consisted of two dual-core CPUs, the Core i7 is a native quad-core processor. On the whole, the new processors are more efficient, although the system does draw more power at the platform level than the previous generation. ... The new CPUs will only work on expensive boards based on Intel's current high-end chipset, the X58. Also, it runs exclusively with DDR3 memory, which isn't exactly cheap either. The new LGA1366 socket requires a new cooler, and water cooling solutions may become a much less attractive option due to the CPUs' built-in performance limiting features. It is up to the motherboard makers to prove their creativity and come up with solutions to this challenge." [Tom's Hardware | Intel's Core i7]
"the cost of switching over to the Core i7 platform would require a substantial investment. The Core i7-965 Extreme Edition at just under US$1000 may be relatively cheap compared to the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (~US$1500) but the added cost of changing the entire platform (LGA1366 compatible motherboard and suitable 1.6V DDR3 memory) will give users some pause. ... Considering the general enthusiast point of view, we're not entirely sold on it yet, but with an eye towards the future, it's probably the best single modular architecture Intel could come up with that would suit the home, workstation and server segments needs now and in the near future." [HardwareZone | Changing for the Future - Intel's Core i7]
"Unlike Conroe, Intel's latest microarchitecture delivers an evolutionary rather than revolutionary performance increase over its predecessor, although in some apps it has the potential to deliver performance that's truly groundbreaking. Core i7 is without a doubt the finest processor Intel's ever produced and we don't see AMD delivering anything that's performance competitive with this CPU in the near future. ... the only downside is we wish Intel offered a lower cost alternative to X58 at launch. As it stands now, the Core i7 CPU we're recommending most, the Core i7-920, will probably end up selling for about the same price as the X58 motherboard underneath it. The cost of upgrading to the Core i7 platform is probably going to keep a lot of enthusiasts on a budget from upgrading today, and that's a shame in our opinion, as it's certainly a fun platform to play with. Turbo Mode in particular is a really exciting feature." [FiringSquad | Intel Core i7 (Nehalem) Performance Preview]
"the Core i7 has proven to be extremely powerful, as it easily put away the Core 2 Quad Q9650 in almost every test we ran. ... the slowest processor in the Core i7 range (920) was able to defeat over and over the Core 2 Quad Q9650 which runs at a higher clock speed (3GHz) and before this day was one of the best CPUs money could buy. ... Overall the new Core i7 architecture has certainly impressed us, living up to all expectations. The future continues to look bright for Intel as we expect many more processors based on the Bloomfield core to be released, while the prospect of 32nm Westmere processors by 2010 has got us licking our lips. If we can make one prediction is that you won't regret investing money in the new Intel LGA1366 platform." [TechSpot | Intel Core i7 920, 940 and 965 Extreme Edition review]
"Intel's new processor seems to owe very little to Core 2 yet it behaves like Core 2 on steroids. At any given clock speed, you get more performance out of Core i7. On the downside, it also demands more power. ... Core i7 takes over where Core 2 tails off and it delivers an impressive level of performance while raising clock speeds by only a small amount. The move away from the antique frontside bus is welcome and the Turbo Mode looks promising, but the power saving features seem to need some development." [RegHardware | Intel Core i7 'Nehalem' processor and X58 chipset]
"A decent system with a Core 2 Duo processor at 3.0 GHz will give you roughly the same amount of performance as this Core i7 did, except in the situations where you get CPU bound of course (lower resolution). The reality is that enthusiast consumers have high-end gear, thus typically work and game in a resolution above 1600x1200. And that's where your GPU is a bottleneck, and the CPU hardy has an effect. That role can obviously change with faster graphics cards released in the future, but right now it's the reality. ... In all honesty we have to say, our feelings towards the Intel DX58SO are a bit of mixed bag, even if it is a reference mainboard, we'll even advise you to at the very least carefully look at other X58 board partners." [Guru3d | Intel X58 Extreme DX58SO motherboard review]
"And summing up the results of our today's test session we have to admit that this experience left pretty ambiguous impression. ... If this review had been discussing server processors and not desktop ones, the conclusions could have been not just more optimistic, but almost ecstatic. However, we first met Nehalem in its desktop incarnation, so its most important advantages cannot really show their best. ... However, we don't want you to think that we didn't like the new Core i7 processor we have just tested. The new CPU and the new platform based on Intel X58 Express chipset are undoubtedly excellent products. New Core i7 are indisputably better in most aspects than Core 2 Quad CPUs of comparable price." [X-bit Labs | Intel Core i7 Review]
If you are already using an Intel Core 2 Quad processor, I'd say just wait until more motherboard chipsets that will support LGA 13366 are introduced. Chances are, changing your present setup won't exactly be cost effective. If you are building a new system, on the other hand, there's no reason not to go the Core i7 path.
IceRocket : core i7, intel, lga 1366, socket b, x58
]]>The new Intel Core i7 processor is based on the Nehalem microarchitecture that has 1366 pins instead of the usual 775. Partnered with the Core i7 processors, is the Intel X58 Express chipset which features the LGA 1366 socket.
Intel Core i7 processor:
Codename: Bloomfield 4 cores 4 x 256KB L2 cache 8MB L3 cache Triple-channel DDR3 memory controller LGA 1366 socket (a.k.a Socket B) Core Frequencies - 3.2GHz (965), 2.93GHz (940), 2.66GHz (920) 130W Thermal Design Power Processor input voltage (VID) - 1.160v .045-micron manufacturing process MSRP - $999 (965), $562 (940), $284 (920)
Intel X58 Express chipset:
X58 North Bridge PCI Express 2.0 graphics bus, support for Multi-card configurations: 1x16, 2x16, 4x8, or other combination ICH10 South Bridge 6 serial ATA ports, eSATA 12 x USB 2.0 ports Intel Gigabit LAN Connect Intel High Definition Audio Optional: Intel Matrix Storage Technology Optional: Intel Turbo Memory with User Pinning
Various sites took a good look at the Core i7 processors, and the X58 Express chipset as well:
"Intel's new Core i7 series of processors is a modern marvel of technology that brings previously inaccessible performance to the consumer. In areas where multi-threaded applications are dominant, heavy multi-tasking is the norm or multimedia encoding is the primary function, the move to a HyperThreaded Core i7 part is a no brainer. But Intel's biggest problem might not have anything to do with AMD or another outside source: the fact is that the Core 2 Quad processors are still fantastic performers, widely available and pretty damn cheap. Anyone that has a quad-core system will likely not find a compelling performance benefit to upgrade from it to a Core i7 unless they subscribe to one of the usage models mentioned above." [PCPerspective | Nehalem Revolution: Intel's Core i7 Processor Complete Review]
"Nope, no need to make this a long conclusion at all. Core i7 architecture rocks, and it rocks hard. At launch, Core i7 will be available in quad-core trim. An eight-core version is penciled in for next year and that too will have all its cores crammed into a single die. So the basis that Intel is laying down today is just the beginning. It's like little seeds planted to grow into something big. The one thing that Core i7 needs though are mainboards with a cheaper chipset. At launch you'll be forced to buy the X58 series main board, and they will likely start at 200-250 USD, which is far away from mainstream performance and pricing." [Guru3D | Intel Core i7 920 and 965 review]
"In a few instances, the Core 2 Extreme is able to come close clock-for-clock, but overall there is no denying the Core i7 represents a significant step up in performance. Even at this early stage, we were also impressed by the X58 Express chipset-based motherboards we tested. Throughout our entire battery of tests, which took place over the better part of week, we did not experience any instability whatsoever and everything we connected to the boards 'just worked'. ... Ultimately, we can't help but be impressed by the new Core i7 processors. The performance, power profile, and overclockability are all very good even at this early stage. Intel clearly has another strong product in their line-up that will undoubtedly appeal to PC enthusiasts and multimedia professionals alike." [HotHardware | Intel Core i7 Processors]
"If you're a gamer, Core i7 offers incremental improvements; you'll want to make sure you have a robust GPU platform to take advantage of the new CPU. However, for content creation authors, Core i7 will likely represent a significant increase in productivity. If you're heavily engaged in 3D content creation, video authoring or photo editing, even the lower-end Core i7's are good choices. ... The bottom line is that Intel has shipped a winning combination in a new chipset and CPU platform. It's early in the lifecycle for Core i7, so we'll be looking forward to what comes next. Meanwhile, you won't go wrong with a Core i7 system, if you've got the budget and application mix to take advantage of it." [ExtremeTech | Intel Core i7 Review]
"Unlike the Core 2 Quads, which still consisted of two dual-core CPUs, the Core i7 is a native quad-core processor. On the whole, the new processors are more efficient, although the system does draw more power at the platform level than the previous generation. ... The new CPUs will only work on expensive boards based on Intel's current high-end chipset, the X58. Also, it runs exclusively with DDR3 memory, which isn't exactly cheap either. The new LGA1366 socket requires a new cooler, and water cooling solutions may become a much less attractive option due to the CPUs' built-in performance limiting features. It is up to the motherboard makers to prove their creativity and come up with solutions to this challenge." [Tom's Hardware | Intel's Core i7]
"the cost of switching over to the Core i7 platform would require a substantial investment. The Core i7-965 Extreme Edition at just under US$1000 may be relatively cheap compared to the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (~US$1500) but the added cost of changing the entire platform (LGA1366 compatible motherboard and suitable 1.6V DDR3 memory) will give users some pause. ... Considering the general enthusiast point of view, we're not entirely sold on it yet, but with an eye towards the future, it's probably the best single modular architecture Intel could come up with that would suit the home, workstation and server segments needs now and in the near future." [HardwareZone | Changing for the Future - Intel's Core i7]
"Unlike Conroe, Intel's latest microarchitecture delivers an evolutionary rather than revolutionary performance increase over its predecessor, although in some apps it has the potential to deliver performance that's truly groundbreaking. Core i7 is without a doubt the finest processor Intel's ever produced and we don't see AMD delivering anything that's performance competitive with this CPU in the near future. ... the only downside is we wish Intel offered a lower cost alternative to X58 at launch. As it stands now, the Core i7 CPU we're recommending most, the Core i7-920, will probably end up selling for about the same price as the X58 motherboard underneath it. The cost of upgrading to the Core i7 platform is probably going to keep a lot of enthusiasts on a budget from upgrading today, and that's a shame in our opinion, as it's certainly a fun platform to play with. Turbo Mode in particular is a really exciting feature." [FiringSquad | Intel Core i7 (Nehalem) Performance Preview]
"the Core i7 has proven to be extremely powerful, as it easily put away the Core 2 Quad Q9650 in almost every test we ran. ... the slowest processor in the Core i7 range (920) was able to defeat over and over the Core 2 Quad Q9650 which runs at a higher clock speed (3GHz) and before this day was one of the best CPUs money could buy. ... Overall the new Core i7 architecture has certainly impressed us, living up to all expectations. The future continues to look bright for Intel as we expect many more processors based on the Bloomfield core to be released, while the prospect of 32nm Westmere processors by 2010 has got us licking our lips. If we can make one prediction is that you won't regret investing money in the new Intel LGA1366 platform." [TechSpot | Intel Core i7 920, 940 and 965 Extreme Edition review]
"Intel's new processor seems to owe very little to Core 2 yet it behaves like Core 2 on steroids. At any given clock speed, you get more performance out of Core i7. On the downside, it also demands more power. ... Core i7 takes over where Core 2 tails off and it delivers an impressive level of performance while raising clock speeds by only a small amount. The move away from the antique frontside bus is welcome and the Turbo Mode looks promising, but the power saving features seem to need some development." [RegHardware | Intel Core i7 'Nehalem' processor and X58 chipset]
"A decent system with a Core 2 Duo processor at 3.0 GHz will give you roughly the same amount of performance as this Core i7 did, except in the situations where you get CPU bound of course (lower resolution). The reality is that enthusiast consumers have high-end gear, thus typically work and game in a resolution above 1600x1200. And that's where your GPU is a bottleneck, and the CPU hardy has an effect. That role can obviously change with faster graphics cards released in the future, but right now it's the reality. ... In all honesty we have to say, our feelings towards the Intel DX58SO are a bit of mixed bag, even if it is a reference mainboard, we'll even advise you to at the very least carefully look at other X58 board partners." [Guru3d | Intel X58 Extreme DX58SO motherboard review]
"And summing up the results of our today's test session we have to admit that this experience left pretty ambiguous impression. ... If this review had been discussing server processors and not desktop ones, the conclusions could have been not just more optimistic, but almost ecstatic. However, we first met Nehalem in its desktop incarnation, so its most important advantages cannot really show their best. ... However, we don't want you to think that we didn't like the new Core i7 processor we have just tested. The new CPU and the new platform based on Intel X58 Express chipset are undoubtedly excellent products. New Core i7 are indisputably better in most aspects than Core 2 Quad CPUs of comparable price." [X-bit Labs | Intel Core i7 Review]
If you are already using an Intel Core 2 Quad processor, I'd say just wait until more motherboard chipsets that will support LGA 13366 are introduced. Chances are, changing your present setup won't exactly be cost effective. If you are building a new system, on the other hand, there's no reason not to go the Core i7 path.
IceRocket : core i7, intel, lga 1366, socket b, x58
]]>X-bit Labs recently compared five mainstream processors: four Core 2 Quads from Intel, and one Phenom X4 from AMD.
Phenom X4 9950 Specs:
Codename: Agena 2.6GHz Clock Frequency 2000MHZ Bus Frequency 4 x [64KB +64KB] L1 cache 4 x 512KB L2 cache 2MB L3 cache AM2+ socket 65nm production process 125/140 W TDP Retail price: $174
Core 2 Quad Q6600 Specs:
Codename: Kentsfield 2.4GHz Clock Frequency 1067MHZ Bus Frequency 4 x [32KB +32KB] L1 cache 4 x 4MB L2 cache no L3 cache LGA775 socket 65nm production process 95 W TDP Retail price: $183
Core 2 Quad Q8200 Specs:
Codename: Yorkfield 2.33GHz Clock Frequency 1333MHZ Bus Frequency 4 x [32KB +32KB] L1 cache 4 x 2MB L2 cache no L3 cache LGA775 socket 45nm production process 95 W TDP Retail price: $193
Core 2 Quad Q9300 Specs:
Codename: Yorkfield 2.5GHz Clock Frequency 1333MHZ Bus Frequency 4 x [32KB +32KB] L1 cache 4 x 3MB L2 cache no L3 cache LGA775 socket 45nm production process 95 W TDP Retail price: $266
Core 2 Quad Q9400 Specs:
Codename: Yorkfield 2.66GHz Clock Frequency 1333MHZ Bus Frequency 4 x [32KB +32KB] L1 cache 4 x 3MB L2 cache no L3 cache LGA775 socket 45nm production process 95 W TDP Retail price: $266
"One of the best choices among low-cost quad-core processors is still the old 65nm Core 2 Quad Q6600. Intel has dropped its price so significantly lately that is remains in the spotlight despite its age and relatively high power consumption. Especially since in some applications such as 3D games, for instance, it manages to perform as fast as a more expensive Core 2 Quad Q9300 thanks to large L2 cache. Its overclocking potential is also pretty encouraging. It doesn't require a specific mainboard: you can almost always push its frequency 1.5 times up with just an efficient cooler." [X-bit Labs | Comparative Tests of Inexpensive Quad-Core Processors]
"... the only drawback of Core 2 Quad Q6600 is its relatively high heat dissipation and power consumption, which makes it unfit for quiet and low-power systems. The new Core 2 Quad Q8200 will suit much better for them. Despite much smaller L2 cache, this CPU is pretty fast and outperforms the fastest processor of Intel's competitor - AMD Phenom X4 9950. As a result, Phenom X4 family may be of interest only to those users who want to get a quad-core processor real cheap, but are ready to put up with low overclocking potential, low performance and high power consumption." [X-bit Labs]
AMD fans don't have much of a choice right now, having only the Phenom X4 9950 (or the 2.2GHz X4 9550) as their choices. Intel fans, however, can choose between the Core 2 Quad Q6600 (good performance and overclocking potential) or the Q8200 (for low heat and power consumption).
IceRocket : 9950, amd, intel, q6600, q8200, q9300, q9400, quad, x4
]]>The Intel 2 Core Duo E8600 (US$266) has the following features:
3.33GHz Clock Speed with dual processing cores (dual-core) 1333MHz front-side bus 10.0 fixed clock multiplier 6MB unified L2 cache 45nm technology 107mm2 die size, 410M transistors SSE4 instructions Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST) Intel 64 Technology Intel Virtualization Technology (VT) Supports Execute Disable Bit (XD) LGA-775 socket interface Intel Trusted Execution Technology 0.850v - 1.3625v Core Voltage 65W Max TDP
"... If you're the type of user who spends a lot of time with video encoding and other apps like Photoshop and Premiere and not so much gaming, a dual-core CPU like the E8600 probably won't do despite its 3.33GHz clock speed. ... Gamers however that don't dabble with these apps would be well served by the E8600. It has an enormous amount of headroom for overclocking, blazing clock speed, and consumes less power than comparably priced quad-core CPUs from AMD and Intel. ... If it were my money though I'd probably save the cash and get an E8400. Based on today's Newegg pricing, going from an E8600 to an E8400 would save $105." [FiringSquad | Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 Review ]
The E8600 is a nice dual-core processor with good clock speed and overclocking potential. As FiringSquad suggests, maybe an E8400 (3.0GHz) will suffice, if you really don't need the 3.33GHz clock speed.
IceRocket : core 2, duo, e8400, e8600, intel
]]>The Intel 2 Core Duo E8600 (US$266) has the following features:
3.33GHz Clock Speed with dual processing cores (dual-core) 1333MHz front-side bus 10.0 fixed clock multiplier 6MB unified L2 cache 45nm technology 107mm2 die size, 410M transistors SSE4 instructions Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST) Intel 64 Technology Intel Virtualization Technology (VT) Supports Execute Disable Bit (XD) LGA-775 socket interface Intel Trusted Execution Technology 0.850v - 1.3625v Core Voltage 65W Max TDP
"... If you're the type of user who spends a lot of time with video encoding and other apps like Photoshop and Premiere and not so much gaming, a dual-core CPU like the E8600 probably won't do despite its 3.33GHz clock speed. ... Gamers however that don't dabble with these apps would be well served by the E8600. It has an enormous amount of headroom for overclocking, blazing clock speed, and consumes less power than comparably priced quad-core CPUs from AMD and Intel. ... If it were my money though I'd probably save the cash and get an E8400. Based on today's Newegg pricing, going from an E8600 to an E8400 would save $105." [FiringSquad | Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 Review ]
The E8600 is a nice dual-core processor with good clock speed and overclocking potential. As FiringSquad suggests, maybe an E8400 (3.0GHz) will suffice, if you really don't need the 3.33GHz clock speed.
IceRocket : core 2, duo, e8400, e8600, intel
]]>Currently, there are two legitimate players competing for the Low-Power Energy Saving platform: the Intel Atom (with the Intel 945G chipset) and the Via Nano (with the Via CN896 chipset). Tom's Hardware compared the Atom and Nano, and mixed a non-production AMD Athlon 64 2000+ (with the AMD 780G chipset) as well.
"Intel's Atom has one definite advantage over the two other solutions-the power requirement stays within very controllable boundaries, which means that the delta between idle power and peak power is very small. If you know your performance requirements then you can be sure that Atom will be the lowest power solution, although not necessarily the most efficient one when more performance is required. The VIA device benefits from its integrated random number generator and hardware encryption support, which is both favorable for networking and security appliances." [Tom's Hardware | Atom, Athlon, or Nano? Energy-Savers Compared]
For best performance and best features, the VIA platform was the clear winner, but unfortunately, has a significantly higher peak power. Tom's Hardware suggests that desktop users should look at other options, such as a mainstream chipset paired with a low-end dual-core processor. Going this route could probably give you a compromise of low-power consumption, better efficiency, and some flexibility (you can change the processor since it is NOT soldered on to the motherboard).
Technorati : 780g, 945G, CN896, amd, athlon, atom, efficient, energy, intel, nano, via
]]>Currently, there are two legitimate players competing for the Low-Power Energy Saving platform: the Intel Atom (with the Intel 945G chipset) and the Via Nano (with the Via CN896 chipset). Tom's Hardware compared the Atom and Nano, and mixed a non-production AMD Athlon 64 2000+ (with the AMD 780G chipset) as well.
"Intel's Atom has one definite advantage over the two other solutions-the power requirement stays within very controllable boundaries, which means that the delta between idle power and peak power is very small. If you know your performance requirements then you can be sure that Atom will be the lowest power solution, although not necessarily the most efficient one when more performance is required. The VIA device benefits from its integrated random number generator and hardware encryption support, which is both favorable for networking and security appliances." [Tom's Hardware | Atom, Athlon, or Nano? Energy-Savers Compared]
For best performance and best features, the VIA platform was the clear winner, but unfortunately, has a significantly higher peak power. Tom's Hardware suggests that desktop users should look at other options, such as a mainstream chipset paired with a low-end dual-core processor. Going this route could probably give you a compromise of low-power consumption, better efficiency, and some flexibility (you can change the processor since it is NOT soldered on to the motherboard).
Technorati : 780g, 945G, CN896, amd, athlon, atom, efficient, energy, intel, nano, via
]]>With netbooks becoming popular nowadays, the desktop counterpart (known as the nettop) is also coming out of the shadows. We have pre-built nettops offered by different companies, but for the DIY crowd and/or enthusiasts, building your own is usually more rewarding.
The most popular processor currently available is the Intel Atom 230. It features:
1.6GHz Clock frequency 533 Bus frequency 512KB L2 cache 1 core / 2 threads SSE3 SIMD instruction set 64-bit extensions 45nm manufacturing process 4 watts TDP 1.1125V Core voltage
You can get the Intel D945GCLF Mini-ITX mainboard that features the Atom 230. Another Intel offering is the Atom 330 processor:
dual-core version of the Atom 230 1.6GHz Clock / 533MHz Bus 2 x 512KB L2 cache 2 Cores / 4 threads 8W TDP 1.1625V Core voltage
If you'd want the Atom 330 processor, you can get it with the Intel D945GCLF2 mainboard. Via also has a low-processor offering, which is the Via Nano L2100:
1.8GHz clock 800MHz Bus 1024KB L2 cache 1 core / 1 thread 65nm manufacturing process 25W TDP 1.2V Core voltage
Currently, I believe a production mainboard for the Via (Isaiah) Nano L2100 is not yet available, although it probably would be before the end of 2008. X-bit Labs did a performance comparison of the three mentioned low-power processors:
"... Overall, we can say that highly integrated solutions from Intel and VIA that never consume over 70W of power and offer pretty sufficient performance for a wide range of tasks a home user would ever need to work with. New generation of low-power platforms not only work with Internet applications in Windows Vista OS, but are also powerful enough for more resource-demanding tasks, such as office applications and HD video playback (with a few limitations)." [X-bit Labs | The Battle of Low-Power Processors: Best Choice for a Nettop ]
Choosing the right processor will definitely depend on your priorities. The Atom 230 is the one to choose for low cost and low power consumption. Performance-per-watt would go to the Atom 330, but the Via Nano is also looking good with its 1.8GHz clock, 1024KB L2 cache, dual DDR2 support, and 800MHz bus. Mini-ITX cases are available, and usually come with a 180W or so PSU. Do check what the form-factors of HDD (2.5 or 3.5) and ODD (regular or slim-type) the case accepts. You don't want to be stuck with a 3.5" hard drive, only to find out that the case you bought only accepts a mobile 2.5" HDD. You can also use a micro-ATX case, or even a regular ATX case if you wish. This could be a workaround if the mini-ITX cases that you find cannot accomodate a 3.5" HDD, or a full size optical drive. The trade off, however, is a bigger case footprint, when compared to a mini-ITX case.
Possible uses for a nettop:
simple web browsing and document-editing PC standalone BitTorrent PC file backup server NAS
Though the primary use for a nettop PC would probably be a secondary low-power consumption PC for web browsing and simple document editing, you can use it for your own specific purpose. Happy building!
Technorati : atom, compare, consumption, intel, isaiah, itx, low, mini, nano, nettop, power, via
]]>With netbooks becoming popular nowadays, the desktop counterpart (known as the nettop) is also coming out of the shadows. We have pre-built nettops offered by different companies, but for the DIY crowd and/or enthusiasts, building your own is usually more rewarding.
The most popular processor currently available is the Intel Atom 230. It features:
1.6GHz Clock frequency 533 Bus frequency 512KB L2 cache 1 core / 2 threads SSE3 SIMD instruction set 64-bit extensions 45nm manufacturing process 4 watts TDP 1.1125V Core voltage
You can get the Intel D945GCLF Mini-ITX mainboard that features the Atom 230. Another Intel offering is the Atom 330 processor:
dual-core version of the Atom 230 1.6GHz Clock / 533MHz Bus 2 x 512KB L2 cache 2 Cores / 4 threads 8W TDP 1.1625V Core voltage
If you'd want the Atom 330 processor, you can get it with the Intel D945GCLF2 mainboard. Via also has a low-processor offering, which is the Via Nano L2100:
1.8GHz clock 800MHz Bus 1024KB L2 cache 1 core / 1 thread 65nm manufacturing process 25W TDP 1.2V Core voltage
Currently, I believe a production mainboard for the Via (Isaiah) Nano L2100 is not yet available, although it probably would be before the end of 2008. X-bit Labs did a performance comparison of the three mentioned low-power processors:
"... Overall, we can say that highly integrated solutions from Intel and VIA that never consume over 70W of power and offer pretty sufficient performance for a wide range of tasks a home user would ever need to work with. New generation of low-power platforms not only work with Internet applications in Windows Vista OS, but are also powerful enough for more resource-demanding tasks, such as office applications and HD video playback (with a few limitations)." [X-bit Labs | The Battle of Low-Power Processors: Best Choice for a Nettop ]
Choosing the right processor will definitely depend on your priorities. The Atom 230 is the one to choose for low cost and low power consumption. Performance-per-watt would go to the Atom 330, but the Via Nano is also looking good with its 1.8GHz clock, 1024KB L2 cache, dual DDR2 support, and 800MHz bus. Mini-ITX cases are available, and usually come with a 180W or so PSU. Do check what the form-factors of HDD (2.5 or 3.5) and ODD (regular or slim-type) the case accepts. You don't want to be stuck with a 3.5" hard drive, only to find out that the case you bought only accepts a mobile 2.5" HDD. You can also use a micro-ATX case, or even a regular ATX case if you wish. This could be a workaround if the mini-ITX cases that you find cannot accomodate a 3.5" HDD, or a full size optical drive. The trade off, however, is a bigger case footprint, when compared to a mini-ITX case.
Possible uses for a nettop:
simple web browsing and document-editing PC standalone BitTorrent PC file backup server NAS
Though the primary use for a nettop PC would probably be a secondary low-power consumption PC for web browsing and simple document editing, you can use it for your own specific purpose. Happy building!
Technorati : atom, compare, consumption, intel, isaiah, itx, low, mini, nano, nettop, power, via
]]>