Dual-core desktop duel: AMD vs. Intel

What would the results of a dual-core desktop CPU fight look like? Many people equate Windows PCs with Intel Pentium processors (and soon will likely be doing the same with Macs), but we've seen dual-core CPU AMD systems power ahead of dual-core Intel-based PCs on more than one occasion.

AMD Athlon 64 X2
AMD Athlon 64 X2
Intel Pentium dual core CPUs
Intel Pentium dual core CPUs

To answer the question once and for all, we set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck. Skip ahead to the official ruling if you want, but the match itself is interesting.

Round 1: Day-to-day computing
Which chip delivers for the average Joe/Jane?

While dual-core CPUs are primarily meant for heavy multitasking and running multimedia applications, it's not like you're suddenly going to stop using Microsoft Word or other common applications when you sit down in front of a dual-core PC. Our first test, BAPCo's SysMark 2004 benchmark, gauges how well each chip handles the day-to-day rigours of standard office-productivity apps in addition to creating content for the Internet.

The test results are broken down into three scores: office productivity, Internet content creation and overall. We primarily look to the overall score to determine our rating when we use SysMark for desktop testing, but the individual scores are particularly important if you're interested in buying a dual-core CPU for a specific task.

Application performance
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
 BAPCo SysMark 2004 rating  
SysMark 2004 Internet-content-creation rating  
SysMark 2004 office-productivity rating  
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
256 
308 
213 
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
252 
303 
210 
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840
243 
295 
200 
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
242 
287 
204 
Intel Pentium D 840
238 
280 
202 
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
236 
283 
197 
Intel Pentium D 830
226 
263 
195 
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
222 
261 
188 
Intel Pentium D 820
214 
246 
186 

The results are clear: AMD lands a quick combination and takes the first round by placing two of its X2 processors at the top of the charts. Not only is its top-of-the-line Athlon 64 X2 4800+ faster than Intel's flagship Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 840 chip, but the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ also outpaces Intel's best. That result doesn't speak well of Intel's chip that costs as much as AU$500 more than the X2 4600+.

The results scale similarly in AMD's favour as you move down each company's lineup. The X2 4400+ edges out its direct competitor, the Pentium D 840, for example. And at the low end, the X2 3800+ dispatches the Pentium D 820. For day-to-day computing performance, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the collective winner.




Winner: AMD


    Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7  
  AMD X              
  Intel                

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next >
Advertisement

Print feature brought to you by Hewlett Packard

Talkback 10 comments

    AMD crushes Intel chips across the boardAnonymous -- 13/12/05 (in reply to #120125044)

    This is THE best article I have seen showing that AMD processors are dominant across the board - no ifs ands or butts. Its amazing to me this data isnt more well known and more importantly why a Dell doesnt take notice and ship AMD processors.

    The reason AMD X2's are fasterKym Busby -- 13/12/05

    There is good reason that the X2's are faster than the Intel's. The 2 cores of an AMD X2 talk to each other directly using a 2GHz Hypertransport link, while the 2 cores of an Intel talk to each other via the north bridge on an 800MHz FSB. This, as well as the integrated memory controller is the decisive factor in the absolute flogging the AMD's give to Intel !!!

    AMDneo -- 13/12/05

    LiveSTRONG AMD, Baby!

    Curious use of memoryJoel Friedman -- 14/12/05

    Maybe it's a misprint, but why was 400Mhz DDR memory used for the AMD system and the higher speed DDR2 memory installed in the Intel tester? An intentional handicap?

    memory differencedavid lee -- 14/12/05 (in reply to #120125104)

    I saw the memory speed to that is a 267Mhz difference and the amd still won

    Athlon doesn't support DDR2Anonymous -- 14/12/05 (in reply to #120125104)

    The Athlon does not support DDR2 memory. DDR has lower latency than DDR2 and better suits the Athlon. It should have been noted in the article what memory timings were used, however, as this plays a not unsignificant part in the overall system performance

    Athlon X2 supports ddr2Bobson -- 02/04/07 (in reply to #120125198)

    Athlon X2 supports DDR2 memory at 800mhz
    but the DDR mem. has a lower latency.

    Dual-Core blowoutAnonymous -- 16/12/05

    I would like to see a control test using a single-core Intel EE and the AMD FX-55 or FX-57. Are the dual-core chips faster than their single-core cousins?

    AMD OR INTELColin Davies -- 10/05/07

    Im looking to upgrade motherboard and chip.Can any tell me which is the best for converting dvix to dvd.

    the bestvic -- 06/06/08 (in reply to #320079144)

    if u wanna do multi-tasking in a good pace, go for amd without even a second thought................

Add your opinion


Back to top

Featured