Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor

Investing in new PCs with Intel® Core™2 processor family can mean big savings for your business. Delivering faster performance, greater energy efficiency, and more responsive multitasking, desktop PCs with Intel® Core™2 processor family can help your whole company be more productive.

By combining breakthrough processing speeds with advanced power saving features, desktop PCs with Intel® Core™2 processor family let you get more done in less time than ever before reducing energy costs by an average of 50 percent.¹ Processors built with Intel's unique 45nm technology offer excellent performance as well as unique energy-saving features that help PCs meet ENERGY STAR² requirements. That means reduced power consumption for desktop PCs and lower energy costs for your company.

Intel Core 2 Duo

Let's take a step back in time to when CPUs were easy to understand. Comparing different processor to easy, the higher the clock speed of the chip, the faster it was. That's all there was to it, 3GHz was better than 2.4GHz, and that's all one needed to know. The numbers game has of course been relegated to a historical footnote by newer core technologies that re-wrote the rules - anyone remember the shock of a Core 2 Duo processor out pacing a pentinium 4 chip at twice the speed?

Moving from single core to dual-core processors had an immediate benefit in many computing situations; background appl could run on one core, while the other focused on the tasks at hand. Moving from two cores to four cores hasn't been quite the universal panacea for processing power. Only a few applications make effective use of all that parallel processing goodness....

Which brings us to the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400, a 3.0GHz dual-core processor based on the 'Wolfdale' core that is being manufactured on the 45nm process. This socket 755 processor packs in 6MB of L2 cache and operates with a 1333MHz Front Side Bus speed. The Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 retails for around $199 CDN ($170 USD, £113 GBP), which makes it considerably more affordable than quad-core processors with equivalent clock speed and cache.

So how does the E8400 compete against the new quad-core chips from AMD and Intel? While more cores can make a big difference in multi-threaded applications, they can also trip over themselves and slow down single-threaded applications. For everyday computer users, a fast dual-core CPU might be all the processing power you really need, let's find out!

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Processor Tech Specs Core 2 Duo E8400 Clock: 3.0 GHz Codename: Wolfdale Cores: 2 L1: 2 x 64K L2: 6MB Multiplier: 9x FSB Bus: 1333 MHz Package: LGA775 Socket: 775 organic mPGA Core: 45nm Transistor: 400M Power: 65 Watts Vcore: 0.850-1.3625V Cost: $203 CDN

Intel's Core 2 Duo E8400 processor is physically similar to the Core 2 Duo E6750 (Conroe) and Socket 775 Pentium D processors that came before it. All of these processors use the Land Grid Array 775-pad package. intels move to a 45 nanometer manufacturing process means the silicon die here is approximately 104mm2 in area and contains around 410 million transistors. While the Core 2 Duo E8400 is a Socket 775 CPU, it isn't compatible with all Socket 775 motherboard due to different voltage requirements and processor power envelopes.

Currently the Intel X48, X38, P45, P35, G35, G33 and G31 chipsets have native support for 45nm 'Wolfdale' processors and will support the 1333MHz Front Side Bus speed. Motherboards with older chipsets may support Wolfdale processors like the E8400 processor though BIOS updates, although compatibility isn't universal. As always, check the vendor's support page before you pick up any new parts.

Due to its 45nm die-shrink, the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 processor can be clocked at higher speeds yet maintain the same thermal design power (TDP) as the older 65nm E6000 series of processors. The typical TDP for the Core 2 Duo E8400 processor is 65W.

1333 MHz Front Side Bus Speed / 45nm Wolfdale Core

Wolfdale processors are currently Intel's fastest dual-core processors. You can identify a Wolfdale processor by its family series. The Intel E5000, E7000 and E8000-series are all based on the Wolfdale core, and share the same 45nm

The Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 is a member of the highest end family. All E8000-series processors have 410 million transistors, 6MB of L2 cache, run at a 1333MHz front side bus, and have a TDP of 65W. The lower end of the Wolfdale dual-core processor families scale down accordingly: the E7XXX family of processors have 3MB of cache and run at a 1066MHz FSB, and the Intel E5XXX family, which has 2MB of cache and runs at 800MHz FSB.

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

Core 2 Duo E8400 Workhorse CPU

In this age of quad-core processors, can a dual-core processor really cut it? CPU manufacturers AMD and Intel have repeatedly emphasized that multi-threaded applications are the future of computing, and that both companies will soon relegate single and dual-core processors to entry-level markets. As quad-core processors become more widely adopted in the mid-range and high-end, we're going to see more developers taking advantage of them with multi-threaded software. There are already a few bleeding-edge applications like Bibble that do this.

Right now, however, these applications are few and far between. Most of the utilities, office applications and day-to-day software that's on the average computer won't know what to do with extra CPU cores and will be served by a processor with more cache or higher clock speeds.

Keeping this in mind, the spotlight is clearly on Intel's family of Core 2 Dup E8000-series Wolfdale processors. The Core 2 Duo E8400, with its 3.0GHz clock speed, 1333MHz FSB speed and 6MB of L2 cache, remains a force to be reckoned with. In tests like Sysmark that test common, real-world office applications, the E8400 was generally a little faster than the Phenom II X4 955 and a little slower than the Core i7 920. All processors are absolutely fast enough for average desktop applications likely to be encountered in the office or at home. The same holds true during gaming, where the majority of titles are more suited to high-frequency dual-core processors rather than parallel quad-core processors.

With a current street price of $199 CDN ($170 USD, £113 GBP) the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 is $100 cheaper than the AMD Phenom II X4 955 and $150 than the least expensive Intel Core i7 processor. While the quad-core processors can definitely outclass the Core 2 Duo E8400 in certain scientific simulations, 3D rendering and video encoding benchmarks, they just don't deliver as much everyday value as a speedy dual-core processor.

Under the hood, the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 isn't revolutionary. While the original Conroe E6000-series processors were manufactured on a 65nm process, the Wolfdale chips are produced at 45nm. Shrinking the chip has kept the E8400's power draw levels low, just 65W, so under full CPU load it actually draws less power than lower-performing processors. Intel has also added new SSE extensions, lower power states, and better hardware virtualization support.

Overclocking the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 was dead simple, with only a minor bump in voltages required to move the processor from 3.0GHz up to 4.05GHz when using the stock Intel cooler. While we didn't do any official benchmarks at that speed, a 4GHz E8400 is enough to give the Core i7 920 a run for its money in many single and dual-core applications.

Given the benchmark results I think it's safe to say two things are clear. The Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 processor is handicapped against triple and quad-core processors in tests that are multi-threaded. In standard desktop applications that people use everyday, like Word or email, surfing the web or doing spreadsheets, the Core 2 Duo E8400 is more than powerful, and a very good value. While those that specialize in content creation may have already embraced quad-core processing, most everybody else will find that a speedy dual-core CPU like the Core 2 Duo E8400 is a better value.

Intel Core 2 Duo microprocessor

The architecture is called Core, processor family is Core 2, the product names are Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme. In the past we've talked about its architecture and even previewed its performance, but today is the real deal. We've all been waiting for this day, the day Intel lifts the last remaining curtain on the chip that is designed to re-take the performance crown from AMD, to return Intel to its days of glory.

It sure looks innocent enough:

Core 2 Duo (left) vs. Pentium D (right)

What you see above appears to be no different than a Pentium D. Honestly, unless you flip it over there's no indication of what lies beneath that dull aluminum heat spreader.

Core 2 Duo (left) vs. Pentium D (right)

But make no mistake, what you see before you is not the power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it's the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years. No, you're instead looking at the most impressive piece of silicon the world has ever seen - and the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested. What you're looking at is Conroe and today is its birthday.

Intel's Core 2 launch lineup is fairly well rounded as you can see from the table below:

CPU	Clock Speed	L2 Cache
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800	2.93GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700	2.66GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600	2.40GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400	2.13GHz	2MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300	1.86GHz	2MB

As the name implies, all Core 2 Duo CPUs are dual core as is the Core 2 Extreme. Hyper Threading is not supported on any Core 2 CPU currently on Intel's roadmaps, although a similar feature may eventually make its debut in later CPUs. All of the CPUs launching today also support Intel's Virtualization Technology (VT), run on a 1066MHz FSB and are built using 65nm transistors.

The table above features all of the Core 2 processors Intel will be releasing this year. In early next year Intel will also introduce the E4200, which will be a 1.60GHz part with only a 800MHz FSB, a 2MB cache and no VT support. The E4200 will remain a dual core part, as single core Core 2 processors won't debut until late next year. On the opposite end of the spectrum Intel will also introduce Kentsfield in Q1 next year, which will be a Core 2 Extreme branded quad core CPU from Intel.

Intel Core 2 Duo E7200

Intel helped launch their 45nm processors with the QX9650 in November, and then proceeded to release their mid-range Dual-Cores in late January and finally, their low-end and mid-range Quad-Cores late last month. So you might be asking, "where are the low-end Dual-Cores?" Good question, and one we'll help answer today.

The E7200 will be the first "value" model that Intel will launch, and for the most part, it's kind of like a Q9300 split right down the middle. The difference is that while the Q9300 utilizes a 1333MHz FSB, the E7200 sticks to the "stock" option of the 65nm models, at 1066MHz FSB. This in itself is a big improvement, since the most comparable 65nm Dual-Core, the E4700, uses an 800MHz FSB.

The rumored launch date for the E7200 is next month, but that conflicts with the "Q2" launch date that Intel's press relations gave us. Similar to the 45nm Quad-Core launch, Intel likely still has many 65nm low-end Dual-Cores and would like to clear some of them out first, before officially launching the E7200 and others. So at this point, the release date is up in the air, but it will probably prove a lot sooner than later.

With its unique 9.5x multiplier, the E7200 hits a stock clock frequency of 2.53GHz and includes 3 MB of L2 cache, 1.5 MB per core. This is unlike the mid-range Dual-Cores, such as the E8400, which includes 6 MB of L2 cache. Whether or not that decrease will affect performance is something our benchmarks will help explain.

Closer Look at the Core 2 Duo E7200

Like the E4xxx series before it, the E7xxx series is designed for value-conscious consumers who want a solid CPU that will help get the job done. They don't boast extreme performance, but as we've come to find out well over the past few years, even Intel's lower-end Core 2 Duo offerings are well worth the time... even with overclocking out of the picture.

The E7200 still contains a 65W TDP, so while it's a lower-end model, it's not meant to be more energy-efficient over the mid-range E8xxx series. Thanks to 45nm enhancements however, improved efficiency should result in an overall wattage drain decrease over previous 65nm products.

Processor Name	Cores	Clock	Cache	FSB	TDP	1Ku Price	Available
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775	4	3.20GHz	2 x 6MB	1600MHz	150W	$1,499	Now
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770	4	3.20GHz	2 x 6MB	1600MHz	136W	$1,399	Now
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650	4	3.0GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	130W	$999	Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550	4	2.86GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	95W	$530	Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450	4	2.66GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	95W	$316	Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300	4	2.5GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	95W	$266	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500	2	3.16GHz	6MB	1333MHz	65W	$266	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400	2	3.00GHz	6MB	1333MHz	65W	$183	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200	2	2.66GHz	6MB	1333MHz	65W	$163	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190	2	2.66GHz	6MB	1333MHz	65W	$163	Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200	2	2.53GHz	3MB	1066MHz	65W	~$133	May 2008

The E7200 would prove a great choice for most anyone, regardless of the intention. It would fit well in a general-use PC, it could well handle high-definition content in an HTPC, and even has the power to deliver superb gaming performance, as we'll see later. For the projected $133 USD (to retailer) price, the E7200 looks to be one heck of a offering.

Top Left: E7200, Top Right: E8400, Bottom: QX9650

To recap, while we are unsure of the actual release date and price, we wouldn't be surprised to see it launch next month with a $133USD (/1,000) price tag. Rumors have been rampant, so it could very well happen. We're just not willing to put money on it quite yet.

So, let's get right to some benchmarking! On the following page, we explain in-depth how our testing methodology works, then we'll jump into our SYSmark and PCMark tests, followed by many more.

Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 vs E8600

Introducing the contenders

In the blue corner we got the E7400 ( retailing around 120-150 euros ). In the red corner the awesome E8600 (in many shops available at twice the price of the E7400 ) Both CPU's are based on the "Wolfdale" core and therefore are both 45nm Dual cores. Main differences are the amount of Level 2 cache ( 3 vs 6Mb ) and the FSB ( 266 vs 333FSB ) More technical details are in the table below :

As you can see there's not much separating these 2 CPU's, besides the 0.5 extra multi (E7400) and the Virtualisation Technology available for the E8600.

The main objective of this article is to find out if the cache is really worth the premium price. The FSB difference between both CPU's can be corrected by running a small OC. For those that do not want to touch any of the bios settings, testing will be also conducted at the following speed : 10 X 266FSB = 2.66Ghz (so basically at E7300 speeds). Second test will be done at E8600 speed : 10 X 333FSB = 3.33Ghz. Most enthusiasts run these CPU's daily at 4ghz or higher. I opted for 2 different FSB speeds ( 10 x 400 and 8 x 500 ) This approach was chosen to determine if the Level 2 cache gets any benefits from a higher FSB and secondly to see if there's a better scaling in favour of the E8600 with its larger cache

Intel Core 2 Duo

Introduction:

Intel Core 2 Duo does not really need much of an introduction at this time more than a year after its début. The CPU price war and further price reduction last July together with the collapse of DDR2 price in recent months has become a little paradise for computer shoppers. So much so, the E4500 has not even touched the interest of many hardware review sites with 1333FSB, Quad Cores and X38 chipset dominate most of the headlines.

However, with $1 price difference; E4300, E4400, and E4500 differ only in multipliers of 9, 10 and 11 respectively may be worthy to look into. Particularly, the new M0 stepping found in all E4500.

While I was looking for the processor S-spec, I was surprised to find out Intel has changed almost all the C2D S-spec core Voltage to read 0.85 to 1.5V. Interesting! I snapped a few screen shots for keep sake.

I've read a couple quick snaps on how well the E4500 overclocks; so well that it was hard to believe. Yet, another reported disappointing result. Let's find out, shall we?