Low-Power Face-Off: AMD's Athlon X2 Vs. Intel's Core 2 Duo
Table of contents
- 1. What is Left from AMD’s Low Power Advantage?
- 2. Low Power: AMD Athlon X2 5050e (45 W TDP)
- 3. Regular Power: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ BE (65 W TDP)
- 4. The Competition: Core 2 Duo And Quad S-Series
- 5. Test Setup
AMD, which dominated the processor market with its Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 just a few years ago, was able to make a return with the recent Phenom II processors. While these new 45 nm CPUs cannot trump Intel's Core i7, they offer performance that can match a Core 2 Quad here and there. Unfortunately, there is no low-power version available yet, so we decided to look at AMD’s remaining low-power option.
The latest Athlon X2 dual-core CPUs are very affordable, and supposedly efficient. Our shootout includes an Athlon X2 5050e (45 W TDP) and a 5600+ (65 W TDP) as well as several Intel processors.
Low Power Versus Efficiency
Power users will certainly focus on performance first, while all other users want to have the best of both worlds: a fast processor that does not consume more power than necessary.
Performance is easy enough to define. It is the time required for a workload to complete, or workload execution within a given time. However, efficiency is still sometimes misunderstood, because efficiency does not equal low power. A low-power device such as Intel’s Atom processor has low power consumption, but it is far from being efficient.
We define efficiency as the power that is required to complete a specific workload. In this case, power is measured in Watt-hours (this isn’t watts per hour, but watts times hours). Some readers had noted that work energy should be stated in joules. One joule equals one watt-second, so a watt-hour equals 1 x 60 x 60 = 3,600 joules. We decided to stay with Watt-hours (Wh), as this is the way we are charged for electricity.
CPU Power Versus Platform Power
On the CPU side, AMD has traditionally had two advantages over Intel. First there is the SOI manufacturing process (at 90, 65, and 45 nm), which ensures low power requirements in idle mode thanks to low leakage power. This makes it very much competitive with Intel’s manufacturing, which has typically been 12-18 months ahead of AMD with regards to transistor size (note that AMD processor manufacturing is being outsourced). Second, AMD processors have come with integrated memory controllers since the introduction of the Athlon 64 in late 2003, which typically provides a power consumption advantage over logic that is part of the Intel chipset. Core i7 has started to introduce a paradigm change in this direction with Intel, but that doesn’t apply to Core 2.
So there is the platform, which contributes to power consumption. Especially if you look at all-in-one integrated chipsets such as the AMD 780G, AMD has offered much better 3D performance and power efficiency than Intel chipsets. We used an integrated AMD 780G motherboard as well as an Intel board based on the latest G45 chipset for this article, as well as two representative AMD processors, two Intel dual-cores chips, and two Intel low-power quad core CPUs.
What To Expect?
AMD’s Athlon X2 processor is a rather aged product and cannot compete with any of the Core 2 processors in terms of performance—this is a given. So don’t take this article as a performance shootout, but rather as it was intended: a look into the efficiency of AMD’s low power / low budget offerings, since the AMD Socket AM2+ platform still provides a great basis for office systems in the value range. In the end, performance is still many times better than what you’d get from an Atom nettop. In light of $299-399 netbooks, it makes a lot of sense to consider a low cost PC instead, as you can easily stay below $500 even with a reasonable display.
Related Stories :
- AMD: Low-power Mobile Athlon 64 in the works
- More powerful Athlon 64's in time for the holidays
- Can Your Old Athlon 64 Still Game?
- AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition
- Does AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Have Any Kick Left?
- AMD adds new flagship Athlon 64 X2 processors 5400+, 5600+
- AMD's 4x4 Platform & Athlon 64 FX-70 - Brute Force Quad Cores
- Athlon 64 FX prices jump as AMD readies 4x4 CPUs
- AMD expands 65 nm Athlon 64 X2 roadmap
- AMD to counter Intel QX6700 with three new Athlon 64 FX CPUs
45nm high k MG vs. already week 65nm plus core 2 archetectual superiortity = no contest, I really wish AMD had a twin on 45nm for notebooks.
PCMark only run good on Intel CPU , they found it on VIA chips .
There is a problem in your rationale for calculating power efficiency. You measured the power needed for the systems to complete a 3D Mark test, and then you compared the results, but you cannot do that because 3D Mark gets whatever it can from a processor or a graphics card over a fixed period of time, so technically the systems do not have the same task to complete. It would have been more interesting to test on video encoding or archiving software, because no matter what, the task there is exactly the same no matter what. And if you would have done so, I suspect the final results would have been even more in favor of the intel processors. Hope I'm not wrong!
Who cares about power efficiency. its like getting a big Mac large fries with a diet coke and saying your on a diet. unless all your system parts are purchased with efficiency in mind this comparison is point less .
who buys a e8500 with out a mid to high range graphics card?
who buys a e8500 with out a mid to high range graphics card?
Someone interested in real work.
Somehow I don't understand the Average power consumption... I thought that 3D/PC Mark Vantage can use 4 cores... How can the low power AMD consume more on average than Q9550s?
That AMD system needs less power in idle and in peak... So it seems that comparing peak power consumption is poinless. Or you have a mistake somewhere else.
maybe someone like a photographer working with big raw files might buy a e8500 with a low-mid (if they do not use Photoshop CS4) graphics card.
i was actually thinking of getting an e8400, 4gig ram and a low end graphics card to do photo editing in lightroom, does anyone know whether a q8200 would be quicker (i doubt it)? i live in south africa, our computer part are quite expensive, so a core i7 920 with 3gb ram (including cheapest gigabyte x58 mb) is nearly double what a mid-range gigabyte 775 mb, e8400 (or q8200 - they cost the same here) and 4gb ddr2 ram is
...its like getting a big Mac large fries with a diet coke and saying your on a diet...
Your on-a-diet. My on-a-diet. What's this 'on a diet' thing? Or did you mean 'you're on a diet'?
Why oh why is the Intel E5200 not included here? Anyone even looking at the AMD 5050e would not be comparing it to an E8500 or anything quad core - even if technically at full load those processors could do more work/watt. If you're looking for a truly low-power build, you're looking at the AMD 5050e and the Intel E5200, and you're not overclocking anything. (Maybe the E7xxx series, maybe)
In Hungary the AMD 5050E: under 80USD, 5600+: 75USD,
Intel: E7200: 130USD, E8500:220USD, Q8200S over 300USD, Q9550S over 475USD...
So what are we compare? Phenom???
5050e -> $65
5400BE -> $58
e7200 -> ~$110
e8500 -> $180
etc...
it's an old story that core 2 duo/quad cpus are more efficient than the Athlon X2 cpus, so if you're going to compare these processors again, use processors in the same price range, because the difference in power usage isn't going to pay the extra investment under normal circumstances (I think).
So typical Tom's putting Intel quads against amd dual core. And even high end core duos when the right competition would've been pentiums.
I really wish performance per watt was measured in total system watts, not just CPU watts.
As long as you're looking at performance per watt and trying to see if these products make sense, you should include a performance per watt per dollar graph and see where everything ends up. Ideally that chart should be relatively flat to indicate that you get what you pay for.
Okay, quick price check and a little division later:
(B4B=bang for buck=perforformance per watt per dollar)
price 3Dmark B4B PCmark B4B
Q9550s @ $400 0.470 0.705
Q8200s @ $265 0.657 1.011
E8500 @ $180 1.094 1.489
E7200 @ $120 1.583 2.250
X25050e@ $65 2.846 2.277
X25400+@ $58 2.672 2.224
As we all know, bang for buck gets better when you look at cheaper parts. The X2 5050e actually wins bang for buck and the X2 5400 doesn't do too bad either. Because of the graphically better 780G platform the AMD CPUs leave the Intel CPUs in the dust in 3D bang for buck.
My formatting went to pot but I imagine most of you can make sense out of it.
AMD is really hurting by not having any high-clocked, 45nm dual-core CPUs out. On the other hand, it looks like they are trying to position the Phenom II X3 as a direct competitor to the mid-range Core 2 Duos. How does the efficiency of the X3's (and X4's) compare to those same Intel CPUs?
The Athlon X2's are still fine CPUs for many users, though. I used a 5600+ in a system I built for my mum. It was very cheap and more than fast enough for her needs, and the 780G is a solid platform.
Did Tom's Hardware really just compare 65nm AMD chips against 45nm Intel chips? I want the 10 minutes of my life I just wasted reading this garbage back.
It would take a long time to make up for the difference in price with miniscule power savings on a CPU - like forever.