The Gigahertz Battle: How Do Today's CPUs Stack Up?

[flasher702]

Wasn't he the same guy that did the"$300 pc"? :?

Are you referring to the $300 PC that actually cost over $300? Yeah, that was a joke.

it also compared an AMD system to an Intel system that cost like $30 more :roll: And the intel system barely won ~75% of the benchmarks, most of which were synthetic, and was then declared "teh champion" whithout taking heat, noise, or energy consumption into account (where they AMD system would have likely been ahead). The concensus of the critics was that were if they had either added that extra money into the AMD system or removed it from the Intel system the AMD system would have won. Yeah, it was bad.

This one isn't nearly as bad but the obvious flaw being "so why don't you just clock them all at 2.8ghz and run the test there?". And a few other minor points that others have brought up such as full-cache AMD CPUs (althought it wouldn't have mattered much). And for informational purposes they could have run a benchmark that AMD wins at. They ran plenty of other unrealistic benchmarks xD

 

[brad4ed]

i want to ask a simple quiestion 'is this site a property of intel or those two fegs the authors of this article(patrick schmid and achim ross) are stupid intel fans".
you used
1.Socket 939 I AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer 130 nm, 2.4 GHz, 1 MB L2 Cache) instead of AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego E4 90nm
2.Socket 939 II AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo 90 nm, 2.4 GHz, 2x 512 kB L2 Cache) instead of AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ L2 2x1MB
3.Socket AM2 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.4 GHz, 2x 512 kB L2 Cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+Windsor 2x1 MB L2 Cache 65 w and 89 w.
you could even use FX-60 for 939 and FX-62 AM2 with multiplier 12 not speaking for socket 1207 FX-74
i'm glad to see that the margins are not so big if you haved used those CPUs the result will be different
i've just remember a article for 300$ PC and the benchmark there said that celeron is better CPU than sempron which is obviously a nonsence the reason you get that results is the VIA chipset instead of envidia 6100-430 again the result would be different

 

[bkiserx7]

hey hey, no bashing

we all got those feelings from products sometimes. it is just his opinion. I myself don't, but that is just me.

 

[brad4ed]

by the way making such kind of reviews make people hate intel for no reason after all they are not that stupid

 

[trinitron64]

uh oh,

bold text alert

he skipped the caps-alert 8O

 

[rethdog]

You can see how some code is optimized for the AMD, and those benchies are very close to the C2D. The synthetics clearly favour the Intel C2D.

Does a C2D like code optimised for Pentium 3, Athlon, or Pentium 4 best?

 

[nubie]

. . . Plus Intels just make me feel weird when I use them. If I had $1000 to blow on a PC, or even $500-800 I might do a C2D. But since I have $200-$300 I need to spend the money where it will do the most good. On an AMD. The nForce platform is mature on the AM2's, since the DDR2 support is in the Core of the CPU I don't have to pay for it and I get the nForce technology for a good price.

No wonder you've only made 7 posts in a year. You can't think of anything decent to say. :x
😛 All levity aside, they are two different processors that respond differently, I happen to prefer the AMD "feel". The core architecture of the AMD's I really like.

As far as the C2D goes, with the AMD price cuts there just isn't a reason to spend twice the money for a 20-30% increase in speed. Unless of course you have the money 😉.

As I mentioned before, I am dead set on nForce chipsets, I own 3 right now and I have owned 5 so far, I think they are great. The Intel nForce boards are too expensive in comparison, the AM2 and 939 sockets are much more mature technology that can be had for $50 and up, and these are stable Name-Brand boards that overclock great and last.

So I am not saying that the C2D's aren't great, but at the prices for a total system platform under $600 AMD has the edge because of price cuts, on nForce boards, which is what I run.

Not to mention that it will be simpler to go Quad-Core if I already own an AM2 nForce board, and that ain't not half bad.

Ughh, I have only made 7 posts because this forum is full of crap, little knowledge, and lots of posing and letting the gamer mags lead them around by the checkbook with every fad instead of focusing on solid systems. Remember when the RAID-0 for gaming myth got debunked?

Maybe not, it goes something like this: The game files are highly compressed, therefore more dependant on CPU than HDD max transfer rates, in fact RAID drivers may use that vital CPU power and cause slower load times.

Yet there are still people out there who swear by RAID for a gaming system, I guess for quad-core it makes sense, if the game supports quad-core decompressing.

Upshot? I do miss the old Tomshardware, but at least I have a place that sometimes reviews things I want to see, and sometimes they do it properly, and if not I have an oppurtunity to give my thoughts on the matter and get ridiculed, ah such is life.

 

[dasickninja]

Ah, you do remember that Intel is dropping prices too right?

 

[joex444]

There's no right processor to buy. It depends on lots of variables, mainly your budget.

I had a budget of about $1200-$1300 when I built my PC. I went with an Intel Core 2 Duo (I've used AMD exclusively for the previous decade, starting at a K6-2 333 to upgrade a P133), since at that price level it makes no sense to build an ALL-AROUND powerful computer.

I went with a high end board ($200) and an E4300, so I could also fit in a good case ($125) and PSU ($85) along with 2GB of DDR2-1066 ($230) and 2x320GB ($180 total) and a Geforce 8800GTS 320MB ($290), and a Tuniq Tower ($55). I came in right around $1200, so it was a successful build.

Now, I could've saved money with an AMD X2, gone with DDR2-800 and built it with an 8800GTX. Certainly, in games, that setup would be faster, especially since my Core2 isn't overclocked (yet). But, as shown, in general computing stuffs, it is slower. Therefore, the Core2 offers better all-around performance, though in games the entire rig might be slower than an offering from AMD.

Even with the C2D, I could've gone with a lower end board ($120) and 1 HD, saving myself $170. Then, I could've gone with a cheaper case ($70), and been able to get the 8800GTX, atleast under the $1300 limit. Heck, could've swapped the DDR2-1066 for 800, and made it closer to $1200.

Point being, that you have to realize what sort of computer user you are, thoroughly understand your needs. I play games and I encode video. The C2D will outpeform the X2 in video encoding, and the RAID0 array helps in the video work. The 8800GTS is not slow, and though I may not be able to play every game with all the details on very high set to 16x AA and 16x AF at 2560x1600, I don't need to. It's a great card at the moment, and will continue to be fast for games to come for probably a couple years.

Certainly, if my budget were lower things would've changed. For example, my father wants a PC to run Vista with Aero, and wants nothing to do with playing games. He just wants it as cheap and powerful as possible, so I'd say the X2 4200+ for $106 is about the best fit, throw in a Micro-ATX board with the Geforce 6100 integrated for $60 and 2GB of DDR2, keep the HD case optical drives and it's all ready to go. It'll outperform an equivelantly priced Pentium D, and the C2D isn't in that price range at all.

Spending $1000 on a PC isn't blowing it, it's called being awesome.

 

[cryogenic]

I note you compared crippled AMD64 dual cores (half the cache disabled).
How can we trust you when you publish this kind of review?


The 939 choice of CPU should have been the 4800+ (e4 Toledo) not the 4600+ crippled MANCHESTER E6 core you used instead.

You also should have used a 4000+ sandiego core - SSE3 ??? not the earlier 130nm 4000+ core.

The AM2 choice should have been a declocked FX62 down to FX53 speed ... just lower the multilier.

Once again Toms has put AMD at every disadvantage possible in the benchmark comparisons.

But the free rent from the Intel building your located in must be nice.

You always seem to put just enough spin on the articles ...

I remember when the world was bagging Netburst after the A64 was introduced and you sere still showing bent benchmarks here showin the Extreme in front ... man that made me laugh.

Toms will always be known as a site that Intel bought and uses as part of it's longterm marketing strategy ... its just sad that the overage Joe believes what you tell them.

For the rest of us .... well.

🙁

I agree

I agree too !
Don't know why you people are wining so much about a valid point regarding "slightly" flawed benchmarking.
It' just like when TH tests AMD CPU's with lower memory settings than Intels or puts them against OC Intel chips. Well if you want links ask for them.

 

[pmr]

Mayday mayday!!!
We are going to need a lot of T-shirts ! :lol:

 

[AeroB1033]

Hurray, let's compare legacy 939 architecture and a $120 AM2 processor to $165, $300, and $1,000 Intel CPUs.

This article tells us exactly nothing useful.

 

[djgandy]

I note you compared crippled AMD64 dual cores (half the cache disabled).
How can we trust you when you publish this kind of review?


The 939 choice of CPU should have been the 4800+ (e4 Toledo) not the 4600+ crippled MANCHESTER E6 core you used instead.

You also should have used a 4000+ sandiego core - SSE3 ??? not the earlier 130nm 4000+ core.

The AM2 choice should have been a declocked FX62 down to FX53 speed ... just lower the multilier.

Once again Toms has put AMD at every disadvantage possible in the benchmark comparisons.

But the free rent from the Intel building your located in must be nice.

You always seem to put just enough spin on the articles ...

I remember when the world was bagging Netburst after the A64 was introduced and you sere still showing bent benchmarks here showin the Extreme in front ... man that made me laugh.

Toms will always be known as a site that Intel bought and uses as part of it's longterm marketing strategy ... its just sad that the overage Joe believes what you tell them.

For the rest of us .... well.

🙁

Well, you totally missed the point of the article didn't you. Intel people could whine that the P4 was designed to run at higher clock speeds thus its not fair.
There's no point though since the whole idea is to show how it's not about the number of mhz, but what is with each cycle.

Congrats on you're appauling first post.

 

[djgandy]

Hurray, let's compare legacy 939 architecture and a $120 AM2 processor to $165, $300, and $1,000 Intel CPUs.

This article tells us exactly nothing useful.

It tell's us a lot actually, you just can't read properly.

 

[djgandy]

i want to ask a simple quiestion 'is this site a property of intel or those two fegs the authors of this article(patrick schmid and achim ross) are stupid intel fans".
you used
1.Socket 939 I AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer 130 nm, 2.4 GHz, 1 MB L2 Cache) instead of AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego E4 90nm
2.Socket 939 II AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo 90 nm, 2.4 GHz, 2x 512 kB L2 Cache) instead of AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ L2 2x1MB
3.Socket AM2 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.4 GHz, 2x 512 kB L2 Cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+Windsor 2x1 MB L2 Cache 65 w and 89 w.
you could even use FX-60 for 939 and FX-62 AM2 with multiplier 12 not speaking for socket 1207 FX-74
i'm glad to see that the margins are not so big if you haved used those CPUs the result will be different
i've just remember a article for 300$ PC and the benchmark there said that celeron is better CPU than sempron which is obviously a nonsence the reason you get that results is the VIA chipset instead of envidia 6100-430 again the result would be different

So you are saying an FX74 @ 2.4 ghz will perform a lot better?
I tell you what's funny, you AMD people are whining about the 'old' clawhammer cpu that used, yet the AM2 socket couldn't out perform it.

AMD have been selling you the same cpus in different shapes and sizes for 3 years and you stick up for them?

You wonder why they got their ass handed to them by Intel.

 

[silentcoercion]

Ah, finally someone mentions the FX-7x series. I was going to say that, as well as adding my support to the "why not run them at 2.8Ghz and include more chips?" Heck, throw on something Pentium M a/o Merom if you can figure out a way. I'd be interested in seeing those as well. Maybe dual socket servers at the same clock speed (even I'll admit that might be a bit much, though)?

 

[nubie]

i want to ask a simple quiestion 'is this site a property of intel or those two fegs the authors of this article(patrick schmid and achim ross) are stupid intel fans".
you used
1.Socket 939 I AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer 130 nm, 2.4 GHz, 1 MB L2 Cache) instead of AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego E4 90nm
2.Socket 939 II AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo 90 nm, 2.4 GHz, 2x 512 kB L2 Cache) instead of AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ L2 2x1MB
3.Socket AM2 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Windsor 90 nm, 2.4 GHz, 2x 512 kB L2 Cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+Windsor 2x1 MB L2 Cache 65 w and 89 w.
you could even use FX-60 for 939 and FX-62 AM2 with multiplier 12 not speaking for socket 1207 FX-74
i'm glad to see that the margins are not so big if you haved used those CPUs the result will be different
i've just remember a article for 300$ PC and the benchmark there said that celeron is better CPU than sempron which is obviously a nonsence the reason you get that results is the VIA chipset instead of envidia 6100-430 again the result would be different

So you are saying an FX74 @ 2.4 ghz will perform a lot better?
I tell you what's funny, you AMD people are whining about the 'old' clawhammer cpu that used, yet the AM2 socket couldn't out perform it.

AMD have been selling you the same cpus in different shapes and sizes for 3 years and you stick up for them?

You wonder why they got their ass handed to them by Intel.
2 fanboi's = 3x the fun, order yours today!!

AMD got their ass handed because Intel hasn't had anything for 4+ years that could compete. You don't compete with nothing, it is bad business strategy. Economics 101. Even now Intel is only "top dawg" because of their timing and excellent promotion strategy, with an admittedly superior product. AMD will fight back, I am just waiting to see how it will turn out.

No point bitching about it, do your own tests, the weight of a gnat on Venus is what makes a system benchmark anyway, each system is different and will bench different, regardless of processor core and highly dependent on how you overclock it.

Not to mention just how you run your OS is a big part of the equation, it takes a lot of skill to keep a system running on the same OS install through a dozen games and 5 motherboards, I am proud to say I have done it.

So these benchies are just that, benchies, YMMV and it probably will. I wish I had a Dual-Core :? , but I just found out that single-core is probably better for nVidia Stereoscopic drivers anyway, so I guess I am keeping my San Diego 4000+ (@ 3Ghz on air), btw I am running Vista Business w/Aero and there is no lag, it runs great, and I even have it clocked @ 2.4Ghz right now. Just great.

And a little OT, but there are 14w TDP GeodeNX Processors with the Athlon core at 1.4ghz that do a smashing job of HTPC and web client on low power. So AMD is not the top at the extreme high-end, why should everyone buy Intel just because Intel is? It makes no sense to me, so I stick to what I know and can afford. I hope to build and clock a C2D system sometime in the next 5-10 years, and chances are I will when the time is right.

 

[djgandy]

What are you on about. No one said everyone should buy Intel.
Article is showing work done per clock. What is wrong with that?

What's your O/S Setup bs aswell. you're not going to pull a huge difference from all that stuff you mentioned, it's a rough guide to show the progression of CPU's.

And competing with yourself is stupid, i've said that plenty of times, thats why Intels processors arent clocked 25% higher. You don't have to release everything you develop. AMD should have had something in the bag, contingency plan? Unless they thought Intel were going to sit behind them forever more. If they thought that then they truly deserve to be where they are.

Oh yeah im a fan boi...

AMD processors owned.
AMD k6 200
AMD k6 350
amd k6-2 500
4 X AMD XP 1700
2 X AMD XP 2800

Intel processors owned.
C2D E6400

HMMMMMMMM I'm a fanboi?
Oh and don't forget all the AMD cpus i bought for people in my family who asked me to get them PC's, and my mates.

 

[Viperabyss]

AMD got their ass handed because Intel hasn't had anything for 4+ years that could compete. You don't compete with nothing, it is bad business strategy. Economics 101. Even now Intel is only "top dawg" because of their timing and excellent promotion strategy, with an admittedly superior product. AMD will fight back, I am just waiting to see how it will turn out.

there is a word for it, "competition", not "AMD is better than Intel".

Not to mention just how you run your OS is a big part of the equation, it takes a lot of skill to keep a system running on the same OS install through a dozen games and 5 motherboards, I am proud to say I have done it.

errrr.... your point?

So these benchies are just that, benchies, YMMV and it probably will. I wish I had a Dual-Core :? , but I just found out that single-core is probably better for nVidia Stereoscopic drivers anyway, so I guess I am keeping my San Diego 4000+ (@ 3Ghz on air), btw I am running Vista Business w/Aero and there is no lag, it runs great, and I even have it clocked @ 2.4Ghz right now. Just great.

so this supports your "AMD is better". oh ok, i totally get it now.

And a little OT, but there are 14w TDP GeodeNX Processors with the Athlon core at 1.4ghz that do a smashing job of HTPC and web client on low power. So AMD is not the top at the extreme high-end, why should everyone buy Intel just because Intel is?

who said everyone should go for Intel? people go for intel because they have the best performance/price at the moment, and outperforms X2s. if AMD releases Barcelona, Agenia, and Kuma, which outperforms Core 2, and costs less, people are going to switch to AMD. its called "choice".

It makes no sense to me, so I stick to what I know and can afford.

it makes no sense to you, because apparently you ignore what Intel has and only focus on AMD.

I hope to build and clock a C2D system sometime in the next 5-10 years, and chances are I will when the time is right.

to be honest with you, the timing is right at the moment, especially in april and sept. building a system with current line up 5~10 years later, is like building a P3 right now. does this make sense to you, our little AMD fanboi?

 

[darious00777]

Another decent article. Some may not like it, but it looked to put AMD in a fairly good light.

When the first X2 vs. Core2 came out, the only place AMD excelled in was memory transfer speed. My first thought was, "This would mean that AMD would be better in servers still." Now I've been reading that IBM and Cray have been using AMD chips one on one with their own, acting like an external memory controller, releasing a bottleneck with transfer rates, if one were to exist.

Looks like AMD still has a future yet, if they keep adding to that part of their technology.

 

[RichPLS]

Good article, it made for an interesting read.

It seems to me that AMD and Intel are coming a bit full circle. Intel is on top with the Core2 uArch and AMD is the best "bang for the buck". With the recent AMD price cuts, if I were to build a basic box for the GF, Mom, or Granny, I'd be hard pressed NOT to go with AMD. But, there is no denying Intel is presently on top.

Some interesting threads as well. Some are the typical "Intel rulz 4-ever and AMD sux" and others the typical "WAH! AMD was crippled and the benches ar bias! WAH!", but overall art least this hasn't turned into a total flame war. Yet?

WhipCrack!!
You bassturd!!! You are saving the C2D for the mistress, U dog U!!! :twisted:

 

[nubie]

to be honest with you, the timing is right at the moment, especially in april and sept. building a system with current line up 5~10 years later, is like building a P3 right now. does this make sense to you, our little AMD fanboi?

Yes, I just built a Tualatin system.

And as I said, $200-300 won't buy you a lot of nForce and dual core like AMD will, you have to look at the whole system. Maybe in 6-months to a year I could afford C2D, but if AMD comes back with a better competing product it will be a moot point. So in 5-years down the road I might need an embedded Vista system for my car or something like a HTPC, so I could get one then .

"It is all about choice". The Tualitin would have been great if it had Dual DDR, Intel didn't keep the P!!! line-up architecture outside of the M series and I am glad to see at least some of it is back .

 

[Sirfiroth]

Here we go again. Yet another person comes out of the wood work to claim bias.

Does the woodwork have holes in it? How are they getting in?
Yes, I claim bias also! I've noticed a strong Intel bias on this board.
But then again who isn't biased about something.

 

[sanjiwatsuki]

Here we go again. Yet another person comes out of the wood work to claim bias.

Does the woodwork have holes in it? How are they getting in?
Yes, I claim bias also! I've noticed a strong Intel bias on this board.
But then again who isn't biased about something.



I'm biased against prune juice because it tastes too much like Dr. Pepper. Plus it gives you the r-r-r-r-r-runs.

I liked the Northwood comparison there. Considering a Celly D 356 is a lot like a Northwood, I can see that at 5ghz it may be able to compete with a 3ghz single-core AMD 😱

 

[nubie]

Pentium Core 2 is descended from P3 as everyone knows.

Here is a real article: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2939