Updated CPU Charts 2008: AMD Versus Intel

Page 7 of 9:

Tested Processors

Model	Core	L2/L3 cache	Clock rate	FSB / HTT	Memory
Phenom X4 9950 Black	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2600 MHz	200/HT2000	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9850 Black	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2500 MHz	200/HT2000	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9850	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2500 MHz	200/HT2000	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9750	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2400 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9650	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2300 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9550	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2200 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9350e	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2000 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9150e	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 1800 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9100e	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 1800 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9700 Sample	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2400 MHz	200/HT2000	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9600 Black	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2300 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9600	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2300 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X4 9500	Agena	512KB/2MB	4x 2200 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X3 8750	Toliman	512KB/2MB	3x 2400 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X3 8650	Toliman	512KB/2MB	3x 2300 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X3 8600	Toliman	512KB/2MB	3x 2300 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X3 8450	Toliman	512KB/2MB	3x 2100 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066
Phenom X3 8400	Toliman	512KB/2MB	3x 2100 MHz	200/HT1800	DDR2-1066

Model	Core	L2/L3 cache	Clock rate	FSB / HTT	Memory
Core 2 Extreme QX9770	Yorkfield XE	6144KB	4x 3200 MHz	400 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Extreme QX9650	Yorkfield XE	6144KB	4x 3000 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Quad Q9650	Yorkfield	6144KB	4x 3000 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Quad Q9550	Yorkfield	6144KB	4x 2833 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Quad Q9450	Yorkfield	6144KB	4x 2666 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E8600	Wolfdale	6144KB	2x 3333 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E8500	Wolfdale	6144KB	2x 3166 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E8400	Wolfdale	6144KB	2x 3000 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E8300	Wolfdale	6144KB	2x 2833 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E8200	Wolfdale	6144KB	2x 2666 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E8190	Wolfdale	6144KB	2x 2666 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E7200	Wolfdale	3072KB	2x 2533 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Extreme QX6850	Kentsfield XE	4096KB	4x 3000 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Extreme QX6800	Kentsfield XE	4096KB	4x 2933 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Extreme QX6700	Kentsfield XE	4096KB	4x 2666 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Quad Q6700	Kentsfield	4096KB	4x 2666 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Quad Q6600	Kentsfield	4096KB	4x 2400 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Extreme X6800	Conroe XE	4096KB	2x 2933 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Duo E6850	Conroe	4096KB	2x 3000 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E6750	Conroe	4096KB	2x 2666 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E6550	Conroe	4096KB	2x 2333 MHz	333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E6700	Conroe	4096KB	2x 2667 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1333
Core 2 Duo E6600	Conroe	4096KB	2x 2400 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Duo E6400	Conroe-2048	2048KB	2x 2133 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Duo E6300	Conroe-2048	2048KB	2x 1866 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Duo E6420	Conroe	4096KB	2x 2133 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Duo E6320	Conroe	4096KB	2x 1866 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Duo E6400	Allendale	2048KB	2x 2133 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Duo E6300	Allendale	2048KB	2x 1866 MHz	266 MHz	DDR3-1066
Core 2 Duo E4700	Allendale	2048KB	2x 2600 MHz	200 MHz	DDR3-800

Current page: Tested Processors

Prev Page Test Hardware Details Next Page Benchmarks And Settings

Topics

AMD

Components

CPUs

Intel

MSI-Microstar

Nvidia

Processors

98 Comments Comment from the forums

Mucke 01 October 2008 16:17

What about AMD Dual Cores?

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).
Reply
01 October 2008 16:52

Ok, this is not a fair benchmark for AMD.. your testing motherboard for AMD platform costs only 140 euros and the testing top-range motherboard for Intel Platform costs 250 euros!!! To be equally tested it should be tested on P35 Chipset with DDR2 RAM.
Reply
cangelini 01 October 2008 17:08

Yannis GROk, this is not a fair benchmark for AMD.. your testing motherboard for AMD platform costs only 140 euros and the testing top-range motherboard for Intel Platform costs 250 euros!!! To be equally tested it should be tested on P35 Chipset with DDR2 RAM.
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.
Reply
Mucke 01 October 2008 17:36

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!).
Reply
apaige 01 October 2008 17:40

The Linux OpenSSL results are completely out of whack (see http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=category&u=openssl for normal results). Intel results should be higher, and AMD results should be over *three* times higher. That's one benchmark where AMD processors have consistently shown to smoke Intel CPUs by a large margin. Something is definitely wrong with those results.

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.
Reply
Reynod 01 October 2008 18:03

It looks to me like you mismatched the mobo, ram and also cherry picked the graphics settings for the games.

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.

Reply
duzcizgi 01 October 2008 19:27

cangeliniOne 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.
Reply
sgtbaker420 01 October 2008 19:31

BTW Guys...Supreme Commander Forged Alliance was misspelled in your charts.
Reply
wavebossa 01 October 2008 20:16

ReynodIt looks to me like you mismatched the mobo, ram and also cherry picked the graphics settings for the games.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.
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.
Reply
v12v12 01 October 2008 20:18

Sounds like a bunch of AMD whining... blah blah "fair" this and that, AMD is inferior and everyone knows it. Hell I'm writing this on an X2 Turion, face the FACTs and stop trying to hold onto former AMDominance: AMD is toast until it completely reinvents itself, crying and whining about "fair" is a moot point. The REAL point is—for the money, Intel IS the better buy and will be for the foreseeable future (Nehalem anyone?)... the only thing stopping AMD is AMD themselves and mismanagement, which has been documented and proven. I don't like the Evil-Intel-Empire as much as the AMD-zealots, but they are proving to be the leaders of CPU technology... If AMD does have an answer for Nehalem and a reasonable (provable) road map, then we'll all benefit in price competition... Until then the whining is lame.
Reply

Show more comments