Updated CPU Charts 2008: AMD Versus Intel
Test Hardware Details
Test Systems
Our two test systems, for the AMD and Intel platforms.
Motherboards
The components used for the CPU charts have been updated. For the AMD processors we are using an Asus board with the AMD 790FX chipset and for the Intel CPU we are using a Gigabyte board with the Intel X48 chipset.
Main Memory
All AMD processors are tested with DDR2-1066 memory from A-Data, which is addressed with CL 4-4-4-12 timings. On the Intel platform, DDR3-1333 uses CL 7.0-7-7-21 timings. Depending on the bus clock rate of the processor, the memory is addressed with a lower clock rate. This is a technical feature caused by the chipset of the manufacturer.
Graphics Card
In order for the processor speed to truly impact our game benchmarks, we are using the powerful N280GTX-T2D1G-OC from MSI.
Hard Drives And USB Stick
Our test systems are each fitted with two 320 GB hard drives from Western Digital. The WD32000AAKS functions with just one platter and thus has a lower power consumption, which means that it doesn’t need any extra cooling. The Linux system is only loaded from a Corsair Flash Voyager USB stick.
Blu-ray Drive And Sound Card
For the Blu-ray benchmark we used a BDC-202BK drive from Pioneer. For the games benchmarks to keep the audio output load on the processor as low as possible, we have used a sound card : the X-Fi Xtreme Gamer has its own audio processor and a software wrapper for Vista.
Power Supply And CPU Fan
We are using a Cooler Master 850 watt power supply to drive the system. The AMD and Intel processors are cooled using the CNPS 9700 LED fan from Zalman.
Especially the new Athlon 6500@3GHz would be interesting.
By the way: the Intel-system uses DDR3-1333, AMD DDR2-1066; that makes some difference in the price (just like the mainboard).
Especially the new Athlon 6500@3GHz would be interesting.
By the way: the Intel-system uses DDR3-1333, AMD DDR2-1066; that makes some difference in the price (just like the mainboard).
Yannis,
Thank you for the feedback.
It does not make sense to handicap the Intel platform simply because AMD's infrastructure is currently priced to compete with Intel's mid-range. This would completely eliminate the scores for higher-end configurations like Skulltrail and the Extreme Edition CPUs, providing an incomplete picture of the current processor landscape.
In the final charts the details "3.33 GHz, DDR3-1333 (Wolfdale)" could be supplemented by the price for the entire system. Then it would be fair (you might even include Intels with DDR2 and Athlon X2s as well -- that would make a great list!).
Also, could you please give the exact command line for the LAME benchmark? And why do you keep on benchmarking it in CBR mode, even with the version bump, when all the work by its developers in recent years has essentially been on VBR mode? VBR is also highly recommended over CBR.
Why ... well it make the little green guys look even worse.
Bert you don't really need to cheat on the benchmarks to prove the Intel CPU's are generally better.
We do know that.
One thing missing with the charts is, there's nosorting by price. Only then, your claim that test setups are fair, can hold ground.
You have ordered the scores with fastest at the top, but what about order by price? Wouldn't it make more sense? If it's apples-apples comparison, then put apples against apples, not oranges. If it's price/performance comparison, then mention price differences also. How much both systems TCO is.
You guys make it seem like not getting the fastest mobo and ram would make a real difference in these benchmanrks.
If they didn't mismatch, what would you have wanted them to do? Only show the intel procs/setups that are closer in perfomance to AMD? If they did that, the Intel fans would whine about the lack of good intel setups.
However I still believe you made a mistake. Instead of using the M3A32 for AMD, you should have used the M3A79 or another SB750 based bored due the fact that many benchmarks have already proven the SB750 dominance over its earlier counterpart.
All in all, good article.
Nice charts overall though. I would have liked to see some AMD X2 thrown in there myself, since they're still being manufactured and sold.
What's the problem with the graphics settings? Both setups used the same video card, seems like a perfectly valid test to me.
I do think Tom's staff should include some lower end CPUs into the chart, since they are still on the market. Nehalem and Deneb are coming, and it should keep them busy updating the chart early next year.
Also, can we have server CPU chart please?
AMD has done well against a much larger competitor and you have to give them credit for spanking Nvidia (finally) with their new video card releases. AMD has won half of the battle and for a company that has taken on so much (video and cpu markets) they are doing a great job. Hopefully their new Deneb cpus will give a better fight than the current cpus.
Its laughable to see people post and get so riled up over a brand of cpu they use like a couple of posters above. I hope that I dont end up in the same old folks home as they do and get forced to play checkers with them because I will probably get a good fussing out and a black eye.
Nothing wrong with taking sides but its more impressionable when you do it with reasonability...
You take the 400 dollar intel chip, put it up against 200 dollar atholon chip, both dual cores, and chances are you may notice a small diffrence but was that small diffrence worth the extra 200 bucks?? Have a friend with the latest greatest intel chip, I have the atholn 6000 dual core and in the real world. Not that big of diffrence. So many factors decide your computer speed. What os your using, what programs are running in the back ground, is your computer clean of virus and spyware ? Bench marks are simply for bragging rights. Rember the real world diffrence is a diffrent story. Don't buy into the hype of people bragging about how fast there computer is. Talk is talk.
In the real world, my sub par 8600gr runs all the latest greatest games just fine including call of duty 4, and I paid 100 bucks for it a year and a half ago.
I'm looking at this chart to see for the money in my pocket right now what is the best CPU that I can buy.
If a chart is unusable for buying decisions, then what's the meaning of it?
In all other comparisons, we get the price ranges/price points of the graphics cards, hard disks, memory sticks etc. But here in this chart I don't see anything about pricing.
Please tell me, which CPU is the best one if I have $100 for CPU?