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.
Didn't Intel already have an E6300 when they first released C2D?
Yes, they did!
SL9SA (B2)
SL9TA (L2)
They're running out of names for 'em! And Chris had the cheek to have a go at AMD for silly names! XD
They're running out of names for 'em! And Chris had the cheek to have a go at AMD for silly names! XD
Too many, perhaps.
I think these chips are bang on what AMD needed , a credible opponent to the intel c2 range .. and dual cores are still the most efficient use of power per watt .. I also noted at a retailer they have the x3 70es , a 2.5 ghz black edition that has a power requiremet of 65 watts
well i have the new pentium E6300 wolfdale @ 5.1 Ghz @ 1.436V on water.
It as easy as hell to overclock chip , runs smoooth and very cool.