Legit Reviews

Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 Processor Review

The Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 processor isn't even out yet, but it is by far one of the most talked about processors in 2008 and with a rumored price of $133 it is no wonder as to why. This 45nm dual-core 'Wolfdale' processor is operates at 2.53 GHz with a 1066MHz FSB and 3MB L2 cache. The Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 should be a great overclocker as it has a 9.5 multiplier. Read on to see how it does and if it can overclock!




Article Title: Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 Processor Review
Article URL: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/690/1/
Pricing: $133 on May 11th, 2008

Thanks for the review.................

Seems like it has a built in FSB wall, although I hope its not true, but 450 FSB sure sounds like it. I'll have to wait and see just what some of the retail units are putting out I guess. That and the 1.5 volts (a lot on a 45nm part) to reach a 400 FSB might hold a lot of folks back from buying it, I guess its a wait and see sort of thing.

i always do overclocking last (in case something goes wrong), so I'm still trying to get higher/lower the voltages and so on. 333MHz FSB is easy to reach, but 400MHz took some time and voltage adjustments. I really want to get 4GHz out of this chip. I have already gone up to 1.6Vcore and jacked up the CPU PLL voltage with no luck of getting 425MHz... The system locks up at the Vista splash screen.

Sounds like there's either a FSB wall, or at the least a FSB hole around that area, you might want to try a bigger jump just to see if there's a FSB hole in there somewhere...............

461MHz seems to be the highest stable FSB I can get out of it with the six multiplier. I can then increase it from 6.0 to 6.5 to 7.0 to 7.5 to 8.0 and still have stability. Running 461MHz FSB with an 8.5 multiplier doesn't seem to be working out too good for me.
This is the same setup that I've had running 526MHz FSB on the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500, so it's likely just the CPU. It is after all an entry level CPU!

4GHz on an entry level CPU would be VERRY nice, LOVE that price tag too

i guess the wolfdale name is a very powerful one

nice review! love the Excel tests didn't know Excel 2007 was multithreaded, cool test to finally see more CPUs actually DO something for Office work!

Versions of Microsoft Office Excel earlier than Excel 2007 use a single thread for all worksheet calculations. However, Excel 2007 can be configured to use from 1 to 1024 concurrent threads for worksheet calculation. On a multi-processor or multi-core computer, the default number of threads is equal to the number of processors or cores. Therefore, thread-safe cells, or cells that only contain functions that are thread safe, can be allotted to concurrent threads, subject to the usual recalculation logic of needing to be calculated after their precedents.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb687868.aspx

its amazing that 45nm chips with bad yeilds can do better overclocks than most 65nm chips with good yeilds! but it looks like other than the overclocking capablity, theres no monetarily justifiable reason (for me) to upgrade from a conroe

I'm still leaning towards a Wolfdale right now (as soon as I find some cash), I need another CPU of some sort anyways, just not sure of which one yet. ...............

Nice review!

I don't find what this processor has to offer appealing, except for the low consumption. Could be nice for an ultra quiet/low wattage thin htpc. What was the max overclock you could reach with ~1.35v? Having the degradation possibility in mind, it would be nice to know what is the max oc this cpu can offer for prolonged use!
Thanks!

I'm also curious about the degradation rate of the 45nm chips. I hear rumors that they degrade quicker than conroe's. I guess that only time will tell.

Excellent review Nathan as the E7200 is one chip I might consider down the road as I like the theory of going with something cheap and overclocking the heck out of it.

Shouldn't be pointed out that giving more than 1.36-1.40V to a Wolfdale is (from the info spreading through the net) like asking for it to die unless for very short test sessions?

I wouldn't think that running 1.40-1.45V for a long period of time will kill it... It's tough to make the call as there is no research to back claims up.

Apoptosis wrote:I wouldn't think that running 1.40-1.45V for a long period of time will kill it... It's tough to make the call as there is no research to back claims up.

There's a lot of chat and reports of users that saw processor degradation for keeping those cpus @ 1.41-1.45V for something like 4-6 weeks and dead cpus @ 1.5-1.55V. Intel stated that anything above 1.45 should cause severe damage (I don't recall the exact terms) and that 1.3625V should more or less be the highest safe voltage for most of those cpus. Making a percentage-based overvoltage comparison between Wolfdales and previous cpus it should be logical that you cannot give a very sensitive 45nm peice with 1.1-1.2V stock the 1.5-1.6V that you would give to a E6xxx processor which starts at 1.30-1.35V stock. You may not be temperature limited anymore but voltage has consequences... try keeping that overclock for long enough and see if it's still stable after 2-3 weeks!

There's a lot of chat and reports of users that saw processor degradation for keeping those cpus @ 1.41-1.45V

There are also people who didn't have such a problem at this voltage. There are also people who had their chip degraded by using 1.3-1.349v which is considered safe by Intel (and should probably be considered as a faulty chip). My question was with the possibility in mind. Its not a fact, there is just a possibility that this can happen at the voltage you say. In a user poll that you can find easily on google 12 people using 1,4-1,449v had their chip degraded while 16 people didn't... And about the range 1.35-1.4 there were 9 degraded out of 40. Plus, these are for 8400/8500 cpus, 7200 could behave differently.

In any case it is a decent price for a chip that can clock up like that.

Hi All.

A Question to the reviewer:
Was the sample tested sSpec SLAPC or SLAVN? As I understand it they are actually C0 and M0, though intel list them both as M0, in an effort to differentiate from the higher cached models. Your review sample seems not to overclock nearly as well as others have shown to clock, from various boards and postings online. It may be that one stepping clocks better than another, or perhaps there is just great variance between batches.

Cheers