Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

THG Tuning Test: Core 2 Extreme vs. Athlon 64 FX-62

Last response: in Memory
Share
August 2, 2006 11:22:41 AM

Tuned and tweaked to the max, the Intel 3.68 GHz processor faces off against AMD\'s 3.06 GHz all-purpose threat. Is the race over yet? Hasn\'t Intel won already? Let\'s see.

Speak out in the Toms's Hardware reader survey!
August 2, 2006 11:27:58 AM

Quote:
Tuned and tweaked to the max, the Intel 3.68 GHz processor faces off against AMD\'s 3.06 GHz all-purpose threat. Is the race over yet? Hasn\'t Intel won already? Let\'s see.

Speak out in the Toms's Hardware reader survey!
The link isn't working.

Fixed....Thanks.
August 2, 2006 12:09:29 PM

Well the amd system got thoroughly pwned. Even the E6600 outpaced the FX 62 @ 3.0 ghz in many situations, media encoding and the majority of the games tested. And thats at a 600 mhz clock speed deficit. ^^ your system by no way is mediocre, im sure its damn fast.
Related resources
August 2, 2006 12:16:39 PM

The Core 2 temperatures and power consumption were impressive too.
August 2, 2006 12:20:24 PM

Quote:
Tuned and tweaked to the max, the Intel 3.68 GHz processor faces off against AMD\'s 3.06 GHz all-purpose threat. Is the race over yet? Hasn\'t Intel won already? Let\'s see.

Speak out in the Toms's Hardware reader survey!
Wow..The overclocked x6800 is a Beast. It obliterated everything. Impressive, especially in encoding. :lol: 
August 2, 2006 12:21:23 PM

uh, those final performance analysis graphs need a little more translating to english. :)  I believe the more common words needed are "Games", "Applications", and maybe "Total"?
August 2, 2006 12:25:19 PM

its unfortanate to see that the fx-62 cant get past 3 gig. heck my athlon 64 3200+ runs at 3.0 with an aftermarket air cooler!

on a side ntoe anyone know what performance difference there would be between my 3200+ at 3.0 and the fx 64 ?
August 2, 2006 12:30:26 PM

Core 2 Duo simply overclocks much better than any of AMD's offerings.


PS - WHY DO THESE ALWAYS GO IN MEMORY, NOT CPU!?!?
August 2, 2006 12:31:12 PM

Would depend completly on the application you are running. Your single core would get destroyed in media encoding versus the FX 64. How ever gaming it would fare pretty close I would imagine.
August 2, 2006 1:07:06 PM

Great, yet another high end review without real high end graphics tests. What a pile!

If I spend $1000 dollars on a CPU I'm not gonna scrimp on my monitor.

What is the video performance like at 1600 x 1200???

What is SuperPI score running 2 threads of 32M iterations???

We know Conroe is fast, it can perform most tasks without going outside of its own built in cache. That's just dandy.

<b>Here's my real-world test set up!!!</b>

I normally run several applications at once: Dreamweaver, MYSQL, Apache, PHP, Paint Shop Pro 8, Firefox, IE & Windows Media Player. Firefox will generally have 6-8 tabs open as I browse whilst I work. I also play HL2 whilst these applications are active in the background to take a break from my work. That would be a real-word test!!! That is what I do in my day to day work.

My System nevers blinks, I never notice any slow-down (with the exception of Hard Drive). Spec is 3800+ X2 @ 2.5Ghz, 2GB DDR400, 7600GT @ 25% overclock.

I'm quite happy to encode a dvd in the background <b>because it takes a long time</b> regardless of which CPU you are using. I dont really care if Conroe can do it faster, I never sit there waiting whilst it is processing, what idiot does?
August 2, 2006 1:23:58 PM

Wow! An incredible showing of what each system can do when tweaked to the Nth degree...CD2 is impressive, very impressive indeed...shame these chips cost so much, I can't afford either of them...this article makes me curious as to what gains the AMD 65nm chips are going to realize...
August 2, 2006 1:27:30 PM

This aint even new news! We know the core2 extreme would come out on top! Uhhh... Duhh... It's a brand new processor those was designed to beat the Athlon 64fx-62.

I would hope that Intel would not be so stupid and come out with a new product that would be sub-par with AMD. That would be the end of Intel, (almost) can you say 30% market share for AMD boys and girls?

Now next year we will be doing this all over again when AMD takes the covers off their new or improved processor. I for one am happy to see Intel do well, That just mean AMD will have to step up to the plate next and out do Intel. In the end we (gamers, moders, modelers, animators, and on and on) get to keep playing with better and faster $h@t. And that makes us all happy :D 
August 2, 2006 1:32:32 PM

So this is in effect a completely useless review. Just Tom Pumping the Conroe machine again.

What does it show that we didn't already know?

Is it really a CPU only test, I cannot see any benchmark that truely stresses the CPU.

Real world power users don't just use one or two applications at the same time, they tend to use five or six.

I want to see real-life results!

Interesting to note that Athlon energy efficiency outperforms Conroe when Idling, lets face it most of the time your CPU does not get used anywhere near 100%.
August 2, 2006 1:33:08 PM

It shows one interesting aspect of supposed Intel vs. AMD price war - it is price war for AMD, not Intel.

Through at least next year, Intel will always have high-priced high-end parts, because it will be able to increase clock speed just as it needs to.
August 2, 2006 1:40:26 PM

Quote:
Core 2 Duo simply overclocks much better than any of AMD's offerings.


PS - WHY DO THESE ALWAYS GO IN MEMORY, NOT CPU!?!?

because if you put this in CPU thread, some ppl are going to trash it.

i've gotta admit though, this is getting really numb. when conroe benches just came out, the world was in shock and joy...

...and now its just, "another benches? nah i don't even need to look. conroe pwns all".
August 2, 2006 1:45:42 PM

Quote:
So this is in effect a completely useless review. Just Tom Pumping the Conroe machine again.

What does it show that we didn't already know?

Is it really a CPU only test, I cannot see any benchmark that truely stresses the CPU.

Real world power users don't just use one or two applications at the same time, they tend to use five or six.

I want to see real-life results!

Interesting to note that Athlon energy efficiency outperforms Conroe when Idling, lets face it most of the time your CPU does not get used anywhere near 100%.


Ever heard of Folding at Home or SETI? Yup, you can definately use your processor capacity 24/7.

I've been toying with the idea of converting my 200 disc DVD library to digital form and Conroe would sure go a long way towards reducing that time.

As for gaming at 16x12, few people do it. I am one of those people, but from surverys I *think*upwards of 50% or more game at 1024x768, and maybe another 15-20% at 1280x1024. Calm down, its all going to be ok.

Neon: Yes its a new generation proc, but so is the fx-62 (lets not get into semantics about refresh v. new core) and previously the performance gap hasn't been this large, at least I don't ever remember it being this one-sided. Conroe doesn't lose a single gaming or multimedia benchmark... not one, previously its usually being a split on the order of 45/55. This lop sided victory is big for intel, especially if it takes AMD 4-5 months just to match it, if they can do it that fast.

Monkey: Who the hell cares about super pi? Honestly, think about it. What purpose does being able to compute Pi out to 32 million digits really get you? a pat on the back? Nope, not even that. All it gives you is a number to compare against other people, who cares! Compare FPSs, Multimedia compression times, but not SuperPi, quit being a baby.
August 2, 2006 1:48:24 PM

Quote:
Great, yet another high end review without real high end graphics tests. What a pile!

What is the video performance like at 1600 x 1200???


1600x1200 = GPU Test

The main focus of the article is CPU.



Quote:
because if you put this in CPU thread, some ppl are going to trash it.


Check and mate, very good point!
August 2, 2006 1:49:39 PM

Quote:
Great, yet another high end review without real high end graphics tests. What a pile!

What is the video performance like at 1600 x 1200???


1600x1200 = GPU Test

The main focus of the article is CPU.

Thank you, I am glad some one else understands the point of the article.
August 2, 2006 1:55:17 PM

Quote:

Interesting to note that Athlon energy efficiency outperforms Conroe when Idling, lets face it most of the time your CPU does not get used anywhere near 100%.

wow... you know what? my pentium M also outperforms Conroe when idling. wow.. so actually my pentium M is better than Conroe!! since my computer spend most of the time idling.

nice logic you got there..
August 2, 2006 1:57:43 PM

Nice article, AMD got their a$$ handed to them with all the trimmings. That takes care of the which processor is better if I OC it questions.

BUT!!!!

What I really want to know is how an OC'ed E6600 will fare, since that seems to be the processor that nearly everyone is thinking about. I know Anandtech said they were able to get up to a 4GHZ stable OC... and I want to see how much that would dominated everything else out there. 4GHZ E6600 vs. 3.6GHZ X6800?? vs. FX-62?? vs. Pentium I??!?!?!?!?
August 2, 2006 2:03:52 PM

Quote:
Nice article, AMD got their a$$ handed to them with all the trimmings. That takes care of the which processor is better if I OC it questions.

BUT!!!!

What I really want to know is how an OC'ed E6600 will fare, since that seems to be the processor that nearly everyone is thinking about. I know Anandtech said they were able to get up to a 4GHZ stable OC... and I want to see how much that would dominated everything else out there. 4GHZ E6600 vs. 3.6GHZ X6800?? vs. FX-62?? vs. Pentium I??!?!?!?!?


E6600 = X6800 except that the X6800 has an unlocked multiplier adjustable upwards and downward and the E6600 only has a downwards multiplier. So if they were at equal clocks they would have nearly equal performance (assuming FSBs were equal). A 4Ghz would whip up on a X6800 at 3.63Ghz.

Yes I am looking at taking a E6600 to 4Ghz... god think of the performance lol.
August 2, 2006 2:06:30 PM

I think about the most interesting part was this here:

Quote:
Raising the FSB and memory clocks on the Intel system increased memory throughput from 5.7 to 7.3 GB/s. AMD's integrated memory controller enabled memory throughput for the Athlon 64 FX-62 to increase from 9.3 GB/s to a record-breaking value of 10.7 GB/s.


Is the lower memory throughput going to be a limiting factor for the Intel once the quad cores are released?
August 2, 2006 2:16:35 PM

Quote:

Interesting to note that Athlon energy efficiency outperforms Conroe when Idling, lets face it most of the time your CPU does not get used anywhere near 100%.

wow... you know what? my pentium M also outperforms Conroe when idling. wow.. so actually my pentium M is better than Conroe!! since my computer spend most of the time idling.

nice logic you got there..

Get a grip! I was merely highlighting the fact that Intels latest greatest processor @ 65nm should probably perform better in this regard.

Quote:

Monkey: Who the hell cares about super pi? Honestly, think about it. What purpose does being able to compute Pi out to 32 million digits really get you? a pat on the back? Nope, not even that. All it gives you is a number to compare against other people, who cares! Compare FPSs, Multimedia compression times, but not SuperPi, quit being a baby.


I know superpi is bollox you numpty. My point is that these tests do not actually stress the CPU. Like I said run 5 or 6 heavy duty apps and provide the results.

As far as I can see this article does not provide any new information so what is the point of it other than pumping the Conroe brand????????

If it aint news dont print it!
August 2, 2006 2:35:13 PM

AMD has had a year to develop the 4X4 which will have ddr3, I strongly beleive conroe won't even come close to it but time will tell I will wait for the 4X4 it will cost but so does the conroe.Price where I live with tax for the extreme is over 1400
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2638
August 2, 2006 2:41:12 PM

Quote:

Interesting to note that Athlon energy efficiency outperforms Conroe when Idling, lets face it most of the time your CPU does not get used anywhere near 100%.

wow... you know what? my pentium M also outperforms Conroe when idling. wow.. so actually my pentium M is better than Conroe!! since my computer spend most of the time idling.

nice logic you got there..

Get a grip! I was merely highlighting the fact that Intels latest greatest processor @ 65nm should probably perform better in this regard.
Quote:

Monkey: Who the hell cares about super pi? Honestly, think about it. What purpose does being able to compute Pi out to 32 million digits really get you? a pat on the back? Nope, not even that. All it gives you is a number to compare against other people, who cares! Compare FPSs, Multimedia compression times, but not SuperPi, quit being a baby.


I know superpi is bollox you numpty. My point is that these tests do not actually stress the CPU. Like I said run 5 or 6 heavy duty apps and provide the results.

As far as I can see this article does not provide any new information so what is the point of it other than pumping the Conroe brand????????

If it aint news dont print it!

1. just because Conroe is 65nm, so it must performs better than an underclocked, undervolted, and a lot slower 90nm parts?

2. normal users don't run 5~6 heavy duty applications. they would run 3 applications maximum.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/...

but i gotta admit though, in my opinion this test doesn't provide any new information to the consumers, other than, it can overclock easily on stock cooling.
August 2, 2006 2:44:16 PM

Quote:
AMD has had a year to develop the 4X4 which will have ddr3, I strongly beleive conroe won't even come close to it but time will tell I will wait for the 4X4 it will cost but so does the conroe price where I live with tax for the extreme is over 1400
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2638


perhaps. but i also believe conroe's price is going to drop once the hype is over.

and not to disappoint you, i have yet to see a 4x4 benchmarks around. and from what i know, you can get a kentsfield that cost relatively the same, with lower power consumption, and possibly better performance. kentsfield already has really impressive scalability (82% efficiency).

but if you want to stick with 4x4, it is fine.
August 2, 2006 2:51:49 PM

Viper I am going to have to disagree, I currently have the following apps running.

Outlook 2003
Firefox x 2, 4 tabs each.
Steam
FileZilla
Dreamweaver MX
EZY-PHP
Paint Shop Pro 8
notepad

PHP Web design is what I do and this is how I run my system all day long.

I am exactly the type of user that a high end system would benefit, that's why I have my 3800 X2 running @2.5Ghz with 2GB Ram.
August 2, 2006 2:54:12 PM

don't know for sure, but if the server market is anything to foreshadow what intel's quads will do then I would say yes. Opterons scale much better as you add procs... and the integrated mem control is to thank for it. The xeons, even the new ones suffer above 2 procs, and 4+ procs the balance of power swings over to the opty.

Not saying that the new xeons are bad, and not saying that a new intel quad would be bad either... just that the fsb becomes much more limiting at higher multipliers. (read: more procs running on it) That massive cache will help for sure, but b/c the roadmap shows the "new" quads from intel being just 2 dual cores in a single package (similar to the original pentium duals) I would guess that there will be a performance hit. How much? lol, my magic 8 ball is telling me "too soon to tell" ;) 

EDIT: fixed it for clarity
August 2, 2006 2:55:33 PM

Its not ready for test yet I am only saying the possiability of this because of ddr3 if the ddr3 performs in the same double data rate times 3 as gdr3 than the gains in performance is better we all know that from the change from gdr2 to 3 intel will most like beat amd to it
August 2, 2006 2:57:37 PM

Quote:
Viper I am going to have to disagree, I currently have the following apps running.

Outlook 2003
Firefox x 2, 4 tabs each.
Steam
FileZilla
Dreamweaver MX
EZY-PHP
Paint Shop Pro 8
notepad

PHP Web design is what I do and this is how I run my system all day long.

I am exactly the type of user that a high end system would benefit, that's why I have my 3800 X2 running @2.5Ghz with 2GB Ram.

i'm not saying "everyone" only uses 3 apps, but "normal ppl" do.
i guess you're one of the ppl who does "megatasking"

it is odd though. why a person who will benefit from a high end system, uses a 3800 X2 with mild OC?

if you're a megatasking person, its fine too. however, i would still recommend kentsfield to you, because theoretically 4x4 would scale poorer than kentsfield.

actually i take that back. if you can get your hand on Torrenza, i would recommend that instead of kentsfield. because you can just buy a dual core, and drop in a specialized co-processor to fit your needs. cheap, and high performing for your tasks. its a win-win situation.
August 2, 2006 3:11:07 PM

It's nice to see an objective review from THG. ANyone can nit-pick at it, but we finally see two machines, tweaked to the brim, going head to head.

It's been all-too-easy to say a review didn't have a good C2D or FX system, but I think we can trust THG did their best to tweak both systems as best suited to the platform.

I wonder how much o the FX's performance is a direct result of the memory controller? If it's substancial, then Intel adopting an on-die controller could mean quite the blow to AMD.
August 2, 2006 3:18:15 PM

Quote:
it is odd though. why a person who will benefit from a high end system, uses a 3800 X2 with mild OC?


Just curious here, no dig intended.
If a 25% OC is mild, what is moderate? 50%? And would that make an extreme OC 75%?

In the grand scheme of all the computers being used out there, is a dual core 3800 really not an upper-end processor?
August 2, 2006 3:20:45 PM

Intel has released statements saying that they have "no need" to move to an on-die controller. Looking @ these and other tests of their new dynamo I would agree... until you scale to more procs. Not sure how that will work or what kind of mutated monstrosity of a bus system they come up w/ to "fix" that scaling issue. (10 meg cache?! j/k)

tbh, this core2 is a sweet proc. Like stranger above I will stick w/ my "mid-level" system, as like his it still performs very well. If I was upgrading or building right now, that would certainly be the go-to proc though.

4x4 is rather attractive though ;)  if for nothing more than the very "megatasking" mentioned above as (like I mentioned above and earlier) the athlons seem to scale better on 4 or more procs. It would be nice to have a system starting off w/ just one proc and dropping in the second one when you need a performance "bump"... just like the old dual p3 boards back in the day... ahh teh memories.
August 2, 2006 3:23:41 PM

:lol:  it is not extreme until the silicon is melting! 8O
August 2, 2006 3:28:49 PM

Quote:
I've been toying with the idea of converting my 200 disc DVD library to digital form and Conroe would sure go a long way towards reducing that time.


Ummm, exqueeze me, but I think DVDs are in digital form...

I think you'll need some more HD space. Good project though. Anything that lowers a consumption activation energy is a good thing.
August 2, 2006 3:29:57 PM

Normal people would be more than happy with a mid range system then!

:wink:
August 2, 2006 3:30:30 PM

Quote:
Viper I am going to have to disagree, I currently have the following apps running.

Outlook 2003
Firefox x 2, 4 tabs each.
Steam
FileZilla
Dreamweaver MX
EZY-PHP
Paint Shop Pro 8
notepad

PHP Web design is what I do and this is how I run my system all day long.

I am exactly the type of user that a high end system would benefit, that's why I have my 3800 X2 running @2.5Ghz with 2GB Ram.


Congrats... still not normal. I run 3 diffrent instances of an MMORPG on the same computer and my little venice is still zippy as hell and its a single core. I can see you use alot of your PC but you aren't the mass market. I agree it may be interesting to see how conroe pans out with that many apps running but it isn't worth the effort if only 5% of the readers run as many apps as you. You have to realize they make compromises between what everyone wants to see and what they have time to do.

As for THG just pumping the Conroe name, it has a thread of truth to it but the article goes beyond that. The point of the article is to show Intel v. AMD when OC'd to their general limits (water cooling and phase change withstanding). Fan boys (on either side) usually pull out the OC card when their proc doesn't quite measure up at stock speeds, so THG challenged it. They did a good job. Perfect? No, but pretty damn good.
August 2, 2006 3:33:53 PM

Quote:
it is odd though. why a person who will benefit from a high end system, uses a 3800 X2 with mild OC?


Just curious here, no dig intended.
If a 25% OC is mild, what is moderate? 50%? And would that make an extreme OC 75%?

In the grand scheme of all the computers being used out there, is a dual core 3800 really not an upper-end processor?

ok.. i apologize for my statement of mild OC. i believe 25% OC is considered moderate. probably need to get off from these extreme ocer's forum. XD

however, on the other hand, i believe a dual core 3800 is a low end processor, considering he is a megatasking person. afterall, 3800 X2 is the lowest dual core processor AMD has at the moment (is 3600 out yet?)
August 2, 2006 3:36:34 PM

Quote:
it is odd though. why a person who will benefit from a high end system, uses a 3800 X2 with mild OC?


Just curious here, no dig intended.
If a 25% OC is mild, what is moderate? 50%? And would that make an extreme OC 75%?

In the grand scheme of all the computers being used out there, is a dual core 3800 really not an upper-end processor?

ok.. i apologize for my statement of mild OC. i believe 25% OC is considered moderate. probably need to get off from these extreme ocer's forum. XD

however, on the other hand, i believe a dual core 3800 is a low end processor, considering he is a megatasking person. afterall, 3800 X2 is the lowest dual core processor AMD has at the moment (is 3600 out yet?)

I'd call 2.5Ghz mild for that core. Moderate would be in the range of 2.6-2.8, and 2.8-3.0 would be solid, and 3Ghz+ would be extreme.

Just my arbitrary rankings based on experience, don't like them? Oh well, they are mine not yours! lol.

Edit: Yes this puts my sad little OC in the category of moderate.... damn core doesn't like 2.8+. I can get it stable but it takes 1.7v to get the job done. Thats 21.43% vcore overnormal and the standard range is +-10%. 1.62v is 15.71% which is pushing it. Oh well, maybe Ill get to tinkering with my ram later.
August 2, 2006 3:36:37 PM

Quote:
Impressive, especially in encoding. :lol: 


Indeed. And I have an incredible amount of video editing waiting to be done, along with huge piles of large file size Photoshop editing, etc. Right now, I'm using a 4400+ that's running at 2.4. Even a stock 6700 would improve productivity a bunch. It's not gonna be easy keeping my patience promise while waiting for a good combo deal. Maybe it's time to sell off some other toys to fuel the purchase ahead of schedule. Steady, boy, steady...
August 2, 2006 3:43:53 PM

while I agree w/ you jumping on him for his comments about the usefullness of this article, I think you are missing something w/ this last post... many power users do go for the low end procs as they tend to have the best oc potential... i.e. you can usually get the best price/performance ratio w/ an oc'd low-end proc vs. blowing a wad on the high-end.

consider that pentium D 805... I have friends that have that same x2 3800 clocked to 2.7 and 2.8 on water rather then have the 2.8 fx out of the box. Plus, it is more fun to oc the little guy and beat the big guy... ;) 

and you can get "slower" opterons @ 1.8 Ghz (more cache) so the 3800 is not the slowest, but it is at the low end for sure. Still, even back in the day oc'ing athlon XP mobile procs on desktops was the thing for a while on the power user end, and they were not high-end procs by any means.

Still, he is kindof a tool for just jumping on Tom's for not running a game test for a cpu article...
August 2, 2006 3:59:13 PM

Quote:
it is odd though. why a person who will benefit from a high end system, uses a 3800 X2 with mild OC?


Just curious here, no dig intended.
If a 25% OC is mild, what is moderate? 50%? And would that make an extreme OC 75%?

In the grand scheme of all the computers being used out there, is a dual core 3800 really not an upper-end processor?

ok.. i apologize for my statement of mild OC. i believe 25% OC is considered moderate. probably need to get off from these extreme ocer's forum. XD

however, on the other hand, i believe a dual core 3800 is a low end processor, considering he is a megatasking person. afterall, 3800 X2 is the lowest dual core processor AMD has at the moment (is 3600 out yet?)

Sorry! Althon X2 3800+ @ 2.5Ghz. That's pretty near high end! Yes I can get an extra 10-20% performance for 75% more cash but I work for myself so I don't need to waste my hard earned cash for a slight performance increase. I'll leave that to the rich kids!
August 2, 2006 4:01:39 PM

lol, intel won with everything except its 6300. Which still kept up with the competition. the 6600 and the fx-62 seemed to be about equal in performance at stock. So what does this tell you. buy a 6600 for $316 instead of an fx62 at 800 something.
a b } Memory
a b å Intel
August 2, 2006 4:05:15 PM


Should that "schlägt" be there?

For multi tasking I run a ton of stuff at once. and all on a sinlge core cpu... and for the most part it is ok...i just want a core 2 to encode video and becuase as a 754 user i have no upgrade path....

Good article

(as they say in ET) Auf Wiedersehen :) 

EDIT
-------------------------
I think they should show how core 2 runs on ddr 2 533 and 667 as well
August 2, 2006 4:11:13 PM

After reading my post a second time I am sorry if it sounded selfish on my part I should have given intel the benifit of the class. I will make sure in the future not to post a remark without surity to it. I didn't learn my lesson from the ppu white paper.
August 2, 2006 4:17:36 PM

Guys... relax. I think this article was more about overclocking that it was about performance. I think THG wanted to show just how far you can push an X6800 & FX-62 w/o special cooling.

At least, that's how I see it.
August 2, 2006 4:22:30 PM

Quote:
while I agree w/ you jumping on him for his comments about the usefullness of this article, I think you are missing something w/ this last post... many power users do go for the low end procs as they tend to have the best oc potential... i.e. you can usually get the best price/performance ratio w/ an oc'd low-end proc vs. blowing a wad on the high-end.

consider that pentium D 805... I have friends that have that same x2 3800 clocked to 2.7 and 2.8 on water rather then have the 2.8 fx out of the box. Plus, it is more fun to oc the little guy and beat the big guy... ;) 

and you can get "slower" opterons @ 1.8 Ghz (more cache) so the 3800 is not the slowest, but it is at the low end for sure. Still, even back in the day oc'ing athlon XP mobile procs on desktops was the thing for a while on the power user end, and they were not high-end procs by any means.


of course. normally ppl either OC PD805, X2 3800, and/or Opteron 165, as these are the most overclockable ones.

thanks for the enlightment :D 
August 2, 2006 4:29:05 PM

You'll have to excuse me for jumping on the Video bench's. But it's a gripe I have with a lot of reviews of high end systems.

I would really like to see some serious performance testing. These high end CPU's are not going to be used by joe average who at most runs IE and Word. They'll be more than happy with the X2 3600+ or Intels equivalent.

We already know the limits of Athlon 64 architecture and we have already been made aware of C2D's overclocking ability.

These CPUs are going to be used by power hungry developers and gamers which is why IMHO these tests are pretty meaningless. They do not provide me with real world feedback.

I'd really love to see some benchmark results with machines running sql server and visual studio as well as divX conversiona whilst playing HL2. These would be much more reflective of a power users general usage.
August 2, 2006 4:29:09 PM

Sometimes it makes me wonder why some people even both posting, all the tests are laid out, they tell you what they are testing, and more importantly why, the test is a drag race between the two CPUs in the same tests under the same loads.

Its not a test of the graphics subsystem, or full on cripple the cpu under a million apps.

Its just a comparison of technologies under a controlled test. As always with synthetic tests it can only give you what this did compared to that.

While this really is not new news to us as there was a ES review already that gave us enough insight as to how this was going to turn out, it is nice to see the retail parts tested even though.

It all boils down to healthy competition of the two chip makers. I myself and running a Conroe 1.83 in my lappy and I am more than happy this its performance considering its meager clock rate. Smokes my Athlon 64 4000 =)
August 2, 2006 5:05:17 PM

Quote:
I myself and running a Conroe 1.83 in my lappy and I am more than happy this its performance considering its meager clock rate. Smokes my Athlon 64 4000 =)

Are you referring to your "lappy" as your laptop?

Core Duo (Yonah) is not Core 2 Duo (Merom, the mobile version of Conroe). To my knowledge Core 2 Duo Merom is not available yet.
!