Intel's 45nm Dual-Core E8500: The Best Just Got Better
by Kris Boughton on March 5, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
So Dual-Cores are no Longer Extreme?
It may be hard to believe, but the quad-core concept just celebrated its first birthday. Launched in late 2006, this anniversary also signifies the introduction of a rather significant adjustment to Intel's eternally-evolving marketing strategy. For the first time ever, Intel has decided not to produce a dual-core Extreme Edition variant of their leading quad-core product offering. That means there are currently no plans to manufacture a 45nm dual-core CPU featuring an unlocked multiplier (or as Intel likes to put it, with "overspeed protection removed"). Until now, this made choosing the right processor easy: those that lacked the means (or the need) for a quad-core could feel content in knowing they would not be expected give up having an unlocked multiplier should they decide to go with the dual-core in lieu of quad. Now, anyone that wants to enjoy the operational freedom that comes with having a fully adjustable multiplier with a 45nm processor will have to pony-up the dough for a QX9650 (or QX9770) or go without.
We recognize this change for what it really is - a bold move when it comes to fulfilling the needs of enthusiasts worldwide, considering how a vast majority of today's games and applications still favor systems with fewer high-speed cores over those with more cores at lower frequencies. Intel's decision to supply processors with unlocked multipliers under an "Extreme Edition" branding became an essential ingredient in the creation of all future roadmaps. Eventually these unique processors became the basis for a new class of computing platforms, one that embodied a shift in marketing philosophy. Rather than focus solely on serving the large OEMs, Intel also recognized the direct importance of the enthusiast community. We could argue that when it came to winning the admiration and approval of overclockers, enthusiasts, and power users alike, no other single common product change could have garnered the same overwhelming success.
Our love affair with the quad-core began not too long ago, starting with the release of Intel's QX6700 Extreme Edition processor. Ever since then Intel has been aggressive in their campaign to promote these processors to users that demand unrivaled performance and the absolute maximum amount of jaw-dropping, raw processing power possible from a single-socket desktop solution. Quickly following their 2.66GHz quad-core offering was the QX6800 processor, a revolutionary release in its own right in that it marked the first time users could purchase a processor with four cores that operated at the same frequency as the current top dual-core bin - at the time the 2.93GHz X6800. From there only a small default FSB speed bump from 266Mhz (1066 quad-pump) to 333Mhz (1333 quad-pumped) and a stepping change from B3 to G0 was all that was needed to justify the creation of the QX6850, which ran at a slightly higher speed of 3.0Ghz (9x333). Again, the X6850 matched the QX6850 in every way but one, that being that it had two fewer cores.
Writing multithreaded code that makes efficient use of four or more cores is a daunting task - to date few applications and even fewer game developers are able to boast of this accomplishment. Given this, is it that hard to admit that perhaps we've all been a little guilty of demanding too much, too soon from our favorite software vendors? It should not be surprising then to learn then that many of today's ultimate gaming machines make use of "lesser" dual-core CPUs in place of their quad-core counterparts. With most titles able to take advantage of only two cores at a time, optimum gaming performance (read: maximum FPS) is often achieved by running a dual-core CPU at a greater frequency than is attainable using even the best quad-core processors.
Because dual-cores can often be coaxed to run at a higher, final stable speed then quad-core CPUs - which also consume significantly more power - most modern games have been engineered to make use of no more than two threads simultaneously executing in parallel. These games thus benefit from the additional overclocking headroom of dual-core CPUs. Meanwhile, in the case of the quad-core processor, approximately half of the processing resources sit idle while the code executes on any two of the four slower cores.
If you're not an overclocker, aside from the obvious processor count increase from two to four cores, there is little difference between Intel's top-end dual-core E8500 and their QX9650 Extreme Edition quad-core CPU. Each is fabricated based on exactly the same underlying 45nm, second-generation Core 2 architecture. Both interface with their host motherboard's MCH at an equivalent quad-pumped FSB speed of 1333MHz. And technically speaking, on a by-core basis, each must contend for the same amount of shared Level 2 cache (6MB per die). The only real difference is their core operating frequencies - the E8500 at 3.16GHz (9.5x333) and the QX9650 at 3.00Ghz (9x333). Because of the raw speed advantage, if the target application or game only makes use of two cores then the E8500 ends up being the better choice.
This isn't to say that the quad-core CPU is left without the existence of a proper application - far from it. Programs that heavily rely on the impressive parallel processing capabilities of a quad-core processor can realize up to nearly double the per-clock performance. This is especially true of tasks that lend themselves to the use of multiple program instances. For example, consider an encoding program that makes use of only two cores. Running two instances, and simultaneously encoding two files, would effectively load all four cores. Of course, this assumes there is a work queue in which the next available job can be drawn from, without which no benefit could be realized. There are certainly applications where more cores is almost always better; whether you use those applications on a regular basis is the real question.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
TheJian - Thursday, March 6, 2008 - link
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...You can buy a Radeon 3850 and triple your 6800 performance (assuming it's a GT with an ultra it would be just under triple). Check tomshardware.com and compare cards. You'd probably end up closer to double performance because of a weaker cpu, but still once you saw your fps limit due to cpu you can crank the hell out of the card for better looks in the game. $225 vs probably $650-700 for a new board+cpu+memory+vidcard+probably PSU to handle it all. If you have socket 939 you can still get a dual core Opty144 for $97 on pricewatch :) Overclock the crap out of it you might hit 2.6-2.8 and its a dual core. So around $325 for a lot longer life and easy changes. It will continue to get better as dual core games become dominant. While I would always tell someone to spend the extra money on the Intel currently (jeez, the OC'ing is amazing..run at default until slow then bump it up a ghz/core, that's awesome), if you're on a budget a dual core opty and a 3850 looks pretty good at less than half the cost and both are easy to change out. Just a chip and a card. That's like a 15 minute upgrade. Just a thought, in case you didn't know they had an excellent AGP card out there for you. :)
mmntech - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
I'm in the same boat with the X2 3800+. Anyway, when it comes to dual vs quad, the same rules apply back when the debate was single versus dual. Very few games support quad core but a quad will be more future proof and give better multitasking. The ultimate question is how much you want to spend, how long you intend to keep the processor, and what the future road maps for games and CPU tech are within that period.I'm a long time AMD/nVidia man but I'm liking what Intel and ATI are putting out. I'm definitely considering these Wolfdales, especially that sub $200 one. I'm going to wait for the prices and benchmarks for the triple core Phenoms though before I begin planning an upgrade.
Margalus - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
the current state of affairs generally point to the higher clocked dual core. Very few games can take advantage of 4 cores, so the more speed you get the better.Spacecomber - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
This has been mentioned in a couple of articles, now, that what these processors will run at with no more than 1.45v core voltage applied is what really matters for most people buying one of these 45nm chips. So, it begs the question, what are the results at this voltage?While the section on processor failure was somewhat interesting, I think that it should have been a separate article.
retrospooty - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
"these processors will run (safely) at with no more than 1.45v core voltage applied is what really matters for most people buying one of these 45nm chips. So, it begs the question, what are the results at this voltage"Very good point. Since these CPU's are deemed safe up to 1.45 volt, lets see how far they clock at 1.45 volts. 4.5 ghz at 1.6 volts is nice for a suicide run, but lets see it at 1.45.
Spoelie - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
This reads like an excerpt of a press release:"We could argue that when it came to winning the admiration and approval of overclockers, enthusiasts, and power users alike, no other single common product change could have garnered the same overwhelming success."
Except that it was not. It was a knee-jerk reaction to the K8 release way back in 2003. It was too expensive to matter to anyone except for the filthy rich. The FX around that time was more successful. In recent years they just polished the concept a bit, but gaining admiration and overwhelming success because of it?? I think not. The Conroe architecture was the catalyst, not some expensive niche product.
"Our love affair with the quad-core began not too long ago, starting with the release of Intel's QX6700 Extreme Edition processor. Ever since then Intel has been aggressive in their campaign to promote these processors to users that demand unrivaled performance and the absolute maximum amount of jaw-dropping, raw processing power possible from a single-socket desktop solution. Quickly following their 2.66GHz quad-core offering was the QX6800 processor, a revolutionary release in its own right in that it marked the first time users could purchase a processor with four cores that operated at the same frequency as the current top dual-core bin - at the time the 2.93GHz X6800."
Speed bump revolutionary? Oh well ;)
No beef with the rest of the article, those two paragraphs just stand out as being overly enthousiastic, more so than informative.
MaulSidious - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
this articles a bit late isn't it? seeing as they been out for quite a while now.MrModulator - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
Well it's being updated from time to time. I think it is relevant since Cubase 4 is still the latest version used of cubase and the performance is the same today. What is important with this is that they measure up two equally clocked processors where the difference is in the number of cores. Yes, the quad is better at higher latencys but it loses the advantage at lower latencys and even gets beaten by the dual-core.More of a reminder of the limitations of current day quadcores in some situations. This will probably change when Nehalem is introduced with its on-die memory controller, a higher FSB and faster DD3 memory.
adiposity - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
Uh, what? I think he's saying these processors were on the shelves over a month ago. This article is acting like they are just about to come out!-Dan
MrModulator - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
Yeah, you talk about games and maximum cpufrequency on dual core is important, but there are other areas that are much more interesting. Performance for sequencers where you make music (in DAW-based computeres) is seldom mentioned. It is very important to be able to cram out every ounce of performance in real-time with a lot of software synthesizers and effects using a low latency setting(not memory latency but the delay from when you press a key on the synt until it is procesed in the computer and put out from the soundcard for example).Here's an interesting benchmark:
http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm">http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm
(Sorry, using the linking button didn't work, you have to copy the link manually)
If you scroll down to the Cubase4/Nuendo3 Test you can compare the QX6850(4 core) with the E6850 (2 core). They both run at 3 GHz. Look at what happens when the latency is lowered. Yes the dualcore actually beats the quadcore, even though these applications use all cores available. The reason could be that all 4 cores compete for the fsb and memory access when the latency is really low. Very interesting indeed, as DAW is an area in much more for cpu than gaming...