AMD64X2 4400+ @2.67GHz Vs E6600 @2.4GHz (Stock) 3DMark06

[Adapa]

(First Off Don't knock the fact that I used a mild overclocked X2 4400 vs a stock E6600. I will update with an E6600@ 3.4GHz soon, I know most or everyone here hopefully overclocks and don't run our setups at stock. But the average consumer is not going to overclock or even think about it )
Hi to all. I would like to first start off by saying I am truly a performance junkie/ fan, and I am not loyal to any brand in particular once there is performance to back up the marketing hype I will purchase it. I myself manage my own business, which consists of PC Repairs, Custom Built PCs, sale of PC Components, and a Gaming LAN Café, I find myself at the front line of technology specifically so I can guide my customers in the right direction based on their individual habbits and what they need their pc to do.

I have been in this business full-time for over the past five years. I have built computers with AMD and Intel during this time period. AMD have indeed come a long way for a small company, and over the last 3 years have shown themselves capable of producing very competitive products that have always seemed to edge the performance over Intel especially for users who use their pc’s primarily for gaming purposes and therefore need raw horsepower. Intel cpu’s on the other hand have been superior with their multi tasking, and video encoding capabilities. Thus making a clear cut decision what you use your pc for primarily one would decide whether to go Intel or AMD.

Since the AMD Athlon64 came on the scene they have dominated Intel up until August 2006 with the release of Core2Duo. I myself have recently purchased an E6600 since I was due for an upgrade for quite a while, since I usually upgrade with a new PC setup at least once a year. I thought it only fair to give AMD X2 a try before my complete system overall, so I did a minor upgrade by replacing my single core Opteron 148 which I had running daily @2.86GHz, with an X2 4400 which I of course overclocked to daily run @ 2.67GHz. I immediately noticed the difference in multi-tasking but felt a slight slowdown while gaming, since very very few games use dual core power presently, and my Opteron was superior of course when it came to gaming since it had higher clockspeeds than what I was able to achieve with the X2.

Seeing that I have tried both sides of the camp (Intel & AMD) I can give a reasonably unbiased review and comparison of the Core2Duo and AMD X2. I choose the most recent release of futuremark which is 3DMark 2006 to prove my point. Gaming is by far the most intensive work a PC can do, because it uses all parts of your computer simultaneously.

Gaming uses;
1. Processor
2. Hard Drive
3. Ram
4. Graphics Card
5. Sound Card


Now to the facts;

PC users with overclocked AMD64/ X2 chips, would not feel much of an increase in performance by getting a Core2Duo chip particularly in the area of gaming or regular daily tasks. The Core2Duo chips excel in video encoding/rendering which I can strongly vouch for, especially a highly overclocked one will tear a similarly clocked X2 to shreds in this department.

PC users with Pentium4 / PentiumD processors would notice a huge increase in performance by upgrading to a Core2Duo processor in all aspects of daily computing because of the inferiority of the Pentium 4 processors compared to AMD64 /X2 and Core2Duo overall.

Thus the reason why Intel fans and AMD fans need not to be down each other’s throat about who has the better cpu. If you never used a PC with an AMD64 /X2 cpu then you have no claims or knowledge whatsoever about how much superior the new Core2Duo is over AMD64 especially in gaming/ basic daily computer usage, especially a highly overclocked one. (Unless of course if you are a review junky, but personal experience always beats a review) Intel have took the performance crown back from AMD, and that is why I have an Intel setup presently because I am a fan of performance and not branded and/or loyal to any particular brand of anything.(besides nVidia gfx cards ) Being that I have owned both setups I can clearly state that running a stock E6600 @2.4GHz compared to my previous X2 4400 @ 2.67GHz the performance difference in gaming is minute if there is any. To prove this theory we will use 3Dmark06 for comparison, since it measures GPU & CPU performance separately. Using my faithful 7900GT @ 650/870MHz for both setups.

Test setup #1
DFI NF4 SLI DR
AMD64 X2 4400 @2.67GHz
2x1GB PC4000 @534MHz
eVGA 7900GT @ 650/870Mhz forceware 91.47
WD 250GB 16Mb Cache HD


Test setup #2.
ASUS P5W64 Pro
E6600@ 2.41GHz
2x1GB SuperTalent PC6400@800MHz
eVGA 7900GT @ 650/870Mhz forceware 91.47
WD 250GB 16Mb Cache HD


AMD SETUP RESULTS

Graphic Tests
1. Return to Proxycon 22.388 fps
2. Firefly Forest 24.902 fps

CPU Tests
CPU1 Red Valley 0.647 fps
CPU2 Red Valley 1.039 fps

3Dmark Score 6,562

SM 2.0 Score 2837

SM 3.0 Score 2686

CPU Score 2050

INTEL SETUP RESULTS

Graphic Tests
1. Return to Proxycon 21.358 fps
2. Firefly Forest 23.642 fps

CPU Tests
CPU1 Red Valley 0.662 fps
CPU2 Red Valley 1.047 fps

3Dmark Score 6,340

SM 2.0 Score 2700

SM 3.0 Score 2576

CPU Score 2081


As we can clearly see the performance difference between the 2 different setups is very small in CPU tests which was 31 points. Surprisingly though the performance in 3Dmark Score / GPU tests was in favor of the AMD setup, showing a difference of 222 points increase over the Intel setup. The facts are there, and prove that either the Nforce 4 chipset is superior to the Intel 975 chipset or the chipset drivers still need maturing as far as gaming is concerned , or that the AMD X2 is giving some type of unseen performance boost in the department of gaming, even though it scores less in the cpu tests. At this point it is clear that if gaming is your primary concern then purchasing either a Core2Duo setup or AMD X2 setup will do enough justice for you, and all that matters really is price. On the other hand if doing video encoding and/or 3d renders and you want the absolute best available right now then there is no choice but a Core2Duo setup. I know all the AMD fans out there wish that they could push their X2’s to the speeds at which Conroe’s are getting on air, and close the gap in performance. We’ll just have to sit back and see what new goodies the beautiful year of 2007 will bring for us enthusiasts.

There you have it folks, you be the judge and please do post your thoughts and feedback. Happy gaming and benching.

Cheers
OverclockersTT - TreeZ B)

[bcracer220]

run superpi

[Inteleron]

O.K now oc the E6600 to 3.5 and tell me if its fair?

[Noob-ftw]

I didn't really expect those results. The only thing that makes the Core 2 Duo's better is the overclockability.

The 4400 X2 can top out at around 2.9 ghz on air while the E6600 can do 3.6ghz on air.

Glad to see AMD isn't dead though.

[hot_fifty]

core2 duo is alot better... Stock vs. oc isnt fair, but good for comparision..

[Timmay]

Hmmm, I find that most 4400's top out around 2.6-7

[bcracer220]

i am not a fan of either side, just a fan of performance

but i do feel some of these reviews are useless, because conroe features newer architecture and features no current gen programs support (i.e. sse4 and some would say the 4mb cache), in my opinion its like testing a ferrari with 87 octane fuel and comparing it to another car designed to run on 87 octane fuel. though the ferrari may appear only to be beating it by a slight margin, when the ferrari is filled up with 100 octane, u will really see the performance gain. so wait for newer programs, and it will become apparent that conroe really whoops the current a64s

[Radamanthys]

run superpi

You play super pi? Me not...

[Exedy]

run superpi

sp results is obvious who wins...

[NickS]

SuperPi is a dumb comparison. Intel has ruled Pi, even since the P4 days.

[[cTx]Philosophy]

Verry nicely done, I was also shocked when I found that almost even performance from both procesors, in a previous test..

I also noticed going form my 165 @ 2.9 to a 6300 @ 3.2 was no performance increase at all really, except for super pi and being able to unrar a big file faster..

[ownage]

I also noticed going form my 165 @ 2.9 to a 6300 @ 3.2 was no performance increase at all really, except for super pi and being able to unrar a big file faster..

Thats because processors are that fast, so you will not always notice more performance.
With most things i cant even notice much more performance between my old 2.2ghz newcastle and conroe 3.2ghz.
But after a year you will notice more performance with conroe.
I wouldn't upgrade from opteron 2.9 to conroe, but when i have to buy something new i defenetly would choose for conroe (duh).
Over a year or something games will be much heavyer, and then you will notice conroe performance for sure.
At least you will have less change of cpu bottleneck with upcoming GPU's.

[Exedy]

why the difference between opteron @ 2.9 and E6400 ( example ) WILL be bigger in future and now is small?

both are dual cores...i cant understand why c2d will have more advantage :p

[bcracer220]

You play super pi? Me not...

you play 3dmark06 cpu test?

didnt think so

[Zardokk]

SuperPi is a dumb comparison. Intel has ruled Pi, even since the P4 days.

Only the HIGHLY OCed Intels ruled at SuperPi. Clock for clock, AMDs completely pwned. My 3700 Sandy at 2.9 did 28s. A P4 had to be well about 4GHz to do that. Conroe has completely changed things...just like we were all saying it would 6 months ago when there was just hype. Hopefully the hype around K8L is also true and we'll see a slight increase over Conroe soon.

[anani]

6600 core2 duo is very weak cpu compared to AMD64X2 4400 !

First its weaker and much more slower than the Intel HT cpus
Second it doesn't not actually support multitasking as it was advertised,
Try Avid Xpress or ATI ALL IN WONDER TV and do anything beside it, you will see how the core2 duo is a retarted cpu!

You can only see a diffrence with the new Intel core2 duo if you over clock or else be careful

AMD is the best and it will always be

[[TAG]Imp]

^ Awesome coherent well-thought out post FTW!

[metro.cl]

this is weird from my testing, for a amd cpu to get close to a 2.93GHz intel core 2 duo you need like 3.2GHz in normal tests (excluded super pi).

you gotta see that your ram on amd is overclocked and pretty high for a 2x1GB kit you dont put the latencies

[syne_24]

I didn't really expect those results. The only thing that makes the Core 2 Duo's better is the overclockability.

Exactly, that is the whole point, you get more out of Core 2 than with an X2 or FX. An E6600 can overclock an average of 1000-1400mhz. While the X2 can at most do 500-600mhz if that. The next amd chip needs to break that barrier if they want to truly take back the crown. Conroe is a new breed for intel, you cant think of it as the old P4 that had to overclock high just to compete with amd. You can be even clock for clock but if your competitor is selling a cheaper cpu that overclock more than you; then you lose in my book. I know amd will bounce back but they really need to work on their overclockability.

[LordofDoom]

6600 core2 duo is very weak cpu compared to AMD64X2 4400 !

First its weaker and much more slower than the Intel HT cpus
Second it doesn't not actually support multitasking as it was advertised,
Try Avid Xpress or ATI ALL IN WONDER TV and do anything beside it, you will see how the core2 duo is a retarted cpu!

You can only see a diffrence with the new Intel core2 duo if you over clock or else be careful

AMD is the best and it will always be

So... did you take your Schizophrenia pills this morning? I guess that's a no.

[ownage]

6600 core2 duo is very weak cpu compared to AMD64X2 4400 !

First its weaker and much more slower than the Intel HT cpus
Second it doesn't not actually support multitasking as it was advertised,
Try Avid Xpress or ATI ALL IN WONDER TV and do anything beside it, you will see how the core2 duo is a retarted cpu!

You can only see a diffrence with the new Intel core2 duo if you over clock or else be careful

AMD is the best and it will always be

-conroe e6600 rapes x2 4400 badly.
-it supports multitasking LOL, what are u talking about.

ARE YOU A PAID FANBOY ARE SOMETHING

[Mats]

core2 duo is alot better... Stock vs. oc isnt fair, but good for comparision..

It's never fair. You're forgetting the fact that that the X2 4400+ cost less than the E6600, even the 5000+ cost less.

Only the HIGHLY OCed Intels ruled at SuperPi. Clock for clock, AMDs completely pwned. My 3700 Sandy at 2.9 did 28s. A P4 had to be well about 4GHz to do that

LOL! Man, it's all relative!
A 2.2 GHz K8 running at 2.9 GHz equals a 31.8 % overclock.
A 3.0 GHz P4 running with a 31.8 % overclock runs at 3955 MHz.
What's your point? Or did you mean "well above 4 GHz"?

[ownage]

It's never fair. You're forgetting the fact that that the X2 4400+ cost less than the E6600, even the 5000+ cost less.

Its fair, my e6400 is cheaper then the AMD x2 5000 but can easy compare to the x2 5000.

Conroe is clock for clock faster then X2.
Then how could an x2 5000 OC to 3.0Ghz be just as fast as my cheap e6400 mhz at 3.6Ghz.

[Mats]

Conroe is clock for clock faster then X2.

I never said anything else, did I?

I've known for months now that C2 is the faster one, well we all know that.
But the thing is that I'm still not sure what to buy. The only thing I care about is gaming performance, but most of the reviews doesn't really help since they're maxing out the differences by running at 800 x 600 together with the most expensive graphics cards in CF/SLI.
One of the few exeptions is the review that Xbitlabs did a year ago, showing that the difference between a FX or a (single channel) Sempron or a P4 isn't that big in real world settings, because the graphics card is the bottleneck (nothing new). If someone knows about a similar review of the C2, please give me the link.
I'm looking for more realistic settings together with lower priced cards around $200.
In short:How fast single graphics card do you need to actually see any significal performance differences between X2 and C2D?

BTW, thank you Adapa for your tests, well done!
I've been looking at the C2 for a long time now, but lately I've been thinking that it doesn't matter which one I choose. I also have to say that total cost is important, and I probably won't end up overclocking a lot simply because it only gives me a higher clock speed, and nothing else. I won't break any world records (couldn't care less anyway), and I won't get any better gaming experience with the graphics card I'd use.
I remember when I first reached 3 GHz with my Opteron 146: "3 GHz! Great!!! ...now what?" It gave me nothing.

These are my personal experiences, and I fully respect people that really enjoys overclocking. I enjoy it too, but only for like 5 minutes. And benchmarking doesn't turn me on either, maybe that's the problem.

3 more FPS won't make my day.

[Orbitech]

Ok not trying to be an arse here , but ran some game benches to see the real difference not 3dmock experience.
I had a similar setup with yours 4400@2.7 2Gb ddr400 x1900xtx and now the system of my sig..
Gaming experience @1600x1200(which BTW is a GPU LIMITED resolution) is much better, even @stock speeds.Now imagine what this puppy can do @12x10 and 10x7..
3DMock won't tell ya $hit about real gaming world performance. Try your old and your new setup @ games like Oblivion,FEAR,QuakeIV to see what is teh real difference.
I was never going to swap my 4400+ for an E6600 because I considered that the resolution I play at is limiting me(1600x1200). Of course my opinion changed when I saw the benches @various sites. And after the purchase of it I'm 100% happy for teh change..