Lining Up The Competition: AMD Athlon/Phenom II X2 And Intel Core 2 Duo
AMD Phenom II X2 550
Of course, we had to use AMD’s fastest dual-core desktop processor for comparison with the Core i5. This is currently the Phenom II X2, now available at 3.1 GHz and 3.0 GHz clock speeds. Chris Angelini reviewed the Phenom II X2, code-named Calisto, in June of 2009. Calisto is the dual-core version of the triple-core “Heka” (Phenom II X3) and quad-core “Deneb” (Phenom II X4). As a result, the 6MB L3 cache is still available, only now for two cores. A 512KB L2 cache sits in each core, along with a DDR3-1333 dual-channel memory controller. The cores still support DDR2, as well, so users with Socket AM2+ motherboards can install AM3-based Phenom II processors with a suitable BIOS update. All Phenom II processors are fabricated using Global Foundries’s 45nm SOI process.
We used a Phenom II X2 550, the 3.1 GHz top model. AMD introduced a C3 stepping for its Phenom II X4 processors a few months ago. Don Woligroski compared the C2 and the C3 stepping on Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processors, where it made a small difference on power consumption. AMD’s site doesn’t list C3 steppings for the Phenom II X2 yet, but we trust this will show much lower power consumption.
Since we expected the new Core i5 to deliver excellent power efficiency, we decided to add a second AMD processor to the test bed.
AMD Athlon II X2 240e
Several energy-efficient processors have been suffixed with an “e.” In this case, we picked an Athlon II X2 processor based on the Regor dual-core design. The same would be available with three cores (Athlon II X3, Rana) or as a quad-core (Athlon II X4, Propus). All three are based on 45nm technology and very similar to the Phenom II. The only significant difference is the L3 cache, which doesn’t exist on Athlon II processors. AMD has a low-power Athlon II X4 605e at 2.3 GHz, a 405e X3 at 2.3 GHz, and the 240e dual-core that we used for this review. The latter runs at 2.8 GHz, and although all e-models are specified at 45W TDP, it’s obvious that the dual-core is lowest on power consumption.
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600
Finally, there is Intel’s fastest Core 2 Duo model, the E8600. We initially reviewed the 45nm Core 2 Duo processor (Wolfdale) almost two years ago when it was still limited to 3.16 GHz (E8500). The top model E8600 was introduced later that year, and despite many rumors, there hasn’t been an official E8700 at 3.46 GHz. Hence, the 3.33 GHz E8600 remains the top of Intel's Core 2 Duo family, which we used for this comparison. Core 2 Duo processors all support Enhanced SpeedStep technology, which reduces the clock speed in idle to the base clock times a 6x multiplier, which typically results in 333 MHz x 6 = 2,000 MHz. Therefore, more Core 2s would show similar idle power, but differ in peak power due to varying clock speeds.
The Wolfdale core comes with a large 6MB L2 cache, which is shared by both cores. The thermal envelope has remained at 65W, and there haven’t been any low power models. However, this core is also used to create four-core processors. Two Wolfdale die in a physical processor result in Yorkdale, also known as Core 2 Quad. Intel has had low-power models in this family, known as S-models (for example, the Core 2 Quad Q8200S). However, these have been rather expensive and only attractive for specific applications.
Latest CPU News
- 10/02 – CPU Performance Boosted 20% When CPU, GPU Collaborate
- 10/02 – Leaked Slide Shows Intel Haswell Set for March-June 2013
- 09/02 – $100,000 If You Can Prove Quantum Computers Impossible
- 09/02 – AMD Adds FM1 CPUs Athlon II X4 638 and Athlon II X4 641
- 08/02 – Raspberry Pi Scheduled to Launch This Month
at the moment there is only one thing amd can do... cut prices a lot lol, but i think they already where expecting this... i think the next generation of CPU's is still gona be "dominated" by intel's offerings. but the one after that amd should start giving intel a run for its money, dont forget amd has been filling a financial hole for some time, but due to recent events, and because of very strong releases in the graphics department they have been that very steadly... give amd a little time...
One can only hope that Bulldozer turns out to be a MAJOR win for AMD...
I thought this article really missed the point comparing Intel's new $200 CPU against AMD's $95 part (regardless of core count). I read the bit about the Athlon 240e having the lowest power consumption vs the 3/4 core variants, which is only partially true according to the data in Anandtech's review of the Athlon 435.
At idle the 605e only looses 2.4 watts to the 240e, but at load the 605e runs a full 10.5 watts leaner than the 240e. The lower clock speed will likely be the reason, which would also result in lower single threaded performance, but at the same time the doubling of cores would improve well threaded apps such as video encoding.
When considering that the 605e comes in about $20 cheaper than the i5-661 (not including the board and more expensive DDR3), I think it borders on dishonest to not include the 605e in the comparison.
If you add the 605e into the picture then things are much less clear cut. Still a big win for Intel, but possibly not in all situations.
To maintain the journalistic integrity that have kept me reading Tom's for the last 13 years, you should always be looking to compare equally priced solutions. Whereas in my opinion, this article seemed to be tipped in Intel's favor.
I'd also question the use of a 785G when touting Intel's low power numbers, because in your own review you observed the Nvidia 8200 runs 10 watts leaner. With the 8200 equaling and beating the G45 in your 785G review in game performance I can't see why you didn't include it, other than to tip the scales in Intel's favor for MCE use.
Assuming that Intel abides by its latest agreements and terminates its predatory and monopolistic efforts aimed at destroying AMD's access to markets, AMD should have a chance at making a comeback. Their choice to go with a combined cpu/graphics package that pretty much dominates intel's onboard graphics offerings at substantially lower price points, appears to have been a good one. Until Intel comes up with a decent igp, opportunities for AMD will remain open-assuming the relevant watchdog governmental authorities keep a tight leash on Intel's unlawful predatory behaviors. One could argue that Intel's history in this regard reflects a deep seated fear of AMD's potential.
Not fair. You can't compare Amd's processors with doble-priced intel's ones.
Also, don't forget you are comparing apps that were compiled to be of generic use. In the open source world things are not that way since you can compile a given app to be optimized specifically for your cpu model. I get to handle quite some computers in my work, and realized that, if optimized, i usually find amd processors to be faster than intel ones.
I also agree that it is NOT FAIR to compare double priced intel processors with amd just because they are of different brands. Its like comparing the best car fiat has to offer, with the best car porsche has to offer... yeah... right...