Midrange CPU Roundup: It's Time to Buy
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 28, 2007 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
Looking at the platform as a whole, AMD has a much better integrated graphics story. The AMD 690G chipset is every bit as stable and reliable in our experience as Intel's offerings, all while offering far superior graphics performance at competitive prices. In our opinion however, if you really want to game with a machine built on one of these platforms you're far better off picking up a cheap graphics card rather than trying to rely on mediocre integrated graphics.
Both AMD and Intel have enough horsepower with their integrated graphics solutions to drive Windows Vista's Aero interface, so if you're not going to be gaming then either integrated graphics solutions is more than enough. Windows and animations did seem to render more smoothly on the Intel platform but we're not sure if that's a driver, GPU, or CPU advantage.
AMD and Intel are unbelievably close when it comes to mainstream CPU performance - far closer than we expected. There are a couple of exceptions, however. DivX encoding in particular is extremely strong on Intel CPUs where AMD just can't compete these days.
If you're choosing between the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ and 4800+ definitely go for the latter. The performance difference is so small that we don't even understand why AMD has both speed grades. At the 2.5GHz+ clock speeds we're talking about, 100MHz differences don't amount to a significant enough performance difference to justify any increase in cost.
The Athlon X2 BE-2350 does reduce power consumption, but at a noticeable increase to cost. However, if you're building an AMD system, we'd recommend the BE-2350 over the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ given the reduction in power consumption. Power costs over the life of the system should eventually negate the $18 price penalty.
Although AMD remains very competitive in the vast majority of benchmarks, given the virtual price parity Intel's performance advantages in some tests make the Core 2 or Pentium Dual-Core a more sensible buy. Both the Core 2 Duo E4500 and Pentium E2160 are great choices, as are their lower clocked variants; it really boils down to price point.
Once you take overclocking into account though, it's tough to beat Intel's Pentium Dual-Core lineup. With 65%+ overclocks - with little effort and using stock cooling - the Pentium E2140 and E2160 are easily the best buys on the market today. If you're absolutely opposed to overclocking, then the AMD/Intel question is a tossup, but if you've got no problems pushing clocks then Intel is the clear choice at all price points.
Where does the future lie?
Performance between these two companies is quite close already in the mainstream segment but what about when Phenom and Penryn reach these affordable price points?
One of the biggest gaps we saw in the performance comparison is DivX performance. If we look at our Phenom Preview, it looks like Phenom will improve DivX encoding performance by around 11% at the same clock speed, which would be enough for AMD to be more than competitive; unfortunately, Penryn will also improve DivX performance by around 10% (and upcoming SSE4 optimizations could increase that figure dramatically).
It's really a question of whether Penryn or Phenom will reach these lower price points first, but we have a feeling that both may make it down here at about the same time. If that's true then it looks like although AMD and Intel will remain competitive in the future, Intel will hold the slight edge just as it does today.
We honestly don't expect Phenom/Penryn to really change the picture much from the overclocker's perspective either. While we're hearing rumors that Phenom will clock higher than K8, Penryn will be on a cooler running 45nm process, which should allow for even higher clock speeds (read: even higher overclocks). As long as competition stays reasonably tight, though, the real winner isn't going to be Intel or AMD: it's going to be the end-users. At least we won't have to feel too guilty about indulging our computer addictions.
Looking at the platform as a whole, AMD has a much better integrated graphics story. The AMD 690G chipset is every bit as stable and reliable in our experience as Intel's offerings, all while offering far superior graphics performance at competitive prices. In our opinion however, if you really want to game with a machine built on one of these platforms you're far better off picking up a cheap graphics card rather than trying to rely on mediocre integrated graphics.
Both AMD and Intel have enough horsepower with their integrated graphics solutions to drive Windows Vista's Aero interface, so if you're not going to be gaming then either integrated graphics solutions is more than enough. Windows and animations did seem to render more smoothly on the Intel platform but we're not sure if that's a driver, GPU, or CPU advantage.
AMD and Intel are unbelievably close when it comes to mainstream CPU performance - far closer than we expected. There are a couple of exceptions, however. DivX encoding in particular is extremely strong on Intel CPUs where AMD just can't compete these days.
If you're choosing between the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ and 4800+ definitely go for the latter. The performance difference is so small that we don't even understand why AMD has both speed grades. At the 2.5GHz+ clock speeds we're talking about, 100MHz differences don't amount to a significant enough performance difference to justify any increase in cost.
The Athlon X2 BE-2350 does reduce power consumption, but at a noticeable increase to cost. However, if you're building an AMD system, we'd recommend the BE-2350 over the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ given the reduction in power consumption. Power costs over the life of the system should eventually negate the $18 price penalty.
Although AMD remains very competitive in the vast majority of benchmarks, given the virtual price parity Intel's performance advantages in some tests make the Core 2 or Pentium Dual-Core a more sensible buy. Both the Core 2 Duo E4500 and Pentium E2160 are great choices, as are their lower clocked variants; it really boils down to price point.
Once you take overclocking into account though, it's tough to beat Intel's Pentium Dual-Core lineup. With 65%+ overclocks - with little effort and using stock cooling - the Pentium E2140 and E2160 are easily the best buys on the market today. If you're absolutely opposed to overclocking, then the AMD/Intel question is a tossup, but if you've got no problems pushing clocks then Intel is the clear choice at all price points.
Where does the future lie?
Performance between these two companies is quite close already in the mainstream segment but what about when Phenom and Penryn reach these affordable price points?
One of the biggest gaps we saw in the performance comparison is DivX performance. If we look at our Phenom Preview, it looks like Phenom will improve DivX encoding performance by around 11% at the same clock speed, which would be enough for AMD to be more than competitive; unfortunately, Penryn will also improve DivX performance by around 10% (and upcoming SSE4 optimizations could increase that figure dramatically).
It's really a question of whether Penryn or Phenom will reach these lower price points first, but we have a feeling that both may make it down here at about the same time. If that's true then it looks like although AMD and Intel will remain competitive in the future, Intel will hold the slight edge just as it does today.
We honestly don't expect Phenom/Penryn to really change the picture much from the overclocker's perspective either. While we're hearing rumors that Phenom will clock higher than K8, Penryn will be on a cooler running 45nm process, which should allow for even higher clock speeds (read: even higher overclocks). As long as competition stays reasonably tight, though, the real winner isn't going to be Intel or AMD: it's going to be the end-users. At least we won't have to feel too guilty about indulging our computer addictions.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
jonp - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
I too wonder about the Netburst admonition. There are probably millions of Netburst CPUs out there that are happily computing away with no thought of Anandtech at all; doing their thing; producing great results for their owners. The biggest concern I have seen is thermal and that, only in relation to overclocking. Assuming there are more than a few users that don't need to or want to overclock; then there are some great bargins in used Netburst Processors and accompanying motherboards.It doesn't appear to me that "...if you know what's best for you." is either technical, professional or helpful. Maybe it was meant as a joke...sorry it's not that funny.
HotdogIT - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Yes, you did. Given the combination of power usage savings, pure performance benefits, and overclocking ability (since you mentioned 3.6ghz on the Pentium D, I assume we can go with at least 2.4 out of an e2140, for comparisons sake), the C2D/Pentium E line is much better.
The problem with a lot of the "lol Pentium D overclocking" articles is they fail to overclock what they're comparing against. You take a Pentium D 805 and OC it to 4ghz, sure, the performance delta over an e2140 will be big. But apply the same cooling and thought into OCing the e2140, and that delta will swing the other way.
ThatLukeGuy - Saturday, September 29, 2007 - link
So what would make the most sense to change out the Pentium D805 to that would keep me at (or better yet raise the bar of) the performance I'm getting now? An OC'd e2140 or something higher up the ladder? I'm matching this to a 2gigs ram, an nice MSI SLI plat mobo, and an 8800gts320mb. I'd want something that wouldn't bottleneck the system which is what the P.D805 did when it was stock.
HotdogIT - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
It's going to depend on a lot of factors. If you're gaming, a change in the CPU may very well do very little in changing any performance; especially at a higher resolution, the CPU may make NO difference.
I'd look into the e2140/e2160/e4X00 line, if you wanted to stay lower cost. At the VERY least, you'll get a boost in energy efficency: The Pentium Ds were and are power hogs, especially compared to the newer line.
What performance did you see increase when you overclocked the Pentium D? Did gaming increase? If so, then a C2D based system would be much better, regardless of an overclock; Netburst just don't handle the games as well.
If, somehow, you're running something that is AMAZINGLY well tuned for Netburst, you may see less of an increase. But these applications are rare these days, so I doubt you'd see that in most cases.
Parhelion69 - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Anand did you do the power consumption tests on the overclocked cpus? I think it's important to know, if you haven't, can't you at least give us a rought estimation? It'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.dm0r - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Thats a great article Anand, I missed this kind of roundup.Enjoyed a lot and the only thing is missing is the performance per watt, but anyway very good article.Thanks for sharing!eetnoyer - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Why not throw in the 4200+? I know it's 90nm, but I just got one for $74, and (for me)it looks like the sweet spot of price/performance for AMD. And, given how well tuned their 90nm process is at EOL, I wouldn't be surprised to see power consumption close to that of the 65nm chips. If you want, you could use the 65W version (it's only a buck more).Uter - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Anand, is the BE-2400 still coming out? Or, when you say that there are two Athlon X2 BE Processors, the BE-2350 and BE-2300, is that a subtle hint that we shouldn't expect to see it? I just want to make sure I pick one of these up while there are still available...bogda - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Oveclocking results are not fair. You chose horrible motherboards for AMD overclocking.For example, Biostar AMD motherboards cost 50-60 euros. They are much better overclockers than MSI or ASUS you chose. My Athlon BE-2300 easily overclocks from default 1,9GHz to over 2,8GHz with stock HSF.
wdb1966 - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
I completely agree, the boards chosen for the AMD chips are horrible.Gigabyte's MA69GM-S2H and Abit's NF-M2 nView would have been far superior choices in every way...poor motherboard choices, very poor.