Application Performance using SYSMark 2004 SE

We'll kick off our look at general application performance with SYSMark 2004 SE and as always, and we'll look at the overall score as well as the scores in each of the two suites - Internet Content Creation and Office productivity.

As we saw in our last preview of Intel's Core 2 Extreme processor, it posted SYSMark scores that were well beyond anything either AMD or Intel had been able to deliver in the past. With the final version of Core 2 silicon in our hands and a more stable/tweaked platform, we got even better numbers out of Conroe:

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

At the high end, the Core 2 Extreme X6800 was just under 36% faster than the Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, even the $316 E6600 was around 18% faster than AMD's fastest. To add even more insult to injury the slowest Core 2 Duo in the test, the 1.86GHz E6300 is barely slower than AMD's fastest Athlon 64 X2.

The old Intel lineup of Pentium D processors is truly an embarrassment. Only the Extreme Edition 965 is remotely competitive and even then it can barely outperform the $183 E6300.

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

Drilling down into the SYSMark scores we've got the overall ICC results, which honestly are not much different than the overall scores we saw above. The Core 2 Extreme X6800 holds a 29% performance advantage over the FX-62 and once again, and the E6600 is able to outperform AMD's best by over 8%.

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

Intel's Core 2 performance domination continues in the Office Productivity portion of SYSMark 2004, with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 maintaining a 42.5% performance advantage over the FX-62. This time around, even the E6300 manages to remain competitive with the FX-62. This is Intel's new $183 part offering performance equal to that of AMD's $1,000 flagship FX processor; it's going to take a lot for AMD to recover from this deficit.

The individual SYSMark 2004 SE scores are graphed below if you're interested. The data is used in calculating the overall scores we've already discussed above:

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

General Performance - SYSmark 2004

Power Consumption: Who is the king? Application Performance using PC WorldBench 5
POST A COMMENT

201 Comments

View All Comments

  • Josh7289 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    When I go to college next year, I know what I'll be buying. :) Reply
  • Pirks - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    When I go to college next year, I know what I'll be buying. :)
    When I see AMD price cuts next month, I know what your face'll look like. :)
    Reply
  • theoryzero - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    This review (and the many others from other review sites) is interesting in that it confirms Intel's bold claims made back in March.

    However, with that out of the way, what I really want to know is which chipset/MoBo to go with? Is springing for high-end memory worth it on Core2? Any plans for a motherboard review in the very near future? Given the Abit AB9 preview and recent articles on DDR2-1000 memory I kind of expected this stuff to show up after the NDA was lifted too.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Conroe starts shipping July 27th - the original launch date. Intel moved the launch date back two weeks because OEMs like Dell and HP were hot to start advertising and shipping Conroe systems. I suspect Intel was also trying to salvage their NDA. Good news is hard to contain and two more weeks of NDA would have likely resulted in more info leaks that Intel did not want to turn into a flood.

    You will be able to find answers at AnandTech to your basic Conroe motherboard and memory questions early next week.
    Reply
  • theoryzero - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Sounds good, thanks! Reply
  • bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    You will be able to find answers at AnandTech to your basic Conroe motherboard and memory questions early next week.
    Thanks.
    Reply
  • Howard - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    I would have loved to see minimum FPS as well as average FPS. The review was great otherwise. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    While we could report those scores, we didn't feel we should at least on Oblivion. The reason for that is because the Oblivion runs were manually tested with FRAPS, and the results aren't perfectly comparable between runs. Anyway, here are some of the numbers, but recognize that the margin of error is going to be larger than what you would see with automated timedemos:

    Oblivion Bruma:
    Core E6300: 32-53.7-77
    Core X6800: 47-78.6-117
    AMD 3800+: 27-47.0-72
    AMD FX-62: 38-62.5-94

    Oblivion Dungeon:
    Core E6300: 39-81.3-211
    Core X6800: 57-106.5-214
    AMD 3800+: 35-72.0-189
    AMD FX-62: 46-89.9-211

    F.E.A.R.:
    Core E6300: 34-92-224
    Core X6800: 41-118-310
    AMD 3800+: 28-83-212
    AMD FX-62: 38-101-247

    Rise of Legends:
    Core E6300: 8-68.2-137
    Core X6800: 45-120.5-216
    AMD 3800+: 5-52.1-115
    AMD FX-62: 25-78.4-144

    Minimum frame rates in the Rise of Legends benchmark are zero on most of the Pentium D systems, so again we take those with something of a grain of salt. Regardless of how you look at it, though, the Core 2 Duo processors consistently outperform their AMD equivalents in gaming results. We will be looking at additional games next week in our motherboard reviews.
    Reply
  • nowuadmit - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    First off, when u guys reviewed a 486/33 for the first time... it was also "the fastest piece of silicon the world has ever seen"... then later, when u saw the P2-550... THAT was the "fastest piece of silicon... blah blah".

    Well its nice that intel has made a really expensive and barely available new chip, so they can finally match (or even exceed by a few points) AMD's reasonably priced previous generation. So now u can say they have the fastest, and if u want to spend thousands on a CPU that is only slightly faster than something that costs hundreds of dollars, HEY BE MY GUEST! there have been worse wastes of money! (in theory anyways, since the avg american wont be able to actually find any of these in the local stores for quite some time, if intel follows their previous habits).

    Anyhow the point of my comment... i think this is a good thing. i mean, anything that actually causes an intel fanboi to admit finally that intel has been reaming your butts for 5 years..

    while the people who simply buy whatever CPU makes the most sense have been enjoying getting great quality nookie from AMD! SO i present to you, this Technical Quote of the Year, spoken on behalf of all intel fanbois with half a brain!

    Technical Quote of the Year:

    "...power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it's the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years."

    Congradulations on your honesty, finally.
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Yes that’s truth.

    80% of Intel crap, only 20% is good. The Pentium M.

    So they say 5 years ago until now Intel was “all” crap. I think Northwood was/is very good.

    My maximum price is 100$ (or 120$ with cooler) for a CPU. Only AMD as an honest performing CPU for those prices.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now