Power Consumption

Power Consumption Power at wall socket. All onboard hardware enabled, BIOS Defaults. Prime95 Load. Core 2 Quad Q6700 (G0, 65nm)

Core 2 Duo Q6600 (G0, 65nm)

AMD Athlon X2 6400+ (JH-F3, 90nm)

AMD Athlon X2 6000+ (JH-F3, 90nm)

AMD Phenom X4 9600 (DR-B2, 65nm)

AMD Phenom X4 9500 (DR-B2, 65nm)

Core 2 Duo E6850 (G0, 65nm)

Core 2 Duo E6750 (G0, 65nm)

Core 2 Duo E6550 (G0, 65nm)

Core 2 Duo E8500 (C0, 45nm)

Core 2 Duo E8400 (C0, 45nm)

Core 2 Duo E8200 (C0, 45nm)

Core 2 Duo E4500 (G0, 65nm) 293.0 182.0

285.0 179.0

274.0 193.0

273.0 191.0

254.0 213.0

253.0 207.0

211.0 154.0

207.0 153.0

203.0 153.0

196.0 150.0

191.0 151.0

189.0 150.0

185.0 149.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Watts (lower is better) Load

Idle

Final Thoughts

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500

Performance

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

9/10

Value

x

x

x

x

x

-

-

-

-

-

5/10

Overall

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

-

-

7/10

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

Performance

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

9/10

Value

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

10/10

Overall

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

9/10

Intel Core 2 Duo E8200

Performance

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

-

8/10

Value

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

9/10

Overall

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

-

8/10





Intel Core 2 Duo E8400





Intel Core 2 Duo E8200

We used the same Corsair XMS2 8500C5 Dominator memory and Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra in both systems to maintain consistency. Extra cooling fans were removed, except for the CPU cooler.BIOS settings were returned to default on both boards and AMD Cool'n'Quiet and Intel EIST/C1E states were enabled, however AMD's "Turbo mode" was left enabled.We did this because disabling itPhenom performance by massively increasing memory latency some three to four fold (~135-150ns versus ~65ns), but it greatly increases the energy efficiency of the Phenom processors, however we feel that this in no way represents a system worth using.Since the quad-core 45nm Yorkfield processors matched the power consumption of the 65nm dual-core parts, it's of no surprise that the power consumption of the C0 45nm Wolfdale parts is better again - in our case keeping the power envelope under 200W even with a high end graphics card and X48 motherboard being used.Just like the QX9650 and QX9770 the 45nm products are the ones to aim for if you're considering and Intel upgrade, howeverthe Extreme Edition CPUs, the Wolfdales are. In fact, every CPU featured was affordable, the only exception is the Q6700 at £311.If you're heavily into multi-threaded applications or serious multi-tasking, then a quad-core processor will offer a greater performance and space to breath. If you're a gamer though, a high clocked dual-core with plenty of memory bandwidth is certainly the way to go - the Wolfdales will oblige in every aspect.We still can't recommend the B2 Phenoms - there's just nothing where they stand out and there isn't a better Intel alternative. Even in the DivX 6.8 test where the Phenoms outperform the Intel quad-core processors, you still might as well just buy a Wolfdale which is faster, costs the same and uses less power. In addition, the hassle of having to run Overdrive every time the PC boots and enable "Turbo" mode in Windows Vista x64 SP1 is considerable. If you have to have a quad-core though, the Q6600 G0 is still a better purchase for a small £5 premium.When it comes to value, the E8400 is the best you'll get - it's a 3GHz CPU for under £130! It's only £20 more than the E8200 and the higher multiplier should make it reach better overclocks without needing a super motherboard. Compared to even the E6850 at 3GHz, it's £30 less expensive and performs better. It's even cheaper than the Q6600 G0 and outperforms it in a number of tests - plus the extra features and cache-per-core are a certain benefit. Plus, it'll save you money on your energy bill.If you really can't stretch for it, the E8200 is still a great purchase instead of the previously popular E6750 which is actually £4 more expensive. It's only a tad more expensive than the E6550 and AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+, but it'll leave them in the dust in terms of performance. 450MHz FSB on an E8200 shouldn't be too difficult (in theory) on an inexpensive P35 board, and that'll give a healthy 3.6GHz to play with.Ignore the E8500 though, the 160MHz speed bump isn't worth the extra £50 over the E8400, and the 0.5x multiplier may limit your motherboard purchase to those that support it. If you don't have it, you'll just be left with a 9.0x multiplier, or in effect, a very expensive E8400.We'll see what the B3 Phenoms and even the tri-core Phenom 8000 range brings at a later date, but for now, Intel is onto another winner and this time its in the mainstream where we can all enjoy it.