Slashdot Mirror
Intel vs. AMD - Today's Generation Compared
Bender writes "The Tech Report compares 15 Core 2 and Athlon 64 processors from Intel and AMD — from sub-$200 to a cool grand, from slower dual cores to fast quad cores — in 32 & 64-bit apps in Windows Vista, including the new, multithreaded RTS game Supreme Commander. 'The release of Windows Vista and a round of price cuts by AMD prompted us to hatch a devious plan involving Vista, a new test suite full of multithreaded and 64-bit applications, fifteen different CPU configurations, and countless hours of lab testing. That plan has come to fruition in the form of a broad-based comparison of the latest processors from AMD and Intel... from the lowly Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and Core 2 Duo E6300 to the astounding Athlon 64 FX-74 and Core 2 Extreme QX6700.' Folding@Home in Linux, power use, and energy efficiency are tested, too."
14 pages of ads later...
Intel > AMD at high end, Intel >= AMD at low end, Core 2 > A64, Intel finally has a lead in both architecture design and process (65nm).
Is this. Not this.
HTML is fine, but double check those URLs and HTML tags!
The "Conclusion" page... (for those of you who don't want to go through the 10 pages of pretty graphs and charts).
The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors. Also, Intel's quad-core CPUs tend to scale better than AMD's Quad FX platform, especially for typical desktop-class applications. Our move to Windows Vista x64 has done little to alter this dynamic. At the same time, Core 2 processors tend to draw less power and to be more energy efficient--sometimes markedly so--than Athlon 64s. Right now, Intel has the magic combination of a superior processor microarchitecture and a more mature, fully realized 65nm manufacturing capability working together on its side.
This one-two punch has allowed Intel to maintain a performance edge at most price points, despite standing pat through AMD's aggressive pricing moves and new model introductions. AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600. The Athlon 64 looks more competitive in its lower-end incarnations like the X2 5000+ and 4400+, which match up better on both performance and power characteristics against the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400. These processors have the benefit of being available in 65nm form, and I'd say the minor performance penalty one pays in performance at 65nm (due to the slower L2 cache) is worth it for the reduced power draw.
This low-to-mid-range territory, incidentally, is where I'd be looking to buy. Many of our tests have shown the benefits of quad-core processors, but honestly, finding applications that will make good use of four cores is not easy--and the list of games that really use four cores is approximately zero. I'd probably grab a Core 2 Duo E6400 and overclock it until it started to glow, if I were putting together a system right now. I must admit, though, that I have an almost irrational fondness for the Core 2 Quad Q6600, probably because it's the most energy efficient processor in our Cinebench power test. The thing is by no means a great deal--two E6600s will set you back over $200 less than a single Q6600--but it's easy to imagine a near-silent multitasking monster built around one.
AMD would do well to expand its 65nm offerings into higher clock frequencies as soon as it can reasonably do so. That may take a while yet, given the limited overclocking headroom we've seen from early 65nm Athlon 64 X2s. Meanwhile, Intel isn't likely to sit still for much longer. Rumors of an April price cut abound, and in light of the Core 2's ample frequency headroom, higher speed grades are a definite possibility, as well. For AMD, its next-generation microarchitecture can't come a moment too soon.
they are really pushed to find any real-world reason for having 4 cores.
On the desktop sure, but there is no shortage of even mid-size server scenarios where 4 or even 8 cores come in handy.
AMD is producing chips using a 90nm process and moving to 65nm, while Intel is moving from 65nm to 45nm. It is very difficult to compete in design when you are working with something 4 times less dense. AMD has always been behind in this area (except when they were using IBM fabs, and they had copper interconnects before Intel).
Simultaneously with this story, I see an announcement that Intel has announced another 45nm processor for ultra low power consumption.
This argument only holds up if you only do one thing at a time. Even on my Athlon XP 2500+ (obviously, a single-core system) I would regularly burn a CD (or a DVD, but only at 2x max) while playing a game. It would work out but the game would sometimes stutter and the burn would sometimes underrun; the underrun protection would work, but it does slow down the burn.
With four cores, you can play your game AND burn a disc AND have some crap going in the background and not have to care unless you become I/O-bound.
Benchmarks do one thing at a time, so they're a shitty measurement of real-world performance for power users whose brains can cope with multitasking.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The difference between most systems they tested was between 1 and 16 watts, so it's almost a certainty that the CPU was drowned out by the difference between motherboards. Judging by this benchmark it's a good bet that the AMD chips (with the exception of the quad ones) themselves draw significantly less power when idle than Core.
They could at least subtract out known power like drives, graphics card (use a low power one for doing the power tests), system fan, maybe processor fan, etc. Maybe turn the system on with no processor installed and use that as a baseline (if that doesn't destroy the system I don't know).
wow. he may or may not be stupid, but you're an asshole.