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...

A Fair Pentium M Comparison Overall System Performance with Winstone 2004
Comments Locked

103 Comments

View All Comments

  • fitten - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Yup... as I posted above... the rumor is that Yonah was designed for 2.5GHz (maybe even 2.6GHz or so) and can easily be overclocked to those speeds but is being launched at the speeds it is for exactly what you say... to fit in a certain power envelope.
  • Xenoterranos - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    We'll, that's definitely a logical argument, but I'd say only marginally relavent to this discussion. If a laptop with X% better power consumption comes out, does it really matter in the end where those X% came from. I can see the validity in saying that maybe some of those optimizations are on the board and thus the CPU shouldn't be given all the credit, but lower consumption is lower consumption. But that's all hypothetical. The reality is that even without optimizations, the Pentium M would have enjoyed lower power consumption just by moving to the 65nm proccess, as would any proccessor. that's where most of that 30% came from. I'd venture to say that the board design provides 1 or 2 % max, and definitely within the margin of error.
    ><eno
  • Xenoterranos - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Um, i got confused there a bit. I'm basically saying that the new "Core Duo" derives the majority of it's efficiency not from any architectual changes (although they do help a lot), but from the move to 65nm. When AMD makes that jump to (and if Intel hasn't already gone to 45nm) then you'll see AMD pull ahead in power consumption on all 65nm parts, if not performance as well. Remember, aside from the on-die controller, this new architecture is very similar to what AMD is doing. Like the author said, if they wanted to copy something, they should at least copy the serial bus!
  • Betwon - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    All one know that Dothan is 90nm.But it is very cool. hot == Intel's 90nm? No!
    The CPU's architecture of low power consume is key. We must understand that IC design is very complex, many advanced tech are applied to keep CPU cool, include the CPU's architecture(such as micro-ops fusion).
  • Furen - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Yonah is better? It seems to be like its a pretty even match clock-for-clock but if you consider that X2s max out at 2.4GHz (currently) and Yonah will launch in around 15 days at 2.13GHz (the FX-60 is supposed to launch around the same time, so the X2 max clock may hit 2.6GHz when Yonah arrives) then it is clearly inferior in the performance department. Granted, the power consumption is quite a bit better but I'd hardly say that the CPU is better, just better suited for low-power applications.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Yonah(2GHz/L2 2M) is better than AthonX2(2GHz/L2 2M) in the many cases.
    Everyone also believe that Yonah is able to reach the very high frequency.
    In the past, We also known that PM can be overclocked better than A64. The PM's best record of Super Pi is much fast than A64/FX.
  • Zebo - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Yonah Yonah Yonah... Nah it was hype as I suspected... these procesors are vitually identical to AMD's old A-64's.. AMD supposed to get signifigant bumps w. DDR2/3 and PCIe onboard plus I read about some technology AMD and IBM made to increase performance by a whopping 40%!!
    http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=3370">http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=3370

    AMD has nothing to fear other than in power arena when longer pipe Conroe comes and even then that advantage may very well disappear.


  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    The 40% advantage is TRANSISTOR performance. Even then, its 40% advantage when no straining is included at all. AMD has strained silicon in their current process. Which means real advantage is FAR less than 40%.
  • Shintai - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    PCIe onboard is not a speed advantage. It´s more a tactic move towards the the computer on a chip solution.

    AMD is keen on ondie memory controller and in some years PCIe aswell due to the fact they suck at chipsets. Sure nVidia is making some good ones now. But it´s always been Intels extra strong point.

    PCIe would also gives less traces on the motherboard that gives lower cost. But your CPU will break the 1300pin mark atleast and will be unable to scale in any way. Like AMDs backwards setting with DDR. When some new PCIe or more PCIe lanes comes out. You would need a new socket.

    However personally I´m in favour of it. I just think AMDs ondie solutions is the wrong way. On package seems alot better and more flexible. Until we have an even more stagnant development cycle for external parts.
  • stateofbeasley - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    DDR2 advantage? I wouldn't count on it. The latency on DDR2 still sucks compared to DDR. I wouldn't be so quick to scoff - Yonah performs as well as the X2 while consuming only a fraction of the electrical power.

    I don't see why people thought Yonah was going to be some sort of X2 destroyer. Its execution core has far fewer units than K8 and it lacks an on-die memory controler. The fact that it can match an X2 with slimmer cores makes it all the more impressive. The only hype was in your mind.

    The AMD/IBM technology is not in processors that we can benchmark today -- they have yet to bring this process to mass manufacturing.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now