We have a number of different factors in play here: execution cores, micro-architectures, cache structures, clock speeds—there’s a ton of information to decipher. And given the obscure results we’ve seen from PCMark Vantage in the past, we’re not going to jump to conclusions based on the first synthetic test to come our way.
Nevertheless, we see the benefits of quad-core processors here. Then we see how a dual-core CPU with extra clock speed can make up for its threading disadvantage.
Despite the fact that it’s supposed to be measuring gaming performance, 3DMark Vantage seems to have a proclivity for execution cores. Both the low-power Phenom II and the Core 2 Quad place first and second here. We’ll be curious to see if that carries over to the real-world game benchmarks as well.
The quad-core chips fare best in the arithmetic and multi-media tests here as well. The integrated memory controller on AMD’s two low-power Phenoms serves up the best memory bandwidth numbers, followed by the dual-core Phenom II and then the Athlon II. Intel’s offering are significantly handicapped by the DG45ID motherboard, which would only accommodate DDR2-800 modules.
- Dual-Core Alphabet Soup: Athlon, Phenom—Both X2s
- Low-Power Phenom IIs: Making HTPC Magic
- Overclocking, Unlocking, And Heart-Stopping
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: A/V Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Far Cry 2 And Stalker: Clear Sky
- Benchmark Results: Left 4 Dead, H.A.W.X., Grand Theft Auto 4
- Power Consumption