Conclusion
Source: Tom's Hardware – Keywords: e8500, phenom, e9350
Conclusion
Comparing an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16 GHz desktop processor and an AMD Phenom X4 e9350 2.0 GHz high-efficiency quad core CPU for HTPCs or similar solutions isn’t really an apples to apples shootout. Given that, it’s important not to take this article as a general recommendation against purchasing a Phenom X4, or as a recommendation for the Core 2 Duo. Personal preferences aside, we found the comparison important, as we’re certainly not the only people wondering if a low-power quad core processor at average clock speeds might actually be a better choice than a fast dual core processor. Using an Intel low-power quad core for comparison would have been great, but such a product does not (yet) exist, hence the recommendation for supplying a low-power 65 W quad core processor go to AMD.
Fair or Unfair?
We could have used a faster Phenom X4 processor, as you can get either the 2.0 GHz e9350 or a 2.4 GHz Phenom X4 9750 for the same $200. The latter would have the Phenom win the majority of the benchmarks, and if you’re looking for performance, this is probably the best thing you can do—the quad core Core 2 processors are clearly more expensive. Yet we wanted to use a quad core that comes as close as possible to the currently best dual core processor. The efficiency that remains with the e9350, and the 65 W power cap in particular, were lost if we had used a mainstream Phenom.
Core 2 Duo Wins
The Core 2 Duo Wolfdale at 3.16 GHz proved that its architecture is capable of competing with a quad core processor that runs average clock speeds, and it proved that it offers far better power efficiency. The Core 2 Duo matched or surpassed the performance of the Phenom X4 e9350, but this is the time to stop and consider another factor. At this point it would be unfair to declare Core 2 Duo the undisputed winner, as the test methodology shows a constraint that isn’t AMD’s fault: the Phenom X4 e9350 and other quad core processors are handicapped by the software landscape, which still isn’t really optimized for four or even more cores. Some applications are, but apart from that, it’s the synthetic benchmarks that provide proof of quad cores actually being faster. Still, that advantage does not translate into our everyday lives.
Software Reworks Required!
The example of WinRAR (thread-optimized) versus WinZIP (single threaded compression process) makes very obvious which software vendors do and do not tweak their applications to take advantage of more than two cores. AVG Anti Virus, Fritz 11 Chess, the Mainconcept 1.5.1 H.264 encoder, SiSoft Sandra XII and Supreme Commander are all examples showing that a 2.0 GHz quad core can certainly beat a sophisticated 3.16 GHz quad core.
Of course, there will always be applications that do not scale well with an increasing core count, and AMD has a long way to go if it wants to get back on top and compete with Intel’s processors. Core 2 is clearly superior in apples to apples comparisons, and it also beats the Phenom X4 in this comparison for the reasons mentioned above. One fact remains clear above all: our comparison has shown that the time for quad core processors just hasn’t arrived yet.
- Previous page Efficiency: SYSmark 2007 Preview
Best offers
- phenom 2
- intel dual core optimizer
- dual core optimizer
- amd dual core optimizer
- which is better dual core or core 2 duo
- dual core versus core 2 duo
- which programs use quad core
- quad core optimizer
- amd quad core optimizer
- quad core software
- phenom 9750
- core 2 duo versus core 2 quad
- advantages of quad core
- which is better dual core or core duo
- best quad core
"The Mainconcept 1.5.1 benchmark converts MPEG2 FullHD video into the H.264 format. Although the benchmark scales well with as many as eight cores—we used an Intel Skulltrail system to try this—the 2.0 GHz quad core isn’t enough to beat Intel’s 3.16 GHz dual core."
According to the graph you show us, it is...
Do you even have an editor anymore? This article is yet another nail in toms coffin. The graphs are wrong (two items on each graph and you still manage to swap them over), the words are wrong (eg 3.16 quad!!!) and worse still the article is pointless.
Here's another apples to oranges for you:
I own a motorbike and a car, both do 40mpg and both cost the same. But wait the car has more seats AND more wheels, its safer in an accident too so it must be better than the bike. oh no did i forget to look at the bikes good points never mind.
And why choose the low power version, you could have used a cheaper high power version and underclocked/undervolted to reduce power OR accept the fact that four cores should use more power than two but seeing as you didn't want to show the quad win anything i guess you can't accept that.
I guess whoever is in charge these days is only concerned with ad revenue not content or integrety
"Supreme Commander shows the same results: it runs much faster on the Intel dual core than it does on AMD’s quad core. Since the performance difference is 80%, the clock speed difference alone isn’t enough to account for the tremendous difference."
Wrong again. According to graph, Phenom is faster than C2D, not the other way around.
This artical is a little to bias to Intel for my liking. When applications that do support 4 cores are tested and unsuprisingly the AMD chip wins, they dont praise it, they just praise the intel chip instead for coming a close 2nd. While all the applications that dont support 4 cores get praise for Intel for winning and not to AMD for coming second.
The whole artical makes no sence about what it does compare.
My conclusion for the artical the E8500 3.16 GHz wins on all single/double core applications but when 4 cores are used the AMD Phenom X4 e9350 2.0 GHz wins. Which is what we should expect anyway.
This article is interesting from the standpoint of software, the main thing I see from this is just how little use applications currently make of extra cores.
Nehalem...sorry Core i7...yes, yes that's much better...will surely have an impact on applications use of multithreading. Or will it? with 'turbo-mode' perhaps there is no need for software to use those extra cores.
Annoyingly left out was the overclocking performance of these two processors. As we know Intel's current chips annihilate the competition in overclockability providing extra Hertz for just a few hours time. These E8500 are easily hitting 4GHz I do tend to wonder if the advantage the AMD had in some tests wouldnt be eliminated when both chips were fully OC'd.
What i was interesting in is,
having the benchmarks run with a current antivirus software "allways on", as it should, at least, be users default configuration.
thanx
Tom's, please replace your eeditor with any small child. I could have seen the mistakes here when I was 9.
Tom's, please replace your eeditor with any small child. I could have seen the mistakes here when I was 9.
However, I did make a typo when making that comment
A fast dual-core is best for games
An energy-efficient quad is good for use as a home/media server
^ I did that without looking at the article. Am I right? Hang on... yep, pretty much.
How'd I manage that? Well, it ain't cuz i'm psychic, that's for sure. It's because WE KNEW ALL THIS ALREADY TOM!
Games are more responsive to raw power and are less heavily threaded - most are threaded for dual-core, but as of yet relatively few can make good use of a massively multicore platform (except well-coded PS3 games, and that's a different subject entirely!). Modern applications, especially graphical, media (encoders!) and file-based (server/AV) are designed to split and combine threads on-the-fly and with Vista in tow really need a quad to crunch them efficiently in the background.
So what was the point of this article again exactly? Telling us what's very common knowledge?
I was hoping u did abit more the real workstation apps. particularly Virtualization. And running on Vista 64 bit.
For applications that are dependent on core speed, the AMD does not do so bad. Let's also remember that the AMD chip is being used in a chipset that offers HD playback and half-decent 3D game support..the same cannot be said for Intel-based chipsests. I would also go with AMD for a cheap, fast server..where the architecture comes into it's own (especially core-to-core and memory performance).
That's because Intel doesn't have a native quad core. It's also the reason why some of the world's fastest super-computers rely on AMD hardware. Intel may have caught up with AMD in the desktop sector (bar chipsets and graphics cards), but the server/cluster/super-computer sectors use AMD for a reason. The people knocking AMD should do well to remember that, perhaps.
you guys are so boring! i hate this website now all you dorks that are into computers need to get a life, play some basketball, and listen to some rock n roll like i am right now! im a seventh grader that is more cool than all of you put together!