I. INTRODUCTION
I SUPPOSE YOU COULD SAY we've conducted plenty of CPU reviews in our time,
but we just can't bring ourselves to slow things down. The release of Windows Vista and
a round of price cuts by AMD prompted us to hatch a devious plan involving Vista, a
new test suite full of multithreaded and 64-bit applications, fifteen different CPU
configurations, and countless hours of lab testing. That plan has come to fruition in the
form of a broad-based comparison of the latest processors from AMD and Intel, ranging
from well under $200 to a cool grand, from two slow CPU cores to four fast ones, from
the lowly Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and Core 2 Duo E6300 to the astounding Athlon 64 FX74 and Core 2 Extreme QX6700.
So, how do the latest processors stack up in Windows Vista? Will a sub-$200 CPU
suffice for your needs? Have price cuts allowed the Athlon 64 to catch up to the Core 2
Duo in terms of price-performance? What about power consumption and energy
efficiency? Can any of these processors stand up under the weight of killer new games
like Supreme Commander? Can I possibly squeeze any more questions into one
paragraph? Keep reading for answers to all of these questions and more.
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The matchups
The setup for this one is fairly simple. We're directly comparing processors from Intel at
AMD at a range of price points. Intel has had a lock on the overall performance lead
since the Core 2 Duo first hit the scene, but AMD has made clear its intention to maintain
a competitive price-performance ratio. To do so, AMD will have to meet or beat each of
the processors in Intel's current desktop lineup, which looks like so:
Clock
Model
L2 cache
Cores
speed
Fab process TDP
Price
(total)
Core 2 Duo E6300
1.83GHz
2
2MB
65nm
65W
$183
Core 2 Duo E6400
2.13GHz
2
2MB
65nm
65W
$224
Core 2 Duo E6600
2.4GHz
2
4MB
65nm
65W
$316
Core 2 Duo E6700
2.66GHz
2
4MB
65nm
65W
$530
Core 2 Extreme X6800
2.93GHz
2
4MB
65nm
75W
$999
Core 2 Quad Q6600
2.4GHz
4
8MB
65nm
105W
$851
Core 2 Extreme QX6700
2.66GHz
4
8MB
65nm
130W
$999
Intel does offer lower cost options like the Core 2 Duo E4300 and its Celeron valueoriented processors, but our list includes the meat of the lineup.
AMD, on the other hand, offers a dizzying array of Athlon 64 X2 models, from 3600+ to
6000+, generally in increments of 200 (or is it 200+?). Not only that, but AMD often sells
multiple products under the same performance-related model number, just to keep smug
members of the general public from becoming overconfident. For instance, the Athlon 64
X2 4400+ comes in a 90nm "Toledo" flavor that runs at 2.2GHz, has 1MB of L2 cache
per core, and is intended for Socket 939 motherboards. The X2 4400+ also comes in the
form of a 65nm chip code-named "Brisbane" that runs at 2.3GHz, has 512K of L2 per
core, and slips into Socket AM2 mobos. Several of these features—fab process, clock
frequency, cache size, and socket/memory type—may vary within the same model
number.
With that said, we've chosen the following members of the Athlon 64 lineup as the most
direct competitors to their Core 2 counterparts. Because we live in the now, all of these
are newer-style Socket AM2 processors:
Clock
Model
L2 cache
Fab
(total)
process
Cores
speed
TDP
Price
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
2.3GHz
2
1MB
65nm
65W
$170
Athlon 64 X2 5000+
2.6GHz
2
1MB
65nm
65W
$222
Athlon 64 X2 5600+
2.8GHz
2
2MB
90nm
89W
$326
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
3.0GHz
2
2MB
90nm
125W
$459
Athlon 64 FX-70
2.6GHz
4
4MB
90nm
125W x 2 $599
Athlon 64 FX-72
2.8GHz
4
4MB
90nm
125W x 2 $799
Athlon 64 FX-74
3.0GHz
4
4MB
90nm
125W x 2 $999
As you can see, AMD has a fairly direct answer for most members of the Core 2 range.
Things start to get shaky at the high end, where the Athlon 64's lower performance takes
its toll. The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ sells at a discount versus the Core 2 Duo E6700, and
AMD has no answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800, Intel's fastest dual-core processor. If
you match up the two product lines against one another, the results look something like
this:
Model
Price
Model
Price
Core 2 Duo E6300
$183 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $170
Core 2 Duo E6400
$224 Athlon 64 X2 5000+ $222
Core 2 Duo E6600
$316 Athlon 64 X2 5600+ $326
Core 2 Duo E6700
$530 Athlon 64 X2 6000+ $459
Core 2 Quad Q6600
$851
Athlon 64 FX-72
$799
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 $999
Athlon 64 FX-74
$999
So the comparisons are remarkably direct, by and large.
These things are never entirely simple, though, so we should roll out some caveats. One
of the big ones involves those FX-series processors. You'll need two of them in order to
populate a Quad FX motherboard, so they're priced (and listed above) in pairs. However,
there's currently only one Quad FX motherboard available, and it costs about $350, which
throws the value equation out of whack.
The value equation sometimes goes off-kilter the other way when AMD employs
guerrilla price-war tactics like selling the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ for $125.99 on Newegg,
well below the slower 4400+. AMD has several of these "Crazy Hector" deals going at
Newegg right now, and none of them seem to involve the Athlon 64 models we've
identified as direct competitors to specific Core 2 Duo models. That's probably an
intentional facet of AMD's strategy. This practice throws a wrench in our nice, neat
comparsion, but there's little we can do other than tell you about it.
One other thing we should tell you about is why we've included two versions of the
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in our testing. Regular readers may recall that we've already tested
the 65nm version of the 5000+ against its 90nm predecessor and found that the 65nm one
had lower power consumption. But the 65nm version also has a slower L2 cache, so
we've tested the 65nm and 90nm chips head to head to see how the slower cache affects
performance.
HISTORY
Intel Corporation
Public (NASDAQ: INTC, SEHK: 4335,
Type
Euronext: INCO)
Founded
1968 1
Founder(s)
Gordon E. Moore and Robert Noyce
Santa Clara, California (incorporated in
Headquarters
Delaware)
Paul S. Otellini, CEO
Key people
Craig Barrett, Chairman
Sean M. Maloney (EVP; General Manager, Sales
and Marketing Group, and Chief Sales and Marketing
Officer)
Industry
Semiconductors
Microprocessors
Flash memory
Products
Motherboard Chipsets
Network Interface Card
Bluetooth Chipsets
Revenue
Operating
▼ US$37.6 billion (2008)[1]
▲ US$9.0 billion (2008)
income
Net income
▼ US$5.3 billion (2008)
Employees
83,500 (2008)[1]
Website
intel.com
1Incorporated in California in 1968, reincorporated in Delaware in 1989.
Intel (NASDAQ: INTC; SEHK: 4335) is the world's largest semiconductor chip maker,
based on revenue.The company is the inventor of the x86 series of microprocessors, the
processors found in most personal computers. Intel was founded on July 18, 1968, as
Integrated Electronics Corporation and based in Santa Clara, California, USA. Intel also
makes motherboard chipsets, network cards and ICs, flash memory, graphic chips,
embedded processors, and other devices related to communications and computing.
Founded by semiconductor pioneers Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, and widely
associated with the executive leadership and vision of Andrew Grove, Intel combines
advanced chip design capability with a leading-edge manufacturing capability. Originally
known primarily to engineers and technologists, Intel's successful "Intel Inside"
advertising campaign of the 1990s made it and its Pentium processor household names.
Intel was an early developer of SRAM and DRAM memory chips, and this represented
the majority of its business until the early 1980s. While Intel created the first commercial
microprocessor chip in 1971, it was not until the success of the personal computer (PC)
that this became their primary business. During the 1990s, Intel invested heavily in new
microprocessor designs fostering the rapid growth of the PC industry. During this period
Intel became the dominant supplier of microprocessors for PCs, and was known for
aggressive and sometimes controversial tactics in defense of its market position,
particularly against AMD, as well as a struggle with Microsoft for control over the
direction of the PC industry. The 2009 rankings of the world's 100 most powerful brands
published by Millward Brown Optimor showed the company's brand value rising 4 places
– from number 27 to number 23.
In addition to its work in semiconductors, Intel has begun research in electrical
transmission and generation.
Corporate history
Origins and early years
Intel headquarters in Santa Clara
Intel was founded in 1968 by Gordon E. Moore (a chemist and physicist) and Robert
Noyce (a physicist and co-inventor of the integrated circuit) when they left Fairchild
Semiconductor. A number of other Fairchild employees also went on to participate in
other Silicon Valley companies. Intel's third employee was Andy Grove,[9] a chemical
engineer, who ran the company through much of the 1980s and the high-growth 1990s.
Grove is now remembered as the company's key business and strategic leader. By the end
of the 1990s, Intel was one of the largest and most successful businesses in the
world.[citation needed]
Origin of the name
At its founding, Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce wanted to name their new company
Moore Noyce.[10] The name, however, sounded remarkably similar to more noise — an
ill-suited name for an electronics company, since noise is typically associated with bad
interference. They then used the name NM Electronics for almost a year, before deciding
to call their company INTegrated ELectronics or Intel for short[11]. However, Intel was
already trademarked by a hotel chain, so they had to buy the rights for that name at the
beginning.[12]
Early history
Intel has grown through several distinct phases. At its founding, Intel was distinguished
simply by its ability to make semiconductors, and its primary products were static
random access memory (SRAM) chips. Intel's business grew during the 1970s as it
expanded and improved its manufacturing processes and produced a wider range of
products, still dominated by various memory devices.
While Intel created the first microprocessor (Intel 4004) in 1971 and one of the first
microcomputers in 1972,[13][14] by the early 1980s its business was dominated by dynamic
random access memory chips. However, increased competition from Japanese
semiconductor manufacturers had, by 1983, dramatically reduced the profitability of this
market, and the sudden success of the IBM personal computer convinced then-CEO
Grove to shift the company's focus to microprocessors, and to change fundamental
aspects of that business model.
By the end of the 1980s this decision had proven successful. Buoyed by its fortuitous
position as microprocessor supplier to IBM and its competitors within the rapidly
growing personal computer market, Intel embarked on a 10-year period of unprecedented
growth as the primary (and most profitable) hardware supplier to the PC industry. By the
end of the 1990s, its line of Pentium processors had become a household name.
Slowing demand and challenges to dominance
After 2000, growth in demand for high-end microprocessors slowed. Competitors,
notably AMD (Intel's largest competitor in its primary x86 architecture market), garnered
significant market share, initially in low-end and mid-range processors but ultimately
across the product range, and Intel's dominant position in its core market was greatly
reduced.[15] In the early 2000s then-CEO Craig Barrett attempted to diversify the
company's business beyond semiconductors, but few of these activities were ultimately
successful.
Intel had also for a number of years been embroiled in litigation. US law did not initially
recognize intellectual property rights related to microprocessor topology (circuit layouts),
until the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, a law sought by Intel and the
Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA).[16] During the late 1980s and 1990s (after this
law was passed) Intel also sued companies that tried to develop competitor chips to the
80386 CPU.[17] The lawsuits were noted to significantly burden the competition with
legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits.[17] Antitrust allegations that had been simmering
since the early 1990s and already been the cause of one lawsuit against Intel in 1991,
broke out again as AMD brought further claims against Intel related to unfair competition
in 2004, and again in 2005.
In 2005, CEO Paul Otellini reorganized the company to refocus its core processor and
chipset business on platforms (enterprise, digital home, digital health, and mobility)
which led to the hiring of over 20,000 new employees. In September 2006 due to falling
profits, the company announced a restructuring that resulted in layoffs of 10,500
employees or about 10 percent of its workforce by July 2006.
Regaining of momentum
Faced with the need to regain lost marketplace momentum, Intel unveiled its new product
development model to regain its prior technological lead. Known as its "tick-tock model",
the program was based upon annual alternation of microarchitecture innovation and
process innovation.
In 2006, Intel produced P6 and Netburst products with reduced die size (65nm). A year
later it unveiled its Core microarchitecture to widespread critical acclaim;[20] the product
range was perceived as an exceptional leap in processor performance that at a stroke
regained much of its leadership of the field.[21][22] In line with the model, the following
year saw the next "tick", a process improvement to shrink this range from 65 to 45 nm,
and the year after saw the release of its positively reviewed successor processor,
Nehalem.
Intel was not the first microprocessor corporation to do this. For example, around 1996
graphics chip designers nVidia had addressed its own business and marketplace
difficulties by adopting a demanding 6-month internal product cycle whose products
repeatedly outperformed market expectation.
Sale of XScale processor business
On June 27, 2006, the sale of Intel's XScale assets was announced. Intel agreed to sell the
XScale processor business to Marvell Technology Group for an estimated $600 million in
cash and the assumption of unspecified liabilities. The move was intended to permit Intel
to focus its resources on its core x86 and server businesses, and the acquisition completed
on November 9, 2006.
Advanced Micro Devices
Type
Public (NYSE: AMD)
Founded
1969
W. Jerry Sanders III
Founder(s)
Edwin J. Turney
Additional co-founders
Headquarters
Sunnyvale, CA, U.S.
Area served
Worldwide
Héctor De J. Ruiz
(Executive Chairman)
Key people
Derrick R. Meyer
(President) (CEO) (Director)
Industry
Semiconductors
Microprocessors
Motherboard chipsets
Products
Graphics processors
DTV decoder chips
Handheld media chipsets
Revenue
▼ $ 5.808 billion (2008) [1]
Operating income
▼ −$1.955 billion (2008)
Net income
▼ −$3.098 billion (2008)
Total assets
▼ −$7.675 billion (2008)
Total equity
▼ −$82.00 million (2008)
Employees
14,700 – March 2009
Website
AMD.com
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) (NYSE: AMD) is an American multinational
semiconductor company based in Sunnyvale, California, that develops computer
processors and related technologies for commercial and consumer markets. Its main
products include microprocessors, motherboard chipsets, embedded processors and
graphics processors for servers, workstations and personal computers, and processor
technologies for handheld devices, digital television, automobiles, game consoles, and
other embedded systems applications.
AMD is the second-largest global supplier of microprocessors based on the x86
architecture after Intel Corporation, and the third-largest supplier of graphics processing
units, behind Intel and Nvidia. It also owns 21 percent of Spansion, a supplier of nonvolatile flash memory. In 2007, AMD ranked eleventh among semiconductor
manufacturers in terms of revenue.[2]
Corporate history
AMD headquarters in Sunnyvale, California
AMD Markham in Canada, formerly ATI headquarters
Advanced Micro Devices was founded on May 1, 1969, by a group of former executives
from Fairchild Semiconductor, including Jerry Sanders III, Ed Turney, John Carey, Sven
Simonsen, Jack Gifford and three members from Gifford's team, Frank Botte, Jim Giles,
and Larry Stenger. The company began as a producer of logic chips, then entered the
RAM chip business in 1975. That same year, it introduced a reverse-engineered clone of
the Intel 8080 microprocessor. During this period, AMD also designed and produced a
series of bit-slice processor elements (Am2900, Am29116, Am293xx) which were used
in various minicomputer designs.
During this time, AMD attempted to embrace the perceived shift towards RISC with their
own AMD 29K processor, and they attempted to diversify into graphics and audio
devices as well as EPROM memory. It had some success in the mid-1980s with the
AMD7910 and AMD7911 "World Chip" FSK modem, one of the first multistandard
devices that covered both Bell and CCITT tones at up to 1200 baud half duplex or
300/300 full duplex. While the AMD 29K survived as an embedded processor and AMD
spinoff Spansion continues to make industry leading flash memory, AMD was not as
successful with its other endeavors. AMD decided to switch gears and concentrate solely
on Intel-compatible microprocessors and flash memory. This put them in direct
competition with Intel for x86 compatible processors and their flash memory secondary
markets.
AMD announced a merger with ATI Technologies on July 24, 2006. AMD paid $4.3
billion in cash and 58 million shares of its stock for a total of US$5.4 billion. The merger
completed on October 25th, 2006[3] and ATI is now part of AMD.
It was reported in December 2006 that AMD, along with its main rival in the graphics
industry Nvidia, received subpoenas from the Justice Department regarding possible
antitrust violations in the graphics card industry, including the act of fixing prices.[4]
In October 2008, AMD announced plans to spin off manufacturing operations in the form
of a multibillion-dollar joint venture with Advanced Technology Investment Co., an
investment company formed by the government of Abu Dhabi. The new venture is called
GlobalFoundries Inc.. This will allow AMD to focus solely on chip design.
III. THE RESEARCH METHODS
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at
least three times, and the results were averaged. In some cases, getting the results meant
simulating a slower chip with a faster one. For instance, our Core 2 Duo E6600 and
E6700 processors are actually a Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor clocked down to the
appropriate speeds. Their performance should be identical to that of the real thing.
Similarly, our Athlon 64 FX-72 results come from an underclocked pair of Athlon 64
FX-74s, our Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is an underclocked X2 5000+ (both 65nm), and our
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ is an underclocked Athlon 64 X2 6000+.
Our test systems were configured like so:
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
2.3GHz (65nm)
Core 2 Duo E6300 1.83GHz
Athlon 64 X2 5000+
Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz
2.6GHz (65nm)
Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz
Athlon 64 FX-70 2.6GHz
Athlon 64 X2 5000+
Processor
Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz
Athlon 64 FX-72 2.8GHz
2.6GHz (90nm)
Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz
Athlon 64 FX-74 3.0GHz
Athlon 64 X2 5600+
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
2.8GHz (90nm)
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
3.0GHz (90nm)
System bus
1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped)
Motherboard
Intel D975XBX2
1GHz HyperTransport
1GHz HyperTransport
Asus M2N32-SLI
Asus L1N64-SLI WS
Deluxe
BIOS
BX97520J.86A.2618.2007.0212.0954
0903
0205
North bridge
975X MCH
nForce 590 SLI SPP
nForce 680a SLI
South bridge
ICH7R
nForce 590 SLI MCP
nForce 680a SLI
Chipset
INF Update 8.1.1.1010
ForceWare 15.00
ForceWare 15.00
drivers
Intel Matrix Storage Manager 6.21
Memory size
2GB (2 DIMMs)
2GB (2 DIMMs)
2GB (4 DIMMs)
revision
Corsair TWIN2X2048Crucial Ballistix PC6400
Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C4
8500C5
DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz
DDR2 SDRAM at
DDR2 SDRAM at
Memory type
800MHz
800MHz
CAS latency
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
12
12
12
Integrated ICH7R/STAC9274D5
Integrated nForce 590
Integrated nForce 680a
with
MCP/AD1988B with
SLI/AD1988B with
Sigmatel 6.10.0.5274 drivers
Soundmax 6.10.2.6100
Soundmax 6.10.2.6100
(CL)
RAS to CAS
delay (tRCD)
RAS
precharge
(tRP)
Cycle time
(tRAS)
Audio
drivers
drivers
Hard drive
Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB SATA 150
Graphics
GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB PCIe with ForceWare 100.64 drivers
OS
Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition
OS updates
-
Our Core 2 Duo E6400 processor came to us courtesy of the fine folks up north at NCIX.
Those of you who are in Canada will definitely want to check them out as potential
source of PC hardware and related goodies.
The test systems' Windows desktops were set at 1280x1024 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz
screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled.
We used the following versions of our test applications:

SiSoft Sandra XI 2007.2.11.17 64-bit

CPU-Z 1.39

POV-Ray for Windows 3.7 beta 19a 64-bit

Cinebench 9.5 64-bit Edition

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Edition

picCOLOR 4.0 build 598 64-bit

3DMark06 1.0.2

notfred's Folding benchmark CD 10/31/06 revision

The Panorama Factory 4.4 x64 Edition

CASE Lab Euler3d CFD benchmark 2.2

MyriMatch proteomics benchmark

Valve Source Engine particle simulation benchmark

Valve VRAD map build benchmark

LAME MT 3.97a 64-bit

3DMark06 1.10

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 1.1

Rainbow Six: Vegas 1.02

Supreme Commander 3220
The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If
you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.
Power consumption and efficiency
We're trying something a little different with power consumption. Our Extech 380803
power meter has the ability to log data, so we can capture power use over a span of time.
The meter reads power use at the wall socket, so it incorporates power use from the entire
system—the CPU, motherboard, memory, video card, hard drives, and anything else
plugged into the power supply unit. (We plugged the computer monitor and speakers into
a separate outlet, though.) We measured how each of our test systems used power during
a roughly one-minute period, during which time we executed Cinebench's multithreaded
rendering test. All of the systems had their power management features (such as
SpeedStep and Cool'n'Quiet) enabled during these tests.
You'll notice that I've not included some members of the Athlon 64 family here. That's
because our "simulated" Athlon 64 CPUs are underclocked versions of faster processors,
and we've not been able to get Cool'n'Quiet power-saving tech to work when CPU
multiplier control is in use. I expect to have in-the-flesh examples of the Athlon 64 X2
4400+ and 5600+ soon, and I'll provide an update once I've tested their power
consumption.
I have included our simulated Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6700, because SpeedStep works
fine on the D975XBX2 motherboard alongside underclocking. The simulated processors'
voltage may not be exactly the same as what you'd find on many retail E6600s and
E6700s. However, voltage and power use can vary from one chip to the next, since Intel
sets voltage individually on each chip at the factory.
The differences between the CPUs are immediately obvious by looking at these plots of
the raw data. We can slice up the data in various ways in order to better understand them,
though. We'll start with a look at idle power, taken from the trailing edge of our test
period, after all CPUs have completed the render.
Among dual-core setups, the Core 2s have a slight advantage in idle power consumption,
but not more than 10 watts or so. There's a much larger gap between the quad-core rigs,
since the Quad FX platform is a dual-socket solution with dual core-logic chipsets.
Meanwhile, the Intel quad-core systems draw only about 10-15 watts more than their
dual-core brethren.
Next, we can look at peak power draw by taking an average from the five-second span
from 10 to 15 seconds into our test period, during which the processors were rendering.
The peak power consumption numbers tell us very good things about the Core 2
processors. The system based on Intel's power-hungriest dual-core processor, the Core 2
Extreme X6800, draws 15W less under load than the one based on the lowest power
AMD processor here, the 65nm version of Athlon 64 X2 5000+. AMD's 65nm chip does
shave off some power draw—roughly 12W—versus its 90nm variant. The Athlon 64 FX74, meanwhile, is just plain silly.
Another way to gauge power efficiency is to look at total energy use over our time span.
This method takes into account power use both during the render and during the idle
time. We can express the result in terms of watt-seconds, also known as joules.
The Core 2-based systems led in terms of both peak and idle power draw, so it's
unsurprising they do so well over the total duration of our test period.
However, we can quantify efficiency even better by considering the amount of energy
used to render the scene. Since the different systems completed the render at different
speeds, we've isolated the render period for each system. We've chosen to identify the
end of the render as the point where power use begins to drop from its steady peak. There
seems to be some disk paging going on after that, but we don't want to include that more
variable activity in our render period.
We've computed the amount of energy used by each system to render the scene. This
method should account for both power use and, to some degree, performance, because
shorter render times may lead to less energy consumption.
These results tell us several things. First, multi-core processors can be very energy
efficient when handling parallel tasks like rendering. The quad-core Q6600 and QX6700
run away with the top two positions, and the FX-70 turns out to be the most efficient
Athlon 64, even with its considerable built-in platform power handicap. Second, Intel's
Core 2 processors are much more efficient overall than the current Athlon 64s. It's really
no contest. And finally, the Athlon 64 does gain some efficiency when moving to AMD's
65nm process, but not yet enough to put it back into contention against the Core 2.
How We Tested
The test procedure is very similar to our previous benchmarking article--How Fast Is The
400 MHz Pentium* II Processor?. We used Sonic Foundry's Sound Forge* and ZiffDavis' Winstone* 98. Sound Forge is a very comprehensive audio editing and processing
tool that runs on both Windows 95*, Windows 98* and NT*. It can perform EQ, pitch
shifting, reverb, and tons of other functions. Along with Sonic Foundry's DirectX plug-
ins, it can also do acoustics modeling, noise reduction, and many more effects. If you
haven't seen it, try out the demo copy. Winstone 98 is a system-level, application-based
benchmark that measures a PC's overall performance when running today's top-selling
Windows-based business applications. It is a benchmark written by the publisher of PC
Magazine* and PC Week*.
The two systems that we ran the benchmarks on are very similar in configurations. The
AMD system contains a 350 MHz K6-2 processor; the Intel system uses a 333 MHz
Celeron processor. Both systems have the same amount of memory, same video card,
same disk controller, and the audio samples are stored on the same disk. The K6-2 has a
100 MHz system bus; the Celeron has a 66 MHz system bus.
We picked a 19-second stereo sound clip from our MusikMesse '98 Coverage and ran it
through three computationally intensive functions in Sound Forge: Noise Reduction,
Pitch Shift, and the Acoustics Modeler. For a more comprehensive look at these
functions, please see How Fast Is The 400 MHz Pentium* II Processor? Note that the
benchmark results from the previous article should not be compared to the results here.
The previous benchmark was done under Windows 95 whereas this one was done under
Windows 98. Programs sometimes perform slightly faster under Windows 98.
System configurations information available.
The Intel Celeron system is 53% to 114% faster than the AMD K6-2 system in audio
processing tasks. The reason is that audio processing often involves a large amount of
floating-point calculations and the current AMD processors are not designed to execute
these calculations quickly. Intel processors, on the other hand, have a more balanced
overall design.
IV. THE RESEARCH FINDINGS
Cost
AMD is said to offer the same basic product at a cheaper price than Intel. Intel is
established as the market leader in producing motherboards and processing chips for
personal computers, and their prices and development have influenced AMD from the
start. AMD produced “clones” of Intel products as well as their own line of chip and
motherboard development. The AMD Athlon XP processor runs very close to an Intel 4
processor and is about half the price. Some price comparisons of similar products by the
two companies are listed below:
Intel Core 2 Quad 775
Q6600 / 2.40GHz Socket 775 1066MHz $279.99
Q6600 / 2.40GHz Socket 775 1066MHz $289.99
Q6700 / 2.66GHz Socket 775 1066MHz $579.99
Q6700 / 2.66GHz Socket 775 1066MHz $579.99
Intel Core 2 Extreme
775
QX6700 / 2.66GHz Socket 775 1066MHz $1059.99
QX6700 / 2.66GHz Socket 775 1066MHz $1059.99
QX6800 / 2.93GHz Socket 775 1066MHz $1069.99
QX6800 / 2.93GHz Socket 775 1066MHz $1069.99
AMD Athlon 64 X2(AM2)
X2 4000+ / 2.10GHz Socket AM2 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) $69.99
X2 4200+ / 2.20GHz Socket AM2 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) $82.99
X2 BE-2300 / 1.90GHz Socket AM2 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) $89.99
X2 4400+ / 2.30GHz Socket AM2 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) $92.99
AMD Athlon 64 X2(939)
X2 3800+ / 2.00GHz Socket 939 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) $59.99
X2 3800+ / 2.00GHz Socket 939 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) $59.99
X2 4200+ / 2.20GHz Socket 939 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) $69.99
Energy Cost
Energy cost has gained more and more importance over the last few years, motivated
both by the rising cost of electricity and ever increasing power consumption of PC
components. For our calculations, which project running costs of the individual systems
for a year, we assume a price of 18 Euro Cent/kWh.
AMD remains the champion when it comes to energy costs when idle. Practically all of
Intel's processors have to line up behind their rivals from AMD, with the new L2
stepping as the sole exception.
Under full load, the ranking changes quite a bit, though, and Intel is able to outperform
several of AMD's entries. Only the Sempron CPUs use less power than Intel's Core 2
Duo E6300 with L2 stepping. Nonetheless, the processor is not the sole deciding factor
with regard to the entire system's power consumption. Additionally, the chipset and the
voltage regulators for the processor also influence the overall power consumption. As
mentioned before, we'll cover this in more detail further on in this article.
Energy Index: AMD Unbeatable
People tend to forget one thing when calculating how much an energy efficient
system can save them - namely the processor's price. After all, saving a few quid by using
an energy efficient processor that cost ten times what you saved is quite the hollow
victory. That's why we've calculated an index that takes into account both the processor
price and the energy cost.
The processor with the lowest retail price is awarded 50 points, while the most expensive
one gets 0. We apply the same method to the energy cost, rewarding the lowest power
consumption with 50 points. Conversely, the most power-hungry processor gets naught.
The sum of these two sub scores yields the overall index, with a maximum score of 100.
At this point, a processor's performance does not factor into the equation. We will go on
to evaluate it later when we look at the efficiency measurements.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As
we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its
dual-core processors. Also, Intel's quad-core CPUs tend to scale better than AMD's Quad
FX platform, especially for typical desktop-class applications. Our move to Windows
Vista x64 has done little to alter this dynamic. At the same time, Core 2 processors tend
to draw less power and to be more energy efficient—sometimes markedly so—than
Athlon 64s. Right now, Intel has the magic combination of a superior processor
microarchitecture and a more mature, fully realized 65nm manufacturing capability
working together on its side.
This one-two punch has allowed Intel to maintain a performance edge at most price
points, despite standing pat through AMD's aggressive pricing moves and new model
introductions. AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end
models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2
Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600.
The Athlon 64 looks more competitive in its lower-end incarnations like the X2 5000+
and 4400+, which match up better on both performance and power characteristics against
the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400. These processors have the benefit of being available in
65nm form, and I'd say the minor performance penalty one pays in performance at 65nm
(due to the slower L2 cache) is worth it for the reduced power draw.
This low-to-mid-range territory, incidentally, is where I'd be looking to buy. Many of our
tests have shown the benefits of quad-core processors, but honestly, finding applications
that will make good use of four cores is not easy—and the list of games that really use
four cores is approximately zero. I'd probably grab a Core 2 Duo E6400 and overclock it
until it started to glow, if I were putting together a system right now. I must admit,
though, that I have an almost irrational fondness for the Core 2 Quad Q6600, probably
because it's the most energy efficient processor in our Cinebench power test. The thing is
by no means a great deal—two E6600s will set you back over $200 less than a single
Q6600—but it's easy to imagine a near-silent multitasking monster built around one.
AMD would do well to expand its 65nm offerings into higher clock frequencies as
soon as it can reasonably do so. That may take a while yet, given the limited
overclocking headroom we've seen from early 65nm Athlon 64 X2s. Meanwhile, Intel
isn't likely to sit still for much longer. Rumors of an April price cut abound, and in light
of the Core 2's ample frequency headroom, higher speed grades are a definite possibility,
as well. For AMD, its next-generation microarchitecture can't come a moment too soon.
The final word: AMD. Intel. Intel.
Depending on what your PC is used for, the answer to the
Intel vs. AMD question changes. In my experience, users
looking towards budget-level PCs (or even HTPC) have a choice between Intel
processors paired with the nvidia 9300 chipset, or AMD processors and the AMD 780G
chipset. Both routes are more than sufficient for home office or home theatre purposes.
Intel definitely becomes a favorite as system prices increase for gaming and content
creation platforms. AMD is left in the dust as its older 65nm processors lack the muscle
needed to compete with Intel's Yorkfield and Wolfdale 45nm offerings. In the gaming
segment, the faster clock speeds of the E8000-series Core 2 Duo processors offer the best
performance for dual core friendly applications.
At the upper end of the scale, the AMD vs. Intel question gets a little complicated. If you
can wait, be patient and buy into socket 1366 processor platform. If you cannot hold off,
walk past the AMD aisle and pick up an Intel Q9000-series processor. Compared to
AMD's best Phenom X4, the Q9300 ought to handle video processing, 3D rendering,
photo editing and number crunching faster.
That being said, my best advice is to hold off on purchasing a PC system until the full
range of Intel Core i7 processors emerge, and there are more than a handful of superenthusiast Intel X58 motherboards to pick from. With its radical architecture changes,
even a few months of waiting will mean a significantly longer lifespan for your
investment, and higher performance curves.