Application Performance using PC WorldBench 5

General Performance - WorldBench 5


Switching over to WorldBench 5, all of the scores become much closer. The spread between the fastest and slowest tested processor is only 38%, and overclocking of the E6300 and E6400 by 39% and 35% results in a 20% and 17% performance increase, respectively. Given the number of applications being tested in WorldBench 5, the overall results are not too surprising. Some tests are CPU limited while others are bottlenecked by hard drive performance. Athlon 64 X2 is more competitive in this benchmark, and the truth is that any of these systems would be more than fast enough for typical home/office use. If you want the fastest current CPU architecture, however, that title clearly belongs to Intel's Core 2.

WorldBench 5's applications are a bit older than those used in SYSMark 2004, and the data sets not as large - meaning that the smaller cache of the E6300 and E6400 has less of a negative impact. The result is that the 2.88GHz E6400 performs very close to the 2.93GHz X6800 and the 2.59GHz E6300 performs very close to the 2.66GHz E6700. Compared to AMD, the overclocked E6300 does quite well - at 2.592GHz the E6300 is already faster than AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62 - and we're talking $183.

Application Performance using SYSMark 2004 SE Application Performance using Winstone 2004
POST A COMMENT

137 Comments

View All Comments

  • drebo - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link

    That's exactly my freaking point.

    These prices, while listed on their respective manufacturers sites, are not correct. They are two different pricing schemes. One is using the price at which Intel sells them to distributors, the other is not using any pricing scheme that I've ever seen before, except on this site.

    I have varifiable proof(read: I know for an ABSOLUTE FACT) that the AMD prices are too high. How do I know this? Because my distributor prices are lower than what is listed in this article. Ergo, the prices listed CANNOT be the prices at which AMD sells to distributors.

    Thus, you're using two different pricing scales, making any conclusions based on pricing completely bogus.

    Here are accurate pricings(I'll list my price as well as listed MANUFACTURER Suggested Retail Price):
    Athlon64 X2 3800+ - $149.00 - MSRP: $186.25
    Athlon64 X2 4200+ - 183.00 - 228.75
    Athlon64 X2 4600+ - 235.00 - 293.75
    Athlon64 X2 5000+ - 294.74 - 368.75
    Athlon64 FX-60/62 - 811.00 - 973.95
    Core 2 Duo E6300 - 199.58 - 229.95
    Core 2 Duo E6300 BTX - 209.05 - 229.95
    Core 2 Duo E6400 - 239.58 - 272.95
    Core 2 Duo E6600 - 334.32 - 379.95
    Core 2 Duo E6700 - 553.26 - 629.95
    Core 2 Duo X6800 - 1021.68 - 1164.95

    Now, regardless of which pricing you use(distributor pricing, which is based off of manufacturer pricing, or MSRP), the pairings in the article are ALL incorrect. I tell everyone who asks to take these kinds of articles with a grain of salt.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link


    That's not good enough, your word isn't a verifiable item. So that is what needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

    It's has to be publicly available information on the web avialable from AMD and Intel, which it is as the AMD pricing charts are avaialble at AMD's site. The Intel numbers correlate directly to Intels' 1000 Unit Quantity chart.

    The pricing chart listed for you is only worthwhile for you.

    As well the current pricing scheme you posted correlates quite well to which processor vs which processor.

    I am using the pricing scales using available information, the pricing scales you have been using aren't publically available so they can't be used. The results used in this article are jsut fine.

    The problem with the information you posted is this is the first time I have seen numbers like that and it wasn't available to all.

    The MSRP's you quoted while higher then the ones listed in the article paint approximately the same picture.

    4200+ vs E6300
    4600+ vs E6400
    5000+ vs E6600

    Your prices will not be use, as they are different from everything else we have seen so far.

    The numbers in the article are apples to apples as they are both what is available to the public by both corporations.
    Reply
  • drebo - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link

    quote:

    The Intel numbers correlate directly to Intels' 1000 Unit Quantity chart.


    That is EXACTLY what I said. Do you even read things before you reply to them?

    The Intel pricing is using Intel's price to distributors. The AMD pricing is not using any pricing that is available in any chart or anywhere else.

    Hence: the Intel pricing is too low and the AMD pricing is too high...thus forcing processor comparisons that do not actually exist.

    And, no, my pricing is not only available to me. It's available to any company that uses distributors, because the pricing is the same, within a few dollars, between all of my distributors. Regionally, every company generally uses the same distributors. Thus, the pricing available from distributors is extremely relevant, despite the fact that you would like it to be otherwise.
    Reply
  • wilki24 - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link

    Erm... pulling the two (closest) price points out from ZZF:

    A64 X2 4600+
    Anand: $240
    ZZF: $260
    Delta = $20

    E6400
    Anand: $224
    ZZF: $239
    Delta = $15

    *****

    A64 X2 3800+ (Really should be the 4200+, since it's closer to the E6300 in price, but ZZF has majorly overinflated prices for that chip for some reason.)
    Anand: $152
    ZZF: $154
    Delta = $2

    E6300
    Anand: $183
    ZZF: $199
    Delta = $16

    In one case, the delta between the two is $5 in Intel's favor, and in the other (not quite matched up price point) it's $14 in AMD's.

    Going by ZZF, it would seem that the point you're trying to make doesn't seem to be based in fact.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    The prices are completely accurate as they are MSRP's. You want "real world" pricing, this fluctuates based on supply and demand, and is pointless to report as it constantly changes.

    If AMD wanted they could have listed their "OEM Distributer" pricing on their website, but they don't so we go by what they have listed there. If you want, you can complain to AMD about not listing the distributer pricing on their site.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    Like I said if your talking about prices at online retailers it will be a different story, I already discussed this part. Those reamin to be seen. Reply
  • bob661 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Distributor pricing is what determines street and retail pricing.
    The AMD prices are a tad higher than listed at ZZF and Monarch. We'll have no way of knowing Intel pricing until the chips are released. I heard it got pushed back to 8/7.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    Yeah judging by what we have seen so far, no online store has decreased below AMD's retail pricing on their website for the time being. Let alone the OEM distributer prices reported by Dailytech earlier before. Reply
  • gmallen - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    For AMD owners, the true cost of using Conroe includes a new motherboard. I can upgrade to the 5000+ with my current board. So, for me, the AMD solution is much cheaper. Reply
  • krisia2006 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    The AM2 AMD cpus in the review also require a new mobo/platform for many AMD owners, no? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now