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
drebo - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Excuse me, but the E6400 wasn't even IN the benchmarks Anandtech ran, but by extrapolation(considering the E6700 did not beat out the 5000+ by a large margin), it cannot perform better than the 5000+.And, in the majority of benchmarks, such as the ones http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">here, which are benchmarks that have traditionally favored Intel processors in the past, the AMD chips do not fall as you paint them. They fall as I have painted them. The 4200+ outperforms the E6300 in ALL of them...and costs LESS. The 5000+ matches performance in 2/3 of them with the E6600. And costs LESS.
Sorry, but this isn't about which company is better or provides a better product. This is about which company provides a better product at a better price. We all know the X6800 is the best desktop processor available. NO ONE is disputing that. The dispute is that review sites are proclaiming that the Core 2 Duos are god's gift to Intel and that Athlon64s are completely worthless now, which is NOT the case.
In the $1k processor range, sure, Core 2 Duo is the king...but AMD doesn't have a processor in that range anymore. There is no competition to the X6800 anymore. At every other price point, however, the Athlon64 X2 processors are extremely competative.
coldpower27 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Take a look at these benchmarks show the E6400 in them, and for the most part it beats out the 4600+http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-...">http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-...
coldpower27 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Oh please, you looked at 1 page of benchmark to make your conclusion??Did you just look at 3D Rendering to draq your conclusions?
What about the encoding and gaming performance? Did you look at those?
IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
It is obvious you haven't seen both of my posts fully. Please do. Core 2 Duo outperforms.
This is type of performance increase people would have been crazy about, but somehow its different. Maybe its conspiracy to kill Intel??
coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
IntelUser2000.Chill. I am reply to drebo in this reply not you. Anandtech comment posting system is just strange.
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Please stop being an idiot. If you see Anandtech's benchmarks you can clearly see that E6600 is FASTER overall than FX-62. That's why the saying of $316 FX-62 came about.
For those that are in denial about the FACT that E6600 with $316 price beats FX-62
Application Performance using SYSMark 2004 SE
Average performance: 18.6% in favor of E6600
Application Performance using PC WorldBench 5
1.4% advantage of Core 2 Duo E6600
Application Performance using Winstone 2004
2.9% advantage of FX-62, E6600 equal or faster than 5000+
3D Rendering Performance using 3dsmax 7 & CineBench 9.5
2.7% advantage of FX-62, E6600 faster than 5000+
Encoding Performance using DivX 6.1, WME9, Quicktime (H.264) & iTunes
6.0% advantage of E6600
Overall Gaming Performance
11.6% advantage of E6600
Total Performance increase of E6600 over Athlon FX-62
Core 2 Duo E6600 is 9.9% faster overall than Athlon FX-62!!
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
Normally, the kind of performance advantage E6600 gives over the FX-62 would have meant people would have flocked over to E6600 even if it was previous high-end mainstream price for Intel processors, which is $637.Stop spreading false info people(anti-intel, and i am saying lightly), cause not only your beloved Athlon 64 X2 5000+ slower than E6600, so is AMD's top end offering, the FX-62!!!
I remember people saying Core Duo was worth it(yes the Yonah). Based on the logic people are spreading for Core 2 Duo argument, Core Duo wasn't worth it at all. $637 for the top end Core Duo(Yonah), and being barely faster per clock than FX-62 when clocked outrageously high(30% over stock, while FX-62 is at stock), plus expensive motherboards that are hard to find.
If Core Duo was worth it at all, well... Core 2 Duo is like a dream.
Accord99 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
And the E6300 does better in other tests, such as the Sysmark, video encoding and games. And the E6600 doesn't compete with the 5000+, it competes with the FX-64.drebo - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
I don't know what benchmarks you're looking at, but they sure as hell aren't posted on any review site I've ever seen.I never expected my opinion that AMD is not dead and Intel is not master of all to be popular, but I atleast expected some constructive responses. Yes, Intel has the best performing processor. We know this. No one cares. I'm sure AMD could spin a 3.2ghz FX-70 or something and sell it for $2000. But why bother, for 2% of the population to use? The vast majority of computer users are looking for performance-per-dollar, and there is no difference between Athlon64 X2 processors and Core 2 Duo processors in that ratio...except, of course, motherboard...which tends to cost near to twice as much on the Core 2 Duo side.
Yes, Intel released a competative platform. We're all very happy with them, and once they're available, it'll be great...but they're hardly a nail in the coffin for AMD. AMD still holds the superior chips for single-core, and performance-per-dollar is just as good as Core 2 Duo, and I can tell you from personal experience, that's what matters.
Go go objectivity!
Accord99 - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - link
I'm just looking at all the Anandtech benchmarks. It's quite clear the E6300 is faster than the 4200+ overall, while the E6600 is faster than the FX-62 overall.So performance/dollar is higher for Conroe, the current motherboards are more expensive but that can be made up from purchasing less high-end memory. And Conroe uses less power.