Intel E6750 Testing: SYSmark2004

SYSmark2004 is a program that simulates the use of real-world applications. Thus, we consider this the best software to measure, in practical terms, the system performance.

The benchmarks are divided into two groups:

• Internet Content Creation: Simulates the authoring of a website containing text, images, videos and animations. The following programs are used: Adobe After Effects 5.5, Adobe Photoshop 7.01, Adobe Premiere 6.5, Discreet 3ds Max 5.1, Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, Macromedia Flash MX, Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9, McAfee VirusScan 7.0 and Winzip 8.1.
• Office Productivity: Simulates the use of an office suite, i.e. simulates sending e-mails, word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, etc. The following programs are used: Adobe Acrobat 5.05, Microsoft Office XP SP2, Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1, NaturallySpeaking 6, McAfee VirusScan 7.0 and Winzip 8.1.

This software delivers several results, all of them using a specific SYSmark2004 unit. First we have a SYSmark2004 overall score. Then we have a group result for each batch listed above. And for each batch, we have specific results: 3D Creation, 2D Creation and Web Publication for Internet Content Creation; and Communication, Document Creation and Data Analysis for Office Productivity.

For a better visualization, we separated the results into three graphs: overall score, Internet Content Creation score and Office Productivity score.

SYSmark2004 – Overall	Score	Difference
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2.66 GHz)	368	6.36%
Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93 GHz)	367	6.07%
Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66 GHz)	346	0.29%
Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66 GHz)	345
Pentium 4 550 (3.4 GHz)	203	70.44%

On the overall score Core 2 Duo E6750 achieved the same performance of Core 2 Duo E6700.

Difference	Internet Content Creation	3D Creation	2D Creation	Web Publication
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2.66 GHz)	14.16%	16.54%	16.22%	9.82%
Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93 GHz)	7.42%	9.27%	6.13%	7.30%
Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66 GHz)	-0.45%	-1.25%	-1.80%	2.02%
Pentium 4 550 (3.4 GHz)	-48.09%	-44.61%	-48.29%	-51.13%

Core 2 Duo E6750 achieved a performance similar to Core 2 Duo E6700 on Internet Content Creation score and in all of its individual tests. Here you can also see that Core 2 Extreme QX6700 had a good advantage because of its four cores, even though these three CPUs run at 2.66 GHz.

Difference	Office Productivity	Communication	Document Creation	Data Analysis
Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93 GHz)	5.22%	7.50%	6.43%	2.17%
Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66 GHz)	0.75%	10.63%	-4.83%	-2.80%
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2.66 GHz)	-0.75%	3.13%	-2.14%	-3.11%
Pentium 4 550 (3.4 GHz)	-33.58%	-15.00%	-45.31%	-37.27%

Core 2 Duo E6750 achieved the same performance level of E6700 on the Office Productivity score. However, on Communication Core 2 Duo E6700 was 10.63% faster, but this CPU was 4.83% slower than the reviewed CPU on Document Creation. On Data Analysis both CPUs achieved the same performance level. Here you can see that the extra cores brought by Core 2 Extreme QX6700 made no difference, as office applications do not take benefit of having more than two cores (or two CPUs) on the system. Thus the CPU with the highest clock – Core 2 Extreme QX6800 – was the fastest.

source: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com

Intel® Core™2 Duo E6750 Processor specifications

Specifications:

sSpec Number	SLA9V
CPU Speed	2.66GHz
PCG	06
Bus Speed	1333MHz
Bus/ Core Ratio	8
L2 Cache Size	4MB
L2 Cache Speed	2.66GHz
Package Type	LGA 775
Manufacturing technology	65 nm
Core Stepping	GO
CPUID String	06FBh
Thermal Design Power	65W
Thermal Specification	72°C
Core Voltage	0.962v-1.350v

Features:

Dual-Core Processing	Two independent processor cores in one physical package run at the same frequency, and share up to 4 MB of L2 cache as well as up to a 1333 MHz1 Front Side Bus, for truly parallel computing.
Intel® Wide Dynamic Execution	Improves execution speed and efficiency, delivering more instructions per clock cycle. Each core can complete up to four full instructions simultaneously.
Intel® Smart Memory Access	Optimizes the use of the data bandwidth from the memory subsystem to accelerate out-of-order execution. A newly designed prediction mechanism reduces the time in-flight instructions have to wait for data. New pre-fetch algorithms move data from system memory into fast L2 cache in advance of execution. These functions keep the pipeline full, improving instruction throughput and performance
Intel® Advanced Smart Cache	The shared L2 cache is dynamically allocated to each processor core based on workload. This efficient, dual-core optimized implementation increases the probability that each core can access data from fast L2 cache, significantly reducing latency to frequently used data and improving performance
Intel® Advanced Digital Media Boost	Accelerates the execution of Streaming SIMD Extension (SSE) instructions to significantly improve the performance on a broad range of applications, including video, audio, image and photo processing, multimedia, encryption, financial, engineering and scientific applications. The 128-bit SSE instructions are now issued at a throughput rate of one per clock cycle effectively doubling their speed of execution on a per clock basis over previous generation processors.
Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel VT)	Intel® VT allows one hardware platform to function as multiple “virtual” platforms. For businesses, Intel VT offers improved manageability, limiting downtime and maintaining worker productivity by isolating computing activities into separate partitions.
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (Intel® TXT)	Intel® TXT provides hardware-based mechanisms to help protect against software-based attacks and help protect the confidentiality and integrity of data stored or created on the system. It does this by enabling a trusted environment where applications can run within their own space, protected from all other software on the system.
Intel® 64 Architecture	Enables the processor to access larger amounts of memory. With appropriate 64-bit supporting hardware and software, platforms based on an Intel processor supporting Intel 64 architecture can allow the use of extended virtual and physical memory.
Execute Disable Bit4	Provides enhanced virus protection when deployed with a supported operating system. The Execute Disable Bit allows memory to be marked as executable or non-executable, allowing the processor to raise an error to the operating system if malicious code attempts to run in non-executable memory, thereby preventing the code from infecting the system.
Intel Designed Thermal Solution for Boxed Processors	Includes a 4-pin connector for fan speed control to help minimize the acoustic noise levels generated from running the fan at higher speeds for thermal performance.5 Fan speed control technology is based on actual CPU temperature and power usage.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Preview

Introduction:

You've gotten the upgrade itch again. Your system is up to date, you have a dual core processor already, but that hardware jones just won’t go away. Kind of like the new car itch. You get in and smell the newness, kick the tires, and the salesman leads you down the hallway to the finance room to talk to the numbers guy. Then you finally put your name on the dotted line and you are now the proud owner of a new car. On the way home the buyers regret starts. By the time you get home, you start to realize that the other car was still pretty nice. You won’t have to sign on the dotted line and promise out your first born child to be able to own one of Intel’s latest Core 2 Duo CPUs. In fact, with the latest price drops, they are downright affordable. For the Average Joe, 2.66 GHz, 1066MHz and 1333MHz are numbers that really don’t mean a whole lot.

For the enthusiast, those numbers bring the hope of increased performance and higher clock speeds from the CPUs that we chose. Intel’s latest Core 2 Duo CPUs feature a 333 FSB instead of the 266 FSB we have grown accustomed to. Built using the same 65 nanometer process as its predecessors, it includes a shared L2 cache of 4 megabytes with 64 bit support on a socket 775 platform. Many motherboards currently on the market have the capability to use these new CPUs, while some need just a simple BIOS update to gain the capability. So why not jump in and take a look while we see what the latest from Intel has to offer.

Intel was formed at a time when the average size computer took up a large amount of space, usually several rooms. My how times have changed. Now the heart of a computer can be held in the palm of your hand with no thoughts of being crushed. Intel has lead the way with innovation and continually reducing the size of the processor and increasing the level of performance.

Installation:

The installation process is slightly different from many processors that have been produced. With the 775 socket, Intel has migrated away from using pins on the bottom of the CPU to make contact with the socket. Instead of the pins being on the processor, the pins are spring loaded in the socket and the contact surface on the CPU is just a flat circular disc. This eliminates the fear of bending a pin if for some reason you drop the processor or it was handled roughly during shipment. While this is a change, it is for the better in my opinion.

Installing this processor into the motherboard is no different than any other socket 775 Intel processor. You will want to start out by opening the hold down mechanism. Lift out and up on the retention arm to release the hold down mechanism. Then lift the hold down plate and insert your CPU, making sure you index the processor into the socket using the two notches on the socket and processor as your guide.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ < Conclusion >

Conclusion:

I would have loved to actually been able to run benchmarks on this processor in a true 64 bit environment. Believe me, it was tried and between freezes during benchmarks, incompatibility issues with drivers and Vista just not being all it’s cracked up to be, it was a nightmare not even worth showing.

If you are looking for performance out of the box and the AMD 6000+ wasn’t recommended, then whomever it was that gave you the advice was truly making a mistake. The 6000+ is less expensive than its Intel counterparts, has a higher clock speed right out of the box and performs within a margin of error in most benchmarks, even though it has half the L2 cache and only a FSB of 200 MHz, opposed to Intel's 266 and 333 MHz. So if you are an end user looking for performance and price, this should not be overlooked.

Edit: I need to retract the error of my ways. Front Side Bus (FSB) is a term that many enthusiasts use when speaking in terms of overclocking. AMD uses HyperTransport technology, which actually runs at 2000MHz. This is a Front Side Bus replacement, as referred to on the Extras page. What I was actually referring to is the overclocking starting point (BIOS), which is 200 times some multiplier. Unfortunatly, even when you are in the BIOS, this clock speed is still referred to FSB by many manufacturers.

As an enthusiast, the 6000+ does fall behind in its overclockability and did fall behind in most of our processor benchmarks. SiSandra would be the benchmark that stands out the most; multicore efficiency was not even half of what its competitors scored, and due to its lack of L2 cache, did cause it to falter in the Cache and Memory benchmark. Where did the 6000+ shine? I would have to say when it comes to gaming. I purposely used a video card that had less memory just to prove a point. The point being that most gamers play at resolutions of either 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024 and this is where a processor still has influence. As I mentioned in a comment earlier while benchmarking the other chips, with the 8800 GTS 320MB card frame rates dropped anywhere between 7 to 22 FPS in Far Cry, but those rates did drop in the others as well, with different varying FPS. So with a difference of 5 to 7 FPS less, would saving some pocket money be worth it if all you wanted to do is game?

So out of the box, the 6000+ is a choice that all should look at. Even enthusiasts don’t overclock all of their rigs, and I’m sure that your children, wife, girlfriend or Mom won’t recognize the difference.

Pros:

• Price
• Performance Out of Box
• Mildly Overclockable
• 3.0 GHz

Cons:

• Mildly Overclockable
• Multiplier Just About Maxed
• 2MB L2 Cache
• For an end user these wouldn't be cons, but for an enthusiast, they are worth a mention

source: http://www.overclockersclub.com/

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Multitasking benchmarks

Dual-core processors allow you to do more, right? That's the theory, so we've tested it by running a couple of our benchmarks simultaneously, to see how they impact on each other's performance when run concurrently.

Our first scenario consisted of running our DivX encoding test whilst playing a 720p QuickTime movie, and recording how long the encode took. Our second scenario involved running the DivX encode whilst playing Quake 4 at 1024 x 768, recording both the time taken and the Quake 4 frame rate. Our final scenario involved our subjective experience of playing Quake 4 with a batch of DivX encodes running in the background – a likely activity.

The left-hand bars indicate the standalone DivX performance, as shown in our graph on page 5. The right-hand bars indicate the encoding time with the QuickTime clip playing concurrently.

We see that the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ takes 29 seconds longer to encode with the QuickTime 720p clip also taking up resources. Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700 barely registers the QuickTime load and the dual-core X6800 takes an additional 13 seconds. All multi-core processors are not created equal, obviously.

Here's the same graph but with Quake 4 as the measured metric. The standalone framerate on the left and the DivX-impacted average framerate on the right. We observed that the Athlon 64 X2 6000+'s gameplay was slightly jerky, something the average framerate of 118FPS doesn't indicate. Both Intel processors produced a smoother games-playing experience, which is also highlighted by the higher average FPS. Again, the caveat is that we're comparing processors from different price sectors, so, in price-relative terms, we shouldn't expect the AMD processor to function as well as the Intel's.

Here's the graph of the corresponding DivX framerate whilst playing Quake 4 in the foreground. All processors take a hit in encoding performance, and in this instance the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+'s hit in percentage terms is similar to the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800's.

source: http://www.hexus.net/

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Gaming benchmarks

We've run the games at 1024x768 to minimise the bottleneck created by an ATI Radeon X1900 XTX graphics card.

In terms of pure throughput the Intel CPUs dominate the Far Cry test.

Quake 4 (SMP on) still runs a little faster on Intel hardware. Splinter Cell, on the other hand, appears to be GPU limited, with high-end CPUs able to push enough geometry to satiate the X1900 XTX.

Performance summary

The AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+'s performance is entirely predictable. It's the fastest single-socket processor from AMD's ranks. However, in our benchmarks that test all facets of CPU performance we see that it's consistently slower than the similarly-priced Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 and significantly slower than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and X6800 CPUs.source:www.hexus.net

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Media and rendering benchmarks

Encoding over 700MB of WAV files is speedy on all these processors, but the Athlon X2 range cannot keep up with the speed of Intel's Core 2 Duo. Indeed, the budget E6400 SKU is almost as fast as the Athlon 64 X2 6000+.

And the Intel media-encoding dominance is further substantiated by our DivX benchmark. Tellingly, the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 comfortably beats out the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ in both of our media benchmarks.

The X2 6000+ posts the fastest single-CPU POV-Ray benchmark we've seen from AMD, but take a look at the competition!

Again, the similarly-priced Core 2 Duo E6700 is faster in both 3D rendering benchmarks.
source: http://www.hexus.net/

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Synthetic benchmarks

Synthetic benchmarks

The AMD X2 range of CPUs always benchmark significantly higher in memory benchmarks than Intel's Core 2 Duo. The X2 6000+ falls in at around 8.5GB/s, just as expected.

The Athlon 64's memory access latency has also always been good, thanks to an on-die controller. Intel's latency-masking Core architecture helps it to gain parity here.

Pifast takes in memory bandwidth, latency and pure processor grunt to compute the constant to 10 million places. The X2 6000+ is the fastest of the AMD trio, obviously, but it even falls behind an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600.

Our cryptography benchmark, however, stresses other parts of the CPU architecture. As such, the X2 6000+ extends AMD's lead. Quad-core processing, a la QX6700, doesn't help here.
source: http://www.hexus.net/

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor

AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62 was launched in May 2006 and still remains the fastest AM2 processor around.
ntel then added the quad-core whammy in November. It pushed consumer-level performance even higher and, frankly, left AMD trailing in the high-end desktop CPU market.

To appease the enthusiast somewhat, AMD launched its Quad-FX platform in late November and we followed up our initial look by exhaustively testing Quad-FX's megatasking qualities.

AMD's native quad-core implementation, codenamed Barcelona, is currently slated for Q2 2007. In the meantime, however, AMD has added in a couple of energy-efficient processors to its line-up and bolstered the top end with the Athlon 64 X2 6000+: the first AM2 processor to run at 3GHz.

This processor's most natural competitor is the Core 2 Duo E6700, which runs at 2.66GHz but has the higher clock-for-clock performance of Intel's Core microarchitecture going for it. Concomitant with its lower clock speed and 65nm fab process, the E6700 has a much nicer thermal design power rating of only 65W, as well. AMD seems to have built a discount into the X2 6000+ in order to make up for that shortcoming. The E6700 currently lists for $530, and the X2 6000+ undercuts it with an initial price of $459. Below this price point, things align more closely, with the X2 5600+ at $326 facing off against the E6600 at $316. Above this price point, you're into quad-core territory.

Thus, to keep things simple, we've decided to clear off the table and match up the X2 6000+ against the Core 2 Duo E6700 for a head-to-head comparison.

Pricing thoughts

Processor	AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+	Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700	Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800	Intel Core 2 Duo E6700	Intel Core 2 Duo E6600	Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
Pricing as at 20/01/07	£300	£200	£150	£630	£615	£330	£200	£150

The meaningful comparison to look out for is the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ against Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700. The Intel CPU is priced around £30 higher and, taking similar pricing into account, it will be interesting to see how the X2 6000+ performs.

Other related comparisons include the Athlon 64 X2 5600+ vs. Core 2 Duo E6600 and 5200+ vs E6400.

We've included the quad-core Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800 processors for comparative reference only. Their £600+ pricing is double the X2 6000's and, as such, they appeal to a niche market.

We've not included the results from our Quad-FX testing, however. Our sample box was built by AMD and featured a BIOS that was some way from final. Consequently, results obtained from that testing may not be indicative of current performance. Quad-FX, really, is a work in progress and technology showcase for AMD.

Overclocking

Using default voltage as an indicator of the sample's frequency headroom, we were unable to run at the next speed grade up, 3200MHz, with any kind of stability. It's evident that the 90nm Windsor core doesn't have a whole lot of life left in it, and the 3GHz X2 6000+ will be its last hurrah.

source: http://www.hexus.net/

CPU Maximum Temperatures II

Why is CPU Temperature so Important?

When the first affordable PCs were offered to the general public in the early 80's, system engineers and designers took in consideration what heat was emitted by system components and ensured their case and cooling designs handled the appropriate amount of heat so system damage or instability was rarely an issue. These PCs were not very configurable, and could not easily be modified or customized by the end user, except for memory limits and number of floppy storage devices. Most peripherals were external, so they didn't really add heat issues to the base system, and those that were internal were low power, and low bandwidth technologies. This was acceptable to the public at the time, because people didn't have the basic knowledge and skill sets required to customize or modify their PCs.

During the 90's when there were many huge advances in microprocessor, bus, and solid state electronics as a whole, the original offerings were altered. More vendors were offering peripherals and computer components tailored to specific user needs and requirements, the system manufacturers started to recognize that there was a significant market in aftermarket sales of specialized peripherals, and the technology to produce smaller and faster processing solid state electronic components really took off. More system capabilities were integrated into the system motherboard without increasing its size, including high fidelity sound, high speed I/O buses and memory buses, as well as new technologies like DMA transfers and shared memory systems. New advances in operating systems that were multi-user and multi-processing started to be available for the desktop PC market. Systems were becoming more capable, and more customizable as time went on. Unfortunately, there was a price, additional cooling was required to keep the system stable. As larger power supplies were installed to handle the additional components, and solid state circuitry got smaller and smaller, the heat output from major and even minor components was increasing significantly. At the same time, users wanted smaller and smaller cases to recover some of their desk and floor space.

In the late 90's, the temperature bubble burst. New high performance components were becoming more and more simple to integrate into an existing system, the vendors producing motherboards were creating more flexible designs allowing users to add more capabilities without buying a new system, and the biggest change of all, high quality graphics capabilities were coming onto the market. Users were really customizing their PCs to a great extent, modifying the system to meet their specific goals and needs, where only the hard core users would even consider doing this in the past. Heat was increasing by leaps and bounds in these systems.

What is Overclocking and Overvolting

Overclocking is the process of turning up the processor clock or multiplier value of a processor unit on the motherboard, attempting to get the highest possible clock and multiplier value without compromising system stability. Modern processors are often multiplier locked, preventing a user from just changing the bus multiplier and introducing negligible additional heat to the system. Only the actual processor clock value can be changed on these CPUs, generally having a wider effect on system heat and stability.

Overvolting is a necessary evil for modern processors, and is generally used to attempt to stabilize an overclocked processor that is proving to be unstable. The voltage tolerances for microprocessors today are reasonably wide, around 10% or more. Increasing the voltage values gives the processor more juice to ensure that its logic gates are handling decisions reliably. A significant side effect of overvolting is heat emission.

Overclocking and Overvolting your systems can have negative effects on the life span of your system, so be sure you know what you are doing when you attempt them. Attempting to overclock and overvolt your system also has a chance of permanently damaging your hardware.

Conclusion

Modern users want to control and customize their systems to a greater degree today than ever before. Because of this, monitoring your systems sensor resources is critical for helping make what was previously a tedious, time consuming and technically challenging possible for the every day user...

more at: http://www.tech-faq.com/monitor-cpu-temperature.shtml