Phenom II X2 555 Vs. Pentium G6950: New Budget Dual-Core Titans

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]For this task we chose the Cooler Master TX3. While it's far from the most effective cooler out there, its $15 price tag makes it an ideal fit. Plus, it's compatible with Socket AM3 and LGA 1156 interfaces. With the fan running at 100%, the TX3 provides farily good cooling performance, although it's a little louder than we'd like.[/citation]

I'd like to comment a bit on that sentence here!
I used such a cooler in a recent build (nzxt panzerbox with a better 120mm fan, i5-750 and corsair 550w psu) and it's not just a little louder than what you'd like, it's in fact a lot louder! I built the system in november or something, and had it in for repair just after new years (harddrive with smart errors). I ended up setting the cpu fan locked at 7v as the noise was just too much for what was supposed to be a whisper quiet system. The fan that comes with the cooler is so poor you'd think it came from thermaltake!

 

[bak0n]

The thing that annoys me is that they compare the CPU cost to CPU cost. Have you ever looked at the price difference between a motherboard running an AMD chip-set vs. an Intel's? Your looking at a minimum $35.00 difference. So that really means you should compare a $100 AMD to a $65 Intel. Oh wait. That would mean comparing this to an E5200.

 

[pbrigido]

About 2 weeks ago, I built a HTPC with the Regor 250. I couldn't believe how cool the heatsink stayed. To see these benchmarks with a thermal footprint lower than my 250 is really impressive. They are almost to the point of being able to passively cool their CPU. Nice work AMD!!

 

[jfem]

as i've seen on the benchmarks, g6950 is better on the majority of applications and in power consumption at stock speeds, other than that, its the 555.

 

[bustapr]

Looks like they got a little too excited with their Pentium processor. The OC was pretty impressive but Don should've known when to stop. It's only so much a dual-core can take, and it would've been a lot more fair if you compared the pentium and Phenom processors at the same clock speeds.
But it was a good try and an almost great article. I still dont understand why you put them up against a core i5.

 

[Guest]

I would like to see undervolting performance of these processors. Having a quick enough processor that doesn't use to much power is really the best and AMD processors often undervolt very well. Just as an example my Athlon II 620 is standard running at 1.3V but runs perfectly stable in my system at 1.1V. (One could also say that AMD is putting way to much juice on these processors)

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]The thing that annoys me is that they compare the CPU cost to CPU cost. Have you ever looked at the price difference between a motherboard running an AMD chip-set vs. an Intel's? Your looking at a minimum $35.00 difference. So that really means you should compare a $100 AMD to a $65 Intel. Oh wait. That would mean comparing this to an E5200.[/citation]
You missed the part about the intended intel motherboard costing only 5 bucks more than the used amd one I assume?
Please read the article before you comment on it.

As you enter teh mainstream system configurations you'll notice that amd motherboards are just as expensive as intels. Only the x58 platform and legacy stuff like skulltrail and the equivalent amd fx stuff are uncomparably expensive. But the mainstream stuff isn't. Pick a p55 or perhaps even older p45 board and pit it against some 790 system of equal quality and they cost similarily.

 

[dertechie]

[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]Looks like they got a little too excited with their Pentium processor. The OC was pretty impressive but Don should've known when to stop. It's only so much a dual-core can take, and it would've been a lot more fair if you compared the pentium and Phenom processors at the same clock speeds. But it was a good try and an almost great article. I still dont understand why you put them up against a core i5.[/citation]

That i5-750 is there as an external reference point, not for a direct apples to apples comparison. It also serves to point out where dual-core designs lose to quads badly and where they still keep up well.

I'm surprised though, I'd have expected the Pentium to do better than that at stock.

 

[ewood]

[citation][nom]obarthelemy[/nom]I see a bunch of overclocking articles... do you have any clue about how many of your readers overclock ? and how many of the public at large ?My guess from personal anecdote would be 10% and 0.01 % resp ?[/citation]

Don't read the articles if you don't overclock. I read every one. I never use a laptop but I don't bitch when they write an article only pertaining to laptops. On a side note there is no reason everyone who does more than surf the web and write papers should not overclock, even if it is only at stock voltage. Its free performance. Everyone likes free

 

[Honis]

Why no Athlon II x4 620 in this benchmark? Quadcore for $100 to compare against the 555 would have been nice even if you pulled the numbers from a previous article.

 

[belial2k]

One thing I would have liked to seen is if you could unlock the other two cores of the 555, and if so how that would affect the benchmarks. Just like overclocking, this can't be guaranteed but has to be considered a great value add with the Phenom x2 processors. I've worked with many 550x2s
building budget rigs for customers and every single one has successfully unlocked to a quad core. I hope the 555 continues this tradition.

 

[Miharu]

Interresting... but AMD still lose.
Amd should bring back old technology like put many cpu on the same board.
Perhaps he can win that way.
2-3 AMD CPU against 1 Intel CPU.

 

[mindless728]

i am a little surprised that the athlon II x4 wasn't thrown in since it is in the $100 price mark as well

 

[Pei-chen]

Quite an incomplete article. I would bench X2 555, G6950 and i3-530 to find out the best budget dual core. X2 555 is a gamers’ CPU while G6950 is an office PC CPU so the premise behind this comparison is a little bit off. I’ll be more interesting to know if the extra $20-25 that i3-530 asks over X2 555 is worth it for a budget gamer.

BTW, I can’t believe how high you tried to run that G6950; 1.475v. Voltage that high is often considered suicide benchmark run on 45nm CPUs and you set it for a 32nm part. The 1.5v on X2 555 is also way too high. It hasn’t killed itself yet but I have reservation about it finishing a two year upgrade cycle.

 

[xtc28]

I for one am glad AMD is still a contender of sorts!!! But I must say that the g6950 should fare well if things are toned down a bit on the overclock as Don suggests!

 

[Guest]

Well duh the 4.41GHz is unsustainable... Should have benchmarked with something SUSTAINABLE in over clocking instead of being lazy and using something that cannot be tested it would have at least shown some sort of increase and comparison against AMD.

 

[Pei-chen]

[citation][nom]JVLebbink[/nom]I would like to see undervolting performance of these processors. Having a quick enough processor that doesn't use to much power is really the best and AMD processors often undervolt very well. Just as an example my Athlon II 620 is standard running at 1.3V but runs perfectly stable in my system at 1.1V. (One could also say that AMD is putting way to much juice on these processors)[/citation]
I would argue that all processor undervolts well and not just AMD. I had my E6400 at stock at 0.915v and my current Q6600 at 3.0GHz @ 1.2v.

[citation][nom]Honis[/nom]Why no Athlon II x4 620 in this benchmark? Quadcore for $100 to compare against the 555 would have been nice even if you pulled the numbers from a previous article.[/citation]
Good idea. I like to see X2 555, G6950, i3-530 and X4 620 in a single test.

 

[bustapr]

Looks like its Fat Cow Season!

 

[mbbs20]

You should have tried unlocking the two cores....hey if its a free performance boost like overclocking then it should be utilized on the cpu which has it

 

[flyinfinni]

I'm liking the performance/ price ratios here! AMD really is a master of the low end budget segment.

 

[DarkMantle]

[citation][nom]pei-chen[/nom]Good idea. I like to see X2 555, G6950, i3-530 and X4 620 in a single test.[/citation]

Yes, but according to Anand the AthlonIIx4 630 will take the place of the 620 at $99 now that the 635 is out at $119, it should be the x4 630 the one for the comparison or even the AthlonIIx4 635 as the i3-530 is a $125 processor.

 

[cadder]

As chip strata get thinner I think you should examine how robust the chips are with respect to overclocking and increased voltage. Up until now we have been lucky with chips that could be overclocked until they produce errors as long as you control the temps. The 32nm chips may have to be dealt with differently.

 

[FSXFan]

[citation][nom]pei-chen[/nom]I would argue that all processor undervolts well and not just AMD. I had my E6400 at stock at 0.915v and my current Q6600 at 3.0GHz @ 1.2v.[/citation]
Hey I hadn't thought of that. I thought I was doing good just running mine at 3.0 and leaving the voltage alone (I think it's supposed to be 1.25 but CPU-Z reports it as 1.36). Gonna have to try adjusting my voltage now, thanks.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Clarksdale is a big compromise, and I don't know why anyone would buy the Pentium without using the GPU. That's kind of the point.[/citation]

I'd have to disagree with you there. Just because it has an onboard GPU doesn't mean you have to use it. The CPU is comparably priced compared to the 555, and even the entire platform is comparably priced as there are some budget H55 and P55 motherboards out there. That price dictates it's in a viable price range for budget enthusiasts, and the H55, P55, and 785G motherboards can all be used with discrete graphics.


[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]If not, you go to the faster Core 2 based Pentium. It's cheaper, runs faster, and isn't lobotomized like LGA1156 processor. At least with the Lynnfield you get the faster memory controller, but with the Clarksdale, you get abysmal memory performance and all the bad compromises of the Lynnfield, without the main benefit. [/citation]

I don't think that is correct. I would be surprised if the G6950 wouldn't beat the Core 2 based E6500, clock for clock for sure, and even at the E6500's stock clock advantage.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Could we take motherboard price into account, when comparing CPU prices please?[/citation]

I did, please read the article.