Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=107...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
The flightsimworld.com Athlon 64 X2 vs Core 2 Duo Showdown - Flight Sim World
The AMD Athlon 64 X2 vs Core 2 Duo Showdown
Introduction
Well then.
Exactly as the title implies, I'll be comparing the AMD Socket AM2 platform against the Intel LGA775 Core 2 Duo platform.
We all know that Intel Core 2 Duo is faster but with AMD's dual cores starting from as little as £24, one has to wonder whether it's worth the extra outlay.
There's a popular term that comes in many shapes and forms as well as interpreted in various ways and it's called bang per buck.
Many who still stand loyal to AMD64 based architecture will claim that the 4 year old architecture still touts unbeatable value for money in it's current incarnation, Socket AM2.
Let's just see how true that is as I put both systems through their paces.
Testing Method
The idea is to test both CPU's mainly at a gamer's and encoder's perspective.
Both CPU's will be tested at three identical clock speeds, each on fresh installations of Windows XP Service Pack 2.
No tweaks or cheats.
The specifications are as follows
Intel
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 / Scythe Ninja Cooled
DFI LanParty ICFX3200T2R/G
1GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-5300 3-3-3-12 2.2V
XFX GeForce 7900GS 256mb GDDR3 @ 600MHz/1600MHz 169.21 drivers
160GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II HDD
OCZ StealthXstream 500W
Windows XP Service Pack 2
AMD
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ / Scythe Ninja Cooled
Foxconn 6150M2MA K2RSH
1GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-5300 3-3-3-12 2.2V
XFX GeForce 7900GS 256mb GDDR3 @ 600MHz/1600MHz 169.21 drivers
160GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II HDD
OCZ StealthXstream 500W
Windows XP Service Pack 2
Clockspeeds
The processors will be clocked at, 2.0GHz, 2.40GHz and 2.66GHz.
Due to the AMD CPU's method of deriving Dram speed and the availability of DRAM Ratios in BIOS, the speed at 2.4GHz was DDR2-600 as opposed to DDR2-667 at 2.0GHz and 2.66GHz.
To prevent the Intel setup from taking an unfair lead, the memory speed of the Intel setup at 2.4GHz was capped to DDR2-600 as well by means of the RD600 chipset's Async Memory Controller.
Benchmarks
The following were used for Benchmarking these two systems
Microsoft Flight Simulator X Demo
3dMark06 CPU Test & Overall Score
SiSoft Sandra Multimedia, Arithmetic and Multi Core Efficiency
Cinebench Single Threaded / Multi Threaded
This post has been edited by Mul.: Mar 15 2008, 08:14 AM
|
|
Flight Simulator X Demo
Flight Simulator X Demo TNCM Airport, 1024x768, 0xAA, 0xAF
Frankly, these results are staggering.
There was a clearcut frame rate difference between the Core 2 Duo and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 CPU, the gap widening as clock speeds increased.
This is a highly demanding game, particularly on the CPU.
The X2 3600+ quite often managed reasonable framerates once airborne but quite often there were some fairly substantial droops below 15 frames per second, where even for a sim is a little bit too choppy.
Bare in mind that the full version of FSX is multithreaded so in a real game scenario, framerates with both setups would be better, particularly on the AMD.
However, the whole purpose was to throw a highly CPU dependant application at both systems and see how they did and the results speak for themselves.
3DMark06
3DMark06 is a demanding application that will put your CPU, RAM and Graphics Card through it's paces.
A series of game scenes and shader tests will form a CPU score, a SM2.0/SM3.0 score and then an overall 3DMark06 score.
I'll be using the CPU scores and overall score to compare the AMD and Intel CPU's.
As you can see, the Core 2 Duo has a lead here at all clockspeeds, pulling further ahead at higher speeds.
Overall, the faster CPU does have an influence on the overall score of this graphics card benchmark.
SiSoft Sandra Processor Multimedia
This test will compare the CPU's ability to handle Multimedia orientated tasks and providing us with two scores for each CPU.
Multimedia Integer and Multimedia Float.
As you can see, there's a substantial difference between the two CPU's at all clock speeds.
This also goes to show that while synthetic benchmarks like these will produce fairly accurate results, they aren't always a brilliant representation of real life performance differences.
SiSoft Sandra Processor Arithmetic
This test will compare the CPU's pure arithmetic power in terms of instructions per second (MIPS) and floating point operations per second (MFLOPS).
This test also shows that the Athlon 64 is behind the Core 2 Duo at all clockspeeds.
SiSoft Sandra Multicore Efficiency
This test is a good indicator of how well each of these two native dual cores perform as a whole in terms of the efficiency between the cores.
Considerable differences here.
Clearly not the kind of performance difference you'd see in a real world application of course.
Latency wise, the CPU's are very similar.
Nothing particularly interesting here.
Note that for latency, less is better.
Cinebench
Cinebench is a benchmark based on image rendering.
Obviously the CPU test is used in both single threaded and multithreaded scenarios.
The scores don't really say a lot other than the fact that the Intel is faster.
This is quite interesting.
Around a 30 second difference at each clock speed when single threaded and around a 1 minute difference when multithreaded.
Not a big deal for the occasional photoshopper and 3D Renderer but for those that are manipulating large batches of photos or similar media, the Core 2 Duo certainly shows it's speed differences here.
Conclusion
As we've now seen, there's no doubt that the Intel Core 2 Duo is faster at all clockspeeds.
For those that are serious photo/video editors and gamers that play fairly CPU intensive games, there's no two ways about it.
Core 2 Duo LGA775 is the superior platform.
It should be mentioned that the AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ based machine would come out around £30 cheaper than the equivalent Intel setup and at least on a strict budget, that may be enough to sway you to Team Green (AMD).
The AMD wasn't a bad performer by any means and only really faltered when Microsoft Flight Simulator X was thrown at it.
Most modern day games are a lot more GPU dependant and the differences between the AMD and Intel chip may not be quite as significant.
Both setups ran quietly and stable.
The AMD setup ran marginally cooler at the same Voltages but nothing to write home about.
Another thing to consider is future upgradability.
Will you have more money to spend on higher end components later on?
Most modern day Intel chipsets will offer the ability to upgrade to a wide range of fast CPU's, whereas the AMD platform at present only offers upgrades to other Athlon 64 X2's which are inevitably no better than what you may have to start off with except clock speed and the AMD Phenom Quad Core which is no Core 2 Quad killer at this stage anyway.
The only thing to be aware of is that LGA775's lifespan is defined and is supposed to be replaced by a new socket and architecture by early next year.
AMD claims that they'll make future variants of the AMx Socket compatible with AM2, as has been demonstrated with AMD Phenom AM2+'s on AM2 boards.
Maybe something to consider?
Overall, it does depend on how you use your systems, the timing of your upgrade cycles and how much you have to spend but really the Intel gets the prize here.
This post has been edited by Mul.: Mar 15 2008, 08:17 AM
|
|
|
Core 2 Duo FTW!!
|
|
If possible, please keep your comments related to the comparison itself.
Comments and queries welcome.
Mul
|
|
I gotta say this is really interesting.
As seen, overall the core 2 duo wins over the amd processor.
Why would anyone go for an AMD (in this case) over a core 2 duo, when the price difference is £30???
|
|
As processors it's quite true yeah.
Not much of a reason at all.
However, AMD has an edge on the budget front due to their motherboards in said price category.
Their 780G integrated graphics is almost as fast as a GeForce 7300GT dedicated card and would probably run FS2004 quite well for example.
There's no nVidia or Intel integrated unit that can rival it and as an overall platform offers better value for money.
This is about the only situation where they truly have Intel beat.
|
|
Quote: As processors it's quite true yeah.
Not much of a reason at all.
However, AMD has an edge on the budget front due to their motherboards in said price category.
Their 780G integrated graphics is almost as fast as a GeForce 7300GT dedicated card and would probably run FS2004 quite well for example.
There's no nVidia or Intel integrated unit that can rival it and as an overall platform offers better value for money.
This is about the only situation where they truly have Intel beat.
Nice.
Forgot to say thanks...
So... Thanks!
|
|
I still maintain;
AMD is good ig you want to make a cheap, yet reasonably well performing PC which can be upgraded cheaply for years to come.
Despite their constant changing of sockets, the latest chips still work in a lot of the earlier AM2 boards.
Whereas Intel's support from generation to generation, and chipset to chipset, is comparatively poor, despite pretty much sticking to one socket design.
Just choose your board manafacturer wisely.
|
|
Quite right. However at what point is a budget small enough to warrant an AMD system?
I've always said to myself Sub £300 or Sub $500 if we're factoring in a whole base unit with an operating system.
At this price point, a DIY Intel build would be about on par with an AMD setup and will probably overclock fairly similarly.
Either platform is fairly suitable here.
Also to add more onto your statement of advising people to select the motherboard wisely, I'd like to mention that just because there are sub $70/sub £40 Socket AM2 boards that claim full AMD Athlon 64 X2 and Phenom support, they'll support them for long.
There is evidence to prove that budget boards are failing with high TDP AMD Athlon 64 X2 / Phenom CPU's due to poor Power Regulation design, exposed and poorly placed mosfets.
This post has been edited by Mul.: May 27 2008, 04:43 AM
|
|
Unless upgrading an existing rig, I wouldn't even bother with AMD anymore.
Look, for $80 bucks I have an Intel dual core 3GHz (after OC and shout out to mul for support) that rips through the latest games like butta.
|
|
It's too bad the Core Duo's weren't released back when I put my last rig together.
It's alright, I still love my X2 4800+
Nice Test.
|
|
Ah yes, I do remember discussing overclocking that X2 4800+ with you those years back.
It's not a terribly slow CPU by any means.
If it does everything you want it to do, you haven't lost out at all.
|
|
Quote: Ah yes, I do remember discussing overclocking that X2 4800+ with you those years back.
It's not a terribly slow CPU by any means.
If it does everything you want it to do, you haven't lost out at all.
I do remember, that was a fun week!
Yeh I am really happy with the results, i'll just be on the look-out for the Intel's next build.
|
|
Yeah, fair enough.
If whatever you've got is serving you well though, it might be wise to wait for the new Intel Socket + architecture due end of this year / beginning of next.
|
|
This is getting quite out of date.
Should we update the comparison (even though it'll be the same result?)
|
|
Quote: This is getting quite out of date.
Should we update the comparison (even though it'll be the same result?)
Mul will be updating the comparison soon, at least from what he told me.
|
|
As far as the AMD duals are concerned, I don't really see the point.
The only thing that has changed is that Intel has released faster duals that only widen the gap and AMD have reduced the prices of their duals a bit more.
Also, as iKettles has stated, a new comparison is on the way.
It isn't replacing this one though.
This post has been edited by Mul.: Jul 3 2008, 02:22 PM
|
|
I just built my first PC yesterday so i can play FSX, i installed a ATHLON 64 X2 4450EAthlon 64 Socket AM2 940 PIN, now in thinking i made a mistake!!!
Sometimes frame rate is jerky when i have graphics set to High and Ultra High.
Running on XP though, may look to reload with Vista.
Im new to FS, just hope i didn't do a bad budget build.
|
|
For systems around your budget, you didn't make a big mistake at all.
If you open up a new topic about your jerky framerates, stating your full system specs maybe we could try and help you out.
|
|
|
Thanks may just do that if a don't get anywhere with fiddling around
|
|
|
|