Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Conroe vs. AM2: Memory & Performance
Conroe vs. AM2: Memory & Performance
Date: July 25th, 2006
Topic: Memory
Manufacturer: Various
Author: Wesley Fink
Buy the Brocade C-E3K-LW-SFFC SFP FC LW/SM
Blank
 eCost $759.99
 
 

2.93GHz with DDR2-1067 Performance Comparison

It is clear enough that despite the poorer memory bandwidth, Core 2 Duo is the performance leader by a substantial margin at stock speeds. You have seen that in all of the results posted in this article. This conclusion will not satisfy all our readers, however. Many have theorized every incarnation of performance imaginable with AM2 having higher clock speed, higher bandwidth, or higher speed memory than it currently does.

To best answer these questions we put together the fairest comparison we could think of to directly compare Core 2 Duo and AMD AM2. This consists of running both processors at the exact same speed - 2.93GHz - achieved at the same ratios - 11x266. This involves overclocking the AM2 FX62 to 2.93GHz and raising the "bus" speed to 266. That allows an 11x266 ratio to match Core 2 Duo. The desirable side effect is that while AM2 does not really support DDR2-1067, by setting the memory to DDR2-800 we reach DDR2-1067 speed at the 266 speed setting. While this slightly stacks the deck in AMD's favor, it is as close as it is possible to get at running the two systems at the same speed, same memory timings, same memory voltages, same memory, and same video card. We are comparing two identically configured systems with AM2 powering one system and Core 2 Duo powering the other system.

Results are particularly interesting in that the fastest current AM2 processor, the FX62, is overclocked about 5% in CPU speed and 33% in "bus" speed over a stock AM2 system.

DDR2-1067 (2.93 GHz) Calculation Performance

Frankly the gap that remains in Super Pi results when comparing AM2 and Core 2 Duo at the same speed was something of a shock. Clock for clock, with all other variables the same, Core 2 Duo is still almost 60% faster than AM2. There is nothing complex about calculating the value of Pi to 2 million places, but it does show the true power of Conroe in computation-intensive tasks.

DDR2-1067 (2.93 GHz) Standard (Buffered) Memory Test

DDR2-1067 (2.93 GHz) Unbuffered Memory Test

Despite the improvements Intel has made in intelligent read-ahead for memory, AM2 still has a huge lead in buffered memory bandwidth. This is a result of the superior on-processor memory controller used on AM2. The results become much closer in Unbuffered memory results, which is normally more revealing of performance in real-world applications, but AM2 still has a wider memory bandwidth. The unfortunate reality is AM2 is not starved for memory bandwidth and cannot really make effective use of this advantage. AMD clearly knows how to deliver memory bandwidth, so the task now becomes to modify their core logic to make better use of this advantage.

DDR2-1067 (2.93 GHz) - Far Cry

DDR2-1067 (2.93 GHz) - Half-Life 2

DDR2-1067 (2.93GHz) - Quake 4 1.22

We can now say with authority that Core 2 Duo is the faster performer clock-for-clock across the board. At the same 2.93GHz Far Cry is 27.7% faster, Half-Life 2: Lost Coast is 12.4% faster, and Quake 4 is 22.2% faster on Core 2 Duo. Of course AMD does not currently have a 2.93GHz CPU, so we tested by overclocking FX62. This suggests that FX64, or whatever it will be called, will not help much at 3.0GHz with a 200 clock speed.

Conclusion   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

118 Comments - Last by Wesley Fink, 1211 days ago
Username:
Password:
Page 7 and Page 9 by goinginstyle, 1215 days ago
Page 7 is going to upset a lot of AMD fans.

Page 9 index description needs to be "conclusion".

Great article and would love to see this comparison with the E6600 and E6300 CPUs against the competing AMD cpus. A lot of us will be buying these two processors and probably plain DDR2800.

Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by Wesley Fink, 1215 days ago
We were moving pages around as it posted. The page references should now be correct. The page that AMD fans will likely hate is now page 8.

Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by Gary Key, 1215 days ago
We had a slight change in pages after the article went live. Page seven now represents stock memory performance on each platform with page eight now showing the overclocked FX62 (11x266, 2.93GHz) compared to the X6800 (11x266, 2.93GHz). A comparison that is quite revealing based upon numerous comments about what the expected results of running a high memory strap and low latency settings on the AM2 platform would even out the performance differences between the two platforms.

Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by OcHungry, 1215 days ago
Can I ask you what memory timings you used?
Since you have stated that memory speed does not affect conroe, would it be fair to assess that you used tightest timings for AM2?
If not: why?
About what page is going to make AMD users upset or hate the page, I totally disagree with you. You actually brought some lights to the whole scheme of things, unintentionally and unknowingly. You have helped to prove that Conroe will only be a mere 1 or 2% faster than AM2, which is not noticeable in real life situation. Conroe is only faster in Spi- But again, AMD beats Intel in memory bandwidth by a great margin. Memory bandwidth is much more important than SPI in terms of game and general cpu task(s). I will prove to everyone, that AMD is just as fast as conroe and post my reasoning in the cpu section, as soon as I have analyzed your benchmark data and made my calculations. But I need to know what memory timings you did use thu. A screenshot of timings would be great.
Again, thank you for this review that helped us open our eyes and see things in a better perspective.


Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by Wesley Fink, 1214 days ago
We used the SAME memory timings on both processors if they were available. For the DDR2-1067 and DDR2-800 they were exactly the same on both processors in all tests, which is why they were used for our 2.93GHz comparison. At DDR2-667 and below, the Core 2 Duo could support timings like 3-2-2, where AM2 only supports 3-3-3. This article was to evaluate memory performance, so we did everything possible to keep all variables the same.

Memory timings were DDR2-400 - 3-2-2-5; 533 - 3-2-2-6; 667 - 3-2-3-7; 800 - 3-3-3-9; 1067 - 4-3-4-11; DDR2-1112 - 5-4-5-14.

Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by duploxxx, 1214 days ago
well those cas settings were to be expected when you saw the memory performance chart.
you just killed the performance after ddr2 800 cas4 is ok but the minor step you have from ddr 1067 to ddr 1112 and again 1 cas higher is the end of good performance. so the memory of the fx to get to 2.9 was? that explains probably the lower performance vs the linear performance increase in the memory.....

Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by Wesley Fink, 1214 days ago
DDR2-800 was 3-3-3-9 2.2V. The FX at 2.93GHz was running DDR2-1067 at 4-3-4-11 2.2V.

Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by Bingo13, 1214 days ago
quote:

you just killed the performance after ddr2 800 cas4 is ok but the minor step you have from ddr 1067 to ddr 1112 and again 1 cas higher is the end of good performance.


The timings utilized by AnandTech were about the best you will see with current DDR2 memory. They did not kill the performance, the memory capability is what limited the testing. Tell me, where can you buy DDR2 that will do 3-3-3-9 at 1067. This review was more than fair in the settings it utilized for the tests and it took $450 memory to do it.

Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by duploxxx, 1213 days ago
yes i know but you don't get my point...
we know fx34 will be 3.0 so its stupid to try and get an fx at 2,93.
run an fx at 3.0 (multiplier change) with the nice cas3-3-3 like you did and the performance will be way better. now you killed the performance (speedbump cpu and memory) by dropping the cas to 4

Reply
RE: Page 7 and Page 9 by zsdersw, 1214 days ago
quote:

You have helped to prove that Conroe will only be a mere 1 or 2% faster than AM2, which is not noticeable in real life situation. Conroe is only faster in Spi- But again, AMD beats Intel in memory bandwidth by a great margin.


1 or 2% faster? Please share with the rest of us what you're smoking.

Conroe is significantly faster on almost all fronts... in spite of having lower memory bandwidth.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 12

We Buy Laptop and PC Memory! Sell to Us!
Min of 25 pieces required. Call us today at 239.354.1230.
Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
Microsoft Visual Studio ® Team System - Free Trial
Collaborate and Develop Apps Faster. Get the Tools & Processes That Help Teams Work Effectively.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
SAP Risk and Compliance Resources
Register to Access SAP's Risk Management Resource Center today.




Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
more Memory Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information