Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Gigahertz Battle: How Do Today's CPUs Stack Up?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 26, 2007 11:46:26 AM

Core 2 Duo is king, but how do other processors today compare on a clock-to-clock basis? We benchmarked comparable CPUs from AMD as well as Intel to see.
March 26, 2007 12:09:05 PM

Does this mean that the CPU charts are getting updated?
March 26, 2007 12:24:38 PM

Well I guess this proves my point.Even thouugh c2d is a fine cpu,amd 64 is still a heavy weight contender,not to be easily dismissed as inferior.I have faith that AMD will come out with something very nice soon.(By soon I mean in the next few months).

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
Related resources
March 26, 2007 12:31:01 PM

Quote:
Well I guess this proves my point.Even thouugh c2d is a fine cpu,amd 64 is still a heavy weight contender,not to be easily dismissed as inferior.I have faith that AMD will come out with something very nice soon.(By soon I mean in the next few months).

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
I didn't really get that from the article. What i saw was that the A64 kicked the Northwood P4's butt pretty good, and the C2D kicked the A64's butt equally as good. 8)
March 26, 2007 12:33:57 PM

Quote:
Does this mean that the CPU charts are getting updated?
They assembled all those CPU's, spent all that time running the tests.....yet they can't? find an E6300, or don't have the time to test one. I think won't is the more appropriate word. :x
March 26, 2007 12:36:35 PM

AVERAGE:
C2D vs Core Duo(Yonah) = +15% at same frequency
C2D vs K8 = +20% at same frequency
C2D vs PentiumD = +80% at same frequency
March 26, 2007 1:17:18 PM

:roll: methinks the point was different arch running at same frequency produces different performances....
March 26, 2007 1:28:36 PM

I have my venice 3200+ 939 overclocked to 2400 Mhz for allmost 2 years now.... What a fine CPU it is.
March 26, 2007 1:49:07 PM

I still have my P4 northy 3.0 HT CPU.

It still sits, begs, and rolls over on command...

And they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks :oops: 
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2007 1:56:18 PM

I note you compared crippled AMD64 dual cores (half the cache disabled).
How can we trust you when you publish this kind of review?


The 939 choice of CPU should have been the 4800+ (e4 Toledo) not the 4600+ crippled MANCHESTER E6 core you used instead.

You also should have used a 4000+ sandiego core - SSE3 ??? not the earlier 130nm 4000+ core.

The AM2 choice should have been a declocked FX62 down to FX53 speed ... just lower the multilier.

Once again Toms has put AMD at every disadvantage possible in the benchmark comparisons.

But the free rent from the Intel building your located in must be nice.

You always seem to put just enough spin on the articles ...

I remember when the world was bagging Netburst after the A64 was introduced and you sere still showing bent benchmarks here showin the Extreme in front ... man that made me laugh.

Toms will always be known as a site that Intel bought and uses as part of it's longterm marketing strategy ... its just sad that the overage Joe believes what you tell them.

For the rest of us .... well.

:( 
March 26, 2007 2:01:01 PM

Here we go again. Yet another person comes out of the wood work to claim bias.
March 26, 2007 2:07:01 PM

How much do you think FSB, different memory and different vid cards played into the results??

Not to mention different generations of motherboards offering different efficiencies...

It's an interesting article, but leaves a bit to be desired.

I'm not sure what he means by:
Quote:
When compared to the Athlon 64 4000+ single core, the AMD processor offers up to 50% more performance, showing that the AMD64 architecture is far superior to Intel's NetBurst.


Could someone explain that to me?
March 26, 2007 2:09:21 PM

I applaud the article for it's goal: demonstrating architectural efficiencies and microcore design

I really would have liked to see a comparison to Pentium Ds. They say they can't run them at 2.4 GHz so they can't do an Apples-to-Apples comparison... but what about Oranges-to-Oranges? Can they compare a Core 2 Duo at 2.66 to a Pentium D 805 at 2.66? I guess I have to check the charts for that. I know the D's will get smoked (if they haven't already burned up), but I wanted to see by how much for future design purposes.

Anyway, thanks for putting this together. Interesting read.
March 26, 2007 2:10:18 PM

Is there a "I AMD" shirt? I think he needs one of those too.

He's complaining about the difference between disabled and native caches. If that isn't nit picking, I don't know what the hell could be. The difference is nominal at best.

Raise a E4300 FSB strap to 266, and drop the multi to 7. Now compare the scores in cache dependent tasks to an E6300.
March 26, 2007 2:13:09 PM

Argh! when will these people do things correctly?

If the Pentium D and P4 has a minimum clock speed of 2.8 GHz, you don't exclude them from the discussion, you raise the clock speeds (Remind you it is called Gigahertz race) for most of the other procs when you can overclock them (which most of them do have the ability to clock at 2.8 GHz), especially when all sorts of liquid coolings and others are available (should normalize the temperatures as well, but that's minor)

also if you have socket 478 P4, where is the socket A /socket 754 AMD stuff?

Yet another point of completion suggestion.
March 26, 2007 2:47:14 PM

I've never been a fan of pschmid's reviews... I've said over and over and over and over and over and OVER again that he needs to go back to 6th grade and learn what the terms "Control" and "Variables" mean.
March 26, 2007 3:00:52 PM

Quote:
How much do you think FSB, different memory and different vid cards played into the results??


This is something that kind of always bugged me about benchmarks. If the article is about testing CPU's, then I think it would be better to use as similar components as possible with all of the CPU's tested. For example, if they are using ASUS mobos, then have all of them use ASUS, or if they use BFG video cards, then have all of the setups use BFG. Also, try to keep the chipsets the same manufacturer. I'm just saying I think all of other non-reviewed components should be as close to identical as possible.
March 26, 2007 3:15:55 PM

Quote:
Core 2 Duo is king, but how do other processors today compare on a clock-to-clock basis? We benchmarked comparable CPUs from AMD as well as Intel to see.



Pretty good review. It shows that the only way to tell C2D and X2 apart is to either crank up your SLI 8000GTX res up to 2560 on Oblivion or actually use a measuring tool.

Cloack for clock it seems much closer than PD to X2, but as you said X2 is still worth it especially with the lower prices.

Flame On!
March 26, 2007 3:23:33 PM

Something is weird in the benchmark with winrar, i took the same amount of file and same total mb. I did the compression to Best etc and i was at 3 min compression and my proc is at 2.4ghz e6300 and in their benchmark its like 1 min. How can this be possible ?
March 26, 2007 3:28:42 PM

Quote:
Here we go again. Yet another person comes out of the wood work to claim bias.


He did make a few small, good points. They probably just used whatever CPUs were on hand, and I can't blame them for that, because this whole article reeks of "Hey, guys, we need to do review SOMETHING. What have we got lying around?"
March 26, 2007 3:34:52 PM

I wish they would have included my 2.4 Ghz Athlon XP-M
March 26, 2007 3:41:27 PM

Quote:
I note you compared crippled AMD64 dual cores (half the cache disabled).
How can we trust you when you publish this kind of review?


The 939 choice of CPU should have been the 4800+ (e4 Toledo) not the 4600+ crippled MANCHESTER E6 core you used instead.

You also should have used a 4000+ sandiego core - SSE3 ??? not the earlier 130nm 4000+ core.

The AM2 choice should have been a declocked FX62 down to FX53 speed ... just lower the multilier.

Once again Toms has put AMD at every disadvantage possible in the benchmark comparisons.

But the free rent from the Intel building your located in must be nice.

You always seem to put just enough spin on the articles ...

I remember when the world was bagging Netburst after the A64 was introduced and you sere still showing bent benchmarks here showin the Extreme in front ... man that made me laugh.

Toms will always be known as a site that Intel bought and uses as part of it's longterm marketing strategy ... its just sad that the overage Joe believes what you tell them.

For the rest of us .... well.

:( 


I agree
March 26, 2007 3:48:00 PM

Why were there no math / computational benchmarks done? Specifically the sandra 2007 floating points and integer benchmarks. I know I am a minority in that I care about floating point math computations and this site mainly caters to the designers and those who focus more on rendering. So... oh well I can wait for the charts to get updated!

Until then, I play the wait and see game.
March 26, 2007 3:49:32 PM

Quote:
Something is weird in the benchmark with winrar, i took the same amount of file and same total mb. I did the compression to Best etc and i was at 3 min compression and my proc is at 2.4ghz e6300 and in their benchmark its like 1 min. How can this be possible ?


(303 MB, 47 Files, 2 Folders)

Did you split 303Mb in 47 files and two folders?

Also as an example, video or jpeg pics take more time to compress than mp3 music
March 26, 2007 3:53:52 PM

Quote:
I note you compared crippled AMD64 dual cores (half the cache disabled).
How can we trust you when you publish this kind of review?


The 939 choice of CPU should have been the 4800+ (e4 Toledo) not the 4600+ crippled MANCHESTER E6 core you used instead.

You also should have used a 4000+ sandiego core - SSE3 ??? not the earlier 130nm 4000+ core.

The AM2 choice should have been a declocked FX62 down to FX53 speed ... just lower the multilier.

Once again Toms has put AMD at every disadvantage possible in the benchmark comparisons.

But the free rent from the Intel building your located in must be nice.

You always seem to put just enough spin on the articles ...

I remember when the world was bagging Netburst after the A64 was introduced and you sere still showing bent benchmarks here showin the Extreme in front ... man that made me laugh.

Toms will always be known as a site that Intel bought and uses as part of it's longterm marketing strategy ... its just sad that the overage Joe believes what you tell them.

For the rest of us .... well.

:( 


I agree

"PMR to Grimmy!"
"PMR to Grimmy!"

"Requesting another T-Shirt, please!"

"Over and out..."
March 26, 2007 4:10:33 PM

Quote:
I note you compared crippled AMD64 dual cores (half the cache disabled).
How can we trust you when you publish this kind of review?


The 939 choice of CPU should have been the 4800+ (e4 Toledo) not the 4600+ crippled MANCHESTER E6 core you used instead.

You also should have used a 4000+ sandiego core - SSE3 ??? not the earlier 130nm 4000+ core.

The AM2 choice should have been a declocked FX62 down to FX53 speed ... just lower the multilier.

Once again Toms has put AMD at every disadvantage possible in the benchmark comparisons.

But the free rent from the Intel building your located in must be nice.

You always seem to put just enough spin on the articles ...

I remember when the world was bagging Netburst after the A64 was introduced and you sere still showing bent benchmarks here showin the Extreme in front ... man that made me laugh.

Toms will always be known as a site that Intel bought and uses as part of it's longterm marketing strategy ... its just sad that the overage Joe believes what you tell them.

For the rest of us .... well.

:( 


I agree

"PMR to Grimmy!"
"PMR to Grimmy!"

"Requesting another T-Shirt, please!"

"Over and out..."

:lol: 

Ummm.. Here's a free t-shirt that they could register for:

Please complete the form below to receive your free t-shirt from AMD.
March 26, 2007 4:14:12 PM

Quote:
Wasn't he the same guy that did the"$300 pc"? :?

Are you referring to the $300 PC that actually cost over $300? Yeah, that was a joke.
March 26, 2007 4:25:15 PM

Quote:
I note you compared crippled AMD64 dual cores (half the cache disabled).
Are you telling us that AMD is producing crippled CPUs right now?
Because ALL of their 65nm AMD64 dualcore CPUs are with a slower(compared to 90nm) 512kB L2 per core.
Quote:
How can we trust you when you publish this kind of review?

WTF? Whats the problem with the review?
Is there any problem with any of the benchmarks?

Quote:
The 939 choice of CPU should have been the 4800+ (e4 Toledo)

Why 4800+? Most X2 owner, own a X2 with 512kB L2 because it is cheaper and is only 0-5% slower than the X2 with 1MB per core. Going by your logic, they should have included the Prescott with 2M L2 cache, right? So, why are you not complaining about that? :roll:
Quote:
not the 4600+ crippled MANCHESTER E6 core you used instead.

This 4600+ is with Toledo core. There are X2 with Toledo cores with half cache per core disabled, like this one.

Quote:
You also should have used a 4000+ sandiego core - SSE3 ??? not the earlier 130nm 4000+ core.
Who are you to tell?
They used an older Intel CPU - Northwood WITHOUT SSE3. Why are you not complaining about that? :roll:

Quote:
The AM2 choice should have been a declocked FX62 down to FX53 speed ... just lower the multilier.

Why?
Why not to use the slower 65nm X2 4600+?
Or the 90nm 3600+ with 2x256kB L2, overclocked to 2.4GHz?
Why do you think that you are appropriate to tell TH which CPUs they should include in their comparison?

Quote:
Once again Toms has put AMD at every disadvantage possible in the benchmark comparisons.

But the free rent from the Intel building your located in must be nice.

You always seem to put just enough spin on the articles ...

I remember when the world was bagging Netburst after the A64 was introduced and you sere still showing bent benchmarks here showin the Extreme in front ... man that made me laugh.

Toms will always be known as a site that Intel bought and uses as part of it's longterm marketing strategy ... its just sad that the overage Joe believes what you tell them.

For the rest of us .... well.

:( 

What a crapload of BS. Just stick at AMDZone, sharikou's blog and the_INQ and don't come back here. We have enough AMD fanboy trolls BS-ing around.
March 26, 2007 4:28:47 PM

Quote:
Wasn't he the same guy that did the"$300 pc"? :?


Like I said in my reply.. I've attacked his articles over and over and over again... his CPU articles especially. He also has a few articles that say, "while we can't really get a clear conclusion, I guess we can say...."


I mean come on... wtf. He's wasting THG's time and resources. Honestly, I've been 7 out of 8 for the last 8 articles I've read; within the first 2 paragraphs, I can tell if pschmid was the author, without previously looking at the author. You can tell that things are not set up correcty, and even the beginning of the article basically tells you that you're not going to get any useful information out of it and it will be a waste of your time.

I've written THG on this and not recieved a response.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...


I think I still have the last reply on there... it's worth more of a read than the review was ;) 

However, his worst article (that I've found) to date is his hard drive review:
March 26, 2007 4:53:18 PM

i dont care if it was biased or not leave that to the reader to figure out i just dont like having my conroe called and allendale the e6300 and e6400 are both conroe cores with 2mb of cache disabled as exemplified by the e6320 and e6420 that do not have that limit set upon them, the e4xxx is allendale and doesn't have that second 2mb at all gggrrrrr if your going to write a 15 page review at least get your facts strait !
check intel intel says the e6400 and e6300 are conroe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2#Allendale
and see page 4
http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/28/23/282378_282378...
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2007 6:07:47 PM

Good article, it made for an interesting read.

It seems to me that AMD and Intel are coming a bit full circle. Intel is on top with the Core2 uArch and AMD is the best "bang for the buck". With the recent AMD price cuts, if I were to build a basic box for the GF, Mom, or Granny, I'd be hard pressed NOT to go with AMD. But, there is no denying Intel is presently on top.

Some interesting threads as well. Some are the typical "Intels rulz 4-ever and AMD sux" and others the typical "WAH! AMD was crippled and the benches ar bias! WAH!", but overall art least this hasn't turned into a total flame war. Yet?
March 26, 2007 6:41:06 PM

Quote:
What a crapload of BS. Just stick at AMDZone, sharikou's blog and the_INQ and don't come back here. We have enough AMD fanboy trolls BS-ing around.



Why did you have to go there? Do you have pent-up hostilities or something? The guy stated an opinion. It was not yours but you didn't respond civilly. It seemed like everyone had one problem or another with the review (except me - I've seen too many) so it's not fair to sngle this person out and them indict anyone you think is unfit for posting here.

Yeah right.
March 26, 2007 7:25:25 PM

It's my opinion about his opinion. Do you have a problem with that?
Come on Baron....someone with a posts count of 1 comes to TH forumz to enlight us("the overaged Joes") about how TH is paid by Intel and are writing biased articles to make AMD look bad...He can post such BS on FUDZone and shakira's blog and everyone will be agreeing with him.
March 26, 2007 7:39:40 PM

Quote:
Something is weird in the benchmark with winrar, i took the same amount of file and same total mb. I did the compression to Best etc and i was at 3 min compression and my proc is at 2.4ghz e6300 and in their benchmark its like 1 min. How can this be possible ?
I think some of the speed can be attributed to the fact that they're using 2x400GB WD's in a RAID 0. :?
March 26, 2007 7:42:38 PM

Quote:
What a crapload of BS. Just stick at AMDZone, sharikou's blog and the_INQ and don't come back here. We have enough AMD fanboy trolls BS-ing around.



Why did you have to go there? Do you have pent-up hostilities or something? The guy stated an opinion. It was not yours but you didn't respond civilly. It seemed like everyone had one problem or another with the review (except me - I've seen too many) so it's not fair to sngle this person out and them indict anyone you think is unfit for posting here.

Yeah right.

No the guy created an account logged one post to get exactly the reaction he got. He's a doucebag who's regurgitating other peoples opinions and too afraid to post under an ID people may recognize (or can't because he's been banned from here)

That's *my* opinion....
March 26, 2007 7:52:50 PM

Quote:
It's my opinion about his opinion. Do you have a problem with that?
Come on Baron....someone with a posts count of 1 comes to TH forumz to enlight us("the overaged Joes") about how TH is paid by Intel and are writing biased articles to make AMD look bad...He can post such BS on FUDZone and shakira's blog and everyone will be agreeing with him.


That's exactly the point. You don't know him and nothing he says will affect your paycheck so you should make your point without the name calling.
March 26, 2007 7:53:48 PM

Quote:
What a crapload of BS. Just stick at AMDZone, sharikou's blog and the_INQ and don't come back here. We have enough AMD fanboy trolls BS-ing around.



Why did you have to go there? Do you have pent-up hostilities or something? The guy stated an opinion. It was not yours but you didn't respond civilly. It seemed like everyone had one problem or another with the review (except me - I've seen too many) so it's not fair to sngle this person out and them indict anyone you think is unfit for posting here.

Yeah right.

No the guy created an account logged one post to get exactly the reaction he got. He's a doucebag who's regurgitating other peoples opinions and too afraid to post under an ID people may recognize (or can't because he's been banned from here)

That's *my* opinion....

So


WHY ALLOW HIM TO DISRUPT?


Move on. It's not that serious.
March 26, 2007 8:00:23 PM

Y don'T U PraCtiCe WhAt U pReaCh?
March 26, 2007 8:15:02 PM

Wow. Just wow. I usually like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but meh, not anymore...
March 26, 2007 8:23:52 PM

I would like to point out that AMD performance is by no means useless. For $130 you can get that2 and $50-100 gets you a 5 series nForce.

What with the quad cores in the works the AMD setup just looks future-proof to me.

See how the single thread performance is nothing to write home about on the Intels? And is the device contention on that quad-core causing the lower-than-it-should-be scores? If AMD does their crossbar for the quad cores we will see a very nice system indeed.

If you don't need/ can't afford the Intel setup (PS, adding the Nforce Intel boards into it pushes the price a lot) the x2 is the best bet.

I prefer AMD's true. Why am I happy about Intel making the Core2 Duo's? Because it was time for AMD to get off their but and now they have :) 

I don't know why the 130nm is used because it is unavailable, the 4000+ San Diego is $70 now, for the amount of time I save processing (which I don't do), the money for the Core2's is crazy insane, besides the fact that I won't have the AM2 quad update path when I need it later.

I use the 4000+ San Diego, at 3Ghz, why? because it is great there and for a single-core under a $100 it is doing a great job. The question is how to go dual-core without losing the single-thread speed right now for under $150.

Intel if you must, but don't go proclaiming that one is better or worse, they are different. Say "I really like the Intels", or "I really like the AMD's". Don't say: "AMD's suck the big one because Intel rules and you suxxors fanboi's

That is helping no-one. I am staying with AMD because there is no reason to change at my budget and performance level. Plus Intels just make me feel weird when I use them. If I had $1000 to spend** on a PC, or even $500-800 I might do a C2D. But since I have $200-$300 I need to spend the money where it will do the most good. On an AMD. The nForce platform is mature on the AM2's, since the DDR2 support is in the Core of the CPU I don't have to pay for it and I get the nForce technology for a good price.

**(originally "blow", it was an unnecessary way to put it.)
March 26, 2007 8:26:42 PM

I thought it strange to use the clawhammer core instead of the San Diego...
March 26, 2007 8:34:05 PM

Quote:
You don't know him and nothing he says will affect your paycheck so you should make your point without the name calling.

I agree and disagree. My style is going straight to the target and there is no better word than the word "troll" about people like that dude.
He has no respect for the author about the efforts he has made to benchmark the systems and write the article. He just came from nowhere and in his first post he started complaining about nonexistent points. Having a double standard, he failed to support his BS and for no valid reason he bashed TH, TH forumz and TH forumz members.
Do you remember how I treated you when you used to BS like him?
Do you think he deserves a nicer treatment than your?
March 26, 2007 8:42:01 PM

I agree, attacking the author isn't the right thing to do.
March 26, 2007 8:51:43 PM

Quote:
I would like to point out that AMD performance is by no means useless. For $130 you can get that2 and $50-100 gets you a 5 series nForce.

What with the quad cores in the works the AMD setup just looks future-proof to me.

See how the single thread performance is nothing to write home about on the Intels? And is the device contention on that quad-core causing the lower-than-it-should-be scores? If AMD does their crossbar for the quad cores we will see a very nice system indeed.

If you don't need/ can't afford the Intel setup (PS, adding the Nforce Intel boards into it pushes the price a lot) the x2 is the best bet.

I prefer AMD's true. Why am I happy about Intel making the Core2 Duo's? Because it was time for AMD to get off their but and now they have :) 

I don't know why the 130nm is used because it is unavailable, the 4000+ San Diego is $70 now, for the amount of time I save processing (which I don't do), the money for the Core2's is crazy insane, besides the fact that I won't have the AM2 quad update path when I need it later.

I use the 4000+ San Diego, at 3Ghz, why? because it is great there and for a single-core under a $100 it is doing a great job. The question is how to go dual-core without losing the single-thread speed right now for under $150.

Intel if you must, but don't go proclaiming that one is better or worse, they are different. Say "I really like the Intels", or "I really like the AMD's". Don't say: "AMD's suck the big one because Intel rules and you suxxors fanboi's

That is helping no-one. I am staying with AMD because there is no reason to change at my budget and performance level. Plus Intels just make me feel weird when I use them. If I had $1000 to blow on a PC, or even $500-800 I might do a C2D. But since I have $200-$300 I need to spend the money where it will do the most good. On an AMD. The nForce platform is mature on the AM2's, since the DDR2 support is in the Core of the CPU I don't have to pay for it and I get the nForce technology for a good price.
No wonder you've only made 7 posts in a year. You can't think of anything decent to say. :x
March 26, 2007 8:54:19 PM

Quote:
Here we go again. Yet another person comes out of the wood work to claim bias.


He did make a valid point....but I doubt the extra cashe would make much differance.
March 26, 2007 8:57:43 PM

Quote:
How much do you think FSB, different memory and different vid cards played into the results??

Not to mention different generations of motherboards offering different efficiencies...

It's an interesting article, but leaves a bit to be desired.

I'm not sure what he means by:
When compared to the Athlon 64 4000+ single core, the AMD processor offers up to 50% more performance, showing that the AMD64 architecture is far superior to Intel's NetBurst.


Could someone explain that to me?

Talking about "older" stuff....and the correct gain should be more like a 46% boost.
March 26, 2007 9:22:12 PM

In the end most of us are not needing an upraded system and when the time does roll around todys best will be sub-par.

Seeing as my 939 Optron system is almost a year old I would expect by the time parts fail will be many years...and as usal I will build with whatever the best is at that point in time.
AMD/Intel...makes no matter to me.
March 26, 2007 9:31:51 PM

Quote:
They assembled all those CPU's, spent all that time running the tests.....yet they can't? find an E6300, or don't have the time to test one. I think won't is the more appropriate word. :x


Boo hoo, Tom's hardware didn't write a personal review that catered to your every need. Cry me a river.

It was a good review and gave a good idea of how the architectures relate to one another.

A gaming benchmark would have been nice, as most of us Tom's hardware junkys game.
!