Midrange CPU Roundup: It's Time to Buy
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 28, 2007 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
General Performance
SYSMark 2007 takes 14 current desktop applications and runs groups of them through four different scenarios categorized by BAPCo as E-Learning, Video Creation, Productivity, and 3D.
Overall performance is slightly in Intel's favor when we look at the matchups we outlined at the beginning of the article. The Core 2 Duo E4500 is slightly faster than the Athlon 64 X2 5000+, but the margin of victory shrinks considerably when we look at the E4400 vs. Athlon 64 X2 4800+. The difference between the E4500 and E4400 is 200MHz, or about 10%, while the difference between the 5000+ and 4800+ is only 100MHz and less than 4% of the clock speed of the 5000+, resulting in a narrowing gap as we head down in price on Intel's side. For all intents and purposes, the Core 2 Duo E4400 is the same speed as the Athlon 64 X2 4800+, and on the AMD side there's no real reason to purchase the 5000+ as it doesn't really offer a tangible performance advantage over the slightly cheaper 4800+.
The race is also close at the very low end. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (and X2 BE-2350) is very close to the Pentium E2160 in performance, although Intel gets the slight edge. Unlike competition at the higher end of the CPU spectrum, AMD and Intel are neck and neck with their mainstream CPUs in general usage.
SYSMark 2007 takes 14 current desktop applications and runs groups of them through four different scenarios categorized by BAPCo as E-Learning, Video Creation, Productivity, and 3D.
Overall performance is slightly in Intel's favor when we look at the matchups we outlined at the beginning of the article. The Core 2 Duo E4500 is slightly faster than the Athlon 64 X2 5000+, but the margin of victory shrinks considerably when we look at the E4400 vs. Athlon 64 X2 4800+. The difference between the E4500 and E4400 is 200MHz, or about 10%, while the difference between the 5000+ and 4800+ is only 100MHz and less than 4% of the clock speed of the 5000+, resulting in a narrowing gap as we head down in price on Intel's side. For all intents and purposes, the Core 2 Duo E4400 is the same speed as the Athlon 64 X2 4800+, and on the AMD side there's no real reason to purchase the 5000+ as it doesn't really offer a tangible performance advantage over the slightly cheaper 4800+.
The race is also close at the very low end. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (and X2 BE-2350) is very close to the Pentium E2160 in performance, although Intel gets the slight edge. Unlike competition at the higher end of the CPU spectrum, AMD and Intel are neck and neck with their mainstream CPUs in general usage.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
jonp - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
I too wonder about the Netburst admonition. There are probably millions of Netburst CPUs out there that are happily computing away with no thought of Anandtech at all; doing their thing; producing great results for their owners. The biggest concern I have seen is thermal and that, only in relation to overclocking. Assuming there are more than a few users that don't need to or want to overclock; then there are some great bargins in used Netburst Processors and accompanying motherboards.It doesn't appear to me that "...if you know what's best for you." is either technical, professional or helpful. Maybe it was meant as a joke...sorry it's not that funny.
HotdogIT - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Yes, you did. Given the combination of power usage savings, pure performance benefits, and overclocking ability (since you mentioned 3.6ghz on the Pentium D, I assume we can go with at least 2.4 out of an e2140, for comparisons sake), the C2D/Pentium E line is much better.
The problem with a lot of the "lol Pentium D overclocking" articles is they fail to overclock what they're comparing against. You take a Pentium D 805 and OC it to 4ghz, sure, the performance delta over an e2140 will be big. But apply the same cooling and thought into OCing the e2140, and that delta will swing the other way.
ThatLukeGuy - Saturday, September 29, 2007 - link
So what would make the most sense to change out the Pentium D805 to that would keep me at (or better yet raise the bar of) the performance I'm getting now? An OC'd e2140 or something higher up the ladder? I'm matching this to a 2gigs ram, an nice MSI SLI plat mobo, and an 8800gts320mb. I'd want something that wouldn't bottleneck the system which is what the P.D805 did when it was stock.
HotdogIT - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
It's going to depend on a lot of factors. If you're gaming, a change in the CPU may very well do very little in changing any performance; especially at a higher resolution, the CPU may make NO difference.
I'd look into the e2140/e2160/e4X00 line, if you wanted to stay lower cost. At the VERY least, you'll get a boost in energy efficency: The Pentium Ds were and are power hogs, especially compared to the newer line.
What performance did you see increase when you overclocked the Pentium D? Did gaming increase? If so, then a C2D based system would be much better, regardless of an overclock; Netburst just don't handle the games as well.
If, somehow, you're running something that is AMAZINGLY well tuned for Netburst, you may see less of an increase. But these applications are rare these days, so I doubt you'd see that in most cases.
Parhelion69 - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Anand did you do the power consumption tests on the overclocked cpus? I think it's important to know, if you haven't, can't you at least give us a rought estimation? It'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.dm0r - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Thats a great article Anand, I missed this kind of roundup.Enjoyed a lot and the only thing is missing is the performance per watt, but anyway very good article.Thanks for sharing!eetnoyer - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Why not throw in the 4200+? I know it's 90nm, but I just got one for $74, and (for me)it looks like the sweet spot of price/performance for AMD. And, given how well tuned their 90nm process is at EOL, I wouldn't be surprised to see power consumption close to that of the 65nm chips. If you want, you could use the 65W version (it's only a buck more).Uter - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Anand, is the BE-2400 still coming out? Or, when you say that there are two Athlon X2 BE Processors, the BE-2350 and BE-2300, is that a subtle hint that we shouldn't expect to see it? I just want to make sure I pick one of these up while there are still available...bogda - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Oveclocking results are not fair. You chose horrible motherboards for AMD overclocking.For example, Biostar AMD motherboards cost 50-60 euros. They are much better overclockers than MSI or ASUS you chose. My Athlon BE-2300 easily overclocks from default 1,9GHz to over 2,8GHz with stock HSF.
wdb1966 - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
I completely agree, the boards chosen for the AMD chips are horrible.Gigabyte's MA69GM-S2H and Abit's NF-M2 nView would have been far superior choices in every way...poor motherboard choices, very poor.