The last time we matched up Intel's Pentium G6950 against AMD's Phenom II X2 555, our overzealous overclocking efforts caused a processor meltdown. With a little more experience on Intel's 32 nm process (and caution), we offer a suitable rematch. Game on!
A few months ago, we compared the Phenom II X2 555 to Intel's Pentium G6950 in both stock and overclocked form. When the dust settled, the results were inconclusive after we enthusiastically over-volted the Pentium CPU past its limits and into oblivion. Even though the load temperatures were quite cool, the processor died halfway through our benchmarks. Readers also commented in the forums that they wanted to see what would happen if our Phenom II X2 555 could run with its dormant CPU cores enabled.

This brings us to the rematch. We can't put this one to bed in good conscience until we can properly overclock that Pentium G6950 and at least try to unlock all the Phenom II X2 555’s cores.
For those who missed the first article, let's have another look at the contenders.
Hmmmm, talk about embarrassing yourself - didn't you even bother to find out if your numbers were right before posting? You can get a 890FX for $140, not $160 MIN as you stated. For $155 you can get one with USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps, and it's not implemented with the compromises inherent with the LGA 1156 platform.
You're quite incorrect about needing a discreet GPU. AMD sells the 890GX, 790GX, 785G, 760G, and 880G. In fact, the platform they used had an integrated GPU. The nice thing with the AMD platform is, they have sideport memory, so you don't degrade CPU performance when you use the IGP due to memory contention.
So, I can get the AMD platform with motherboards around $60 with an IGP, or I can get a powerful platform with two real PCI-E 16x slots, USB 3.0, and SATA 6.0 Gbps for $155. You don't have the same choices with the Pentium G6950 platform in either direction. AM3 processors have a very diverse selection of platform.
So, is your contention that choice is bad?
The AMD platform gives you more choices (integrated graphics, discreet graphics in several flavors, a lot of PCI lanes, or a few), and an unlocked multiplier.
All these are important considerations.
The AMD platform gives you more choices (integrated graphics, discreet graphics in several flavors, a lot of PCI lanes, or a few), and an unlocked multiplier.
All these are important considerations.
Id like to see a serious stability test on both cpus. A couple days with a graphic benchmark on loop as well as prime95 running an instance on each core would do it.
The AMD platform gives you more choices (integrated graphics, discreet graphics in several flavors, a lot of PCI lanes, or a few), and an unlocked multiplier.
All these are important considerations.
I don't know if this is ROFL or just sad ? Try reading the article. Your embarrassing yourself.
More faulty logic by AMD fanboys. Which is it ? A budget bang for your buck rig,
H55/Clarksdale=200 dollars
or
890FX ($160.00 MIN)+ 555=260, all so you can buy another cpu, next year, that does not exist yet ?
and 890fx, you HAVE to buy a DISCRETE graphics card now.
AMD will love you , if you invest in all of this hardware , with plans to buy more, lol.
Businesses do not overclock and the AMD Platform with an ATI4200 onboard is just so much better then anything intel has to offer... Encoding ? Use and AthlonX4...
The only good thing about the Pentium would be trying to break overclocking records... other then that... it's just a cheep cpu that fails against any amd tricore.
Hmmmm, talk about embarrassing yourself - didn't you even bother to find out if your numbers were right before posting? You can get a 890FX for $140, not $160 MIN as you stated. For $155 you can get one with USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps, and it's not implemented with the compromises inherent with the LGA 1156 platform.
You're quite incorrect about needing a discreet GPU. AMD sells the 890GX, 790GX, 785G, 760G, and 880G. In fact, the platform they used had an integrated GPU. The nice thing with the AMD platform is, they have sideport memory, so you don't degrade CPU performance when you use the IGP due to memory contention.
So, I can get the AMD platform with motherboards around $60 with an IGP, or I can get a powerful platform with two real PCI-E 16x slots, USB 3.0, and SATA 6.0 Gbps for $155. You don't have the same choices with the Pentium G6950 platform in either direction. AM3 processors have a very diverse selection of platform.
So, is your contention that choice is bad?
C00lit's point about businesses not overclocking is good, although I'm not sure strictly business users come to Tom's for guidance.
I think these are both lab chips; maybe fun to test and tweak and play with, but far from the most sensible choice for real use. The AMD X3 chips look like fairly definitive bang for buck winners all around.
I mention this in the article. The new graphics drivers really changed the game results compared to the old ones, and we don't have the i5 system here to retest. Since the game results weren't comparable anymore we left the i5 numbers out of gaming results.
I don't quite follow your logic. Are you being sarcastic? They did try to unlock the cores and they were successful. bonus. They also did get two CPU cores to 4+ GHz...
So they did put everything into the test that you are accusing them of not putting into the test...
If they went high-to-low they'd simply be jumbled in a different way. This way, the relative position of each CPU is in the same place in each chart.
I agree with you about the i5, but I do think article comparing the i3, Pentium, Athlon II x2 260, and Pentium G6950 would be kind of informative.
As much as people like to see expensive processors, the reality is that the lower end processors are often what people buy. In particular, I think the i3 is probably worth the extra money, considering it not only gets you 1 MB cache, but also hyper-threading which can be useful.
Also, I saw a review on another site on the Athlon II x2 260, which, when compared to the 255, is much faster than it should be. Performance went up more than the clock speed, and when I questioned them why, they brushed it off and just said they were only aware it was a faster clock speed. Maybe they tested wrong, maybe there is no difference, but another review showed the difference between the 260 and the Phenom II 255 to be quite small as well.
I think a lot people would be curious about matching low-end platforms on a cost basis. For example, if I save $25 on the processor, and spend it on the video card, what do the results look like. I would be impossible to do in one article, but I think a series of articles would be very interesting, covering different price points. It's time consuming, but, I think it's got broad interest and would get page hits. Of course, I could be wrong.
Just checked History, it was here: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Athlon%20II%20X3%20405e%20-%20AD405EHDK32GI%20(AD405EHDGIBOX).html
and this was actually the 405e, not the new 415e or 6x5e.
CPU temps are always suspect to me. If it is the CPU is the main source of increased power draw, then shouldn't temperature more or less be proportional to power draw? Maybe it's those gianormous AMD heat spreaders. What are the chipset temperature?