Is the X2 truly that bad?

[m25]

My X2 4200+ Manchester at stock speeds never gets above 41 C under load, even when running in a warm room and with the CPU HSF spinning at 60% of full speed, which is about 1800 rpm. I think a bit of that is because I remapped the CnQ FID/VID points to undervolt the chip to 4200+ EE levels. I could try to set it lower than the 1.25 V it is right now, but it's rock-solid so I might just leave it there.

How did you remap them, because I have more or less the same problem?!

 

[MU_Engineer]

I used CPU Power, which is a PowerNow/CnQ VID/FID remapper for Linux. RMClock is a similar (but much more featured) tool for Windows.

 

[m25]

I used CPU Power, which is a PowerNow/CnQ VID/FID remapper for Linux. RMClock is a similar (but much more featured) tool for Windows.

OK, I use RMClock, but was looking for some true AMD driver remapping because RMClock eats up 1-2% of performance.

 

[accord99]

It's true that the temperatures are calculated differently, but that doesn't mean one is wholly less accurate than the other, or that one will always be reported cooler than the other. The author makes no conclusion of the sort.

You miss the most important point, which is Core 2s give you Tjunction temperatures and AMD processors do not. And therefore you cannot use temperatures directly between them. Heck, usually you can't even compare temperatures as measured by two different motherboards using the same processor.

 

[gOJDO]

@MU_Engineer
It is not logical to compare CPUs energy efficiency of CPUs with different performance at same frequency. The real factor to measure the CPU energy efficiency is performance/Wh or how much work a CPU can do with a given energy. Going by your logic, one could say that the PentiumD 930 is more energy efficient than the X2 6000+, because those two are clocked same but the PD 930 is wasting less energy. It is ridiculous to make such a conclusion because the X2 6000+ is wiping the floor with the PD 930.
C2 and X2 are not performing same at same frequency, so you can't compare their energy efficiency at same frequency. The E6400 in average is performing like X2 5000+ and that's why the articles are comparing the energy efficiency of those two(or three with Brisbane). Going by the performance/Wh logic, the C2D are more energy efficient than the current 65nm and 90nm X2 at any performance level.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Mmm, CrystalCPU clock has similar functions to RMclock IIRC. You might want to look at that instead. CPU Power does not eat up CPU time as it simply tweaks with the CnQ tables and doesn't have any GUI or anything to eat up CPU cycles.

 

[r0ck]

1. Your first link compares a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo E4300 to a 2.60 GHz X2 5000+. More GHz = more heat if everything else is equal. That's simple math. The X2 5000+ should have been compared to a 2.67 GHz Core 2 Duo E6700 or the E6400 should have been compared to a 2.1 GHz X2 4000+ Brisbane. That would be a much more telling tale.

Why would anyone want to measure wattage per clock? :?

 

[MU_Engineer]

Those are two of the exact same articles accord99 linked. The Xbit one looks reasonable since they did an after-the-VRM measurement. But to tell the truth, if you're going to do an apples-to-apples comparison for chip efficiency, compare equally-clocked chips. An E6600 pulls more juice than an E6400 because of its higher clock speed, so pitting a 2.5 GHz AMD versus a 2.13 GHz Intel is about as fair as pitting an E6400 versus an E6600. The Brisbane X2 4000+ would be a very appropriate contender for the E6400 and the E6600 would match up reasonably well with the 4800+.

 

[mcain591]

Good point. However, these are the times when fanboys need to think.
Because, at this time, being a CPU fanboy isn't a viable option. The only one that is involves choosing the best price/performance chip out there.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Wattage per clock gives the energy efficiency of each chip's architecture, which I believe was at the heart of the question originally asked:

Since all power used by the CPU is converted to heat, a CPU that uses less power is clearly going to be cooler. So far, reviews show Brisbane uses less power than Windsor but still can't match Conroe.

If they meant total wattage draw, the lowest power-consuming dual-core chip in a desktop socket is the 35-watt Windsor X2 3800+ EE SFF.

If they meant performance-per-watt, the X2 Windsor EEs beat the Brisbanes and the Conroes do win.

If they meant total wattage draw for the highest-end chip, well, then the 125 W X2 6000+ Windsor is more than the 65W X2 5000+ Brisbane. But the Brisbane 5000+ sucks less power than the C2D X6800.

But we already know all of those things above. So I interpreted the question to be the energy efficiency of the Windsor vs. Brisbane vs. Conroe, which would have to be normalized for clock speed but not voltage as that's a specific trait to the arch whereas clock speed varies up and down the line for all of them. More clocks at the same volts = more heat, so it seems intelligent to keep the clocks the same.

 

[r0ck]

"Wattage per clock gives the energy efficiency of each chip's architecture"

Oh, I always thought it was performance per watt, you know, something that kind of, a little, makes sense

 

[lordaardvark2]

i'm really thinking of going for an AMD proc after the pricecuts that are coming... i believe around the same time as intel's? anyway, that makes AMD procs VERY attractive, the ones UNDER $100 8O

 

[photographer]

Power efficiency of a processor = FLOP's/W. That's raw performance of course. Perhaps I/WS (Instructions per Watt-Second) would be good ? FYI, here's the MIPS for some procs. Just a passing interest.

AMD Athlon XP 2400+ 5935 MIPS at 2.0 GHz

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ X2 (Dual Core) 14564 MIPS at 2.0 GHz

AMD Athlon FX-60 (Dual Core) 18938 MIPS at 2.6 GHz

Intel Core 2 X6800 27079 MIPS at 2.93 GHz

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 57063 MIPS at 3.33 GHz

i'm really thinking of going for an AMD proc after the pricecuts that are coming... i believe around the same time as intel's? anyway, that makes AMD procs VERY attractive, the ones UNDER $100 8O

Agreed on AMD however I'm looking for as complete a package as possible. I was hoping that AMD would announce a good general purpose chipset much like their now-ancient 751 which is still running fine on my Abit KG7 motherboards.

 

[piesquared]

i'm really thinking of going for an AMD proc after the pricecuts that are coming... i believe around the same time as intel's? anyway, that makes AMD procs VERY attractive, the ones UNDER $100 8O

Well if you're quick you can get one now for free.

http://www.ebyte.com/2007/03/18/tuesday-giveaway-amd-athlon-64-x2-dual-core-3600-processor/

 

[impreza]

When you look at the fact that a e6400 is the same price as a 5200+ x2 amd's offering isn't all that bad. Also when you look at how the 6000+ is not much slower than the e6700 and even beats it in some tests and is 12% cheaper shows amd still has some grest chips

 

[martyjs]

Thats exactly it. Value for money. My next build (in progress) AMD X2 5200 about $20 cheaper the C2D 6400 and Gigabyte Motherboard (with more features than the C2D equivalent) $50 Aussie cheaper. $70 to some people isn't much but with 3 kids at home oldest daughter getting married next year and a Mortgage to pay. believe me, thats a lot. 8O

Only child I don't have to pay for is number one son. Joined the Army so at least for the next 3 year, I,m safe. :lol:

 

[photographer]

Thats exactly it. Value for money. My next build (in progress) AMD X2 5200 about $20 cheaper the C2D 6400 and Gigabyte Motherboard (with more features than the C2D equivalent) $50 Aussie cheaper. $70 to some people isn't much but with 3 kids at home oldest daughter getting married next year and a Mortgage to pay. believe me, thats a lot. 8O

Only child I don't have to pay for is number one son. Joined the Army so at least for the next 3 year, I'm safe. :lol:

I feel your pain. We have a three year old, a five year old and a house that's about 150 years old. Unfortunately money doesn't grow on trees. Overtime isn't an option but rather a way of life.

 

[photographer]

Well I'm sitting here sifting through all of the opinions and such on the whole AMD vs. Intel thing and I've read a huge amount of opinions which comes down to this :

A) Conroe currently outperforms anything AMD has.

B) AMD might/might not have something that will outperform Conroe after the 1333FSB update.

C) Boards built with Intels' 965 chipset seem extremely fickle on both memory and hard drive selection.

D) Nobody's talking about a memory upgrade yet.

But here's my clincher and why I'll probably stick with AMD.

Intel has done almost everything conceivable to insure that they have a monopoly. They have proven that they have no business ethics at all and are simply out for profit at any and all costs. I realize that most of the world (along with the American stock market system) actually encourages such behavior however anyone that believes this is in the long-term best interest of the consumer clearly could use a course in economics. Further, there is no doubt in my mind that Intel has quite deliberately engaged in exclusionary practices which have had a huge impact on the level of innovation in the field of personal computer engineering over the last 9 years. To put it mildly I find this repulsive and as such I won't be giving them any of my hard earned coinage anytime soon.

 

[wolverinero79]

AMD has done everything in their power to bend the rules as well. They're no cleaner than Intel and that's not a valid point to choose AMD. Since tech leadership is obviously not in AMD's corner right now, this is now the only reason that you have chosen AMD - and it's a lie, unfortunately. Companies exist to make money, not products, not happiness...they exist to make money. End of story. If you really think that AMD is not as dirty (or in fact dirtier) than Intel, you have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[sirrobin4ever]

Is the X2 truly that bad?

Nope. 😀

 

[accord99]

When you look at the fact that a e6400 is the same price as a 5200+ x2 amd's offering isn't all that bad. Also when you look at how the 6000+ is not much slower than the e6700 and even beats it in some tests and is 12% cheaper shows amd still has some grest chips

The E6600 is faster than the 6000+ and cheaper still.

 

[qcmadness]

When you look at the fact that a e6400 is the same price as a 5200+ x2 amd's offering isn't all that bad. Also when you look at how the 6000+ is not much slower than the e6700 and even beats it in some tests and is 12% cheaper shows amd still has some grest chips

The E6600 is faster than the 6000+ and cheaper still.
Just a tie for performance only.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Everyone knows that the Core 2 Duo has been dominating for awhile, and it's become almost habitual to assume it's the best solution... but lately it seems to me that people have been recommending it to the exclusion of everything else in almost every situation.

Funny thing is, when you look at the benchmarks for low to mid-range systems, things aren't really that clear-cut. AMD and Intel tend to trade blows in the same price range, especially when you factor in the reduced price of decent AM2 motherboards as compared to the latest (too expensive) 775 chipsets.

Granted, the C2D pretty much smacks most AM2 processors around when it comes to overclocking, but again, people are ignoring actual tests that have been going around lately. The Brisbane line (especially the X2 3600+) have shown some pretty great OCing results, including fairly easy 3GHz+ overclocks on a 1.9GHz processor which comes in at half the price of an E4300.

Even around the $200 range, AMD isn't getting crushed as handily as most people seem to think. Processors like the 4600+, 4800+, and 5000+ are solid offerings and trump the comparably priced E6300/E6400 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

Yes, the high-end and overclocking crowns belong to Intel right now, but does this warrant the kind of exclusivity enthusiasts have been giving them lately?

It all depends on what criteria you use to deduct what is better.

AMD have had, as of late, to significantly reduce the price of their processors in order to remain competitive. In all the important areas which are Price/Performance, Performance/Watt, Performance/Clock and Total Performance AMD was losing.. so AMD saw that they did have one area they could still compete in with the X2 and it was the Price/Performance area.

So AMD drastically reduced the prices of their processors. It doesn't mean X2's ae any better, no they're still considerably slower then a equally paired C2D (using the criteria above) but at least now they're priced accordingly.

 

[photographer]

AMD has done everything in their power to bend the rules as well. They're no cleaner than Intel and that's not a valid point to choose AMD. Since tech leadership is obviously not in AMD's corner right now, this is now the only reason that you have chosen AMD - and it's a lie, unfortunately. Companies exist to make money, not products, not happiness...they exist to make money. End of story. If you really think that AMD is not as dirty (or in fact dirtier) than Intel, you have a lot of catching up to do.

Could you please cite an example ?

 

[photographer]

The only "mac" in my home is "mac-'n-cheese" 😀

And what I would like to see is something supporting the assertion that :

"AMD has done everything in their power to bend the rules as well."