X6800 VS. FX-62 *multiple benches*

[BWR]

The contenders:

Intel Core Duo Extreme X6800 with a generic (?) P965 board

VS.

AMD FX-62 with nForce 590-SLI Socket-AM2 Motherboard

The Results

[Shpoon]

Sexy, thanks for the link

[cronic]

already posted in news....
none the less, very good info.

[iterations]

Some of the results normalized with other flagship processors from Intel for comparison:



Core 2 Extreme kicks ass to say the least.

[Shpoon]

I'm just concerned that it's gonna take till Q1'07 to get one :/ And that's half a year later than I wanted.

[lutjens]

My mothballed Mach 2 is just itching to take a crack at that X6800...

[BWR]

Im sure Ill be content with an E6600 coupled with the RD600 and OCd to the MAaX... Or as far as it will go on water.

[CompGeek]

Im going to be darn well pleased with my new conroe setup

Espcially since I'll be running full DDR800 when OCed instead of that 667 crap. AND I'll be at 3.6ghz+

[redpriest]

$1300 for an FX62? $1,031 on AMD's site.

I can also buy it for about that much at Fry's.

[Charles Wirth]

"We're still wary of crowning Intel the new gaming performance champion, especially without having run other very important titles such as Oblivion and Half Life 2: Episode 1, but until we can things are definitely looking extremely promising for the Core architecture."

I can show you the numbers from Oblivion and HL2: E1

[Carfax]

It's importanat to note that the Core 2 extreme was video card limited in the preview.

Anand only used a single 7900 GTX, which definitely constrained the Core 2 extreme.

Had he used an SLI or X Fire setup, the percentages would have been even higher!

I find it amazing that at nearly 3.0ghz, the Core 2 is VIDEO CARD LIMITED BY A POWERFUL GPU LIKE THE 7900 GTX...even at LOW RESOLUTIONS!

Bloody amazing

[onethreehill]

I can show you the numbers from Oblivion and HL2: E1

Why are we waiting

[duploxxx]

Some of the results normalized with other flagship processors from Intel for comparison:



Core 2 Extreme kicks ass to say the least.

nice comparisson no leave the TDP out because it has always been wrong with intel same as your price....and calculate the difference in clock speed also. and put in the stats of the pcstats review.... see how the chart will change

Let's make some quick comparisons. In this test by PCStats, an Athlon FX62 got a SysMark 2004 Office Productivity Overall score of 261 . In Anand Lal Shimpi's test, FX62 (2.8GHZ, 2x1MB) only got 210, Conroe XE (2.93GHZ) got 266. Look at the FX62 sub scores from PCStats, they were 263 for communications, 297 for document creation, and 214 for data analysis. This result for an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ agreed with PCStats' results quite well. However, in AnandTech's results for FX62, the sub scores were respectively 178, 280, 185.

Let's look at PCStats.com result on Business Winstone 2004, the FX62 got a score of 36.4 there. However, at AnandTech, FX62 only got 27.9, while the Conroe XE got 32.8.

Why were AnandTech's scores on FX62 substantially lower than the scores obtained by others?

Anand is not dumb. He knew that AMD64's main advantage is low memory latency due to the integrated memory controller (IMC). AMD64 doesn't need huge cache in general because it can access memory quickly. AMD estimated that IMC's low latency gave its CPUs 20% performance edge. Intel Conroe's solution is to use large cache to compensate the lack of IMC. With this knowledge, Anand decided to use high latency 5-5-5-12 DDR2 memory for his test. As a result, FX62's low latency IMC advantage was almost eliminated.

As you can see from this newegg.com memory shopping page, most DDR2-800 memory in the market today has 4-4-4-12 or lower latency. In fact, on newegg.com, out of 59 DDR2-800 memory products, only 15 models have CAS latency of 5, the other 44 products have CAS latency of 4 or lower. 4-4-4-12 memory is 25% quicker than the 5-5-5-12 used by Anand.

AnandTech's results on FX62 should therefore be considered invalid if not fraudulent. Based on AnandTech's SysMark 2004 results on Conroe XE (2.93 GHZ) and PCStats' results on Athlon 64 FX 62:

SysMark 2004 Office Overall: Conroe XE scored 266, Athlon 64 FX 62 scored 261
Business Winstone 2004: Conroe XE scored 32.8, Athlon 64 FX62 scored 36.4

[accord99]

Let's make some quick comparisons. In this test by PCStats, an Athlon FX62 got a SysMark 2004 Office Productivity Overall score of 261 . In Anand Lal Shimpi's test, FX62 (2.8GHZ, 2x1MB) only got 210, Conroe XE (2.93GHZ) got 266. Look at the FX62 sub scores from PCStats, they were 263 for communications, 297 for document creation, and 214 for data analysis. This result for an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ agreed with PCStats' results quite well. However, in AnandTech's results for FX62, the sub scores were respectively 178, 280, 185.

Let's look at PCStats.com result on Business Winstone 2004, the FX62 got a score of 36.4 there. However, at AnandTech, FX62 only got 27.9, while the Conroe XE got 32.8.

Why were AnandTech's scores on FX62 substantially lower than the scores obtained by others?

He had a slower HD than PC Stat's 74GB Raptor. CAS 4 has a minor impact on scores, these two reviews also had CAS4 memory but only a 7200rpm SATA drive and a 36GB Raptor respectively and only scored ~220 on Sysmark 2004.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...?cid=2&id=1915
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/cpu...-di-amd_5.html

His Business Winstone score is low, but it is low for both processors. We have here:

http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/evalu.../791941_9.html

A theoretical 4MB L2 2.13 Conroe comfortably matching or beating a FX-60 in both Sysmark and Business Winstone.

4-4-4-12 memory is 25% quicker than the 5-5-5-12 used by Anand.

Try more like 2.5%
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...et-am2_13.html

AnandTech's results on FX62 should therefore be considered invalid if not fraudulent.

Is that you Sharikou?

[Iconyu]

I can show you the numbers from Oblivion and HL2: E1

That would be nice, whenever you can find the time.

Edit: Also can you give us a impression on how it feels for everyday use? Does it feel faster in everyday tasks?

[iterations]

nice comparisson no leave the TDP out because it has always been wrong with intel same as your price....and calculate the difference in clock speed also. and put in the stats of the pcstats review.... see how the chart will change

Let's make some quick comparisons. In this test by PCStats, an Athlon FX62 got a SysMark 2004 Office Productivity Overall score of 261 . In Anand Lal Shimpi's test, FX62 (2.8GHZ, 2x1MB) only got 210, Conroe XE (2.93GHZ) got 266. Look at the FX62 sub scores from PCStats, they were 263 for communications, 297 for document creation, and 214 for data analysis. This result for an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ agreed with PCStats' results quite well. However, in AnandTech's results for FX62, the sub scores were respectively 178, 280, 185.

Let's look at PCStats.com result on Business Winstone 2004, the FX62 got a score of 36.4 there. However, at AnandTech, FX62 only got 27.9, while the Conroe XE got 32.8.

Why were AnandTech's scores on FX62 substantially lower than the scores obtained by others?

Anand is not dumb. He knew that AMD64's main advantage is low memory latency due to the integrated memory controller (IMC). AMD64 doesn't need huge cache in general because it can access memory quickly. AMD estimated that IMC's low latency gave its CPUs 20% performance edge. Intel Conroe's solution is to use large cache to compensate the lack of IMC. With this knowledge, Anand decided to use high latency 5-5-5-12 DDR2 memory for his test. As a result, FX62's low latency IMC advantage was almost eliminated.

As you can see from this newegg.com memory shopping page, most DDR2-800 memory in the market today has 4-4-4-12 or lower latency. In fact, on newegg.com, out of 59 DDR2-800 memory products, only 15 models have CAS latency of 5, the other 44 products have CAS latency of 4 or lower. 4-4-4-12 memory is 25% quicker than the 5-5-5-12 used by Anand.

AnandTech's results on FX62 should therefore be considered invalid if not fraudulent. Based on AnandTech's SysMark 2004 results on Conroe XE (2.93 GHZ) and PCStats' results on Athlon 64 FX 62:

SysMark 2004 Office Overall: Conroe XE scored 266, Athlon 64 FX 62 scored 261
Business Winstone 2004: Conroe XE scored 32.8, Athlon 64 FX62 scored 36.4

Dude... you want to compare benchmark results from completely different systems and websites becuase the chip you like gets higher scores from another source when configured differently? And you call Anandtech fraudulent? Lol, you aren't fooling anybody, that is really lame man....

[Clairvoyant129]

Is that you Sharikou?

Lol.

[i found nemo]

once again, i'm glad that new technology can beat old technology. this thread is going to be a flamewar. well they should have used the same ram for both systems, it's not like they are in a race to review both systems at the same time. i swear to god, ppl need to learn how to review and bench. they should have used exact same everything that they could ( ram psu vid card hdd's even the cables!!!! )

[Torin]

once again, i'm glad that new technology can beat old technology. this thread is going to be a flamewar. well they should have used the same ram for both systems, it's not like they are in a race to review both systems at the same time. i swear to god, ppl need to learn how to review and bench. they should have used exact same everything that they could ( ram psu vid card hdd's even the cables!!!! )

They did use the same ram, same PSU, same video card, etc....

[JNav89GT]

conroe looking good officially is encouraging. Will amd and am2 go away? No! I don't think it's a stretch to believe Intel's regaining speed crown. Hell they have tons of $$ and experience, why shouldn't they? A64 has enjoyed a good run as a top type cpu. Sure P4 has had it's jabs in here and there. Yet people still faithfully bought those cpus due to supposed stability or other intangibles. A64 may yet hold some advantages over conroe we have yet to see. IE immediate availability, AMD pricing which may become more aggressive in light of the competition. I think the bigger pressure to AMD won't be conroe and pricing of Conroe. What concerns me more as an AMD stockholder is Intel's apparant firesale on P4 cpus. This will effect AMD moreso, as AMD will need to adjust prices to compensate, and consequently effect some profit margin. AMD still retains the better server cpu and that's a high profit part. Intel just totally ownz laptop cpu sales which AMD has failed miserably in IMO. Conroe should make for some really fun clocking and hopefully push AMD to make something better. The Northwood brought the AXP down as best performer, and the A64 was AMD's response. Conroe will pwn A64 in performance, what will AMD counter with? K8L or w/e, it's all vaporware until we see benches and or results. For now, Intel's got it, if although still not commercially available .

[TarTheDark]

Lol.

Sharikou or not Sharikou, the text IS from his blog