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
Hacp - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
If you want performance of an AMD X2 in a notebook package, the Yonah duo is the way to go.Griswold - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Or you wait for dual core Turion. Same thing.Accord99 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
But at 2-3x the power consumption.Houdani - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...No need to exaggerate unnecessarily.
Accord99 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
That's a system power consumption, I was referring to CPU only. And in a laptop environment, the power usage of the other components are much smaller so the impact of the CPU portion is greater. 90nm single Turions are already uncompetitive with Yonah, making them dual core will just make it worse.saratoga - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
The difference will most likely be less then 2x judging by the relative power consumption of Dothan and Venice @ 90nm, so you're still wrong.Also, Yonah is a 65nm chip. It should not be surprising that it has an edge over 90nm chips.
Accord99 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Dothan vs Turion ML has a 2X or greater edge under load. Yonah has comparable power consumption to Dothan while 90nm dual core Turions will clearly go up. 3X is not out of the question for non-undervolted DC Turions.Shintai - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Ye I would guess on something like 35W will be 40-45W with 65nm Turion X2, unless you sacrifice speeds. The 25W part might be 35-40W.But Turion really never had a chance, since it´s not designed for low power. And as we already saw in the benchies. Who want a dualcore Turion running at 1.8Ghz or less against a 2.13Ghz Yonah when the yonah uses less power.
Intel briliant move so Dothan->Yonah only gave 9% more transistors. Turion->Turion X2 will add 110-120% more transistors (Over 100% due to crossbar between CPUs).
So Yonah will also be cheaper to make than a dualcore Turion.
Furen - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
Intel did slice the "cache per core" in half with Yonah, so AMD could conceivably make Dual-core Turions have 512k per core, which would make the die-size increase around 50%, though this will probably have a greater impact on performance on the AMD side, since Dothan's cache was insanely huge to begin with.About the price: AMD Turions will always be cheaper than their direct analogs from Intel because AMD needs to perform the same AND have a better price for people to use it, otherwise they'll go with the market leader, so I dont think we'll ever be faced with chosing between a 1.8GHz Turion and a 2.13GHz Yonah. This is regardless of the production cost, though AMD's margins may take a big hit if Intel pushes prices hard enough.
bob661 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
pnw3d