All about CPU
 Latest CPU articles
All CPU articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

violent : More Mindless Violence Basic shooting game, but still so powerful! Use the mouse to take aim and shoot at the little beasties before they get to you. Use Space to reload....
action : Yoyo the Star Yoyo is a young girl who recently graduated and dreams to become a movie star (don't we all). You'll have to guide her on the path to stardom,...
Ads

Sponsored links

Status Quo

Previous Next
8:10 AM - 07/16/2007 by Patrick Schmid

The status quo today is simple to describe: Intel's Core 2 Duo processors offer better performance than AMD's processors and they overclock better as well. Power consumption is equal: AMD processors require less power in idle, while Intel's CPUs are more efficient under load. As you can see in the benchmark result tables later in this article, a mainstream Core 2 Duo processor already beats the AMD top model Athlon 64 X2 6000+.

To counter this serious disadvantage, AMD started to drop prices, and they dropped them so much that all processors are well below $200 today. If you're looking for good bang for the buck rather than maximum performance and overclockability, don't automatically go for a Core 2 Duo - take some time and compare the prices of both the processor and a suitable motherboard. Also remember that these days, the best deals can change from one week to the next.

Trends: Parallel Processing, Performance Up, Power Down

Windows XP/Vista recognizes and uses up to four logical processors. The Windows scheduler will distribute threads across available processing units. In this case, we used an Intel Core 2 Quad processor with four physical processing units.

Once it crossed the 1 GHz line, Intel began focusing on maximum clock speed with its Pentium 4 and Pentium D processors (NetBurst architecture). However, this endeavor failed before 4 GHz could be reached, and AMD got the opportunity to overtake Intel with its moderately clocked but faster and more energy-efficient Athlon 64 processors. For a few years, the two companies were in a neck-and-neck race until people finally learned that a simple clock speed comparison doesn't do justice to judging performance: finally, performance per clock became important. AMD scored with its integrated dual channel memory controllers; Intel typically offered slightly more advanced platforms, brute-force cache sizes and clock speeds, and its Hyper Threading feature, which allowed the Pentium 4 or Pentium D to work on certain threads in parallel despite there being only one physical processing unit.

Talkback
Comments are closed on this page.

Sponsored links