Independent benchmarks: Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) 2.67 GHz

“While in Taiwan for Computex this month someone dropped an engineering sample of a Conroe processor in my pocket. After getting home and getting some motherboards in with Conroe support, I set out to test this CPU and see what numbers Intel was preparing for enthusiasts in July,” Ryan Shrout reports for PC Perspective.

“If you didn’t know any better, the processor below would appear to be just another LGA775 Pentium processor we have played with numerous times. The fact that the face has been lapped clean should indicate that someone didn’t want us to find out where it came from, but regardless, what we have here is an engineering sample of the upcoming Conroe core processor. Intel has already officially announced the name of the upcoming desktop branding for these processors, the Intel Core 2 Duo processor,” Shrout reports.

“Loading up the latest version of CPU-Z, we see that we have a Conroe processor running at 2.67 GHz, with a model number of Core 2 Duo E6700. According to information circulating around the web, this will be the top speed grade of the Core 2 Duo processors; though there will be a 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition CPU released as well,” Shrout reports. “These processors are built on the 65nm technology that Intel has been ramping up, with a 266 MHz quad-pumped front side bus for a total bus speed of 1066 MHz.”

“In our results, the idle wattage on the Conroe is actually higher than the Intel 965 and AMD Athlon FX-62 processor — a clear indication that our reference board isn’t doing something right. Chances are our reference platform is doing something incorrectly in terms of power management, so we’ll dismiss those idle results for now. What is worth looking at is the load wattage result — 186 watts on the E6700 vs. 256 watts on the AMD FX-62 processor! Keeping in mind that the performance on the E6700 was almost always HIGHER than the FX-62, you can do that math to see that Conroe is blowing the X2 processors out of the water in terms of performance per watt,” Shrout reports.

“AMD is going to be in more than a bit of trouble come the end of July if they don’t have an answer to Intel’s Core 2 Duo product line. The E6700 sample we tested with here was able to trounce the FX-62 in many cases, and came out the leader in nearly every test we threw at it,” Shrout reports. “The Core 2 Duo E6700 tested here simply swept through the benchmarks, leaving everything in its wake; I can’t wait to run an X6800 through the paces to see how it performs.”

Full article with comprehensive benchmarks here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “LinuxGuy” for the heads up.]

MacDailyNews Take: It certainly seems like Apple picked the right horse for the near term at the very least.

Advertisements:
Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook.  Starting at just $1099.
Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.

Related articles:
Intel’s next-gen Conroe, Merom processors to be dubbed ‘Core 2 Duo’ – May 07, 2006
Intel gets aggressive on next-gen rollout schedules: Merom MacBook Pros, Conroe Power Macs, more – May 03, 2006
Intel showcases next-gen multi-core ‘Conroe’ processors, may turn up in future Apple Power Macs – March 07, 2006

33 Comments

  1. “Cinebench 2003 Multiple CPU Render Test – “Daylight” – 16 seconds!”

    Anybody have any data on how a G5 compares in this test? I need to see if its much faster than a G5.

    Mark

  2. Mark, the G5 scores just a bit lower than a corresponding Core Duo in this test.

    Power Mac G5 2Ghz dual-core: 552
    MacBook Pro 2Ghz Core Duo: 563

    The 2Ghz Core 2 Duo (MacBook Pro) will probably score at least a 715, while the 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo (new workstation Mac) will probably score at least a 925 – not far from the quad-core G5 PowerMac score!

    Power Mac G5 2.7Ghz dual CPU: 734
    Yo Mama Mac Core 2 Duo 2.65Ghz: 925 (estimate)

    Apple was wise to switch.

    Nobody is even talking about the fact that the Core 2 Duo has SSE4 support – finally a 128bit vector processor, much closer to altivec power than SSE3 is.

  3. I noticed that the 2.67Ghz Core 2 Duo is scoring 825 in windows, so let would probably get more like at 850 in Mac OS X – not 925 like I guessed before.

    Cinebench scales well but not perfectly. It would probably get more like 1550 in a quad-core configuration. The quad-core G5 2.5Ghz scores at least 1100 in all the results I’ve found, indicating more like a 32% performance improvement (not 60%, static mesh) if you take the 2.5Ghz vs 2.67Ghz difference into account. Still, that’s a sweet improvement.

  4. Hey the Kensfield processor has a whopping 8 MB cache!

    That’s gotta be where most of the performance is coming from.

    No reponse yet on a PPC Quad and the timed “Daylight” Cinebench Mulitiple CPU yet, anyone?

  5. …indicating more like a 32% performance improvement..

    So a small speed bump, basically they are still catching up to the G5 processors.

    I figure a Quad PPC could do the Daylight test in about 17-19 seconds, based upon a mythical Quad 2 ghz doing it in 45/2 seconds.

    The processors will be cooler for sure, thus no liquid cooling for the single Kensfield Mac Pro’s, but performance wise they won’t be a great leap over present PPC Quad machines as I totally expected.

    They are adding more cores and trying to make them cooler, not faster, because they can’t.

    Programmers must be burning the midnight oil trying to figure out how to multi-thread their apps. Expect some heavy price tags for new Quad optimized software from the likes of Adobe.

  6. judging from the 1100 score we’re seeing, the rendering time is probably about 20 seconds for the quad G5.

    Yea we are on about the same page for that for sure. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

    Ok, Kensfield is just like the Dual Core’s, just catching up to the similar G5 processors.

    My MacBook Pro 1.83Ghz does it in 42 seconds, and my hardware OpenGL score is 2495. Not bad for something purchased months ago for $1699…

    Yea and my dual 2 Ghz was $3000 3 years ago and now just matches your MPB in CPU performance, so now I’m good for another 2-3 years, the life of your MPB, and I still 3D game better too. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />

    Laptop + performance = no value.

  7. Static Mesh:

    “So a small speed bump, basically they are still catching up to the G5 processors.”

    We’ve already seen that the Core Duo beats the G5 at the same clock rate. Heck, my 1.83Ghz MacBook Pro is even edging out your dual 2Ghz G5 workstation in the Cinebench rendering test.

    The Core 2 Duo beats the G5 by more than the Core Duo already does, at the same clock rate – and the Core 2 Duo will be available all the way up to 2.93Ghz (“extreme edition”) right away.

    As awesome as the G5 is, the Core Duo is a little bit better and Core 2 Duo is better still.

  8. Static Mesh:

    “Laptop + performance = no value.”

    dude, the moment the Merom MacBook Pros come out I’m buying one academic priced for $2000. I’ll sell my current one on eBay for $1500, still under warranty. I’d rather spend $400-$500 per year and always have a kick-ass laptop. It ends up being the same net cost, only I upgrade every year instead of every 3 years.

  9. I’m almost postivie Apple will use this Kensfield processor in the new Mac Pro’s

    1: It’s slightly faster in performance than a PPC Quad so Apple can tout the new improved speed. blah blah blah.

    2: It’s on one chip so this gives us the PowerMac G5 single 1.6, 1.8 and Dual 2 like architectures again. With the semi-rejects getting clocked down and going into the low end models.

    3: They can charge a pretty penny for the 8 core models and make a ton in profit.

    4: It’s cooler than G5 processors.

  10. Nick, I don’t argue with you the Core Duo’s are doing slightly better than some G5 processors at the moment.

    http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

    My argument is it’s they are not a “great leap” of performance over G5 processors which would be a prime motivation to buy new hardware.

    And your method of buying new and selling your year old laptop is a wise stradgety and a sound one to take with a laptop. Still too fragile for me, I tossed my G3 and that ended my love affair with pro laptops. Give me a glorified MacPDA for under $500.

  11. Static Mesh:

    “And your method of buying new and selling your year old laptop is a wise stradgety and a sound one to take with a laptop. Still too fragile for me, I tossed my G3 and that ended my love affair with pro laptops.”

    Hey, cool man – I appreciate your nice tone.

    One time I accidentally dented my old PowerBook 12″ (that’s the thing about aluminum). I put a shirt over the dent and hammered it back with a piece of wood. My girlfriend totally dented the side of hers. A teacher I know dropped his and dented the heck out of it.

    I would be extremely bummed if something happened to my MacBook Pro. It could get stolen out of my car, I could get mugged for it, I could crash my motorcycle with it on the back, I could spill coffee on it… Still, I’m pretty much a laptop junkie for now anyways.

    The G5 was really an incredible CPU when it came out years ago. It’s a testament to its power that only now is it finally getting replaced by something a bit better! It’s also very cool that workstation Macs will be using the very best CPU design available – just like workstation Macs always have.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.