2.93GHz with DDR2-1067 Performance Comparison
It is clear enough that despite the poorer memory bandwidth, Core 2 Duo is the performance leader by a substantial margin at stock speeds. You have seen that in all of the results posted in this article. This conclusion will not satisfy all our readers, however. Many have theorized every incarnation of performance imaginable with AM2 having higher clock speed, higher bandwidth, or higher speed memory than it currently does.
To best answer these questions we put together the fairest comparison we could think of to directly compare Core 2 Duo and AMD AM2. This consists of running both processors at the exact same speed - 2.93GHz - achieved at the same ratios - 11x266. This involves overclocking the AM2 FX62 to 2.93GHz and raising the "bus" speed to 266. That allows an 11x266 ratio to match Core 2 Duo. The desirable side effect is that while AM2 does not really support DDR2-1067, by setting the memory to DDR2-800 we reach DDR2-1067 speed at the 266 speed setting. While this slightly stacks the deck in AMD's favor, it is as close as it is possible to get at running the two systems at the same speed, same memory timings, same memory voltages, same memory, and same video card. We are comparing two identically configured systems with AM2 powering one system and Core 2 Duo powering the other system.
Results are particularly interesting in that the fastest current AM2 processor, the FX62, is overclocked about 5% in CPU speed and 33% in "bus" speed over a stock AM2 system.
Frankly the gap that remains in Super Pi results when comparing AM2 and Core 2 Duo at the same speed was something of a shock. Clock for clock, with all other variables the same, Core 2 Duo is still almost 60% faster than AM2. There is nothing complex about calculating the value of Pi to 2 million places, but it does show the true power of Conroe in computation-intensive tasks.
Despite the improvements Intel has made in intelligent read-ahead for memory, AM2 still has a huge lead in buffered memory bandwidth. This is a result of the superior on-processor memory controller used on AM2. The results become much closer in Unbuffered memory results, which is normally more revealing of performance in real-world applications, but AM2 still has a wider memory bandwidth. The unfortunate reality is AM2 is not starved for memory bandwidth and cannot really make effective use of this advantage. AMD clearly knows how to deliver memory bandwidth, so the task now becomes to modify their core logic to make better use of this advantage.
We can now say with authority that Core 2 Duo is the faster performer clock-for-clock across the board. At the same 2.93GHz Far Cry is 27.7% faster, Half-Life 2: Lost Coast is 12.4% faster, and Quake 4 is 22.2% faster on Core 2 Duo. Of course AMD does not currently have a 2.93GHz CPU, so we tested by overclocking FX62. This suggests that FX64, or whatever it will be called, will not help much at 3.0GHz with a 200 clock speed.
It is clear enough that despite the poorer memory bandwidth, Core 2 Duo is the performance leader by a substantial margin at stock speeds. You have seen that in all of the results posted in this article. This conclusion will not satisfy all our readers, however. Many have theorized every incarnation of performance imaginable with AM2 having higher clock speed, higher bandwidth, or higher speed memory than it currently does.
To best answer these questions we put together the fairest comparison we could think of to directly compare Core 2 Duo and AMD AM2. This consists of running both processors at the exact same speed - 2.93GHz - achieved at the same ratios - 11x266. This involves overclocking the AM2 FX62 to 2.93GHz and raising the "bus" speed to 266. That allows an 11x266 ratio to match Core 2 Duo. The desirable side effect is that while AM2 does not really support DDR2-1067, by setting the memory to DDR2-800 we reach DDR2-1067 speed at the 266 speed setting. While this slightly stacks the deck in AMD's favor, it is as close as it is possible to get at running the two systems at the same speed, same memory timings, same memory voltages, same memory, and same video card. We are comparing two identically configured systems with AM2 powering one system and Core 2 Duo powering the other system.
Results are particularly interesting in that the fastest current AM2 processor, the FX62, is overclocked about 5% in CPU speed and 33% in "bus" speed over a stock AM2 system.
Frankly the gap that remains in Super Pi results when comparing AM2 and Core 2 Duo at the same speed was something of a shock. Clock for clock, with all other variables the same, Core 2 Duo is still almost 60% faster than AM2. There is nothing complex about calculating the value of Pi to 2 million places, but it does show the true power of Conroe in computation-intensive tasks.
Despite the improvements Intel has made in intelligent read-ahead for memory, AM2 still has a huge lead in buffered memory bandwidth. This is a result of the superior on-processor memory controller used on AM2. The results become much closer in Unbuffered memory results, which is normally more revealing of performance in real-world applications, but AM2 still has a wider memory bandwidth. The unfortunate reality is AM2 is not starved for memory bandwidth and cannot really make effective use of this advantage. AMD clearly knows how to deliver memory bandwidth, so the task now becomes to modify their core logic to make better use of this advantage.
We can now say with authority that Core 2 Duo is the faster performer clock-for-clock across the board. At the same 2.93GHz Far Cry is 27.7% faster, Half-Life 2: Lost Coast is 12.4% faster, and Quake 4 is 22.2% faster on Core 2 Duo. Of course AMD does not currently have a 2.93GHz CPU, so we tested by overclocking FX62. This suggests that FX64, or whatever it will be called, will not help much at 3.0GHz with a 200 clock speed.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
118 Comments
View All Comments
sld - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Yes I second the importance of a 32M run, because I want to know how Core 2 Duo does when the dataset does not fit into the L2 cache. The Intel fanboys at xtremesystems are annoying me with their whoops of glee over the 1M and 2M results.The performance difference in games and superpi is large enough to be termed anomalous, simply because superpi is a feel-happy benchmark.
Calin - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
I've had the same issue on understanding the graphic - but I think it is much better now (top representing better performance, with the scale inverted)Anyway, great article!
As for the increases in cache helping AMD processors, I guess not - considering the small difference from 512k to 1M.
mattsaccount - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Never mind, I'm tired :)goinginstyle - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Page 7 is going to upset a lot of AMD fans.Page 9 index description needs to be "conclusion".
Great article and would love to see this comparison with the E6600 and E6300 CPUs against the competing AMD cpus. A lot of us will be buying these two processors and probably plain DDR2800.
OcHungry - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Can I ask you what memory timings you used?Since you have stated that memory speed does not affect conroe, would it be fair to assess that you used tightest timings for AM2?
If not: why?
About what page is going to make AMD users upset or hate the page, I totally disagree with you. You actually brought some lights to the whole scheme of things, unintentionally and unknowingly. You have helped to prove that Conroe will only be a mere 1 or 2% faster than AM2, which is not noticeable in real life situation. Conroe is only faster in Spi- But again, AMD beats Intel in memory bandwidth by a great margin. Memory bandwidth is much more important than SPI in terms of game and general cpu task(s). I will prove to everyone, that AMD is just as fast as conroe and post my reasoning in the cpu section, as soon as I have analyzed your benchmark data and made my calculations. But I need to know what memory timings you did use thu. A screenshot of timings would be great.
Again, thank you for this review that helped us open our eyes and see things in a better perspective.
Gary Key - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Wes replied earlier in the comments section but the settings are now posted on page 4 of the review.
goinginstyle - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Caluclations? I would like to see your benchmarks on actual hardware and not some scribbling on your Happy Meal napkin. I can caluclate that you are an idiot but really do not have the time to do it since I have a real life.
zsdersw - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
1 or 2% faster? Please share with the rest of us what you're smoking.
Conroe is significantly faster on almost all fronts... in spite of having lower memory bandwidth.
Calin - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
I suggest you to use a tractor and two trailers - one for persons and one for cargo. Even if you won't go faster than people with cars, you will have a huge bandwidth (persons and cargo bandwidth).If you buy your processor for bandwidth, choose whatever you want. If you buy it for speed, buy based on actual performance
bob661 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
I thought you didn't care about this stuff?