Main > Main Forum
Phenom II vs Core 2 Duo - Benchmarks
massive88:
I decided I might as well make this its own thread, if anyone else has some head to head comparisons for different processor types, feel free to add it here as well, or if anyone has any specific games they wish for me to test, let me know and Ill run it.
I have two very similar computers, one is running a core2 Duo at 3.2 Ghz overclock, with 2 gig ram, and WinXP 64-bit. My other computer is running an AMD Phenom II X3 at 3.19 Ghz overclock, with 2 gig ram, and Win7 64-bit.
The Core2 Duo machine is the better machine, it has faster ram, and a better video card. The AMD machine is running on an old AM2 socket motherboard from 2007 (thank you AMD for making the first next-gen processor that I didnt need to buy a new MoBoard for!). While the AMD machine has a third core, but I did not do anything special to the affinity to aid it. All in all I think its a fairly good test. The effects of OS differences I think are minimal (as evidenced by my previous tests of XP64 vs Vista64), and the hardware outside of processor should not have much of an effect either. Certainly we all know that processor horsepower is the main driving force in emulation speed (mame in particular) so I think this represents a fairly good test.
I ran Mame 0.132, compiled freshly from source using Headkaze's Compiler, with the hiscore diff patch applied. For the AMD I optomized for AMD 64, and for the Core 2 build I optimized for Core 2. Both builds were done as well with 64-bit processor and Dual Core checked.
I ran two batteries of tests, one using 240 seconds of run time, and another using 440 seconds. After looking at the data though, there is nothing additional provided by the additional, longer runs. The results of the games, comparatively, was close enough to be considered the same (within +/- 2%, except for gauntleg, but I suspect theres more error in that one since both numbers jumped significantly, and thus is not a good test). Here is the string used:
vmame.exe -noautoframeskip -frameskip 0 -seconds_to_run 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -video ddraw -skip_gameinfo -effect none -nowaitvsync -noread config -mt [ROMNAME]
Core2 Duo - 3.2 Ghz - 240s
blitz2k - 128.0%
gauntleg - 184.1%
gradius4 - 78.3%
kinst2 - 533.2%
radikalb - 97.2%
ridgerac - 103.3%
tekken3 - 149.3%
wargods - 275.8%
Phenom II - 3.19 Ghz - 240s
blitz2k - 135.7% +6%
gauntleg - 206.0% +12%
gradius4 - 100.6% +28%
kinst2 - 412.8% -23%
radikalb - 119.1% +23%
ridgerac - 101.3% -2%
tekken3 - 110.9% -26%
wargods - 224.1% -19%
So the conclusion remains, inconclusive. Personally I'm surprised by the results, as I expected the Core2 to be faster across the board. As with many things in Mame, it appears to be about the driver. In 8 relatively randomly selected games, each processor was beaten badly in two, and barely in two, you cant ask for a much more standard randomness then that. If anyone has the opportunity to double check the the difference between XP64 and Win7 64 as your OS Id appreciate it. Though I'm fairly certain it wont make any difference, that is most likely the biggest margin for error in my tests.
As for "Bang for Your Buck", Newegg currently has X2's for $58 for 2.8 Ghz, up to $68 for 3.0 Ghz, and my X3 used in this test for $87 (2.9Ghz) while Core2 Duos are $145 for the 3.06 Ghz E7600, though mine tested was an E8200, and its equivalent at 3.0 Ghz is $168. So for now, its safe to say imo, that the AMD X2 is the most efficient performance for your dollar, costing roughly a third of its Core2 counterpart, and besting it in some games.
Any thoughts or additional tests anyone wants to see?
drventure:
Good stuff. Thanks for posting this!
I've been considering attempting an upgrade to a machine that can overclock to 4ghz, just to get at some of the 3d games that just won't run with my current AMD phenom x2, but overclocking just seems like so much black art to me.
Still, may need to do some more looking there.
FrizzleFried:
The problem I see is that the core2duo's can be pushed to 3.7 with very very little effort...and 4ghz at least 50% of the time... how well do the AMD chips overclock?
bkenobi:
With the poor cooling that we know exists inside a cab, why would you overstress things by overclocking? It seems to me that the best course of action (for a cab installation) is to get the best bang for your buck (or the fastest if that's your choice) setup and leave it at stock speeds. Since you have to upgrade cooling anyway, adding the extra heat from overclocking would be tough to deal with short of liquid cooling, right? :dunno
massive88:
--- Quote from: FrizzleFried on December 31, 2009, 09:36:13 am ---The problem I see is that the core2duo's can be pushed to 3.7 with very very little effort...and 4ghz at least 50% of the time... how well do the AMD chips overclock?
--- End quote ---
Thats a good point and something I don't know for certain, you'd probably have to look online for the answers. Id guess AMD should overclock well, since its also a low power (65W) chip and small die (45nm) which are usually recipes for good overclocking.
On my machines I have my 2.6 Core2Duo clocked up to 3.2 Ghz with an aftermarket cooler easily (I was stable at 3.33 but backed it down). The AMD is running on its stock cooler (Aluminum heatsink, small fan) right now, and clocked to 3.19 from 2.9 on its first try, by only changing the core Mhz, so I would expect the overhead is pretty good, but I dont know for sure and wont be pushing it any since its my main computer.
At any rate, if the question is whats the fastest computer I can get, Id say go with the higher stock Core2 duos, but they come at a price premium. If its more a question of value, then it appears the X2's are an excellent choice. It would be hard to justify 2-3x the cost for 1.33x the performance (assuming 3ghz against 4 ghz) from a value perspective. Though from what Ive seen on my chip, I would imagine getting 3.5Ghz at least out of it should be easily done, so you are talking about another 500mhz at most for that price difference.
--- Quote from: bkenobi on December 31, 2009, 09:54:53 am ---With the poor cooling that we know exists inside a cab, why would you overstress things by overclocking? It seems to me that the best course of action (for a cab installation) is to get the best bang for your buck (or the fastest if that's your choice) setup and leave it at stock speeds. Since you have to upgrade cooling anyway, adding the extra heat from overclocking would be tough to deal with short of liquid cooling, right? :dunno
--- End quote ---
Not everyone has the traditional closed up Cab design, you can always have a fan sucking in outside air directly as well. At any rate, when talking performance I think overclocking should be considered, even if its not for everyone. With the price difference being as extreme as it is between the AMD and Intel offerings, it seems to me to be a clear cut case of value or max performance, with the AMD crushing in the value department, at least as it seems on my tests.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version