Clock for clock, how much faster is Core 2 Duo than AMD Athlon 64 X2?

[AmdInside]

I recently upgraded from an AMD dual core Opteron which I had running at 3GHz. The motherboard died so I upgraded to an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600. Right now, I have it running at 3.2GHz on default voltage (didn't want to see how far it can go right now). So far, I can run all of my games except for Supreme Commander and FSX at 2560x1600 without any problems so I am pretty happy. But I was curious if my AMD Opteron dual core was clocked at 3.2GHz, about how much faster would my Core 2 Duo be? Thanks in advance.

 

[IntelUser2000]

~20%

 

[AmdInside]

Thanks.

 

[lyssword]

Depends on applications. It's anywhere from 15 to 33%. Average probably 25%

 

[Fallengod]

I dunno, but its significantly faster. I saw a recent review comparing that x2 5600 I believe with like an E6300 at stock speeds. The X2 5600 WAS slightly faster, but not very much. Seeing as how that proc runs 2.8ghz and costs $195+. Compared to a E6320 or E6420, that overclock like crazy and cost less, or even an $100ish E4300 that would be far faster at an easy 3ghz.... I see no reason to go for x2.

 

[lopri]

C2D is faster to the point that one will be able to 'feel' the difference in various application usages. It is notable, however, that A64 seems to perform strong in traditional, scientific, open-source coded apps (including most games, except a few very recent ones) while C2D totally outmatch A64 in more modern (especially apps based on SSE) apps. (encoding, anyone?)

 

[BladeVenom]

Your video card is more important to game performance than your processor.

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Your video card is more important to game performance than your processor.

Not accurate.

Video cards have been cpu limited for quite some time. 8800 series is still cpu limited even with a QX6700 @ 4 ghz. The more cpu power you can give the higher framerates will be.

 

[996GT2]

C2D probably has around a 500-600MHz advantage over X2 if you want to look at it another way. In single threaded applications, my CPU at 2.8 GHz performs similarly to a friend's E6300 with a slight overclock to around E6400 levels. Of course...I've set his system up to run at 2.8 now, so it's a good deal faster than my system both in terms of raw performance and the advantage of dual cores.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Your video card is more important to game performance than your processor.

Not accurate.

Video cards have been cpu limited for quite some time. 8800 series is still cpu limited even with a QX6700 @ 4 ghz. The more cpu power you can give the higher framerates will be.

He is very much right. Videocard is by far more important than the processor. Certainly graphics cards tend to be cpu limited but once you crank out 1600x1200 with all the bells and whistles or higher there will be practically no difference between E6400 at 2.13ghz and at 3.6ghz. Go check some reviews. You can always argue that an 8800GTX is cpu limited as it runs at 85 frames vs. say 100 frames with your core 2 @ 4.0ghz. But at any one point you are always either cpu or gpu limited or both. The question is which one limits you more (now go swap that 8800GTX with a GTS which is the 2nd fastest card and see your frames plummet by more than the difference between Core 2 at 2.13 vs. 4.0ghz => this alone implies that majority of games today at GPU limited).

Today if your system is at least Core 2 Duo E6400, you'll be largely limited by the graphics card, not cpu, unless you play at 1024x768. (and except for a few games like Supreme Commander).

 

[PingSpike]

Supreme Commander so far is the only game I've heard of that loves CPU more then the video card. Will we see more usage of CPU is future titles? I don't know. I think it'll still be awhile yet before most developers really start to take advantage of multiple cores in a meaningful way. And that doesn't mean every type of game will benefit from additional cpu power.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
C2D probably has around a 500-600MHz advantage over X2 if you want to look at it another way. In single threaded applications, my CPU at 2.8 GHz performs similarly to a friend's E6300 with a slight overclock to around E6400 levels. Of course...I've set his system up to run at 2.8 now, so it's a good deal faster than my system both in terms of raw performance and the advantage of dual cores.

Yes, but according to your sig, your CPU is a single core A64, which you did not take into account.

 

[harpoon84]

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup_9.html should give you some sort of idea.

Your E6600 @ 3.2GHz would obviously fall somewhere in between the Allendale @ 3.2GHz and Conroe @ 3.5GHz.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Supreme Commander so far is the only game I've heard of that loves CPU more then the video card. Will we see more usage of CPU is future titles? I don't know. I think it'll still be awhile yet before most developers really start to take advantage of multiple cores in a meaningful way. And that doesn't mean every type of game will benefit from additional cpu power.

You obviously know nothing about M$'s flight simulators, then. They make Supreme Commander look gpu-bound. In FSX (Flight Simulator X), you'll get higher framerates in it with a 3.2 Ghz C2D and a 7600 GS than you'll get with a non-overclocked A64 3000 with an 8800GTX. It's the only game I've ever seen that's totally and completely cpu-bound.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500

Originally posted by: 996GT2
C2D probably has around a 500-600MHz advantage over X2 if you want to look at it another way. In single threaded applications, my CPU at 2.8 GHz performs similarly to a friend's E6300 with a slight overclock to around E6400 levels. Of course...I've set his system up to run at 2.8 now, so it's a good deal faster than my system both in terms of raw performance and the advantage of dual cores.

Yes, but according to your sig, your CPU is a single core A64, which you did not take into account.

I mentioned that it was running a single threaded apps...so I don't think having 2 cores there provides more than a negligible difference.

 

[hardwareking]

flight simulator X only uses 1 cpu core hence even if u throw in 4 there won't be any improvement
and games coding isn't exactly stellar,even the 8800 cards struggle with it

i heard a directx 10 match wud be coming out for it soon though

 

[Puffnstuff]

I've noticed that on the vast majority of things my c2d is faster than my opty 175 was except for some video decoding. That was where my opty shined and my c2d is noticably slower in this area but otherwise it is faster.

 

[Simply]

Supreme Commander not only one Vanguard loves to eat the CPU resources up and in upcoming patch they say it will be able to take advantage of both cores. Also warhammer online is post be able to take advantage of both core when it's released and the new marvel mmo coming out for vista only.


actually more then just Supreme Commander that support it now. Age of Empires III

Black & White 2

Call of Duty 2

City of Villains by NCSoft

Doom3 by IDsoftware
Peter Jackson?s King Kong

Prey 1.2 & 1.3 by Take2

Quake 4 by IDsoftware

Quake 5 (promised when released)

Serious Sam 2 by Croteam

Splinter Cell by Tom Clancy

Supreme Commander by Gas Powered Games Corp.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion also Oblivion is programmed the same way it's xbox 360 version was made so it is programmed to use 3 processes like the 360 version does so it will use two if you have them and 3 of the 4 of you had a quad. In theory it should use 3 cause there options that can be turned off and on that are multithreading

The Movies

Tom Clancy?s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter

Tom Clancy?s Rainbow Six 3

Tony Hawk?s American Wasteland

Unreal Engine 3

Vangauard Saga of Heros

World of Warcraft

 

[gobucks]

I'd say the initial 20% estimate was pretty accurate - 4MB conroes are about 20% faster than equivalantly clocked 1MB X2s, while 2MB allendales are around 20% faster than equivalent 512KB X2s.

Also, it seems that the gap widens a bit when you're talking about overclocked chips. I noticed that my overclocked e6400 setup seems to really take advantage of additional memory/FSB bandwidth, whereas all the benchmarks I've seen of AM2 X2s are not very good at using the extra bandwidth of DDR2 in an overclocked setup. The added bandwidth isn't a huge difference, but it is definitely noticeable.

As for the GPU/CPU limiting factor in games, most modern games are only CPU limited when you are running them at 800x600 with all the eye candy off. Otherwise, moving up to a better GPU is more important than going from 3GHz to 4 GHz on your CPU, at least for gaming for the time being.

 

[Ava1anche]

Here is a program that will convert CPU speeds between AMD and Intel.

CPU Speed Converter

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Ava1anche
Here is a program that will convert CPU speeds between AMD and Intel.

CPU Speed Converter

You're sad.

 

[Ava1anche]

Why is that?

 

[AnotherGuy]

U need to be a member to read/view that post or topic Ava1anche...

 

[Ava1anche]

I see. Where can I upload it so you guy can access it?

 

[lopri]

www.rapidshare.com