Benchmark Results: Synthetics
We have a number of different factors in play here: execution cores, micro-architectures, cache structures, clock speeds—there’s a ton of information to decipher. And given the obscure results we’ve seen from PCMark Vantage in the past, we’re not going to jump to conclusions based on the first synthetic test to come our way.
Nevertheless, we see the benefits of quad-core processors here. Then we see how a dual-core CPU with extra clock speed can make up for its threading disadvantage.
Despite the fact that it’s supposed to be measuring gaming performance, 3DMark Vantage seems to have a proclivity for execution cores. Both the low-power Phenom II and the Core 2 Quad place first and second here. We’ll be curious to see if that carries over to the real-world game benchmarks as well.
The quad-core chips fare best in the arithmetic and multi-media tests here as well. The integrated memory controller on AMD’s two low-power Phenoms serves up the best memory bandwidth numbers, followed by the dual-core Phenom II and then the Athlon II. Intel’s offering are significantly handicapped by the DG45ID motherboard, which would only accommodate DDR2-800 modules.
Current page: Benchmark Results: SyntheticsPrev Page Test Setup And Benchmarks Next Page Benchmark Results: A/V Encoding
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Maybe if AMD would actually bring out some kind of nehalem competitor instead of flooding the cheapo market with variations of the same chips all over the place. There was Athlon 64 X2, brisbane and windsor, then there was Kuma, which was a phenom with 2 cores disabled. Now we got these new chips which are phenom 2s with 2 cores disabled. Lets put the money into some R&D and get somewhere. It seems like AMDs lost traction. sad.Reply
IronRyan21Maybe if AMD would actually bring out some kind of nehalem competitor instead of flooding the cheapo market with variations of the same chips all over the place. There was Athlon 64 X2, brisbane and windsor, then there was Kuma, which was a phenom with 2 cores disabled. Now we got these new chips which are phenom 2s with 2 cores disabled. Lets put the money into some R&D and get somewhere. It seems like AMDs lost traction. sad.Reply
The low to mid-price segments are the best selling hardware categories.
Believe it or not, the $100 bang-for-the-buck graphics cards by far outsell the $500 space heater graphics cards. As with graphics cards, $50-100 CPUs by far outsell the $300-1300 CPUs.
The market that seems like most of the market - the enthusiasts and gamers - is actually not that much of the market share. Businesses building for performance-per-dollar, low-mid performance factory built home PCs, and people building web or media machines... these together outweigh the enthusiast/gamer market.
Those Phenom II 905e's and 705e's would be kickass if paired with the upcoming 785g motherboards.Reply
AMD has some new interesting CPU's.
@IronRyan: Why not start your own semiconductor company and show AMD how it's done? Can a similar argument not be applied to Intel's "double cheeseburger" quads, and "single patty" dual-cores? If we even get any non-quad i7/i5s, do you know if Intel won't just do the same thing? In the future, instead of coming up with some lame argument, just post this for each article:Reply
"Hi, my name's IronRyan, and I like Intel. Go team Intel, yay!!!!!"
Anyone else see the Athlon X2 and think that if they underclocked and undervolted it they'd finally have a legitimate mobile contender?Reply
If they can run 4 cores at 2.5ghz and 8mb cache on 65w they should be able to run 2 cores at 2.5 ghz and 2mb cache at less than 32.5w.
Interesting article...I'm glad you put this against the E6300. I haven't seen much about this chip. It as if Intel just snuck on onto the market. I wonder how high of an overclock you can get with it....Reply
Onto the article, it seems as if the Phenom II x2 550 BE would a great chip in a value gaming rig. If you could unclock the extra cores and get it stable, you'd be one lucky man. Can't wait till see these on the Egg...
Quickest Pentium, only one with a 1066 MHz bus, disappointing that it's missing some functionality, though.Reply
Anyone else reminded of GeForce 2 MX when they see how Intel is positioning its mainstream chips these days? I'm all for differentiating with performance to drive down price (even cutting performance-oriented features, like Hyper-Threading), but don't start shedding the actual capabilities of an architecture to handicap it.
I would find the Phenom X2 550 interesting because many of the programs I still run today are singlethreaded.Reply
These programs benefit more from a higher clockrate than more cores.
Keeping this in mind, and the fact that an OS doesn't (spectacularly) boot faster with more cores, I think the X2 is a great buy.
I'm a bit dissapointed at the powerdraw. For a HDTV box you don't necessarily need to buy a Radeon 4850. Perhaps a lower powerdraw (and price) in the 4770 or 4670 will be better.
To playback full HD (1080p) I suppose a Radeon HD 2900XT would be enough.
Add office tasks, internetting, some photoshop, and casual gaming on a 22"monitor (1680x1050 pix), and a Radeon 4670 would be enough in most cases.
If you have a 24" monitor (1920x1200 pix) a Radeon 4770 would do.
Only when latest gaming is concerned should you go for a Radeon 4870 or a 4890.
Pro, for an HTPC, you'd be fine with a 4670, more than likely. The challenge will be building a system able to keep that setup cool enough. The Maui box with the 905e was *near-silent* but a discrete card would have wrecked this, and a 4670 is almost too much card to be passively-cooled (a la Ultimate-style) without better airflow in the case.Reply