CPU Showdown: AMD vs. Intel
Bucking trends of the past, today's customers are considering older, less expensive processors instead of the latest and greatest. And, while AMD and Intel are adjusting their market strategies to accommodate this shift, the (seemingly) age-old processor war continues, with both companies releasing a new round of CPUs over the past few months.
The CRN Test Center has spent time with AMD's Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition and Intel's Core i7-965 Extreme Edition, both the high-end iteration of each company's most recent processor lines. We found that they each meet their goals for a specific audience, although that doesn't necessarily mean they have the same target in mind.
The Phenom II X4 is AMD's first line of CPUs built with 45nm technology. Upon launch, there are two quad-core processors: the 3.0GHz X4 940 Black Edition and the 2.8GHz X4 920. The 3.0GHz X4 940's Black Edition moniker signifies its unlocked multiplier.
Part of the platform formerly code-named Nehalem, Intel's next-generation lineup includes the high-end 3.2GHz Core i7-965, named Extreme Edition to signify an unlocked multiplier, as well as a Performance version and a Mainstream version (respectively, the Core i7-940 and the Core i7-920). Considered by some to have the most significant new architectural changes since the Pentium Pro, the Core i7's micro-architecture eventually will include variants for server and mobile applications.
Also part of the Nehalem platform, Intel released the new X58 chipset. Taking a page from AMD's past playbooks, the Core-i7 processors have integrated memory controllers. Because of this, the X58 does not have a memory interface. Unfortunately, it also means a new socket profile, this time called Socket B (aka LGA1366).
As a consequence of all these changes, anyone wanting to use a new Core-i7 will have to purchase a new X58 motherboard as well. Also, the integrated memory controller has support for three channels of DDR3 1066 memory but can only handle memory rated up to 1.6 V. As Intel warns, memory rated above 1.6 V can damage the processor. For this reason, new memory will have to be obtained, too.
The X58 chipset incorporates QuickPath Interconnect (QPI), Intel's latest system interconnect design, which increases bandwidth and lowers latency. Additional features include high-definition audio, Matrix Storage Technology with support for RAID 0, 1, 5 and 10, and a PCI Express Interface with support for dual x16 and up to quad x8 graphic card configurations, or any combination in between.
Meanwhile, AMD's Phenom II is considered the heart of the company's new Dragon platform. In addition to the processor, Dragon consists of ATI Radeon HD 4800 series graphics (AMD acquired ATI in 2006), AMD 7-series chipsets and AMD software. The goal of Dragon is to enable computers for high-definition gaming, video processing and entertainment, at an affordable price.
Major feature enhancements of the Phenom II include 8 MB of total cache (Level 2 and Level 3), and additional power states that provide a lower power idle and lower power consumption under moderate load when used with the company's Cool'n'Quiet 3.0 Technology (which is enabled via the BIOS).
In addition, keeping the AM2+ form factor, the new processors are backward-compatible with most current motherboards, although a BIOS update most likely will be needed.
Even before building a system with either processor, it is clear that they -- as well as the platforms they anchor -- have different objectives. Core-i7 and Nehalem are focused on performance at any cost, while Phenom II and Dragon are designed around price and power conservation. With that in mind, our findings during testing were pretty much as we expected.
Although other manufacturers have since created motherboards designed to take full advantage of the Core-i7 and the X58, our testing was done on Intel's own DX58SO Extreme Series, also known as the "Smackover" motherboard.
Along with the DX58SO, our test kit included three Qimonda 1-GB memory modules and a Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme cooling solution. An 80-GB, Intel high-performance SATA SSD was used as the system drive. After assembling the system, reviewers updated the BIOS to the latest version and installed Windows Vista Ultimate on the drive, followed by all drivers and updates.
From the moment the power was turned on, it was obvious that this was a fast machine. A complete boot of Vista took only 43 seconds from the time the power button was pressed and most of this time (27 seconds) was actually in the POST phase of the boot. From the point where Windows started loading, the operating system was completely booted in just 16 seconds.
Power draw was elevated from what we are used to seeing on our typical testbeds, averaging about 90 watts while idle and fluctuating between 130 and 180 watts when placed under load. This didn't come as much of a surprise since the three processors are spec'd at 130W TDP.
Using our standard benchmarking tool, Primate Labs' GeekBench2, our Extreme system, with everything still at the default settings, scored an incredibly high 7,998. (With some modest overclocking -- we didn't want to overdo it -- the score was pushed higher to 8,524, and we have no doubt that if we were even more aggressive, the bar would be further elevated.)
Even at the stock settings, this CPU and configuration scored the highest marks the Test Center has ever recorded on Geekbench (the next-highest score, 7,429, came from an IBM eServer BladeCenter system that ran dual Xeons). We later scored yet higher, with an even more extreme motherboard and some water-cooled overclocking.
Our AMD test system consisted of an NZXT chassis and PSU, with the X4 940 installed into a Micro-Star International DKA790GX Platinum motherboard, and 4 GB of Kingston Technology ValueRAM memory. Although the Dragon platform incorporates a separate ATI graphics card, we decided to stick with the motherboard's integrated Radeon HD 3300 GPU to focus on the capabilities of the processor.
After installing Windows Vista Ultimate Service Pack 1, all the necessary drivers, and updating the operating systems with the latest patches, we ran the latest version of Geekbench2, which returned a respectable score of 5,477.
We then did some minor overclocking to see how far we could push the X4 940. Using only a heatsink and fan for cooling, in the end, we were able to bump the clock up high enough to achieve an impressive Geekbench2 score of 6,392.
First impressions of the Nehalem microarchitecture after early testing are very positive. Many component manufacturers are waiting in the wings, ready to whip out their latest and greatest products based on the new chips, and we're excited at the possibilities that the near future may bring.
Of course, many will claim that it really isn't fair to compare the Phenom II to the Core i7. Although their stock processor speeds are similar, the Core i7 is priced significantly higher. In addition, it brings with it a list of necessities, such as a new motherboard and DDR3 memory with specific voltage requirements. This essentially means you need a whole new system. In thousand unit quantities, per-pricing for the Core-i7 965 is $999.
Because there are no new hardware requirements for the X4 940, it is a great option for those with fairly new AMD-based computers who would like to upgrade to the latest processor. At $275 in 1KU quantities, it also allows system builders and VARs to upgrade their standard models for relatively little overhead, without adding a whole new list of SKUs to their inventory.
At the end of the day, both companies each have their loyal fan base which will always argue to the death why one is better than the other. What it basically comes down to is a balance between price and performance. Although a new system built around Nehalem will probably be the top performer, it will also cost top dollar. With the Phenom II and AMD's Dragon platform, a powerful system can be built for a relatively lower price.
