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

  • bob661 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Really, this amd fanboi crap has seriously gotten out of hand lately. I love amd. But the FUD that you guys have been spewing lately is just garbage. I
    Give me a break dude the Intel fanbois were doing the same thing. Nothing to see here. Move along.
    Reply
  • araczynski - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    looks like i'll be gettig the E6600 for great base performance with capability to overclock decently. I'll probably be sticking with a P965 mobo since i won't be going for crazy overclocking or crazy cooling solutions (that turniq cooler looks just about right for my tastes).

    now i just have to figure out whether to get a 7900gt/gtx/50gtx.... to last me until the second generation of the dx10's comes out...
    Reply
  • drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    The pricing in this article is inaccurate. The Conroes are too low and the Athlon64s are too high.

    Seems to me you're using vendor pricing for one and suggested retail for the other.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    No the pricing is completely accurate they are using AMD's price lists that come directly from AMD itself, and they are using Intel's prices for 1000 Unit Quantities, that will also be published on their website.

    If your talking about actualy price on online retailors that will remain to be seen.
    Reply
  • drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    No, I'm not talking about online retailers.

    I'm talking about actual prices that I can get right now from my distributors and the listed suggested retail prices.

    Where, exactly, are you getting your prices?
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    Go to AMD.com and you can get their official pricing, the listed numbers are what will be on Intel's website when they get updated for Core 2 Duo.

    OEM Distributer pricing is a different metric.
    Reply
  • drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    Distributor pricing is what determines street and retail pricing.

    Intel can post the MSRP of $999 all they want, but if distributors are selling their products for more than that, the price will never be seen.

    What matters is that these prices are not accurate, and paint an entirely different story than should be painted.
    Reply
  • goinginstyle - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    quote:

    What matters is that these prices are not accurate, and paint an entirely different story than should be painted.


    Neither are the AM2 prices currently as most places are selling the FX62 well above the $799. So what was your point? It is all about supply and demand, the same thing happened when AMD launched S939, the prices were way over the stated numbers by AMD. You have to start with a base, the published pricing is the base.
    Reply
  • drebo - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link

    quote:

    most places are selling the FX62 well above the $799


    Genius, $799 is not MSRP for the FX-62. $799 is the price at which AMD sells the processor to its distributors. The distributor then sells the processor to retail and/or wholesale outlets with a markup. The retailers and wholesalers then sell the same product with yet another markup. Currently, my price for an FX-62 is $811. MSRP is near to $1000, but then I, and many other sellers, do not use MSRP. I use cost-based pricing.

    I'm not trying to prove anything here other than that the prices listed in this article are incorrect, and that the conclusions drawn are vastly different than conclusions that could be drawn were the pricings correct.

    By the way, all prices I've quoted have been for PIBs, not tray processors. I don't use OEM processors...too much liability.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link


    And, that's the thing the prices quoted are correct.

    Using distributer pricing isn't a good idea as it could vary between the companies, depending on the deal you got as well, those particular prices can't be verified.

    The prices listed on this chart can be since they are listed on AMD site and will be on Intel's.

    There isn't a choice, unless you wish to use the real world pricing floating around as that is what matters at the end of the day, but there are issues with that, as that fluctuates.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now