Application Performance using Winstone 2004

Winstone 2004 consists of two different benchmark suites; the Business Winstone test focuses on office applications, while the Multimedia Content Creation benchmark contains many audio/visual applications that are more CPU limited.

General Performance - Winstone 2004

General Performance - Winstone 2004

As with WorldBench 5, results in both Winstone 2004 suites are relatively close together. The spread in the Multimedia Content Creation test is 38% while the spread in the Business Winstone test is only 32.5%. This reflects the fact that the business applications generally spent most of their time waiting on the user for input. Overclocking continues to give the 2 MB Core 2 Duo chips a reasonable performance boost, however, putting them relatively close to the performance of the $500-$1000 E6700/X6800. If you don't demand absolute maximum performance and are looking to save some money, both chips will keep you very happy.

With the extremely low prices of AMD's X2 processors, the price/performance offered is still certainly competitive. In all of the general performance testing that we have presented here, an X2 3800+ or X2 4200+ (with or without overclocking) is by no means a slow processor. Core 2 Duo is faster, though at present we also have to conclude that Core 2 Duo motherboards are more expensive (with the exception of the ASRock board, though that has a few drawbacks). If you are looking for something right now and are looking to save money, socket AM2 has a lot of reasonable choices at very good prices. For the business user, you really can't go wrong with any of these chips.

Application Performance using PC WorldBench 5 3D Rendering Performance using 3dsmax 7 & CineBench 9.5
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • bob661 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link


    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.
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    Go to 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.
  • 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.
  • goinginstyle - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link


    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.
  • drebo - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link


    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.
  • 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now