search technology reviews, news, features, group tests
Popular Searches:   free , video , windows
Mobile Edition  | 
 |  Register
 |  Newsletters  | 
Sitemap  |  RSS
RSS
Saturday November 28, 2009 2:48 PM AEST
Skip Navigation LinksPC Authority > Features > AMD vs Intel - here's the hammer blow
AMD vs Intel - here's the hammer blow
«»
FEATURE

AMD vs Intel - here's the hammer blow

by David Fearon  on Feb 11, 2008
Tags: AMD | vs | Intel | Phenom | 45nm | Core | 2
6 comments in this discussion
"well no matter who is on top and who is on bottom of performance. For us as a consumer its all about afordability. so AMD has to keep the pressure on intel to keep price down. so U and I can ..."
By bugmenot
 
Phenom
Phenom CPUs remain compatible with the AM2 socket
Phenom CPUs remain compatible with the AM2 socket
AMD’s first desktop quad-core CPU has had a difficult gestation. It was released almost a year late and, as yet, there are only two working models. The Phenom 9500 is a quad-core part running at 2.2GHz, the 9600 at 2.3GHz and the top-end 9700 gives the current top speed of 2.4GHz. It was originally slated to debut at 2.6GHz, but AMD’s production issues have caused problems even with the 2.4GHz part. AMD, however, managed to get us a 2.6GHz part that’s yet to be released. We also tested the mid-range Phenom 9500.

Power consumption
Being based on 65nm fabrication technology puts Phenom at a disadvantage. For a given clock speed, a 65nm transistor in a Phenom consumes more power than an Intel 45nm metal-gate transistor. That’s not the end of the story, though: power consumption of a transistor is proportional to frequency, so Phenom’s lower clocks are a bonus in that respect. And, all other things being equal, a CPU with a greater number of transistors consumes more power. A Phenom boasts a complement of 460 million, but an Intel Penryn quad-core part nearly doubles that, with an amazing 820 million transistors.

As with the Athlon 64 generation before it, Phenom processors are directly connected to main system memory by a dedicated on-chip interface. That means an AMD-based system doesn’t need a separate north-bridge MCH (memory controller hub) and all its associated supporting components. From a “total-platform” power-consumption point of view this is a good thing.

But it does limit your choice of memory technology. AMD hasn’t embraced DDR3 memory with the new part, and DDR3 support isn’t slated to appear until the next-generation platform – currently codenamed Stars – arrives in 2009. Intel-based motherboards already have DDR3 support, bringing power-consumption advantages since DDR3’s supply voltage is lower than DDR2, at 1.5V compared with 1.8V. That may not sound like much, but it means a power reduction of 30%. Again, though, DDR3’s higher clock speeds can offset the power savings.

How we tested
When testing power consumption for each platform, we’ve kept the playing field as level as possible. Power-supply efficiency can have a huge effect on total power consumption, so we used identical Antec 450W models for both AMD and Intel rigs. We also used identical Western Digital Raptor hard disks, and motherboards from the same manufacturer (Gigabyte) with very similar power-regulation circuitry design. Performance-per-watt scores are relative figures based on the benchmark scores compared with maximum power consumption.

Performance
As we saw with the 9500, the performance of Phenom leaves it trailing behind a similarly priced Core 2. In our test setup, using identical supporting components to the Intel rig, our overall benchmark result was 1.40; a good score, but far from stellar. A cursory glance at the specifications of the Phenom reveals why: just 4MB of cache in total, and a clock speed for the Phenom 9500 of only 2.2GHz makes it look a lot like a processor from a year ago as opposed to the cutting-edge design it’s supposed to be. Phenom’s novel three-tier cache structure means it’s well set up for the future, though. With 512KB of cache dedicated to each core, new multi-threaded apps should benefit.

Value
The street price for a Phenom is impressively low for a brand-new part, but then it has to be to compete with Intel’s price-slashing. The Phenom 9500, at about $260, is competing with the faster Core 2 Quad Q6600. Prices have yet to be announced for the engineering-sample 2.6GHz Phenom we managed to get hold of.

Prospects
Since the launch of Athlon 64 in September 2003, AMD has traditionally launched an enthusiast-level FX part, countered by Intel with its Extreme-edition series. But with all the production problems afflicting Barcelona, there’s no sign of them as yet. With its relatively low complement of cache making it unable to compete with Intel on that score, AMD desperately needs to improve its production to enable higher frequencies for better outright performance.

Phenom Benchmarks
click to view full size image
Click to enlarge


Next page - Desktop: Intel Core 2 (click below)...
Copyright © 2009 Dennis Publishing
This article appeared in the March, 2008 issue of PC Authority.
«»
Email a Friend Email this
Print Page Print this
Tweet This Tweet this
Feedback Send us your tips


Ads by Google

Comments: 6
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
nix
Mar 27, 2008 2:23 PM
 It's sad to see AMD fall so far from the Athlon and Athlon64 days, but Intel's Core architecture is so good that I can't make myself care very much. The only thing AMD holds over Intel now is Hypertransport, though I've heard Intel has stuff in the pipeline to kill even that.

Happy here with my lovely Penryn Core2Duo though!



What do you think about the PC Authority article AMD vs Intel - here's the hammer blow?
We've put AMD and Intel’s new processors to the test, and there's one clear winner.



What do you think?
Alistor
Mar 28, 2008 9:39 PM
 I hope AMD can redeem itself, because AMD caused Intel to pick up it's game and the competition between the two has brought about great leaps in the technological advancement of CPU architecture.
Barney
Apr 4, 2008 12:27 PM
 Im the same... I used to be an AMD fan, mostly for the value they offered over Intel.
Sadly though the birth of the Core 2 came as a crippling punch for AMD.
I luv my CTD too, but ohhh to dream of dual quad cores..??? Maybe one day?
Grayfox
Apr 5, 2008 10:42 PM
 AMD could be better if they gave more Cache Ram & focused on performance rather than power saving
Slatts
Mar 20, 2009 9:59 PM
 What's wrong with this picture?
An article written in early February 2008.
First comment written in late March 2008.
Last comment (this one doesn't count ;) )April 5th 08.
And it still makes it into the sites Popular articles list?
I'm thinking self perpetuating.
By being on the list, people check it out, It gets more hit counts so stays on the list.
bugmenot
Apr 26, 2009 12:02 AM
 well no matter who is on top and who is on bottom of performance. For us as a consumer its all about afordability. so AMD has to keep the pressure on intel to keep price down. so U and I can afford to buy em.
Login or register to submit a comment.
 

Top Stories

All I want for Christmas...Apple slapping on the discount stickers this Friday
If you're looking to buy an Apple product then this Friday is your lucky day, with Apple planning a "Black Friday" discount frenzy.
 
Telstra release slew of new plans, Earth fails to shake
New broadband plans from Telstra with bigger download quotas are welcome, though you'll still find better value with the competition
 
TiVo 2.0: Revamped content line-up could fuel box bust-up for pay TV competition, as IPTV era begins
TiVo have doubled their drive capacity, introduced IPTV capabilities, vast amounts of new content and better home networking options. But can the marketplace handle another content provider?
 


 
Intel
 
Popular
Most Discussed
PC Authority Featured Retailers
hot bargains from the mwave store
City Software, Australia's online computer store with up to 80% off RRP
special offers from dell
Special promotions from the Apple store - Redeem here
PC Authority Featured Retailers
Apple Black Friday sale - one day only
 
 
LogMeIn
 
 
Amazing Dell Coupons now available
 

Plan Finder

Powered by WhistleOut

1) Apple iPhone 3GS 16GB35 plans 3%
2) Apple iPhone 3GS 32GB35 plans 6%
3) Blackberry Bold 900014 plans 1%
4) Nokia N9742 plans 6%
5) Blackberry Curve 85206 plans 10%
Three Virgin Mobile Vodafone
« 1 of »
1) iiNet32 plans 7%
2) Netspace33 plans 4%
3) Optus47 plans 1%
4) Telstra BigPond41 plans 5%
5) Internode34 plans 5%

Compare: Mobiles | Broadband

PC Authority