Intel Core Duo (Yonah) Performance Preview - Part II
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 19, 2005 12:55 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Test
| CPU: | AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (2.2GHz/512KBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz/512KBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.0GHz/1MBx2 Intel Pentium M 760 (2.0GHz/2MB) Intel Core Duo T2500 (2.0GHz/2MB) |
| Motherboard: | ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe AOpen i915Ga-HFS Unnamed 945G Yonah Motherboard |
| Motherboard BIOS: | ASUS: Version 1013 Dated 08/10/2005 AOpen: Version 1.11 Dated 11/15/2005 |
| Chipset: | NVIDIA nForce4 SLI Intel 915 Express Intel 945G |
| Chipset Drivers: | nForce4 6.66 Intel 7.0.0.25 |
| Memory: | OCZ PC3500 DDR 2-2-2-7 DDR2-533 4-4-4-12 |
| Video Card: | ATI Radeon X850 XT NVIDIA GeForce 7800GTX |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 8.173.1.2 NVIDIA ForceWare 81.85 |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1280 x 1024 - 32-bit @ 60Hz |
| OS: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
While we used an NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX for almost all of our tests, there was one exception, thanks to a NVIDIA driver bug. With dual core processors, NVIDIA's 81.95 drivers will cause the system to maintain 100% CPU utilization when running 3dsmax 7, even when the system is actually not doing anything at all. We didn't discover this bug until we had already run the majority of our tests using the 7800 GTX. So, for the 3dsmax 7 tests, we switched to an ATI Radeon X850 XT. The GPU doesn't impact CPU rendering performance at all, so it doesn't change the performance characteristics of the platform. We just wanted to point out the bug, in case any of you were wondering why your dual core platforms were behaving strangely in certain applications. NVIDIA is aware of the problem and is working on a publicly available fix.
For this comparison, we've kept the number of CPUs to a minimum, focusing on the Pentium M, Core Duo and Athlon 64 X2. The exclusion of the Pentium D was on purpose; we've already compared the Core Duo to the Pentium D in our last article and to put it bluntly, the Pentium D won't really be competition for any of Intel's new architectures. By this time next year, NetBurst will have already been forgotten and the real comparison that matters is how Core Duo stacks up to the Athlon 64 X2, whose architecture is not going the way of the dodo.
As we mentioned earlier in this article, in addition to the X2 3800+ and 4200+, we have included benchmarks of an Athlon 64 X2 running at 2.0GHz, but with a 1MB L2 cache per core (2MB total on die). The point of including this simulated "Athlon 64 X2 4000+" is to answer complaints that the Core Duo has a larger L2 cache than the X2 3800+ and thus isn't a true apples-to-apples comparison. So we've now leveled the playing field even more, and actually given AMD more of an advantage - the 2.0GHz/1MB L2 Athlon 64 X2 has a larger L1 cache (128KB per core vs. 64KB per core), and of course, the X2 still has its own on die memory controller.
With that said, let's see how things stack up now...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
vailr - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Re: Chipset Drivers used in the review:nForce4 6.66
Intel 7.0.0.25
Check here: http://www.fdrsoft.fr.fm/">http://www.fdrsoft.fr.fm/
Intel Version 7.2.2.1006
nForce4 Version 6.70
Marlin1975 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Being that DVD shrink will not be updated anymore and the creator is now part of Nero, and the Recode program. Why not use Recode?PrinceGaz - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link
Personally I wouldn't touch any of the compressed domain transcoders like DVD Shrink as they sacrifice quality for speed. Something like DVD Rebuilder combined with the excellent CCE SP encoder provide the best possible quality and are just as easy to use as DVD Shrink. It's nowhere near as fast as DVD Shrink, but I'll take better picture quality over saving a few minutes any day.mrred - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Anyone else notice that the game benches seem horribly gpu-bound? How about giving us some lower resolutions in testing?Look at FEAR in particular: X2-4200 and X2-3800 getting exactly the same score? HELLO?!?!?!? That's not a cpu-benchmark. Gimme a break.
Anemone - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link
Frankly I appreciate testing that shows resolutions we actually play at. Now if only we'd see 1920x1200 :)blackbrrd - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
The games are benchmarked at 1024x768.Personally I haven't played a game below 1024x768 since I got my GF2mx four or five years ago.
Most games look horrible below 1024x768, except the games ported from consoles ;)
saratoga - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Yeah and above 1024 you're GPU limited. Its almost like this was a CPU review.tfranzese - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
That's not the point. The point is to relieve the GPU so regardless of what GPUs come out a year or two from now that alieviate this bottleneck we'll have known beforehand how the CPU handles things.Further, this is a CPU preview and as such we don't care about system performance or GPU performance; that shouldn't be the focus or included in the article. Instead, every benchmark should serve the articles purpose of comparing the CPUs - GPU bound benchmarks do NOT serve that purpose and should have their resolution lowered to serve that purpose, otherwise they should not be included because what point do they serve except fluff?
tayhimself - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Yeah this review is horrible, just like the first Yonah review.uop - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
I wouldn't call it horrible.There are some weak points, but it does give a good idea about how the Core Duo performs.
Mainly:
- It's not as good as the A64 when it comes to games
- FP is much improved but not there yet
The article does do a good job of reminding us that Yonah is just the dress rehersal for the real deal. Conroe is supposed to be faster, wider, and full of 64-bit goodness. Think about it - with Yonah's die size, it could be the Celeron-M in just 6 months!
If Yonah can compete with the A64, then unless AMD pull a fast one they're probably heading for the underdog position.