Why are Core 2 Duos better?

...than Turions/Athlons...

why?


My Athlon X2 benches in wPrime with very very similar times to Core 2 Duos of the same clock. My desktop has very similat graphics power to the Zepto 6625WD I revied and got very very similar results, but the Zepto had a supposedly more powerful 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo.



So what makes Core 2 Duos better than Athlon/Turion X2s? By the numbers there seems to be little difference but the price.


I'm talking Core Duos here by the way not Quads....

 

Didn't I read somewhere that wPrime isn't a good tool to bench dual core CPUs? Or was that something else?

 

They run cooler aswell.

 

Evidence please? I am asking pertaining to power that is, everyone says Core 2 Duos are more powerful.

Are they? If they are why and please provide evidence!

 

Ive heard they run cooler and use less power...
Now if i compare my brothers laptop which is an 2.0 ghz AMD x2 vs my t7200 which is a core 2 duo 2.0 ghz his one is way way hotter... and considering he has a 12 cell battery n i got a 9 cell one but i get 5 odd hours battery n he only gets 2(with his interegrated graphics) that indicated that it is most likley the processor.. Maby a few other compnents but id say mainly the processor..

 

So there's power consumption and heat. To be honest I've heard of more Core Duos and Core 2 Duos running hot (my T7700 in the Zepto review hit over 80 in gaming and benchmarks) so I'd say they're level there. If it's just power consumption....

Are they actually more powerful? Or is that just speculation.

 

Try ripping some MP3s
Or encoding/decoding a movie
There you should see the power of the C2D

 

Figures please? I am asking for evidence here rather than just hear-say.

 

here is a list of mobile processors: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

I think its not 100% accurate, as there is less data about the amd's but its good enough.

 

Hmm, notebookcheck's figures aren't exactly reliable but they do seem to show cpu sections of 3dmark getting better scores with Core 2 Duos.

Still, aside from benchmarks how does this translate into normal day to day use? Anyone know of an Athlon vs Core 2 Duo review etc. that does encoding tests? Also instead of comparing clock speed, how about price? For £75 you can either get a Core 2 Duo E4500 or an X2 5200 which seem to score very similarly in 3dmark's cpu benchmark.

So, on price, they are euqal. For the same amount of money Intel will sell you the same power chip as AMD, it's just that Intel's line starts at a higher place and goes to a higher place, so AMD caters for the more budget users.

Is that the only difference?

 

Here's the conclusion of a comparison from FPS in games(E6600 vs X2 5000+)
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1996946,00.asp

And here's the conclusion of a more general test (more apps/more CPUs)
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014655,00.asp

The rest of the articles can be found as well of course

 

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3012
I haven't seen any comparing notebook proccessors though.

 

The first article compares a £70 Athlon X2 5000+ with a £140 Core 2 Duo. Hardly a fair test. If they bought a £140 Athlon X2 it would probably be just as quick......? The other article does the same, pitting more expensive Intel CPu against cheaper AMD counterparts, again, not a fair test. When the similar priced cpus are compared the Core 2 Duo does win, but the prices there certainly don't reflect current prices. I still maintain that in the UK £ for £ the performance will be equal.

As an example £45 will buy you an Athlon X2 4000+ here. For the same money you can only get a Pentium Dual Core. I'd expect the Athlon to be quicker or at best they be equally matched.

So......

 

How about this one?
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3117&p=1

Anyway, with AMD's aggressive pricing, it's my impression that it is pretty even, at least in the lower end/midrange. They don't have anything that can compete with Intel's fastest CPU's, regardless of price, but where they do have a competing CPU, the performance/price is pretty much the same.

 

That's pretty much the same conclusion I have come to Jalf. I think people saying Intel's cpus are more powrful really mean to say that Inetl's high range cpus are more powerful than any cpus AMD make. £ for £ the performance seems pretty similar.

 

someone acutally did do a fair "equally matched" test back when C2Ds were first being released in notebooks but for some reason i can't find it any more.
I do remeber that the AMD yeilded slightly less batt life and did run notablly hotter but as for actuall numbers Im at a loss since my memory fails me and I can't find the thread.
as mentioned before unless they are talking about the highend Intel CPUs the two brands tend to be similar in comparison

 

Here's the Notebookreview benchmarking results using wPrime. At least in there, the AMD processors are very close if not equal to the Intel ones. It's a synthetic benchmark, though - not real-world performance.

 

In my opinion, wprime isn't logical for measuring a Intel vs. AMD cpu. Wprime relies on memory bus/speed of memory to determine performance. If you have a custom desktop, try setting your ddr memory to 667 and run the test. Then try to run the test at 800mhz. You'll get greater performance at 800mhz. That is with timings adjusted too.

I'm guessing that hypertransport is what pushes the scores so well for AMD in wprime. That is my guess.

 

I hate to double post though. If you are building a custom box, the e4400, e6300, e2160, are great overclockers (even with stock fan). That is where you are going to see performance for your buck (where AMD stinks right now). Also, the e2160 and e4400 are at a bus speed of 800mhz, making your overclocking worry less (not much strain on the northbridge). Intel has it won because of this fact. An example of this would be Halo's (nbr member) e6850 running at 4ghz. His temps on load never exceed 53*C even though he has water cooling though.

I would think that is the reason that Intel is on top right now. Price yes... performance way yes.

 

I remember reading this as well, but don't remember where either.

One thing that should be noted is the lack of Linux support by AMD, although this appears to be changing soon for the better from what I can tell.

 

They're better because that is what the general population has been convinced to believe, obviously.

 

Because they have the word "Intel" printed on them!

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Huh? How much Linux support does a CPU need?

 

It must be supported in the kernel, as well as the associated chipsets.