Both AMD and Intel appear to be playing release date games with their latest dual core processors.

Intel's affordable dual core desktop solution, the new Pentium D, officially launched in the middle of last month, but has yet to be seen in the channel.

AMD appears to be joining in on Intel's game and is lifting their NDA on Athlon 64 X2 performance today, instead of waiting until June as they had originally planned. Note that the timing of today's article doesn't mean that there's any change in the Athlon 64 X2 release or shipping schedule. The CPUs still won't be available until Q3 or Q4 of this year, but AMD appears to want to get performance numbers out there as soon as possible; given the impressive performance that we had previewed in our first article, it's not much of a surprise from AMD.

In our first AMD dual core article, we simulated the performance of an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ using an Opteron x75 CPU. This time around, we have two chips from AMD, both officially Athlon 64 X2 processors, to give you a better feel for the actual dual core Socket-939 performance that you'll be seeing later this year.

We've already discussed the pricing and lineup of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 line, but as a quick refresher, here are the tables from our original review:

For starters, the Athlon 64 X2's clock speeds aren't that low compared to the current single-core Athlon 64s.  The top of the line Athlon 64 FX-55 runs at 2.6GHz, only 200MHz faster than the Athlon 64 X2 4800+.  This is in stark contrast to Intel's desktop dual core offerings, which run between 2.8GHz and 3.2GHz, a full 600MHz drop from their fastest single core CPU. 

Today, we'll be taking a look at two CPUs in particular: the top of the line Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and the entry-level Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Both are Socket-939 CPUs and will, when released, work in all Socket-939 motherboards with a BIOS update. For today's article, all tests were run on an ASUS nForce4 SLI motherboard with no changes other than a BIOS update to enable support for the Athlon 64 X2 processors. For the Intel CPUs, we used Intel's own 955X board.  All systems were configured with 1GB of memory and used the same Seagate 120GB PATA HDD and ATI Radeon X850 XT video card.  We used the latest Catalyst 5.4 drivers.  The AMD system used DDR400 with 2-2-2-5/1T timings, while the Intel system used DDR2-667 with 4-4-4-15 timings.

We've talked quite a bit about the impact of dual core on the desktop, but to keep things to the point, if you're interested in knowing a bit more, please take a look back at the following topics:
- The Intangible Dual Core
- Scheduling and Responsiveness
- Characterizing Dual Core Performance
- Dual Core System Impressions
The benchmarks used in this article (including the multitasking tests) are identical to those used in our first AMD dual core article.

Power Consumption: Athlon 64 vs. Athlon 64 X2


View All Comments

  • DrMrLordX - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    #9, I found it a little odd as well, but keep in mind that, not too long ago, Intel was still winning multimedia and 3d rendering benches on a regular basis with Northwood and Prescott. This might explain why Intel won narrow victories in some of the in-house multitasking benchmarks.

    What is clear is that the X2 is the superior processor when it comes to running lone multithreaded applications.

    The X2 is useful for anyone, while the Pentium D will only shine for people with distinctive usage patterns. Too bad the X2 costs so much.
  • Zebo - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    #9 every REAL WORLD AMD wins. I don't even look at synthetics or contrived benches so someone else maybe tells you if Intel won one.:) They tend to do really well in those. Reply
  • Zebo - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    Total domination too bad I can't get one now!!!

    Anand what memory timings and CMD rate used in this review?
  • Frew - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    Is overclocking the same with a dual core cpu?

  • reactor - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    good article, cant wait to see how yonah stacks up so i can make a decision on what to get.

    btw the graphs all say intel pentium D 840, instead of 640.
  • Aenslead - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    Is it just me, or did AMD win in EVERY benchmark program? Simply amazing.

    Still, it surprises me to see intel push ahead on multitasking by a tad.
  • Swaid - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    I hate the price of admission! Reply
  • anandtechrocks - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    Amazing preformance, but half a G is really pushing it for a processor... Reply
  • Capt Caveman - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    I hate that we have to wait til Q3/Q4. Reply
  • Brian23 - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    While I'm very impressed by this IC, I hate paper launches. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now