ntel then added the quad-core whammy in November. It pushed consumer-level performance even higher and, frankly, left AMD trailing in the high-end desktop CPU market.
To appease the enthusiast somewhat, AMD launched its Quad-FX platform in late November and we followed up our initial look by exhaustively testing Quad-FX's megatasking qualities.
AMD's native quad-core implementation, codenamed Barcelona, is currently slated for Q2 2007. In the meantime, however, AMD has added in a couple of energy-efficient processors to its line-up and bolstered the top end with the Athlon 64 X2 6000+: the first AM2 processor to run at 3GHz.
This processor's most natural competitor is the Core 2 Duo E6700, which runs at 2.66GHz but has the higher clock-for-clock performance of Intel's Core microarchitecture going for it. Concomitant with its lower clock speed and 65nm fab process, the E6700 has a much nicer thermal design power rating of only 65W, as well. AMD seems to have built a discount into the X2 6000+ in order to make up for that shortcoming. The E6700 currently lists for $530, and the X2 6000+ undercuts it with an initial price of $459. Below this price point, things align more closely, with the X2 5600+ at $326 facing off against the E6600 at $316. Above this price point, you're into quad-core territory.
Thus, to keep things simple, we've decided to clear off the table and match up the X2 6000+ against the Core 2 Duo E6700 for a head-to-head comparison.
The meaningful comparison to look out for is the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ against Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700. The Intel CPU is priced around £30 higher and, taking similar pricing into account, it will be interesting to see how the X2 6000+ performs.
Other related comparisons include the Athlon 64 X2 5600+ vs. Core 2 Duo E6600 and 5200+ vs E6400.
We've included the quad-core Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800 processors for comparative reference only. Their £600+ pricing is double the X2 6000's and, as such, they appeal to a niche market.
We've not included the results from our Quad-FX testing, however. Our sample box was built by AMD and featured a BIOS that was some way from final. Consequently, results obtained from that testing may not be indicative of current performance. Quad-FX, really, is a work in progress and technology showcase for AMD.
source: http://www.hexus.net/
Pricing thoughts
| Processor | AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ | AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ | AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ | Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 | Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 | Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 | Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing as at 20/01/07 | £300 | £200 | £150 | £630 | £615 | £330 | £200 | £150 |
Other related comparisons include the Athlon 64 X2 5600+ vs. Core 2 Duo E6600 and 5200+ vs E6400.
We've included the quad-core Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800 processors for comparative reference only. Their £600+ pricing is double the X2 6000's and, as such, they appeal to a niche market.
We've not included the results from our Quad-FX testing, however. Our sample box was built by AMD and featured a BIOS that was some way from final. Consequently, results obtained from that testing may not be indicative of current performance. Quad-FX, really, is a work in progress and technology showcase for AMD.
Overclocking
Using default voltage as an indicator of the sample's frequency headroom, we were unable to run at the next speed grade up, 3200MHz, with any kind of stability. It's evident that the 90nm Windsor core doesn't have a whole lot of life left in it, and the 3GHz X2 6000+ will be its last hurrah.source: http://www.hexus.net/
0 comments:
Post a Comment