Dual-core desktop CPU bout: AMD vs. Intel part1

You may recall a few months back when AMD took out full-page newspaper ads to challenge Intel to a dual-core server duel. Intel declined to take up AMD on its offer, but the challenge got us thinking: what would the results of a dual-core desktop CPU fight look like? Many people equate Windows PCs with Intel Pentium processors (and soon will likely be doing the same with Macs), but we've seen dual-core CPU AMD systems power ahead of dual-core Intel-based PCs on more than one occasion.

To answer the question once and for all, we circled up a bunch of cars in an abandoned parking garage and set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck. Skip ahead to the official ruling if you want, but the match itself is interesting.

1.Day-to-day computing

Which chip delivers for the average Joe/Jane?

While dual-core CPUs are primarily meant for heavy multitasking and running multimedia applications, it's not like you're suddenly going to stop using Microsoft Word or other common applications when you sit down in front of a dual-core PC. Our first test, BAPCo's SysMark 2004 benchmark, gauges how well each chip handles the day-to-day rigors of standard office-productivity apps in addition to creating content for the Internet.

The test results are broken down into three scores: office productivity, Internet content creation, and overall. We primarily look to the overall score to determine our rating when we use SysMark for desktop testing, but the individual scores are particularly important if you're interested in buying a dual-core CPU for a specific task.
The results are clear: AMD lands a quick combination and takes the first round by placing two of its X2 processors at the top of the charts. Not only is its top-of-the-line Athlon 64 X2 4800+ faster than Intel's flagship Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 840 chip, but the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ also outpaces Intel's best. That result doesn't speak well of Intel's chip that costs $350 more than the X2 4600+.

The results scale similarly in AMD's favor as you move down each company's lineup. The X2 4400+ edges out its direct competitor, the Pentium D 840, for example. And at the low end, the X2 3800+ dispatches the Pentium D 820. For day-to-day computing performance, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the collective winner.

Winner: AMD