Intel's Core 2 Extreme & Core 2 Duo: The Empire Strikes Back
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 14, 2006 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Application Performance using SYSMark 2004 SE
We'll kick off our look at general application performance with SYSMark 2004 SE and as always, and we'll look at the overall score as well as the scores in each of the two suites - Internet Content Creation and Office productivity.
As we saw in our last preview of Intel's Core 2 Extreme processor, it posted SYSMark scores that were well beyond anything either AMD or Intel had been able to deliver in the past. With the final version of Core 2 silicon in our hands and a more stable/tweaked platform, we got even better numbers out of Conroe:
At the high end, the Core 2 Extreme X6800 was just under 36% faster than the Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, even the $316 E6600 was around 18% faster than AMD's fastest. To add even more insult to injury the slowest Core 2 Duo in the test, the 1.86GHz E6300 is barely slower than AMD's fastest Athlon 64 X2.
The old Intel lineup of Pentium D processors is truly an embarrassment. Only the Extreme Edition 965 is remotely competitive and even then it can barely outperform the $183 E6300.
Drilling down into the SYSMark scores we've got the overall ICC results, which honestly are not much different than the overall scores we saw above. The Core 2 Extreme X6800 holds a 29% performance advantage over the FX-62 and once again, and the E6600 is able to outperform AMD's best by over 8%.
Intel's Core 2 performance domination continues in the Office Productivity portion of SYSMark 2004, with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 maintaining a 42.5% performance advantage over the FX-62. This time around, even the E6300 manages to remain competitive with the FX-62. This is Intel's new $183 part offering performance equal to that of AMD's $1,000 flagship FX processor; it's going to take a lot for AMD to recover from this deficit.
The individual SYSMark 2004 SE scores are graphed below if you're interested. The data is used in calculating the overall scores we've already discussed above:
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
202 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
The first nF4 Intel Edition boards will be available the week of 7/20. The nForce 500 boards for Intel will not be available until early August. We are now under NDA for the nForce 500 until NVIDIA makes their release announcement. However, there are a couple of nForce 500 boards that look very promising at this time. Do not expect high FSB overclocking results until NVIDIA's next chipset but overall performance is very good at this time.mobutu - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Thank you very much for the info you shared.Still, one more question: what do you mean "nVidia next chipset"? Like nF6 or smtg? Because if so it means probably Q4 2006 or Q1 2007 ...
Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
The one that will come out this winter that we cannot discuss except for the fact that it will be a single chip and dual x16 capable. :) Of course, no real mention of it so far but ATI has a really nice Intel chipset due in late August to early September followed up by a refresh in the winter also.mobutu - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Oh, I got it. Thank you very much, much appreciated.Looking forward to see Anandtech review of Conroe motherboards.
Visual - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
you really need to include scores for 4ghz conroes, and maybe some 3.2ghz x2s(though this isnt really needed) and your review will be the most perfectest one evar!JarredWalton - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
We generally reserve overclocking scores for articles specifically looking at that aspect. It's unfair to include OC'ed Core 2 without OC'ed X2, FX, etc. I hope to get a Core 2 in the near future to run some specific OC benchmarks comparing a lower end (E6300 and/or E6600) Core 2 with X2 3800+ (hopefully EE, but we'll see).junior1 - Saturday, July 15, 2006 - link
Jarred that would be great to see. The E6300 and X2 3800+ seem close, but the final AMD pricing and the overclocking potential of each could really make either the clear winner for performance per dollar in the midrange segment.
Is the die size smaller on E6300 and E6400, or is it a full die with half the cache disabled? Any chance the smaller cache means better OC potential?
It would be great to see results with several chipsets.
Warder45 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
awww. At least give us a taste, maybe 2 or 3 of the most CPU intensive tests run at 4ghz.Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Just wait a few days.... :)mendocinosummit - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Ya, that is what I was hoping for. I want to see a dual core (that has some balls, unlike the preslers) run at 4ghz and do some benchmarks