Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

CPU Charts 2012: 86 Processors From AMD And Intel, Tested

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 3:18:24 AM

Sometimes I wish you updated legacy CPUs like the Core 2 Duo or even perhaps the Athlon 64 X2 series, just one or two models so that people upgrading can have an idea how much faster the CPU is in relation to their new purchase.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 3:24:23 AM

Where are the Visual Studio Test results?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 3:29:02 AM

Sandy and Ivy i3s are MIA.
December 24, 2012 3:30:39 AM

Why is the fx6300 missing i wanted to see how it fit into this
December 24, 2012 3:36:29 AM

Thanks Toms, now i know that i can get double the performance and 3/4 the power consumption going from AMD 955 to a Core i5 3570K.
December 24, 2012 3:46:25 AM

Great benchmarks.
But i want some processors which were legendary overclockers, and representatives of their generation of CPU's, included with a nominal OC :

intel C2D E7300 : 2.66- > 3.33
Intel C2Q Q6600 : 2.4- > 3.0ghz
Intel i5-750 : 2.66 - >3.33

Its highly likely that a person has owned at least one of these CPU's. I want to know how well these compare to modern processors.
December 24, 2012 3:52:08 AM

And please update the Winrar to version 4.2 . The 3.9 you are using is quite old and has poor multithreading.
December 24, 2012 4:00:06 AM

amdfangirlSometimes I wish you updated legacy CPUs like the Core 2 Duo or even perhaps the Athlon 64 X2 series, just one or two models so that people upgrading can have an idea how much faster the CPU is in relation to their new purchase.

I always wish this. Beyond that the AM3 Athlon X2's are still being sold at newegg and the Phenom X2's are not...
December 24, 2012 4:00:08 AM

amdfangirlSometimes I wish you updated legacy CPUs like the Core 2 Duo or even perhaps the Athlon 64 X2 series, just one or two models so that people upgrading can have an idea how much faster the CPU is in relation to their new purchase.


Agreed, maybe just one dual core and one quad? q9550 and e6850? not that I still own both of those or anything...

But let's do some math. Just for a rough order of magnitude I figure an average of 15% increase in performance per clock cycle, per generation (not including clock speed, number of cores, etc.). So if we start back at Conroe and work our way to present day Ivy Bridge, that's 5 new generations of processors. 1.15^5 = 2.01

Which means that an Ivy Bridge CPU at the same speed as a Conroe CPU (2006ish) is about 2x as fast per clock cycle, on average. Once you take into account faster clock speeds, number of cores, cache sizes, integrated memory controllers, etc. and more importantly what software will be used with the CPUs the real world performance difference could be almost nothing to somewhere around 10-15x as fast.

I digress. The point being, is I would like to see some more benchies Tom's! Prove me wrong!
December 24, 2012 4:01:06 AM

Lot of great info here, but missing Core i3 info leaves a big hole in the data point. Please add.
December 24, 2012 4:09:07 AM

amdfangirlSometimes I wish you updated legacy CPUs like the Core 2 Duo or even perhaps the Athlon 64 X2 series, just one or two models so that people upgrading can have an idea how much faster the CPU is in relation to their new purchase.

Yes! Core 2 Duo E6750 CPU owner here.
December 24, 2012 4:14:14 AM

A Proud Owner of 2700K here !
i'll skip ivy and Haswell as well with this Sensational Cpu at 4.6Ghz
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 4:14:42 AM

I believe the i5-2500K has a 95W TDP instead of 65W.
December 24, 2012 4:16:57 AM

This is very Helpful. Now I knew that I did a very good work upgrading to 3470. ;) 
There should be i3 3220 too. Really wanted to know about that.
December 24, 2012 4:21:39 AM

amdfangirlSometimes I wish you updated legacy CPUs like the Core 2 Duo or even perhaps the Athlon 64 X2 series, just one or two models so that people upgrading can have an idea how much faster the CPU is in relation to their new purchase.


Throw in a Pentium 4 as a reminder to those folks who still think they can run BF3 on a 1.8 GHz Willamette.


And as for fun, there should've been a CPU rendering test. Windows 7 has a function that allows a CPU do to DX10 graphics, completely bypassing the GPU. The only obviously issue that CPUs are terrible compared to GPUs when it comes to graphics.

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20081126/direct3d-warp...
December 24, 2012 4:43:35 AM

amdfangirlSometimes I wish you updated legacy CPUs like the Core 2 Duo or even perhaps the Athlon 64 X2 series, just one or two models so that people upgrading can have an idea how much faster the CPU is in relation to their new purchase.
Agreed, 1 Core 2 duo/quad 65nm & Core 2 duo/quad 45nm.

There is no need to bench 2600K/2700K & Core i5-2300/Core i5-2310, just one of the 2 set will do, because we all know their performance is close to identical.
December 24, 2012 4:58:19 AM

amd has a lot of work to do
December 24, 2012 5:14:17 AM

Is it just me or are the Mafia II frame rates really low?
December 24, 2012 5:18:32 AM

Why are there no Vishera CPUs in the charts?
December 24, 2012 5:19:28 AM

"Of course, as we all know now, the Piledriver-based Vishera parts are available, and have been since late October. Worry not; we are in the process of running several more processors based on Piledriver through the same suite of benchmarks, and will be updating the charts soon"

Sorry, didn't get to read that :D 
December 24, 2012 5:20:16 AM

where is the FX 8320? That would have been a decent cpu to benchmark considering it's right in the thick of mainstream cpus in price and performance. Nevr the less i was surprised by the A10 5800k for a budget cpu it faired pretty well overall. not bad for 120 dollars cpu.
December 24, 2012 5:32:22 AM

A Bad DayThrow in a Pentium 4 as a reminder to those folks who still think they can run BF3 on a 1.8 GHz Willamette.


BF3 ? No. However, i can tell you, that my 2.4 Northwood machine is still just about enough to watch Youtube in 720p, and with the last AGP cards it is enough to play most anything up to 2009, like, say, Dragon Age.
December 24, 2012 6:15:34 AM

For the Charts section I have a suggestion .... please redesign it so that we can choose from 1 up to 4 processors, gpus, hdd, etc. and compare them directly ... and when i say directly i mean Anandtech style, from a drop down menu. I'm sayn this because your version is slow and painfull, you have to look at a huge sheet to find your processor/gpu/hdd and then select different benchmarks ... it takes too many steppes and it's really getting old and annoying.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 6:32:31 AM

Hoping to see the i3 3220 and the FX6300 and the FX8320
December 24, 2012 6:56:13 AM

this is great GJ!
December 24, 2012 7:11:54 AM

I am impressed by how affordable and powerful the 3770k is, so much bang for the buck its stunning to be sitting by extreme processors and even perform better in some cases.
December 24, 2012 7:33:33 AM

I love my core i5-2500K. I have it at 5Ghz and she flies.
December 24, 2012 7:54:50 AM

Still no need to upgrade my X6 1055T as the only reasonable performance increase in 3ds max rendering is with i7-3930K, but it only gives 30% faster rendering while costing 4X as much.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 8:27:22 AM

There's no such thing as i7 3930X, it's 3930K.
December 24, 2012 8:46:50 AM

Tom's, I think you need to recheck the results on the iTunes "WAV to AAC" benchmark - the A10-5800K is listed as being 4 seconds faster than the FX-8350, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/0/0/364176/original/res_ap...

I mean, when you have two processors with the same core architecture, isn't the faster CPU supposed to be the one with more cache and a higher clock-rate?
December 24, 2012 9:12:16 AM

CPU - Core 2 Duo T8300 (2.4Ghz)
Memory - 4GB PC-5300
GPU - 360m

As a comparison ran a few of the benchmarks on the olde laptop from 2008. It was a high end machine when it was bought, state of the art 64 bit and 4 GB of RAM. Its also a reasonable machine to run some benchmarks on to see just how far off a C2D is compared to todays machines:

CPU - Core 2 Duo T8300 (2.4Ghz)
Memory - PC-5300

SiSoft Sandra
Drystone = 25 GIPs
Whetstone = 16.22 GFLOPS
Memory bandwidth = 4.3GB/s

PCMark 7 Score = 1501

Cinebench 11.5
Singlethreaded = 0.74
Multithreaded = 1.39
December 24, 2012 9:57:18 AM

This info is 6 months old. Where is the Piledriver, it the first sizable improvement from AMD in years? Is Ivy bridge there and not Piledrivers because it's been out for awhile or to feed conspiracy theories? Intel doesn't need any more help. Or did the no name author's just compile existing data from the site and make it look new?
December 24, 2012 10:18:02 AM

My startling observation would be that in a few tests the did include the 8350, it actually beat all the i5 and a couple i7s on multithreaded productivity. That's something I'm seeing for the first time, not just comete against the i5 instead i3, but positioned between the current i5 and i7.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 10:31:40 AM

Wow!

It is really a great and a hard work!

It is nice to break it through several benchmarks tools, and apps, so that we are able to see how each CPU performances in a given field, but what I would like to see, based upon all separate results, is a general CPU result, like the former CPU Hierarchy Chart .
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 10:42:03 AM

I thought that Conroe and Kentsfield were the first generation desktop core architecture.
December 24, 2012 12:17:19 PM

Great, but for product comparison (CPU & GPU), since I've found this site my life's changed :



You can really see how your gear looks compared to new one.
December 24, 2012 12:18:38 PM

w w w .anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
a c 805 à CPUs
a c 136 å Intel
a c 309 À AMD
December 24, 2012 12:27:11 PM

No surprises.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 12:37:58 PM

It's funny. People accuse Intel of changing the sockets too often, yet, if you look at the same span of time, AMD has gone through just as many sockets as Intel:

Intel: 775, 1156, 1366, 1155, 2011
AMD: AM2+, AM3, AM3+, FM1, FM2

At least Intel kept the value range server socket and the mainstream desktop socket the same. AMD didn't do that much.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 1:29:50 PM

@dgingeri

FM1 and FM2 are not continuing but expanding the desktop segment at this moment. - Chronological, AM2+ up to AM3+ represent counterparts to Intels 775 - 2011.

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 1:37:47 PM

thanks for the handy "pocket reference"


is it now "egg nog" time in the office? but i think someone is opting for a nap instead . .
December 24, 2012 1:56:16 PM

Piledriver?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 2:23:30 PM

No AMD FX-83xx series listed here? Pfft.
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 24, 2012 2:33:33 PM

i guess i am the one(!) of the very few(!!) who sees an fx8350 and an a10 5800k (Both based on Piledriver arch) in the charts. the writers even say why they didn't include pd fx cpus.
or these c.a.l.f.s don't even read the article before they start complaining...
December 24, 2012 3:51:43 PM

amdfangirlSometimes I wish you updated legacy CPUs like the Core 2 Duo or even perhaps the Athlon 64 X2 series, just one or two models so that people upgrading can have an idea how much faster the CPU is in relation to their new purchase.


I agree completely.
December 24, 2012 5:25:29 PM

mckertisBF3 ? No. However, i can tell you, that my 2.4 Northwood machine is still just about enough to watch Youtube in 720p, and with the last AGP cards it is enough to play most anything up to 2009, like, say, Dragon Age.



I have a 2.8GHz P4 that struggles even with 480p on youtube, but that's with an x1600 Pro graphics card so no youtube acceleration, which is probably why yours can play it.

Bioshock 1 was even borderline playable on it, but I would not reccomend the experience.
December 24, 2012 5:44:34 PM

abbadon_34This info is 6 months old. Where is the Piledriver, it the first sizable improvement from AMD in years? Is Ivy bridge there and not Piledrivers because it's been out for awhile or to feed conspiracy theories? Intel doesn't need any more help. Or did the no name author's just compile existing data from the site and make it look new?


Piledriver? Sizeable improvement? If you call that sizeable, than AMD is in a worse place than I thought.
December 24, 2012 5:46:30 PM

deepblue08Piledriver? Sizeable improvement? If you call that sizeable, than AMD is in a worse place than I thought.



Well, it does go from almost certainly a bad value for most tasks, to decent for the price. That's an improvement. It doesn't win back the performance crown, but no one expected that.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2012 5:51:32 PM

"Sometimes I wish you updated legacy CPUs like the Core 2 Duo or even perhaps the Athlon 64 X2 series, just one or two models so that people upgrading can have an idea how much faster the CPU is in relation to their new purchase. "

Ditto the above.

The sad truth is tho, it would be depressing. There just isnt that huge of an improvement. Sure there is, but its been like 10 years since the a64 and for 10 years, its kinda a joke, compared to the pervious 10 years before that.
!