Benchmark Results: Synthetics
2:00 AM - July 9, 2010
by
Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos
Four AMD cores are required to compete with two Intel Core i3/i5 units.
Nothing beats Intel’s AES new instructions when it comes to encryption with this algorithm. Since this type of workload scales well with additional cores, the AMD triple- and quad-core chips do well compared to Intel’s Core i3-530.
AMD’s quad-core wins if no encryption acceleration is used. Keep in mind that the processor is cheaper than the Intel Core i5 offering.
3DMark Vantage favors the Intel processors with few exceptions.
- Latest Motherboards News
- 08/05 – Intel on FTC Deal: We Didn't Do Anything Wrong
- 07/29 – Creative Software Boosts On-Board Audio to Hi-Fi
- 07/28 – Intel's 50Gbps Laser Light Beams Are the Future
- 07/23 – Dell Shipped Server Motherboards With Spyware
- 07/22 – Intel to Settle With FTC (Upd: But Not This Week!)
- All Motherboards news
- Latest Motherboards reviews
- 08/03 – Moderately-Priced Chipsets
- 08/03 – CUDA And Parallel Processing
- 08/03 – Motherboard-Based Interconnects
- 08/03 – Graphics
- 08/03 – Analysis: Where We’ll Use PCI Express 3.0
- All Motherboards reviews
-
Latest Zotac News
- Win A GeForce GTX 480, DeathAdder Bundle
-
Latest Sapphire News
- Sapphire Does 3D Gaming with Eyefinity
-
Latest Sapphire reviews
- AMD's Radeon HD 5000-Series: Measuring Power Efficiency
- 785G And H55: Two Powerful Mini-ITX-Based Desktop Solutions
- Is Intel's Core i3-530 Fast Enough For Performance Gaming?
- System Builder Marathon, March 2010: System Value Compared
- System Builder Marathon, March 2010: $750 Gaming PC
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Ads
- 07/09 – Conclusion
- 07/09 – Benchmark Results: Overall Power...
- 07/09 – Benchmark Results: Multi-Thread...
- 07/09 – Benchmark Results: Single-Thread...
- 07/09 – Benchmark Results: Power Consumption
- 07/09 – Benchmark Results: Audio/Video
- 07/09 – Benchmark Results: Applications
- 07/09 – Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- 07/09 – Test Setup
- 07/09 – Intel Processors: Core i3-530 And...
All about Motherboards
Ads
Does the Intel graphics core offer acceleration for Flash 10.1 like the AMD?
Intel takes a lead in overall efficiency, though the AMD platform still costs less.
it htpc system, so where test for htpc - pay full hd, bd ?
So the AMD Procs are hanging with the Intel procs in power use, despite their older 45nm manufacturing process? This doesn't bode well for Intel when AMD's next generation comes out next year.
Sold an old HTPC for 90€ (cpu and mobo) and used the DDR2 sticks that got left behind.
Bought an ASUS M4A78-EM (support for 6cores) for 50€
Bought an AMD AThlon II X4 600e (2.2ghz,2mb cache L2, 45w) for 110€
And I have a quad cpu with almost as much power as my Q6600, but with 45w máx TDP.
Cheap to upgrade, efficient, and very powerfull. Couldn't choose the Intel way because I had to buy DDR3 too, and the Intel HD graphics are really bad compared to AMD's.
AMD is dead. They should just dissolve themselves instead of cutting into Intel's well deserved profits.
Anybody have any suggestions for a case and graphics card for the Zotac H55-ITX? I'm willing to pay more for performance, but I'm getting confused trying to validate which components will fit in the reduced footprint / thermal envelope. Thanks...
^--^ what are you talking about killerclick
Seriously, AMD have never been more alive since the beginning of the c2d days, they are producing fantastic chips, at great prices with tons of performance..
Intel have the lead in performance for sure, but you pay through the nose for that..
These days pretty much any decent chip..AMD or Intel rocks and is capable of most users uses.
You can thank AMD for staying in the fight and keeping Intel honest, Imagine what they could charge if there was no AMD churning out cheap good chips like they do!
And dont even get me started on the awesomeness that is the ATI division!
Intel are good, very very good, but we need AMD now more than ever and they are starting to deliver!
AMD is dead. They should just dissolve themselves instead of cutting into Intel's well deserved profits.
I feel dumber for having read your comment. I could literally feel my IQ drop a few points. They are no where near dead. Definitely not dominant in the CPU market, but they have an excellent grip in the GPU market and are still hanging with Intel. They have quite a ways to go until the are not relevant anymore.
AMD is dead. They should just dissolve themselves instead of cutting into Intel's well deserved profits.
AMD=Budget
Intel=You got cash
I don't have spare cash for the 980X but AMD offers me a good price for what I need (a good performing CPU).
Does the Intel graphics core offer acceleration for Flash 10.1 like the AMD?
Yes.
AMD is dead. They should just dissolve themselves instead of cutting into Intel's well deserved profits.
The guy's just a trolling fan boy, why bother guys?
the Intel HD graphics are really bad compared to AMD's.
Really? Evidence please.
Recent Anandtech article suggests otherwise.
For gaming, AMD integrated and Intel integrated are fairly similar; Performance is comparable and Intel is clearly working to resolve driver issues.
For HTPC, Intel has full dual steam HD decode, HD post processing, and 7.1 audio and bitstreaming DTS-HD/MA audio - the latter 2 are things AMD integrated doesn't support. And it does it all at lower system power than AMD for quiter operation.
I've been playing with replacing my full-size desktop with a mini-ITX rig, but haven't been able to find a decent single-slot video card. Best I've been able to find is a Radeon 4850. Supposedly there's more powerful cards out there, but can anyone point me to one right now?
Your CPU choice is unfair, you should pick cpus that have the same performance, or the same price, not power saving AMD and High end intel, also you did not mention 3d bechmarks, as you know any body may like to play sometime...
Very Bad Choices.
Are the graphs blurry to anyone else? It's been like that for the past few days, across several computers, so I know it's not just one.
This is another Intel fanboi article where the authors have cherrypicked low end AMD CPU's to deliberately make the Intel i3 and i5's look good.
1. Note there are no prices listed against the AMD CPU's ... wonder why? They are much cheaper ... so you would purchase a faster CPU from AMD ... and turn the tables on the review.
2. Note, the deliberate selection of a higher clocked i5 CPU against the low end CPU's.
3. Note the positive spin on all aspects of the Intel performance.
4. Note the selection of the older chipset for the AMD mobo - check out the later 8 series AMD chipsets which frankly put the Intel GPU's back into their box ... as they are clocked 200Mhz faster for a start.
Other than the complete mismatch of components it was well written.
This is another Intel fanboi article where the authors have cherrypicked low end AMD CPU's to deliberately make the Intel i3 and i5's look good.1/ Note there are no prices listed against the AMD CPU's ... wonder why? They are much cheaper ... so you would purchase a faster CPU from AMD ... and turn the tables on the review.Note, the deliberate selection of a higher clocked i5 CPU against the low end CPU's.Note the positive spin on all aspects of the Intel performance.Note the selection of the older chipset for the AMD mobo - check this out for the later 8 series AMD chipsets which frankly put the Intel GPU's back into their box. Other than the complete mismatch of components it was well written.
I couldn't agree more, but you missed how they used a lot of applications that perform better on Intel systems. I hate it when articles are skewed like this, makes you wonder why they write them at all, other than to make money.
Are the graphs blurry to anyone else? It's been like that for the past few days, across several computers, so I know it's not just one.
Your glasses. Put them on.
It is good to see the intel idles are so good. I have a H55n USB3 on the way to play with.
I wanted to go with an AMD alternative after seeing some very good lower power use out of a X4 955 build(mind you I under volt) with a 5770. Under 60 watts idle seemed good with my E6600 system running in the high 80's with only a 4350 installed. My I7 system idles at about 150.
Thanks for the write up guys.