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
bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Sorry but the Netburst stuff is STILL garbage. Core 2 is head and shoulders better than anything they've made since the P3. Although, I thought the power consumption would be better.aznskickass - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Man, some AMD fanboys just can't take defeat with dignity.Really expensive? Top of the line, sure, but funny you fail to mention the E6300 and E6600, which both offer far better value than the equivalent priced A64.
Finally match (or even exceed by a few points)?
OK, here is where I suggest you get your eyes checked out, or go back to school and learn to read graphs. C2D *spanked* A64, not 'match it or exceed it by a little'.
I think you are just upset that AMDs days as performance crown are over. Tough life being a fanboy eh. You gotta take the ups with the downs son. ;)
epsilonparadox - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
how is a $999 C2E hundreds of dollars more than a $999 FX-62? How is a 55% increase in performance "match (or even exceed by a few points)"? Perhap a slow reading of the article is need.Genx87 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Intel has a hot chip on their hands here. Problem is, when will it have SLI available?And when will we finally see a review using an Nvidia chipset on the AMD side of this equation?
Bozo Galora - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
newegg has started the conroe game by getting a $460 premium on extreme CD2http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
Bozo Galora - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
errr......thats a rape of $360, not $460 - my bad (duh)
bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
It's not on the website anymore. I can't find any Conroe's up their at all. Non-existant. Also, and I know some of you read this but didn't AT say that the supply Conroe would be tight and would drive prices up until the end of the year? So why the bitching about higher prices? If Dell and others are buying up and making supply tight then prices go up. That's the way stuff is.Also, who has a Conroe other than the EE that we can buy today? Also, if these CPU's aren't available and today is the launch day then wouldn't this be considered a paper launch? And one more thing, where are the motherboards for this thing?
yacoub - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
technically a paper launch means there were none available at all on launch date. my understsanding is that there were some of these available, they have just been bought up. a limited supply is still better than a true paper launch, imho, even if the end result is the same for most of us - no product available to buy.JarredWalton - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
This is a paper launch, and there's a variety of political reasons for it. Among the reasons:1 -- AMD is cutting their processor prices in a couple weeks, right after Core 2 Duo was supposed to launch. Intel wanted to launch first.
2 -- People have been previewing Conroe performance for a while, because they got processors without going through Intel. Some were upset that they couldn't do articles because they didn't want to put in the time or effort trying to get a chip through other sources. By moving up the NDA lift date, Intel now allows all of the web sites to talk about Core 2 Duo in the open.
Anyway, it's all a marketing war right now, and both AMD and Intel are guilty. Where are the Energy Efficient AMD processors? In about the same place as current Core 2 Duo chips. Basically, though, Intel is building up supply before the official availability launch as opposed to the NDA launch. We might actually be pleasant surprised by availability at the end of the month.
Shintai - Saturday, July 15, 2006 - link
How can it be a paperlaunch if they haven´t launched yet? Launch is still july 27th.Having sites test an upcoming product is a whole other matter.
And just because some can buy B2 stepping retail Core 2 Duos from sites already shipping them means nothing.
Here is a pic of a retail X6800 btw ;)
http://80.167.217.210/pics/e6800.jpg">http://80.167.217.210/pics/e6800.jpg