Intel Core 2 Duo 45nm Wolfdale vs. 65nm Conroe

Advertisement (Why?)

It was back in July 2006 when we got our first look at the then brand new Core 2 Duo processor technology. The processor code-named 'Conroe' was initially released in four different flavors ranging from the E6300 (1.86GHz) all the way up to the E6700 model running at 2.66GHz, and from the get go we knew Intel had a winner on its hands.

But for sometime now we've been waiting for Intel to move on to a more efficient and highly hyped 45nm fabrication technology, which was released just last month. The new 45nm Wolfdale line-up includes the E8200 (2.66GHz), E8400 (3.00GHz) and E8500 (3.16GHz) processors that are expected to operate at lower temperatures - and thus reduce fan noise - as well as receive newer SSE4.1 instructions and ship with a larger 6MB L2 cache.

It should not take pages of benchmark results to convince you that the E8500 is a better buy than the E6850 as that clearly is the case. However, those currently in possession of an E6000 series processor or even older Intel or AMD processors, may still be quite interested to see how much faster these new E8000 series CPUs are, and if they are worth upgrading to. The non-race is on then!

View: Intel Core 2 Duo 45nm Wolfdale vs. 65nm Conroe @ TechSpot

(1 reply) #1 toadeater on 01 Feb 2008 - 20:56

Good luck trying to buy one. Intel is holding back shipments to keep prices up and sell off remaining Conroes. Something they must have learned from the success of Nvidia's price fixing of the 8800 series.

Just a sample of the kinds of extortion schemes you can expect from Intel if AMD were to ever go under. Intel would not have even released these new CPUs if it wasn't still worried about the upcoming bug-fixed Phenoms and AMD's new tech. Since those new Phenoms are still MIA, Intel is holding back on Penryns.

#1.1 Skyfrog on 01 Feb 2008 - 21:49

Extortion? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

(1 reply) #2 Imnotrichey on 01 Feb 2008 - 21:06

In the conclusion section it says:

anyone looking at building a new dual-core system should really only consider one of these new 45nm processors.

I read through the entire article and can't find where they single out one CPU that is worth buying. Which one do you think they are talking about?

I am only guessing its the e8400 based from this:

The E8400 is much faster than the E8200 in both tests while it is only slightly slower than the E8500.

#2.1 JulioFranco on 02 Feb 2008 - 00:23

The fact is, we were not singling out one processor, but we are recommending any of the Wolfdales as the best way to go as far as dual-core processors are concerned.

(5 replies) #3 ishtar on 01 Feb 2008 - 21:29

Hello Hello nothing special about them just like all intel cpu's they make a new one then try to milk it for all its worth what did they do add more memory big deal just like p4 now the hoards of losers will run out and buy it . Ha Ha

#3.1 +Martog on 01 Feb 2008 - 21:37

I hope you are joking because the Core 2's are nothing like the P4's and are vastly better, Intel has the upper hand right now and they know it.

#3.2 Skyfrog on 01 Feb 2008 - 21:50

The first rule of being a good troll is to at least have some clue as to what you are talking about. Babbling nonsense just makes you look ignorant and silly.

#3.3 SkyyPunk on 01 Feb 2008 - 21:50

They also added a new instruction set to Penryn, SSE4.1. It gives more digital/hd instructions to encode/decode multimedia was faster than before

#3.4 ivanz on 01 Feb 2008 - 22:53

(ishtar said @ #3)

Get educated and then post here.

#3.5 Esvandiary on 01 Feb 2008 - 22:56

Let me just finish reading that sente-Segmentation Fault

Sorry, my buffer overran from trying to read that sentence - from what I got, it was something involving Pentium 4s... Ah, NetBurst... Having avoided that architecture entirely for me and my family is something I'm quite proud of.

#4 Kreuger on 01 Feb 2008 - 22:10

I plan to get the E8400 as soon as the price drops. I was about to go and buy an E6550 but I'm glad this was posted as now I can get an even bigger increase when I upgrade.

(2 replies) #5 freeza on 01 Feb 2008 - 22:47

I have an e8400. it is amazing. the little increase in speed of the e8500 does not justify it's distance in price from the e8400. go for the e8400!

#5.1 Keito on 02 Feb 2008 - 10:13

If you can pay for it and don't want to OC - go for an E8500, like I did.

#5.2 Skyfrog on 02 Feb 2008 - 19:11

Why, the E8500 is barely any faster in performance and yet costs a lot more. It's the worst value of the bunch.

(3 replies) #6 Izlude on 01 Feb 2008 - 23:43

what once took 20 minutes (estimated by Windows Movie Maker) to create a 10mb wmv - on a P4 2.8 northwood, how much faster would one of these 8000 series CPUs go? (or does it not work that way?)

#6.1 Tikitiki on 02 Feb 2008 - 05:52

I'd say if it was multithreaded, it would be at least twice as fast with a comparable Core 2. And the 45 nm architecture will reduce power consumption and iirc a bit better performance because of the larger number of transistors.

#6.2 travisowens on 02 Feb 2008 - 18:49

Windows Movie Maker is multithreaded, so if you factor that in, which gives you double, and the fact the Core 2 Duos give you more speed per GHZ gives you triple. An encoding that took 20mins on your P4 will take 6-7mins on these new Core 2 Duo. And if a future version of Windows Movie Maker adds SSE4 support, that's an additional 30% on top of that (making it 4mins).

#6.3 +M2Ys4U on 03 Feb 2008 - 17:25

Additional cores only offer approx. 50% real-life performance increase due to overheads.

(2 replies) #7 RangerLG on 02 Feb 2008 - 00:32

Just curious, any reason that the Phenom was not included for comparison?

#7.1 derek22 on 02 Feb 2008 - 06:03

Maybe its because its not an intel cpu nor is it dual core

#7.2 JulioFranco on 02 Feb 2008 - 09:24

The biggest reason was because the Phenom is quad-core, AMD has yet to release their dual core processors based on the same technology.

However if you want to compare, just a week ago we published a review of ALL the phenoms out there (and some upcoming ones), put against Intel's most affordable Core 2 Quad and one of these new 45nm Core 2 Duos:
http://www.techspot.com/review/84-amd-phen...ly-performance/

(1 reply) #8 EnzoFX on 02 Feb 2008 - 17:09

overclocking one of these to 4ghz, I suspect it would be ridiculously easy. For Those that say that don't want to OC, and to get the 8500, the money IMO is still not justified. You can use that money for something useful. Maybe a better video card. The performance diff is minute that you would probably not notice it in real-world applications. Lastly, a couple minutes work for a good performance gain!, and it's not like these are P4's =P

#8.1 travisowens on 02 Feb 2008 - 18:52

If you look at the Ghz difference vs the benchmark results vs the price; you'll see the "best bang for the buck" is the e8400, especially after the prices go down when supply increase in late February.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net