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
Coogcheese - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Is the latency issue really due to intelligent look-ahead or the vast cache size difference between the two processors? I'd like to see a benchmark comparison between an 2MB cache opeteron and an equally cached/clocked/timed Conroe. That would settle some debate (yea, yea...wishful thinking).It could also help lend some insite to what AMD might do in the short & long term as a response as well.
The author of the review seems to give alot of credit to "look-ahead" but I found this benchmark comparison to be interesting: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6256&am...">http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6256&am...
Opteron doesn't seem to have same problem that the Athlon does in terms of latency performance. Which could be why amd execs seem less than panicky at this point. It would allude to a market war similar to the megahurtz war that led to amd coming out with the model # system...this time it could be intel taking advantage of their capacity by laying the cache size smack down on amd instead of megahurtz.
If it is cache size and not "look-ahead" then amd could (could mind you...but would they? and how many could they?) respond much quicker I'd think. If its new technology or a combo of cache and new tech then amd will be in a much worse position imho.
Whatever the case its great for the consumer(me). Thank goodness for competition. Daddy needs a new pair of cores...and the price just got a whole lot better!
ChronoReverse - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
It would indeed be very interesting to see a 2MB L2 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo E6200 compared against 2MB L2 1.6GHz Opteron 160.The shared L2 cache of the Conroe will give it a nice advantage though.
bob661 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Anyonehave any speculation as to how much the initial Conroe's will cost? We pretty much know that the motherboards will be expensive but what about the CPU's?ChronoReverse - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
The pricing has been out for a while already. They're relatively reasonable considering the performance. Only the Extreme Edition as usual is really expensive (but still not as expensive as I'd have thought).Too bad the motherboards are so expensive. I'm taking a look at that Asrock board, but I doubt it'll have any good overclocking capability.
Gary Key - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
The less expensive boards for Conroe will fully hit the market near the end of August. ;-) We expect to see ECS, Foxconn, MSI, Epox, and others fully ramped up in a couple of weeks on the value boards. Until then, the Gigabyte DS3 is a really good board for overclocking the E6300/E6400 series and our Biostar and Abit boards continue to improve with each bios release. All three are under $145 now with others joining them shortly if the P965 is interesting to you. The ASRock board actually surprised us, but remember the VCore voltage cannot be adjusted. The $50~$100 market will be very interesting as the 945P, 946PL, and NV570SLI chipsets will dominate this section until the G965 boards start arriving in September if decent intergrated graphics are on your wish list, if not all of the boards will offer good performance for the money. The under $55 market will consist of VIA and SIS chipsets from PC-Chips and ASRock with a few majors like ECS and MSI having boards based on these chipsets.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Everest Scores have been rerun with Version 3.01, which was released on July 16, 2006. Since the scores from the new version can not be compared to older Everest scores, we reran all the Everest benchmarks. 3.01 is said to provide full and complete support for Conroe and Merom. Values are different in that Memory WRITE and READ scores are reported as much higher than past Everest testing. Latency is also reported as closer between AM2 and Core 2 Duo with the 3.01 version of Everest. Charts and commentary have been revised using the new results.jjunos - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Thanks for the update wes! It always shows the quality of the website when they listen to their community and and willing to rerun all their tests in the sake of being correct! kudos!TonyB - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
is it just me or did AMD just get pwned?bob661 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
I personally don't care about who owns who. I just want competition so I can get this stuff for cheap. I'm a best bang for the buck guy.goinginstyle - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Everyone benefits here with the performance improvements Intel has brought to the table and an AM2 3800+ at $150 is just an incredible value. Conroe made it easy for AMD users to upgrade their performance for very little money.