Updated CPU Charts 2008: AMD Versus Intel

Features
By
published

Benchmarks And Settings

Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
CrysisVersion: 1.2.1Video Mode: 1680x1050Overall Quality: lowDemo: CPU Benchmark2 + Tom’s Hardware Tool
Unreal Tournament 3Version: 1.2Video Mode: 1680x1050Sound and DirectX10Video Quality:Texture Details: 1Level Details: 1 Demo: vCTF-CONTAINMENT_flyTime: 12/60
World in ConflictVersion: 1.0.0.9Video Mode: 1680x1050 and 800x600Video Quality: low detailsDemo: Game benchmark
Supreme CommanderForged AllianceVersion: 1.5.3599Video Mode: 1920x1200Video Quality: game defaultDemo: WallaceTX_006_006Benchmark: Fraps 2.9.4 - Build 7037Start time 00:48:20 (60 seconds) realtime play
Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
iTunesVersion: 7.7.1.11Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minDefault format AAC
Lame MP3Version 3.98Audio CD Terminator II SE, 53 minwave to mp3160 Kbps
Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
Pinnacle Studio 12Version: 12.0.0.6163Encoding and Transition RenderingDV camcorder movieVideo:720x576 Pixel, PAL, 25 fps, 6000 Kbits/secAudio:MPEG Layer 2, 224 Kbits/sec 16 Bit, Stereo 44.1 KHzFile Type: MPEG-2 (DVD Compatible)
TMPEG 4.5Version: 4.5.1.254Video: Terminator 2 SE DVD (720x576, 16:9) 5 MinutesAudio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-channel, EnglishAdvanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160 kbps, 44.1 KHz)
DivX 6.8.3Version: 6.8.3== Main Menu ==default== Codec Menu ==Encoding mode: Insane QualityEnhanced multithreadingEnabled using SSE4Quarter-pixel search== Video Menu ==Quantization: MPEG-2
XviD 1.1.3Version: 1.1.3Other Options / Encoder Menu -Display encoding status = off
Nero 8 RecordeVersion: 3.1.4.0Record an Entire DVD to DVDconvert DVD-9 to DVD5all default settingsBenchmarkHigh quality mode (slow recording)disable video preview
Mainconcept Reference 1.5.1Reference H.264 Plugin Pro 1.5.1Version: 1.5.1MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264)MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2)Audio:MPEG2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16 Bit, 224 kbps)Codec: H.264Mode: PAL (25 FPS)Profile: Tom’s Hardware Settings for Qct-Core
Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 HDTVMainconcept H.264 Plugin 3.2Windows Media Encoder 9.1 AP HDTVWindows Audio Encoder 10 ProVersion: 3.0NTSC MPEG2-HDTV 1920x1080 (24 sec)Import: Mainconcept NTSC HDTV 1080iExport: Adobe Media Encoder== Video ==Windows Media Video 9 Advanced ProfileEncoding Passes: oneBitrate Mode: ConstantFrame: 1920x1080Frame Rate: 29.97Maximum Bitrate [kbps]: 2000Image Quality: 50.00== Audio ==Windows Media Audio 10 ProfessionalEncoding Passes: oneBitrate Mode: ConstantAudio Format:160 kbps, 44.1 kHz, 2 channel 16 bit (A/V) CBR
HD Playback (Blue Ray)PowerDVD 8Blue Ray - Disc (James Bond - Casino Royale)Video Mode: 1920x1080p (full screen)Codec: H.264
Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus 8Version: 8.0.134Virus base: 270.4.5/1533BenchmarkScan: some compressed ZIP and RAR archives
Winrar 3.8Version 3.80 BETA 4WinZIP Commandline Version 2.3Compression = BestDictionary = 4096 KBBenchmark: THG-Workload
Winzip 11Version 11.2Compression = BestBenchmark: THG-Workload
Autodesk 3D Studio Max 9Version: 9.0Rendering a Dragon picturerendering HTDV 1920x1080
Maxon Cinema 4D Release 10Version: 10.008Rendering from a scene(Water drop at a Rose)Resolution: 1280x1024 – 8-bit (50 frames)
Adobe Photoshop CS 3Version: 10.0x20070321Filtering from a 69 MB TIFF PhotoBenchmark: Toms Hardware Benchmark V1.0.0.4Programmed by Tomshardware using Delphi 2007Filters:CrosshatchGlassSumi-eAccented EdgesAngled StrokesSprayed Strokes
Adobe Acrobat 9 ProfessionalVersion: 9.0.0 (Extended)== Printing Preferences Menu ==Default Settings: Standard== Adobe PDF Security - Edit Menu ==Encrypt all documents (128 bit RC4)Open Password: 123Permissions Password: 321
Microsoft Powerpoint 2007Version: 2007PPT to PDFPowerpoint Document (115 Pages)Adobe PDF-Printer
Deep Fritz 11Version: 11Fritz Chess Benchmark Version 4.2
Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
3DMark VantageVersion: 1.02Options: PerformanceGraphics Test 1Graphics Test 2CPU Test 1CPU Test 2
PCMark VantageVersion: 1.00PCMark BenchmarkMemories BenchmarkWindows Media Player 10.00.00.3646
SiSoftware Sandra XII SP2Version 2008.5.14.24CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMediaMemory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark
Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
Linux SystemUbuntu 8.04 (April 2008)Phoronix Test Suite 1.0
MPlayerCompilation v1.0-rc2
PHPCompilation v5.2.5
KernelCompilation v2.6.25
GzipRow 4 - Cell 1
SciMarkCompilation v2.0Fast Fourier Transform
OpenSSLCompilation v0.9.8gRSA 4096-bit Performance
TOPICS
Tom's Hardware News Team
Tom's Hardware News Team

Tom's Hardware's dedicated news crew consists of both freelancers and staff with decades of experience reporting on the latest developments in CPUs, GPUs, super computing, Raspberry Pis and more.

98 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Mucke
    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
  • 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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    BTW Guys...Supreme Commander Forged Alliance was misspelled in your charts.
    Reply
  • wavebossa
    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
    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