Q3 2006 CPU Performance Charts

Revisiting Dual-Core CPU Performance

It's been a few months since we last reviewed a new processor, but with July's release of Intel's Core 2 desktop processors, there has been massive price cuts and reshuffling to Intel's older Pentium D 900 series dual-core CPU offerings as well as AMD's Athlon 64 X2 lineup. To better understand how they rank today along with the Core 2 series, we rounded up almost all available dual-core processors comprising of no less than 16 processors from the mainstream to the enthusiast class to form this article. Although dual-core processors for consumers only debuted just over a year ago, by this year in 2006, dual-core processors have become the de facto standard for most mainstream computers and upwards, leaving the single-core processor offerings truly for the low-end and budget needs. That's how fast processors have evolved with up to twice the performance envelope of single-core variants and being produced in massive volumes to sustain the reasonable price points that they now offer.

Many have barely embraced dual-core computing but already next month, Intel is launching quad-core processors and we've even been given privilege to have first-hand experience on its performance during the recently held Intel Developer Forum Fall 2006. While we already have been having them in our lab for a while now, we'll share with you more about that at a more appropriate time frame when it is officially made available. For now, what we can say is that the entry of quad-core processors would only affect the buying decisions of enthusiasts willing to fork out US$1,000 as it will only be offered in one speed grade till much later in 2007 when mainstream variants of it are expected. Therefore, you can expect much of what's offered today (processor variety and price) to remain quite similar for some time to come even after the availability of quad-core processors (unless of course there are further price revisions from both Intel and AMD to heat up the already intense competition).

Below, we share with you the variety of dual-core processors compared in this article, key specs and any updates since our last coverage of them.

Intel Core 2 Extreme / Duo Series

The darling of Intel and the comeback processor that lived up to the hype, we've shared much about their new Core 2 desktop processors in our previous articles. Since they are still relatively new, nothing much has changed about them and we'll leave you with the following table that sums them up in brief. From the price points, you can tell that these processors are aimed at mainstream performance computers and higher. Many enthusiasts and ourselves have been singing praises of how easily the low-end Core 2 Duo E6300 model can overclock to hit levels exceeding the Extreme model, but the interesting bit would be how the E6300 stacks up at stock performance levels to the existing processor mix from AMD and Intel. So for the rest of you not into overclocking, keep your eye out on it in our performance graphs. Of the Core 2 processor models available, there's just one that we were unfortunately not able to get our hands on and this is the E6400 model. Once we get hold of one, we'll be sure to update this article.

Intel Pentium D 900 Series

The Intel Pentium D was the first ever dual-core consumer processor, but the debut 800 series (Smithfield core) was lackluster at best that left us unimpressed. Fortunately, this year's January entry of the Pentium D 900 series (Presler core) faired better in all aspects such as performance, thermals and power, but AMD's Athlon 64 X2 series was still the more lucrative option as judged in our past reviews that trumped the Pentium D on all aspects (until Intel's Core 2 came about). The Pentium D 900 series started out with the models 920, 930, 940, 950 and later in the year, the 960. However, they lacked Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST) that was present in the earlier Pentium D 800 series, which was puzzling to say the least when Intel actually needed it badly. Thankfully, the newer batches of Pentium D 900 series remedy this shortcoming with EIST support and feature a new 95 watts maximum TDP rating. Although a little late in our opinion, Intel seems to have made some refinements to the Presler resulting in a newer core stepping that's used in the more recent processors. These carry new sSpec numbers to denote their differentiation from the earlier models and you can double check which version you have currently or which models to look out for in your next acquisition from http://processorfinder.intel.com/ .

Also about the same time when Intel introduced these revised cores, they dropped Intel Virtualization Technology (VT) support from some of the models. As the Pentium D 900 series was heading towards the mass mainstream adoption, it allowed them to reposition some of their models more competitively. Many of us don't yet actually require this function, so Intel passed on the savings, which was a smart move. New processor model numbers were tagged to differentiate them from the original models and that's where things could get a little confusing. For example, the model 930 is a 3GHz part with VT. The new version without VT is tagged as 925, but there's also a 920 model, which is a 2.8GHz part with VT. So if one isn't careful of these small nuances, you might end up with something you hadn't planned for. From a clock-to-clock point of view, the model 945 equates to 950, 925 equates to 930 and the 915 equates to 920.

Generally, if you scan the prices above, you'll find that the newer models without VT are more attractively priced. The Pentium D 945 is especially attractive as it's practically the same as the 950 model without VT, yet it's more affordable than the 940 and even the 930 model (from a price to performance point of view). In our article, we reflect the performance of the Pentium D 900 series using the newer models without VT where possible since those are what most retailers stock currently.

AMD Athlon 64 FX / X2 Series (Socket AM2)

AMD's dual-core processors were known to be the performance leaders during the days when Intel only had the Pentium D series at its helm. In fact AMD's dual-core processors were priced above that of Intel's stable of processors, not so much because of their leadership, but because they couldn't meet the demand, which worked to their advantage anyway. However, July's incoming of Intel's Core 2 series has since knocked their lead and eroded profits, no thanks to massive price cuts across the board, product lineup reshuffling and AMD still unable to meet demand for Socket AM2 processors. While in some regions you are able to purchase the entire Athlon 64 X2 series, there are other places where only the low to mid-end scale are available, but not the high-end (at least not to the satisfying levels required by demand). Thus that leaves these customers no choice but to pursue the Intel route for more performance. AMD's upcoming fab 38 plant should increase production significantly, but it would be at least mid-2007 before it ships revenue churning parts. In the meantime, their fab 36 should be in the fine-tuning phase with regards to rolling over to 65nm die production, which AMD targets for the end of the year. Here's what they've got to offer meanwhile:-

Recently, AMD began offering 65-watt TDP versions of their normal Athlon 64 X2 series that are usually rated for 89-watt TDP. These are known as Energy Efficient (EE) models and are available in 4600+, 4200+ and 3800+ models. Since AMD doesn't have the full-scale quantity to shift their lineup completely to the new EE models, both the normal and EE models are sold side by side in retail, with the Energy Efficient ones going for a premium. The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is also offered in a third variant with a low 35-watt TDP and is known as the Energy Efficient Small Form Factor version. As you can guess by the trend, it's even more expensive than the EE part as only the best quality dies are able to operate at that frequency with very low voltage input to be qualified at such ratings. Expect to see more 'energy saving' models later this year.

Test Setup & Benchmarks

With the recap of dual-core processors, variety and updates to the series since we've last discussed about them, we're all set to lay down the test setup specs used to benchmark them. The outcome of which, we have obtained 400 results that we've compiled from running 16 different processors across our suite of benchmarks. Here then are the testbed specifications used for this review:-

Intel Core 2 Configuration

• Intel Desktop Board D975XBX (Intel 975X Express chipset)
• Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700, E6600 and E6300
• 2 x 512MB Corsair XMS DDR2-800 non-ECC memory modules (CAS 4. 4-4-12)
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
• MSI GeForce 7900 GT 256MB - with NVIDIA Detonator XP 84.21
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2

Intel Pentium D Configuration

• ASUS P5WD2-E Premium (Intel 975X Express chipset)
• Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (with Hyper-Threading), Pentium D 960, 945, 940, 925 and 915.
• 2 x 512MB Kingston HyperX DDR2-667 non-ECC memory modules (CAS 4. 4-4-10)
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
• MSI GeForce 7900 GT 256MB - with NVIDIA Detonator XP 84.21
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2

AMD Athlon 64 FX / X2 Configuration

• ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe (nForce 590 SLI chipset)
• AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, Athlon 64 X2 5200+, 5000+, 4600+, 4200+ and 3800+
• 2 x 512MB Corsair XMS DDR2-800 non-ECC memory modules (CAS 4, 4-4-12)
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
• MSI GeForce 7900 GT 256MB - with NVIDIA Detonator XP 84.21
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2

The benchmarks used in this review include:-

• SPECCPU 2000 v1.3
• Futuremark PCMark 2005 Pro
• BAPCo SYSmark 2004
• Lightwave 3D 7.5
• Cinebench 2003
• XMpeg 5.03 (DivX 6.2.5 encoding)
• Futuremark 3DMark06 Pro
• Unreal Tournament 2004
• AquaMark3
• Quake 4 ver.1.20
• F.E.A.R.

Results - SPEC CPU2000 v1.3 (Speed tests)

First up for comparison, we have the industry leading benchmark from Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation's (SPEC) CPU2000 version 1.3. Consisting of two time consuming benchmark suites for measuring compute-intensive integer performance and floating-point performance, the organization's efforts to standardize comparison among several classes of computers have gained them wide accreditation and is an often used measurement of performance in the industry. When properly configured for the complete batch run, completion times aren't measured in minutes nor hours, but in days; that's how compute intensive it is even for the top of the line consumer and workstation systems. You would need a server farm if you ever wanted to reduce that timeline drastically, which even then is considered long for an average enthusiast benchmark.

The results on this page reflect scores from their integer and floating-point test suites and help us rank how capable each processor is in either type of workload. Thus, the higher the scores, the better. Generally, the results are influenced by the CPU architecture and frequency if all other system variables are constant. As seen in our recent spate of Core 2 articles, this series leaves everything else in the dust. The Athon 64 dual-core processors generally faired lower than even many of the Pentium D series due to their vastly lower clock speeds and small cache sizes (for the 5000+ models and below). The Core 2 E6300 was initially thought to be bad performer for floating-point workloads due very low clock speeds, but the resilience of the new Core architecture shines through as the US$180 processor fares in the same performance scale as a US$800+ Athlon 64 FX-62. Clearly, the Core 2 puts a lot of processors to shame in the price-to-performance department in certain aspects, as you'll see later in this article.

Results - SPEC CPU2000 v1.3 (Rate tests)

Still on SPEC CPU2000, we now compare the processor's throughput capability by running multiple copies of the workload to completely populate both cores in each processor. The result of which you can compare in the below graphs that depict scores from running one copy versus running two copies of integer and floating-point workloads respectively. The standings have shuffled a little in the mid-range, but not too much from what we've seen earlier. The results give you a glimpse of how useful the secondary core can be with the right workloads utilizing the processor's full resources.

Results - Futuremark PCMark05

Next, we have some lighter set synthetic tests. Futuremark's PCMark05 contains several small synthetic subsystem tests that are generally capable of pinpointing the system's capabilities in brief. The CPU test suite certainly loads the processor to its maximum potential and this was depicted in its eternity with the four logical processors of the Intel Pentium XE 965 processor garnering a very high score. Not exactly representative of the real world, which is why this is known as a synthetic test. In the memory test suite, AMD processors faired better with their direct memory access, but Intel's Core 2 processors are so fast that they helped speed up the overall read/write bandwidth as well and clinched top spot once again.

Results - SYSmark 2004

Bapco's SYSmark 2004 is an indispensable benchmarking tool in our test labs for its ability to portray heavy system usage using true applications in multi-tasking mode. That's tough to replicate, but that's exactly this benchmark's forte. Workloads are split up in two categories - Internet Content Creation and Office Productivity. The overall rating is a combination of the scores from both groups in a predefined formula. Again, the Core 2 series have a nice lead with the lowest end part still faring as well as the top guns of the previous generation.

Results - Lightwave 3D 7.5

Hanging in at the end of the pack in Lightwave's rendering workloads is the Pentium D series that fare quite poorly as opposed to the Athlon 64 X2 series. It's a classic case of a deep pipeline architecture versus one that's short and more efficient. The Conroe core based Core 2 fare well, but not a whole lot better than the Athlon 64 X2. The Allendale based Core 2 E6300 is in the middle of the pack held back by its low clock speeds and smaller cache. So if you are targeting a new system for a specific workload type, don't blindly go with the hype of getting any Core 2 processor.

Results - Cinebench 2003

Another popular render based benchmark that's highly threaded, the performance standings are quite similar to what we've seen in Lightwave benchmarking, but this time the Conroe based Core 2 processors have a better lead.

Results - XMpeg 5.3 (DivX 6.2.5 encoding)

In our DivX movie encoding tests, again the Conroe based Core 2 processors aced the competition by a huge margin. The entry-level E6300 model however, didn't fare well in this test once more due to its low clock speeds. Almost the entire Pentium D series is able to overthrow the Core 2 Duo E6300 handily in this task. While we all know that the low-end Core 2 processors are easily overclockable to high frequencies to counter even the dearest Core 2 series, for those who aren't into overclocking, take note of the processor standings carefully. Someone who does mostly office work, web surfing and video transcoding won't benefit much from a budget Core 2 upgrade unless, he or she happens to be an overclocker as well.

Results - Futuremark 3DMark06

In our synthetic game tests, CPU-based rendering scores were well in favor of high-end Core 2 processors while the budget model was in similar standings as those in its price range. Likewise, 3DMark graphics scores followed a similar trend, but this is mostly a GPU stressing test, thus the scores are all closely concentrated.

Results - Unreal Tournament 2004

On an older game engine like Unreal Tournament 2004 where the graphics subsystem isn't taxed as much and the CPU does a fair share of workload as well, you can notice much larger gains from processor upgrades. The Core 2 series is the winner hands down for their performance and their price to performance ratio. We choose to show the outcome at a resolution of 1600x1200 because the results were actually still CPU bound at this level.

Results - AquaMark 3

AquaMark 3 is another benchmark belonging to the older game engine class and the Core 2 series have again swept the competition away.

Results - Quake 4

Furthering our benchmarks into more modern games, once again Core 2 reigns supreme, while the far runner-up is the Athlon 64 X2 series. The Pentium D is mostly occupying the bottom rung again.

Results - F.E.A.R.

F.E.A.R. represents some of the newest crop of games that tax graphics cards such as even the performance series GeForce 7900 GT if you choose to immerse yourself in stunning visual quality. As you can see from the scores, the graphics card has become the bottleneck, but this is exactly the message we wish to drive to those who aren't aware. The very newest games are designed to be a visual feast for your eyes, and even though you can control the level of quality, for those who staunchly stand against reducing their game experience, you stand to gain a lot more from a graphics subsystem upgrade than a CPU upgrade. This line of advice is likely to hold true for sometime till game developers start to harness the CPU's multiple cores for physics calculations and a high degree of artificial intelligence involvement to push CPU requirements to the next level. That doesn't mean you can live off an old Socket-A processor as there needs to be a reasonable balance of platform competence and graphics subsystem performance to drive these new games fluidly.

Aggregate Performance

Over the last 12 pages, we've covered 400 results from 16 processors across nearly a dozen benchmarks and while you easily can tell that Core 2 processors have taken the performance crown, their lead varies widely from one workload to another. For example, the Core 2 Duo E6300's performance can vary anywhere from 5% to over 60% faster than the slowest dual-core processor tested, the Intel Pentium D915. For those who've no real task priorities to focus their upgrading decisions (although that sounds unlikely), we've simplified the comparison by aggregating the benchmark results to form a composite index for all processors tested.

We used only one set of results from each of the benchmarks to avoid overweighing any one benchmark. This means if we had multiple benchmark configuration results to show earlier, we chose only the most appropriate configuration that best represents the benchmark's competence. The exception here is SPEC CPU2000 where the results were split up for integer and floating-point loads, thus we used results (two-user rate) from both sets to show a more balanced outlook. Finally, we compared the performance of all the processors against the Pentium D 915 (which held up the rear of most benchmarks) and aggregated the difference (mostly performance gain) with respect to the slowest SKU of the previous generation dual-core processor. Although we would love to tabulate this in a table, there are just too many benchmarks and processor comparisons to properly fit this page to be of meaningful value. Thus, we have axed that and shown you the final composite performance index graph directly.

So in the composite performance index below, the Pentium D 915 is our baseline comparison with a score of 1.00. Thus the score of 1.72 for the Core 2 Extreme X6800 for example, represents that it is on average 72% faster than the Pentium D 915 processor. We would like to stress again that actual workload differences would result in varying performance gains, but the below is a rough aggregation based on our benchmarks and test scenarios. From the charted index, the Core 2 Extreme X6800 is the undisputed performance leader, while the Core 2 Duo E6600 manages to beat AMD's best chip at less than half its cost. More on the price performance aspect on the next page.

Price Performance Index & Closing Comments

On this page, we find out which processor gives you the best price performance balance. For this, we surveyed online price comparison websites for a rough gauge on the current going price of the various processors. Surprisingly unlike graphics cards, we found most processors to be priced quite close to the suggested retail price listed by both AMD and Intel. We then used the composite performance index scores to derive the price performance index (which is then multiplied by 100 to give a reasonable figure) as illustrated in the table below. Higher values indicate more performance per dollar spent. Take note that the table has been arranged with reference to the highest composite performance index to the lowest and that we've chosen to use non energy-efficient models to give AMD some leeway in the price department:-

To visibly see which processor offers better value and at the same time maximizing performance, we decided to color code the price performance index in three distinct price categories (below US$200, US$200 - 400 and above US$400) and plotted it against our previous graph which is the raw composite performance index (that's matched against the Pentium D 915 baseline):-

As the legend dictates, red indicates price performance index of processors over US$400, while orange is reserved for processors of the US$200 to US$400 category and green for the most affordable class below US$200. Generally the sweet spot would be a processor whose price performance index and the composite performance index within the category are both high. Starting off with the sub US$200 green segment, the low-end Pentium D 915 may have the highest price performance index of all processors compared, but its performance is of the lowest rung. For those who are in a strict budget, a better option would be the Pentium D 945 which has the next best price performance index and a decent performance index increment. For the enthusiast on a budget, nothing beats the Core 2 Duo E6300, which fares pretty well on both indexes and has the lowest thermal and power envelopes. In fact, it might save you money in the long run to get a Core 2 Duo E6300 than any of the Pentium D chips if you leave your system on for long hours or 24/7 operation. At stock speeds, it's able to best some of the processors of the next price rang group and that's not even considering that it can overclock beyond that of the X6800 processor. It's no wonder that we gave it our Most Value For Money award in an earlier article.

Comparing within the US$200 to US$400 category of processors, the most notable offering is the Core 2 Duo E6600 processor with a high performance index and a reasonably good price performance index. Again couple the other aspects of the Core 2 series like thermals, power consumption and overclocking edge, the E6600 sticks out above the competition. In fact, it's one of the most value for money chips on the high-end side if you were to take into consideration of the above US$400 class processors and their indices.

Also notable from the graph and discussion above are processors that you might want to give a miss due to their sub par standings. These include quite a bit of the Athlon 64 dual-core series, the Pentium D940, 960 and Pentium XE 965. For all of these, there seems to be a better alternative highlighted earlier. However we remind you once again that our recommendations are quite generalized after much averaging of the workloads and results to obtain a single measure of comparison for each processor. This is useful if you are not sure what to choose, but if you have specific usage model(s), we urge you to compare the individual performance results for a more targeted outlook suiting your needs. Another catch to the price performance index is that this only takes into account of the processor's price and not of the platform. Intel's platforms tend to be a little pricier as opposed to those supporting AMD processors and a perfect example is the Intel P965 Express class motherboard. There are numerous variables on the motherboard aspect and the choices made are very much based on user preferences. Thus, this cannot be accurately accounted for in our article. Overall, this is our attempt at making sense of price and performance. It does not intend to be a tell-all definitive chart other factors like heat dissipation and power consumption were not considered, thus, these factors can tip the balance of the charts as well. The term performance in this chart basically means 'raw' performance and nothing more.

With that note, this brings us to the end of the article and we hope it has helped or would help you make more informed purchase decisions on your next processor upgrade as well as enlighten others on where their systems rank at the moment. Quad core processors are just around the corner and though it's not going mainstream soon, it would be interesting to see just how much smoother our computing experience can get. That will be the topic of next month, but until they become affordable, dual-core processors would be the workhorses of many for some time to come.

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.