Choosing the right CPU for your needs isn't always an easy task. If we all had bottomless wallets, it would be easy just to pick the ultra-high end CPUs and be done with it. But most of us have to budget our purchases, and it's always a delicate dance to figure out what's the best fit for what you do. Also, the CPU isn't the only piece of the puzzle. Rather, it's a shifting matrix of choices we make. If I'm a gamer, do I step down one notch in CPU power and pick up a slightly faster graphics card? If I'm a video editor, will running a faster CPU make up for somewhat smaller storage? If I'm an average PC user, would more memory be more useful than a faster CPU?
This balancing act is difficult to perform in the absence of data. Today, we're taking a look at the CPU side of the equation. We vary the processor, but keep everything else in the system as constant as possible. The key difference is core logic and processor, which are inseparable.
We took a look at the performance of the high-end processors in our initial review of Intel's Core 2 Duo back in July. Later, Jason Cross went in-depth on the gaming side, pitting the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ against Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 in our Real Gaming Challenge. Now we dive back into our comprehensive benchmark suite, running a wide array of performance tests across the entire range of Intel Core 2 Duo and AMD Athlon 64 X2 AM2 processors. AMD has the price edge, but is that enough to overcome Intel's performance lead? How well do the various CPUs scale across the product line? We try to address those questions.
The Intel and AMD CPU Contenders
Let's compare the offerings from Intel and AMD. As it turns out, each manufacturer's official product line contains exactly the same number of processors. The prices don't precisely correlate, which is part of the problem when you're trying to choose which processor works best for you. Note that these prices were taken from several Internet sites, and the lowest one picked.
This balancing act is difficult to perform in the absence of data. Today, we're taking a look at the CPU side of the equation. We vary the processor, but keep everything else in the system as constant as possible. The key difference is core logic and processor, which are inseparable.
We took a look at the performance of the high-end processors in our initial review of Intel's Core 2 Duo back in July. Later, Jason Cross went in-depth on the gaming side, pitting the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ against Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 in our Real Gaming Challenge. Now we dive back into our comprehensive benchmark suite, running a wide array of performance tests across the entire range of Intel Core 2 Duo and AMD Athlon 64 X2 AM2 processors. AMD has the price edge, but is that enough to overcome Intel's performance lead? How well do the various CPUs scale across the product line? We try to address those questions.
The Intel and AMD CPU Contenders
Let's compare the offerings from Intel and AMD. As it turns out, each manufacturer's official product line contains exactly the same number of processors. The prices don't precisely correlate, which is part of the problem when you're trying to choose which processor works best for you. Note that these prices were taken from several Internet sites, and the lowest one picked.
| Intel Core 2 Duo | Frequency | Price | AMD Athlon 64 X2 AM2 | Frequency | Price |
| E6300 | 1.83GHz | $190 | 3800+ | 2.0GHz | $152 |
| E6400 | 2.13GHz | $230 | 4200+ | 2.2GHz | $187 |
| E6600 | 2.40GHz | $360 | 4600+ | 2.4GHz | $253 |
| E6700 | 2.67GHz | $559 | 5000+ | 2.6GHz | $346 |
| Core 2 Extreme X6800 | 2.93GHz | $1,075 | FX-62 | 2.8GHz | $825 |
As you can see from the table, there really isn't a clean correlation in pricing between the two vendors' models. Within the mainstream part of the line, you could say that the E6600 occupies the same pricing space as the Athlon 64 X2 5000+. But Intel's E6700 is cheaper than the FX-62, while the Core 2 Extreme E6800 is more expensive. Also, Intel only has one processor under the $200 price point, while AMD has two. Still, it's useful to look at these side-by-side.
AMD has also just launched the Athlon 64 X2 5200+, which wasn't available at the time we tested these CPUs. The only difference between the 5200+ and the 5000+ is that the 5200+ offers 2 × 1MB of L2 cache (2MB total), compared with the 2 × 512KB of the 5000+. Both processors clock at 2.6GHz, so it's unlikely you'd see much difference in most applications. AMD's pricing for the 5200+ is $403 in quantity 1,000.
Note that there are some key differences among the various CPUs. On the AMD side, only the FX-62 sports 1MB of L2 cache per core. The rest of the product line offers 512KB of L2 cache per core. That's the official story—currently. You can still find the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ CPUs, which clocks at 2.0GHz (same as the 3800+) and has 2 × 1MB of L2 cache, but that product isn't being manufactured currently. Since the 4000+ is being phased out, we didn't include it in our roundup. AMD's processors are built on the company's 90nm SOI process.
On the Intel side, the two lower-end CPUs—the 1.83GHz E6300 and 2.13GHz E6400—offer only 2MB of shared L2 cache, while the E6600, E6700, and X6800 have 4MB of L2 cache. All of Intel's Core 2 Duo products are currently manufactured on 65nm technology.
Availability
Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup is now widely available, both in OEM versions and full, retail boxed products. We've seen the entire product line sitting on a shelf in one Silicon Valley reseller; they're also readily available online.
The same can't be said for the entire range of Athlon 64 X2 products. Most are easy to find, include the top-of-the-line FX-62. The one bleak spot in AMD's picture is the seeming lack of 5000+ parts. Almost all the sites we checked had long lead times, and the one site that had some in stock was charging over $600—nearly double AMD's official price.
We contacted AMD, and they were adamant that the issue wasn't yield of the 5000+ CPUs, but rather a "temporary supply chain problem." While AMD's spokesperson wouldn't admit it, we suspect that Dell is eating up all the Athlon 64 X2 5000+'s AMD can supply. Once pent-up demand for "AMD" Dells subsides, the scarcity of retail 5000+ CPUs will likely ease.
The Test Systems
We configured two systems as identically as possible, except for motherboard and CPU. Now that AMD has shifted to supporting DDR2, even the memory is the same.
Each system had a clean install of Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 and all updates installed. The hard drives were defragged prior to each benchmark session. Before we ran each benchmark, we executed the command
rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks
This immediately executes all background idle tasks to completion, including tasks such as the Windows prefetcher.
We also used the Nvidia 84.21 drivers for the GeForce 7800 GTX, which have added support for multithreading, thus improving performance on dual-core CPUs. The newer 91.47 was not yet officially released at the time of our testing.
For More Information or to Review Benchmarks tests....AMD has also just launched the Athlon 64 X2 5200+, which wasn't available at the time we tested these CPUs. The only difference between the 5200+ and the 5000+ is that the 5200+ offers 2 × 1MB of L2 cache (2MB total), compared with the 2 × 512KB of the 5000+. Both processors clock at 2.6GHz, so it's unlikely you'd see much difference in most applications. AMD's pricing for the 5200+ is $403 in quantity 1,000.
Note that there are some key differences among the various CPUs. On the AMD side, only the FX-62 sports 1MB of L2 cache per core. The rest of the product line offers 512KB of L2 cache per core. That's the official story—currently. You can still find the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ CPUs, which clocks at 2.0GHz (same as the 3800+) and has 2 × 1MB of L2 cache, but that product isn't being manufactured currently. Since the 4000+ is being phased out, we didn't include it in our roundup. AMD's processors are built on the company's 90nm SOI process.
On the Intel side, the two lower-end CPUs—the 1.83GHz E6300 and 2.13GHz E6400—offer only 2MB of shared L2 cache, while the E6600, E6700, and X6800 have 4MB of L2 cache. All of Intel's Core 2 Duo products are currently manufactured on 65nm technology.
Availability
Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup is now widely available, both in OEM versions and full, retail boxed products. We've seen the entire product line sitting on a shelf in one Silicon Valley reseller; they're also readily available online.
The same can't be said for the entire range of Athlon 64 X2 products. Most are easy to find, include the top-of-the-line FX-62. The one bleak spot in AMD's picture is the seeming lack of 5000+ parts. Almost all the sites we checked had long lead times, and the one site that had some in stock was charging over $600—nearly double AMD's official price.
We contacted AMD, and they were adamant that the issue wasn't yield of the 5000+ CPUs, but rather a "temporary supply chain problem." While AMD's spokesperson wouldn't admit it, we suspect that Dell is eating up all the Athlon 64 X2 5000+'s AMD can supply. Once pent-up demand for "AMD" Dells subsides, the scarcity of retail 5000+ CPUs will likely ease.
The Test Systems
We configured two systems as identically as possible, except for motherboard and CPU. Now that AMD has shifted to supporting DDR2, even the memory is the same.
| Component | AMD X2 Socket AM2 System | Intel Core 2 Duo System |
| Motherboard | ASUS Crosshair | ASUS P5W DH Deluxe |
| Chipset | Nvidia nForce 590 SLI | Intel 975X |
| Memory | 2 × 1GB Corsair XMS2 6400 (CAS 4-4-4-12) at DDR2/800 | 2 × 1GBMB Corsair XMS2 6400 (CAS 4-4-4-12) at DDR2/667 |
| Graphics card | Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX Reference (91.33 drivers) | Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX Reference (91.33 drivers) |
| Hard drive | Seagate 7200.8 200GB | Seagate 7200.8 200GB |
| Optical storage | 16x ATAPI DVD +/- RW | 16x ATAPI DVD +/- RW |
| Sound card | Sound Blaster Audigy 2 | Sound Blaster Audigy 2 |
| Display | Dell 2001FP (LCD flat panel, 1600x1200) | Dell 2001FP (LCD flat panel, 1600x1200) |
| Operating system | Windows XP Professional SP2, all updates installed | Windows XP Professional SP2, all updates installed |
The ASUS Crosshair is built on Nvidia's top-of-the-line nForce 590 SLI chipset, a two-chip design that fully supports Socket AM2, and adds some new features. The ASUS P5W DH Deluxe used for the Intel processors supports Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup, and uses Intel's 975X core logic. The AMD system has a slight edge in overall memory bandwidth, while the Core 2 Duo runs with a 266MHz front-side bus clock. Note that an Athlon 64 doesn't really have an FSB, but the AMD CPU's base memory clock is 200MHz. So as Intel's product line advances, each subsequent jump is a multiplier of 266MHz, while AMD's increment is 200MHz.
Each system had a clean install of Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 and all updates installed. The hard drives were defragged prior to each benchmark session. Before we ran each benchmark, we executed the command
rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks
This immediately executes all background idle tasks to completion, including tasks such as the Windows prefetcher.
We also used the Nvidia 84.21 drivers for the GeForce 7800 GTX, which have added support for multithreading, thus improving performance on dual-core CPUs. The newer 91.47 was not yet officially released at the time of our testing.
Final Thoughts: Your Needs
It's clear that Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup offers superior performance across the product line when compared with AMD's Athlon 64 X2. In some applications, even a lower-cost Core 2 Duo can outperform some of the higher-end Athlon 64 X2s.
In other applications, it's not so clear. For many users, adequate performance is "good enough," and the lowest-cost solution may be optimal in those cases. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ certainly offers great value, at under $160, and even the 4200+ can be found for under $200. However, the overall "sweet spot" seems to be the two midrange Intel CPUs—the Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6600. The E6600 offers a higher clock rate and larger L2 cache, while the E6400 can be found for well under $250. At the rarified high end, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 is simply in a class by itself. If you're willing to blow over $800 for a processor, then going a couple hundred bucks more doesn't seem quite so extreme.
It's clear that Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup offers superior performance across the product line when compared with AMD's Athlon 64 X2. In some applications, even a lower-cost Core 2 Duo can outperform some of the higher-end Athlon 64 X2s.
In other applications, it's not so clear. For many users, adequate performance is "good enough," and the lowest-cost solution may be optimal in those cases. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ certainly offers great value, at under $160, and even the 4200+ can be found for under $200. However, the overall "sweet spot" seems to be the two midrange Intel CPUs—the Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6600. The E6600 offers a higher clock rate and larger L2 cache, while the E6400 can be found for well under $250. At the rarified high end, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 is simply in a class by itself. If you're willing to blow over $800 for a processor, then going a couple hundred bucks more doesn't seem quite so extreme.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014649,00.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment