Conclusion
While DDR2 Memory does not exhibit the same bandwidth or performance on the AM2 and Conroe platforms, they do perform at the same timings and voltages when going from one platform to another. This was clearly demonstrated in benchmarking tests performed on AM2 and Conroe platforms. This means readers can examine test results performed on a Core 2 Duo test bed with XYZ memory, and reasonably expect that XYZ memory to perform at the same speeds and the same memory timings and voltages on an AM2 platform - provided those settings are available.
There are always the variations in chipset and BIOS that can cause problems with a memory on one brand/model of motherboard and no problems on another brand/model, but that is also true even if you are planning to use the DDR2 on the same type of platform. We have sometimes seen where a brand of memory runs very well on an MSI platform, for example, but where it would not run at all on a DFI platform using the same chipset and CPU. Those types of compatibility issues will always happen, but in general if a memory tests well on Conroe it should do just as well on AM2.
This fact will make our memory testing much simpler, and we plan to perform all upcoming memory testing on the currently more flexible Core 2 Duo test platform. AM2 buyers can expect similar results with the same DDR2 memory on their AM2 motherboards.
A few conclusions about AM2 performance compared to Core 2 Duo performance are also inescapable in looking at our test results. First, Intel has done a remarkable job of concealing the issue of not having an on-processor memory controller. The intelligent look-ahead for memory works very well, and it makes the chipset-based Core 2 Duo memory controller appear to be as fast as the on-processor AM2 in many cases. This does not change the fact that the AM2 memory bandwidth is really greater than Core 2 Duo or the fact that AM2 scales better in memory, exhibiting a steeper slope in performance increase as memory speed increases than does Core 2 Duo. That just means as Memory Speed increases AM2 will benefit more and Intel will eventually need to move to an on-processor controller.
Probably the hardest conclusion for many will be the fact that increasing memory speed, increasing clock speed, and increasing CPU speed alone will not be enough for AM2 to catch up to Core 2 Duo in performance. The performance gap that remains when overclocking AM2 to 2.93GHz at 266 clock speed with DDR2-1067 is still huge. A die-shrink from 90 to 65nm and the additional cache that will allow will definitely help, but we are even skeptical there with Core 2 Duo already overclocking to 4GHz and beyond. No doubt AMD will find a solution, but it is now clear this will not be an easy fix for AMD.
The deep price cuts announced by AMD yesterday will definitely help. The new numbers indicate AM2 will be very competitive at the low end to low-mid of the processor food chain - a spot they have held in the past and where they have still managed to survive. The low end looks very competitive, and AMD is positioned close enough to mid-range in performance to keep Intel honest. There is no mistaking, however, that Intel Core 2 Duo owns the mid to high-end of the current processor market.
With this memory analysis, the memory playing field is hopefully a lot clearer for those shopping for DDR2 memory. Our next memory articles will compare memory performance of DDR2 on the Core 2 Duo Memory Test Bed. This began with the 6 high-performance memories and the 7 value memories tested in the Conroe Buyers Guide. It will continue with evaluations of the fastest memories available from both Corsair and OCZ.
While DDR2 Memory does not exhibit the same bandwidth or performance on the AM2 and Conroe platforms, they do perform at the same timings and voltages when going from one platform to another. This was clearly demonstrated in benchmarking tests performed on AM2 and Conroe platforms. This means readers can examine test results performed on a Core 2 Duo test bed with XYZ memory, and reasonably expect that XYZ memory to perform at the same speeds and the same memory timings and voltages on an AM2 platform - provided those settings are available.
There are always the variations in chipset and BIOS that can cause problems with a memory on one brand/model of motherboard and no problems on another brand/model, but that is also true even if you are planning to use the DDR2 on the same type of platform. We have sometimes seen where a brand of memory runs very well on an MSI platform, for example, but where it would not run at all on a DFI platform using the same chipset and CPU. Those types of compatibility issues will always happen, but in general if a memory tests well on Conroe it should do just as well on AM2.
This fact will make our memory testing much simpler, and we plan to perform all upcoming memory testing on the currently more flexible Core 2 Duo test platform. AM2 buyers can expect similar results with the same DDR2 memory on their AM2 motherboards.
A few conclusions about AM2 performance compared to Core 2 Duo performance are also inescapable in looking at our test results. First, Intel has done a remarkable job of concealing the issue of not having an on-processor memory controller. The intelligent look-ahead for memory works very well, and it makes the chipset-based Core 2 Duo memory controller appear to be as fast as the on-processor AM2 in many cases. This does not change the fact that the AM2 memory bandwidth is really greater than Core 2 Duo or the fact that AM2 scales better in memory, exhibiting a steeper slope in performance increase as memory speed increases than does Core 2 Duo. That just means as Memory Speed increases AM2 will benefit more and Intel will eventually need to move to an on-processor controller.
Probably the hardest conclusion for many will be the fact that increasing memory speed, increasing clock speed, and increasing CPU speed alone will not be enough for AM2 to catch up to Core 2 Duo in performance. The performance gap that remains when overclocking AM2 to 2.93GHz at 266 clock speed with DDR2-1067 is still huge. A die-shrink from 90 to 65nm and the additional cache that will allow will definitely help, but we are even skeptical there with Core 2 Duo already overclocking to 4GHz and beyond. No doubt AMD will find a solution, but it is now clear this will not be an easy fix for AMD.
The deep price cuts announced by AMD yesterday will definitely help. The new numbers indicate AM2 will be very competitive at the low end to low-mid of the processor food chain - a spot they have held in the past and where they have still managed to survive. The low end looks very competitive, and AMD is positioned close enough to mid-range in performance to keep Intel honest. There is no mistaking, however, that Intel Core 2 Duo owns the mid to high-end of the current processor market.
With this memory analysis, the memory playing field is hopefully a lot clearer for those shopping for DDR2 memory. Our next memory articles will compare memory performance of DDR2 on the Core 2 Duo Memory Test Bed. This began with the 6 high-performance memories and the 7 value memories tested in the Conroe Buyers Guide. It will continue with evaluations of the fastest memories available from both Corsair and OCZ.
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.