Intel Core Duo (Yonah) Performance Preview - Part II
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 19, 2005 12:55 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Test
| CPU: | AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (2.2GHz/512KBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz/512KBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.0GHz/1MBx2 Intel Pentium M 760 (2.0GHz/2MB) Intel Core Duo T2500 (2.0GHz/2MB) |
| Motherboard: | ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe AOpen i915Ga-HFS Unnamed 945G Yonah Motherboard |
| Motherboard BIOS: | ASUS: Version 1013 Dated 08/10/2005 AOpen: Version 1.11 Dated 11/15/2005 |
| Chipset: | NVIDIA nForce4 SLI Intel 915 Express Intel 945G |
| Chipset Drivers: | nForce4 6.66 Intel 7.0.0.25 |
| Memory: | OCZ PC3500 DDR 2-2-2-7 DDR2-533 4-4-4-12 |
| Video Card: | ATI Radeon X850 XT NVIDIA GeForce 7800GTX |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 8.173.1.2 NVIDIA ForceWare 81.85 |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1280 x 1024 - 32-bit @ 60Hz |
| OS: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
While we used an NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX for almost all of our tests, there was one exception, thanks to a NVIDIA driver bug. With dual core processors, NVIDIA's 81.95 drivers will cause the system to maintain 100% CPU utilization when running 3dsmax 7, even when the system is actually not doing anything at all. We didn't discover this bug until we had already run the majority of our tests using the 7800 GTX. So, for the 3dsmax 7 tests, we switched to an ATI Radeon X850 XT. The GPU doesn't impact CPU rendering performance at all, so it doesn't change the performance characteristics of the platform. We just wanted to point out the bug, in case any of you were wondering why your dual core platforms were behaving strangely in certain applications. NVIDIA is aware of the problem and is working on a publicly available fix.
For this comparison, we've kept the number of CPUs to a minimum, focusing on the Pentium M, Core Duo and Athlon 64 X2. The exclusion of the Pentium D was on purpose; we've already compared the Core Duo to the Pentium D in our last article and to put it bluntly, the Pentium D won't really be competition for any of Intel's new architectures. By this time next year, NetBurst will have already been forgotten and the real comparison that matters is how Core Duo stacks up to the Athlon 64 X2, whose architecture is not going the way of the dodo.
As we mentioned earlier in this article, in addition to the X2 3800+ and 4200+, we have included benchmarks of an Athlon 64 X2 running at 2.0GHz, but with a 1MB L2 cache per core (2MB total on die). The point of including this simulated "Athlon 64 X2 4000+" is to answer complaints that the Core Duo has a larger L2 cache than the X2 3800+ and thus isn't a true apples-to-apples comparison. So we've now leveled the playing field even more, and actually given AMD more of an advantage - the 2.0GHz/1MB L2 Athlon 64 X2 has a larger L1 cache (128KB per core vs. 64KB per core), and of course, the X2 still has its own on die memory controller.
With that said, let's see how things stack up now...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
ncage - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
I swear this is the best first post ive ever seen. Good Post Alex. Ya competition is very good for the market. I think intel is starting to get back on track where they need to be. It all comes down to clock speed and cost at launch. What improvements will we see with the launch of amd's next chip other than ddr2 which right now i don't really care about and possibly more cores (at least for the opteron). I am not dogging amd because for about 3-4 years ive only used AMD chips but i think amd has to raise the bar even more.Calin - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link
DDR2 for AMD would be great at least for a few things:moving to single channel DDR2 memory would decrease costs (in mainboards and a bit in processors)
moving integrated graphics to single or dual channel DDR2 would increase graphic performance and overall system performance in relation to single or dual channel DDR
As for the high end, I really don't think an increase in memory bandwidth will help - not even for dual core processors. Maybe for a quad core, but quad cores are certainly for servers, and I don't know about registered DDR2 memory to be used in them.
Hmmm, you could try an Opteron Dual Core with single channel DDR memory, to see how much performance would be lost by going quad core, dual DDR.
mlittl3 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
I agree with both Alex and ncage. I really disliked Intel all through out the Pentium4/Net-burst days. They were just releasing marchitecture with no improvements whatsoever. I loved AMD for their innovation and performance/watt.Now both companies are equal but I don't think we will see the huge fall AMD suffered from when Intel released the Pentium 4 to compete with the Athlon/K7 architecture. The beauty of competition is showing its bright colors right now. If we only had Intel, we would have a very hot/power consuming inefficient Pentium 4 based on net-burst to play Quake 4 at 5fps right now.
Its time for the fanboys to turnover a new leaf. Go Intel and AMD!!! We love both you guys.