AMD Phenom II X2 550 Vs Intel Xeon 3110

[Mir96TA]

I bought AMD Phenom II X2 550 thinking it would as fast as Xeon 3110 Aka E8400.
What I found it is different ball game all togather.
When I was installing XP I notice it is bit slower, I thought it was my optical Drive.
When I ran PC Mark, sure enough it slow Results
Here is my Intel Xeon 3110 results
AMD have a faster clock speed 100Mhz extra and exra 1MB cache, and still slower!
So AMD are really that slow or I am doing some thing WRONG!

Edit: This is my Low end Budget System. In no way fashion this suppose to be a my perfomance system.
This AMD system suppose to be MY HTPC and My Child's computer where he can play
his Blu Ray and HD movies.

 

[waffleironhead]

the e8400 does perform better, but since you are comparing a $170(e8400) cpu versus a $100(550) cpu it does make sense.

 

[Mir96TA]

Well I am not talking about Money here!
I thought AMD is just tad bit slower
Since Phenom is newer, Faster (Clock speed) and More cache! I thought AMD would do same if not better!

 

[Piano Man]

The one system is using a 8800 GTS 640MB and the other is integrated. Of course PC Mark is gonna blow on the one. As far the X2 550 vs the 8400, you have to look at the pros and cons for each.

8400 Pros: Can overclock like a mofo with proper cooling(4-4.5GHz). Clock for clock is faster than the X2 550 with only 2 cores.
8400 Cons: Two cores only and $170

X2 550 Pros: $110, good chance at unlocking cores for quad core processor, decent overclock range (3.6-4.0 with 4 cores, 3.8-4+ with two cores).
X2 550 Cons: In its dual core state, its slower clock for clock than the Intel.

 

[waffleironhead]

news flash! processor speed being equal does not mean egual performance.
Next time instead of being disappointed after a purchase, try doing some research before you spend your money.



and as far as the money goes, it is directly related to the performance. Did you wonder why it was selling for so much less than the intel? If they were equally competitive, then they would be priced competitive.

 

[Mir96TA]

Originally posted by: waffleironhead
news flash! processor speed being equal does not mean egual performance.
Next time instead of being disappointed after a purchase, try doing some research before you spend your money.



and as far as the money goes, it is directly related to the performance. Did you wonder why it was selling for so much less than the intel? If they were equally competitive, then they would be priced competitive.

I know clock speed not always mean faster perfomance! and I am not disapponited at all.
However I am flabbergasted with the perfomance of AMD

Originally posted by: Piano Man
The one system is using a 8800 GTS 640MB and the other is integrated. Of course PC Mark is gonna blow on the one.

Lets keep the Video Perfomance aside, Look at the following
Same HDD on both Computer in Raid 0 formation
Intel Amd
15.5MB/s 125 MB/s
File Decryption
Intel Amd
8.15 MB/s 75.64 MB/s
HDD usage
Intel Amd
9.46 MB/s 8.82 MB/s
Multimedia 1
Intel Amd
3002.74 KB/s 2869.75

Originally posted by: Piano Man
8400 Pros: Can overclock like a mofo with proper cooling(4-4.5GHz). Clock for clock is faster than the X2 550 with only 2 cores.

I am not even touch OC point at all, Just simple stock perfomance.
X2 550 is faster clock but not effectivly faster results

Originally posted by: Piano Man
X2 550 Cons: In its dual core state, its slower clock for clock than the Intel.

Huh?

 

[reallyscrued]

In other news, the new BMW M3 GT2 is faster than Honda's Civic Si.


Seriously, the Intel costs $50 bucks more. If you spend 50 dollars extra on a video card these, it gets you a decent performance boost, CPUs are not much different.

Also: what a bad benchmark analysis, is this a troll thread? Do something only cpu intensive, encrypt a large file or something.

 

[richierich1212]

lol another pcmark thread. Do you seriously purchase cpus soley on pcmarks?

 

[Sylvanas]

You should have read a review before purchasing to understand how the CPU world works....

 

[Fox5]

Err, why does Pcmark say there are 4 cpus on the xeon system? Are you comparing a dual socket system to a single socket?

 

[crisium]

I'm shocked that you're shocked that the more expensive CPU performs better.

 

[Mir96TA]

Originally posted by: Crisium
I'm shocked that you're shocked that the more expensive CPU performs better.

I am not shock, but surprise, because usally intel were not that slow in time of Netburst era! (P4)
or In K6 times AMD was not that slow compare to Intel P54C

Originally posted by: Fox5
Err, why does Pcmark say there are 4 cpus on the xeon system? Are you comparing a dual socket system to a single socket?

Were do you see that ?

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
In other news, the new BMW M3 GT2 is faster than Honda's Civic Si.


Seriously, the Intel costs $50 bucks more. If you spend 50 dollars extra on a video card these, it gets you a decent performance boost, CPUs are not much different.

Also: what a bad benchmark analysis, is this a troll thread? Do something only cpu intensive, encrypt a large file or something.

O yea
Too bad for BMW; cause it is slower then my 96 TransAm
See Amount of the money you can spend does not equate to Faster car!
This benchmark is just a reference. Reference point which easily can use
among different plathforms.
I am just looking into ball park figures

 

[deputc26]

Originally posted by: Mir96TA

I know clock speed not always mean faster perfomance! and I am not disapponited at all.
However I am flabbergasted with the perfomance of AMD

Originally posted by: Piano Man
The one system is using a 8800 GTS 640MB and the other is integrated. Of course PC Mark is gonna blow on the one.

Lets keep the Video Perfomance aside, Look at the following
Same HDD on both Computer in Raid 0 formation
Intel Amd
15.5MB/s 125 MB/s
File Decryption
Intel Amd
8.15 MB/s 75.64 MB/s
HDD usage
Intel Amd
9.46 MB/s 8.82 MB/s
Multimedia 1
Intel Amd
3002.74 KB/s 2869.75

Originally posted by: Piano Man
8400 Pros: Can overclock like a mofo with proper cooling(4-4.5GHz). Clock for clock is faster than the X2 550 with only 2 cores.

I am not even touch OC point at all, Just simple stock perfomance.
X2 550 is faster clock but not effectivly faster results

Originally posted by: Piano Man
X2 550 Cons: In its dual core state, its slower clock for clock than the Intel.

Huh?

The difference isn't as much as your numbers suggest, pcmark is thrown off by the different graphics cards and I can't figure out what this means:

Lets keep the Video Perfomance aside, Look at the following
Same HDD on both Computer in Raid 0 formation
Intel Amd
15.5MB/s 125 MB/s
File Decryption
Intel Amd
8.15 MB/s 75.64 MB/s
HDD usage
Intel Amd
9.46 MB/s 8.82 MB/s
Multimedia 1
Intel Amd
3002.74 KB/s 2869.75

Core 2 is on average ~7% faster per clock though more in some areas and less in other areas. the 550 is only marginally slower than the 8400 at stock clocks.

 

[lopri]

System 1: On-board video, USB thumb-stick (I see "SanDisk Cruzer USB" as main hard drive. What's up with that? )
System 2: Discrete GPU, RAID 0

Are you serious in comparing such configurations? System 2 will beat system 1 in PCMark05 in 90% of the time, if you just randomly choose two CPUs for each system. (regardless of brands)

 

[Mir96TA]

Originally posted by: lopri
System 1: On-board video, USB thumb-stick (I see "SanDisk Cruzer USB" as main hard drive. What's up with that? )
System 2: Discrete GPU, RAID 0

Are you serious in comparing such configurations? System 2 will beat system 1 in PCMark05 in 90% of the time, if you just randomly choose two CPUs for each system. (regardless of brands)

I had memory stick in it. (not sure why did it said Main HDD)
They both running Raid 0
Intel is my main Work Horse

 

[Mir96TA]

Perhaps I should be asking what makes older Clunker Xeon 3110 so faster then AMD Phenom II X2 550, Which is faster in clock speed and have More cache ram ?
Now I do not understand Memory controller function and AMD HT system over Intel's Chipset Memory controller (P35)

 

[lopri]

Well you are still comparing an apple and an orange. You cannot compare such drastically different configurations. As for PII X2 550 vs C2D E8400, I'd suggest you to consult the following.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=97&p2=56

If you're still unsure of the above, you can also do a search at the ORB: E8400 + GMA 3500 (G35) or E8400 + GMA 4500 (G45) That should give you an idea as well.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The 550 has more L3 cache, but the E8400 has more L2 cache (the E8400's L2 is faster than the 550's L3). The E8400 is also slightly more efficient per clock than the Phenom II, comparing dual to dual or quad to quad core.

And there is a reason why Intel charges more money for the E8400 while AMD charges less for the 550. The difference in performance isn't really that huge, but the E8400 does perform better.

 

[freaky123]

hi,

well this is an large field to for speculations...
benchresults largely depends on the used software,
the compiler behind this SW and at least the done optimizations.
so this not surprised me.

you can take a look here: Scaleability

if you wish ;-)

cu

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
The 550 has more L3 cache, but the E8400 has more L2 cache (the E8400's L2 is faster than the 550's L3). The E8400 is also slightly more efficient per clock than the Phenom II, comparing dual to dual or quad to quad core.

And there is a reason why Intel charges more money for the E8400 while AMD charges less for the 550. The difference in performance isn't really that huge, but the E8400 does perform better.

Dont think the athlon II X2s have any L3 caches at all.

 

[freaky123]

hi,

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Dont think the athlon II X2s have any L3 caches at all.

X2 550 CPUZ screen

they have.

cu

 

[Cookie Monster]

Oh oops. Thought it was the athlon II X2 not Phenom II X2 in which case they do have the L3.

My bad

 

[nubian1]

I have a core unlocked X2 550 (@ 3.82Ghz) in one system and an E8400 @ 4Ghz in my main box here in my home office.

Using Everest v5.02.1750 on each the two systems the X2 550 Core Unlocked takes the top benchmark spot again & again. Here are some examples:

CPU AES - Intel = 14785, AMD = 27461
CPU Queen - Intel = 16868, AMD = 23722

Naturally being probably multithreaded tests the extra two cores of the X2 550 give it a clear advantage.

***With Sisoft Sandra 2009 5.15.99***

Aggregate Arithmetic Performance: Intel=30.21 GOPS, AMD=50.9GOPS
Aggregate Multimedia Performance: Intel=76.75Mpixels/sec, AMD=107.35Mpixels/sec
Cryptographic Bandwidth: Intel=370Mb/s, AMD=540Mb/s


Observations: Please understand that this is just a non serious bout of quick testing & not flame bait. The two system do differ in that the Intel system is running Vista Business 64bit & the AMD is running Win RC as well the E8400 is runnig with 4gig G.skill PC28000 vs the X2 550 with 1.5gb DDR2 667Mhz. The video cards are also different so I tried not to make them part of the picture.Multithreaded tests will probably lean twords the Unlocked/overclocked X2 550 specially when overclocked this much (Hope to hit 4ghz soon). Some may sayt this isn't fair & to an extent I agree. The issue is I am an enthusiast & getting a just over $100 cpu to unlock to a quad & overclock like the X2 550 does just give me that warm feeling inside, pretty much like when I got my E8400 overclocked to 4Ghz without much fuss.

Again these benchmarks I posted are not professional and are meant to show nothing but interest. Maybe in the near future I'll put Win 7 rc on me E8400 and repeat the benchmarks throwing in some gaming as well.



Unlocking the X2 550 and overclocking it as I have gives you performance better than an X4 955BE btw. Not a bad $109 spent all..............................

 

[Mir96TA]

Originally posted by: freaky123
hi,

well this is an large field to for speculations...
benchresults largely depends on the used software,
the compiler behind this SW and at least the done optimizations.
so this not surprised me.

you can take a look here: Scaleability

if you wish ;-)

cu

Wow
Now this is different 32M TestAMD 379.k and Intel 356k

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: Mir96TA

O yea
Too bad for BMW; cause it is slower then my 96 TransAm
See Amount of the money you can spend does not equate to Faster car!
This benchmark is just a reference. Reference point which easily can use
among different plathforms.
I am just looking into ball park figures

...the GT2 is not a mass produced M. Look it up.

And I doubt your TransAm could take a vanilla M3 on anything that requires turns. Yeah sure, a Civic with 24 psi of boost can make 600 bhp, and if you're trying to go everywhere in straight lines, that's some awesome shit; but it certainly can't run Nurburgring in any impressive numbers.

/end hijack

The 550's really got popular after people applied ACC and starting unlocking cores. It's a solid gaming chip even without the two extra cores though. (For the next year or so I guess.) For about 100 bucks, I don't see why you're so disappointed. Have you tried overclocking it?

Regardless, I think AMD still has the bang for buck. According to this:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The two cpus you compared are not very different in terms of performance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is,

If you bought a 170/180 dollar AMD chip, you'd probably getting the performance you were hoping for.

Edit: To clean up some nested quotes.