Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Test Setup And Benchmarks

CORE Or Boost? AMD's And Intel's Turbo Features Dissected
By
System Hardware
HardwareDetails
Performance Benchmarks
Motherboard
(Socket AMD3)
Asus Crosshair IV Formula (Rev. 1.0), Chipset: AMD 890FX, BIOS: 0505 (04/02/2010
Motherboard
(Socket LGA 1366)
Intel DX58SO (Rev. 1.0), Chipset: Intel X58, BIOS: 5000 (02/16/2010)
CPU AMD IAMD Phenom II X6 1090T (45 nm, 3.2 GHz, 6 x 512 KB L2 and 6 MB L3 Cache, TDP 125 W, Rev. C3)
CPU Intel IIIntel Core i7-980X Extreme (32 nm, 3.33 GHz, 6 x 256 KB L2 and 12 MB L3 Cache, TDP 130 W)
RAM DDR3 (dual)2 x 2 GB DDR3-1600 (OCZ3G2000LV4GK 8-8-8-24)
RAM DDR3 (triple)3 x 2 GB DDR3-1600 (Corsair TR3X6G-1600C8D 8-8-8-24)
GraphicsSapphire Radeon HD 5850, GPU: Cypress (725 MHz), Graphics RAM: 1024 MB GDDR5 (2000 MHz), Stream Processors: 1440
Hard DriveWestern Digital VelociRaptor, 300 GB (WD3000HLFS), 10 000 RPM, SATA 3Gb/s, 16 MB Cache
Power SupplyPC Power & Cooling, Silencer 750EPS12V 750W
System Software & Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Edition
Updated on 2010-03-03
Drivers and Settings
Intel Chipset DriversChipset Installation Utility Ver. 9.1.1.1025
Intel Storage DriversMatrix Storage Drivers Ver. 8.​9.​0.​1023


Asus Crosshair IV Formula: 890FX chipset and Socket AM3 for AMD’s Phenom II X6.

Audio Benchmarks and Settings
BenchmarkDetails
iTunesVersion: 9.0.3.15
Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min.
Convert to AAC audio format
Lame MP3Version 3.98.3
Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min.
convert WAV to MP3 audio format
Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
Video Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks Details
HandBrake CLIVersion: 0.94
Video: Big Buck Bunny (720x480, 23.972 frames) 5 min.
Audio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-Channel, English
to
Video: AVC1 Audio1: AC3 Audio2: AAC (High Profile)
MainConcept Reference v2Version: 2.0.0.1555
MPEG-2 to H.264
MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec
28 sec. HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2)
Audio:
MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, 2-Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s)
Codec: H.264 Pro
Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS)
Profile: H.264 BD HDMV
Application Benchmarks and Settings
BenchmarkDetails
7-ZipVersion 9.1 beta
LZMA2
Syntax "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"
Benchmark: 2010-THG-Workload
WinRARVersion 3.92
RAR
Syntax "winrar a -r -m3"
Benchmark: 2010-THG-Workload
WinZip 14Version 14.0 Pro (8652)
WinZip Commandline Version 3
ZIPX
Syntax "-a -ez -p -r"
Benchmark: 2010-THG-Workload
Autodesk 3ds Max 2010Version: 10 x64
Rendering Space Flyby Mentalray (SPECapc_3dsmax9)
Frame: 248
Resolution: 1440 x 1080
Cinebench 11.5Version 11.5 Build CB25720DEMO
CPU Test single- and multi-threaded
Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64-Bit)Version: 11
Filtering a 16 MB TIF (15000x7266)
Filters:
Radial Blur (Amount: 10; Method: zoom; Quality: good)
Shape Blur (Radius: 46 px; custom shape: Trademark symbol)
Median (Radius: 1 px)
Polar Coordinates (Rectangular to Polar)
Adobe Acrobat 9 ProfessionalVersion: 9.0.0 (Extended)
== Printing Preferenced Menu ==
Default Settings: Standard
== Adobe PDF Security - Edit Menu ==
Encrypt all documents (128 bit RC4)
Open Password: 123
Permissions Password: 321
Microsoft PowerPoint 2007Version: 2007 SP2
PPT to PDF
PowerPoint Document (115 Pages)
Adobe PDF-Printer
FritzFritz Chess Benchmark Version 4.3.2
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
BenchmarkDetails
3DMark VantageVersion: 1.02 Patch 1901, Options: Performance, Graphics Test 1, Graphics Test 2, CPU Test 1, CPU Test 2
PCMark VantageVersion: 1.0.2.0 Patch 1901
PCMark Benchmark
Memories Benchmark
SiSoftware Sandra 2010Version: 2010.1.16.10
Processor Arithmetic, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 56 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 17 Hide
    tony singh , July 28, 2010 6:29 AM
    Not as powerful but at least amd is doing some thing to stand up to the monster named i7...
  • 12 Hide
    eddieroolz , July 28, 2010 7:11 AM
    While AMD's implementation is more crude, I think they did okay in this test. I hope they will continue improving their Turbo CORE so it can become more competitive against Intel. After all, Intel had nearly 2 years of head start to perfect their Turbo feature.
  • 10 Hide
    antlee , July 28, 2010 6:52 AM
    It would be nice to include i3 530/i5 750/i7 860 so that we can see if a more aggresive speed bump worth its cost.
Other Comments
  • 17 Hide
    tony singh , July 28, 2010 6:29 AM
    Not as powerful but at least amd is doing some thing to stand up to the monster named i7...
  • 10 Hide
    antlee , July 28, 2010 6:52 AM
    It would be nice to include i3 530/i5 750/i7 860 so that we can see if a more aggresive speed bump worth its cost.
  • 3 Hide
    Emperus , July 28, 2010 6:57 AM
    With manual overclocks being as easy as changing numbers due to unlocked multipliers on both those CPU's, i guess the turbo effect is not that much of a consideration.. Moreover, most of us (IMO) prefer running at single stable clock readings rather than allowing frequent dynamic changes..
  • 12 Hide
    eddieroolz , July 28, 2010 7:11 AM
    While AMD's implementation is more crude, I think they did okay in this test. I hope they will continue improving their Turbo CORE so it can become more competitive against Intel. After all, Intel had nearly 2 years of head start to perfect their Turbo feature.
  • -1 Hide
    rohitbaran , July 28, 2010 7:56 AM
    AMD's Turbo CORE is not that good, but I will give it that it came up with a trick that works, at least for single threaded applications.
  • 0 Hide
    Hamsterabed , July 28, 2010 8:22 AM
    I couldn't tell was Hyper threading on or off for these tests? Also I agree seeing the other i5 and i7 implementations that have more aggressive turbo boost parameters would be good to see in that we could see if the efficiency holds up and what % increase per clock is, like if it is a linear gain or a diminishing returns game.
  • 0 Hide
    SpadeM , July 28, 2010 8:40 AM
    When was this article actually written? I'm asking because the Drivers and Software section for the AMD motherboard isn't present and the BIOS on the Asus and Intel boards are old.
    I'm not saying that with new bios-es and drivers the outcome would be different(or would it be?) but what I am saying is that if this was written a couple of months ago, why wasn't it published then?
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , July 28, 2010 9:15 AM
    Quote:
    The 800-series even bumps clock speed up by five clock speed bins for a single core. One speed bin equals 133 MHz at stock speed, so we’re effectively talking about a 133 to 533 MHz dynamic increase.

    Dousn't 5 times 133Mhz equals 666Mhz ?
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , July 28, 2010 9:30 AM
    Wow, the benchmark graphs in this article are absolutely nonsensical! What are they calibrated against? Sometimes the Turbo value is at 100%, sometimes the non-turbo value, and it's different for AMD and Intel in the same graph.
  • 0 Hide
    BruceOTB , July 28, 2010 11:04 AM
    Probably amd's development is hindered by intel's patents.
  • 2 Hide
    frozentundra123456 , July 28, 2010 12:48 PM
    Am I reading the graphs correctly?? AMD's 400 mhz overclock is more than 10 percent on half the cores, but performance only increased a few percent at max and in most cases only a percent or two??? Doesnt seem to scale very well with the speed increase. I think intel is the same but their overclock is less so it is hard to say.
    Also, I know it has already been published, but I would like to see the absolute performance of the two chips vs one another. The percent increase does not address at all which chip is actually faster. I know that was not the point of the article, but that is still the most inportant factor, after all.

    And how about some gaming results??
  • 0 Hide
    halls , July 28, 2010 1:03 PM
    Cool article. In the future, when there are cheaper processors available that use these features from both manufacturers, I would like to see a similar article related to games!
  • -1 Hide
    kikireeki , July 28, 2010 1:16 PM
    AMD's 300$ processor on par with Intel's 1000$ !! I think this is more than enough to declare AMD as a clear winner here.
  • 0 Hide
    scook9 , July 28, 2010 1:36 PM
    If on par means taking about 30% longer to complete the same tasks....lol

    And it sounds like the authors "ideal turbo" is exactly what the socket 1156 parts all use....an i7 870 should have been included in these tests
  • 4 Hide
    gxpbecker , July 28, 2010 1:39 PM
    Good to see AMD trading blows with Intel. The main reason i have stuck with AMD is the price/performance. Even with the boosts intel is clearly superior and in most cases really doesnt need the boost.. though it never hurts. Will be interesting to see if Bulldozer come to fruition in early 2011 how much things will change.
  • 0 Hide
    lradunovic77 , July 28, 2010 1:41 PM
    Turbo feature -> retarded. Do old style overclocking!
  • 0 Hide
    saint19 , July 28, 2010 1:48 PM
    Nice article and doesn't exist a winner here just depends of what do u want to do with the CPU. Intel is much better is somethings and AMD have better results in others.

    The price of both Intel and AMD CPUs aren't important here since is a performance chart with stock and turbo features not a price/performance comparative.
  • 2 Hide
    ta152h , July 28, 2010 1:52 PM
    These two write the most boring articles, and come up with a conclusion anyone would have guessed.

    The Lynnfield processors already have a more aggressive turbo boost, by the way.

    The last statement is really poor. The specifics of the processor should determine how much boost they give it, not a blanket statement of discrete amounts. While I agree the boosting could have been improved on these processors, it's got to be a case by case basis depending on the processors' characteristics, and the companies design goals with that specific unit.
  • -1 Hide
    hundredislandsboy , July 28, 2010 2:14 PM
    I liked the article because for me it further justifies why my last CPU purchases made this year were for AMD's 955BE and hexacore 1055T. This article shows that AMD not only can compete with their own version of turbo boost but more importantly, AMD offers better value - $180 for an AMD hexacore versus nearly a grand. $1,000!!, for Intel's hexacore.
Display more comments