In order to evaluate CPU performance we tested the X6800 and E6700 against the AMD Athlon FX-62 – the current flagship AM2 platform processor. We also have included results for the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (using the same 975XBX motherboard) to provide a full spectrum of useful comparative results.
PCMark simulates the performance of real-world applications and records a score at the end. In this test we see that the performance of the Core 2 Duo chips is as much as 30% higher than those of the FX62. As this is a synthetic benchmark caution should be taken when comparing relative performance - notice that the Pentium D is close to the E6700 in this test even though it is generally accepted to be slower than the FX62.
Despite the lack of an integrated memory controller the Core 2 Duo smart memory and cache technologies ensure a considerable victory in the PCMark memory test. The difference stands at around 16% between the X6800 and the FX62.
WorldBench runs a predetermined suite of Microsoft Office applications and commands in a reliable, replicatable format. The program records the total time taken for these to run. In this test we see the two Core 2 Duo chips are quicker than the FX62 and Pentium D, though things are closer with only a 4% difference between the two manufacturer's best chips.
In the Photoshop test the Core 2 Duos are much faster than the FX62, and faster still vs. the Pentium D. With a 34% difference in speed over AMD's finest you will want a Core 2 Duo machine for your next Photoshop workstation.
3D Studio Max has been an Athlon 64 stronghold for some time, but this changes with the release of Core 2 Duo. We can see a difference in performance of 13% in favour of the X6800 vs the FX62 here.
Lame MP3 coding may be stupidly fast on a modern system, but batch encoding hundreds of files still takes a long time. If you do a lot of work with music formats again Core 2 Duo is the way to go. Our test file completed 13% quicker on Intel's finest.
Cinebench has become a bit of an industry standard benchmark for workstation performance, and once again we see a strong lead from Intel, with a lead somewhere in the region of 25%
Finally the mandatory Sysmark 2004 score. As it takes so long to run we left this test until last. As the score is made up of differently weighted individual test results this overall score should be analysed with some caution, but the score shows an overall result some 36% quicker than the FX62.
Summary
Overall we see that the application performance is mighty on the Core 2 Duo processors, with a lead ranging from 4% to 36% across the range of tests we ran. Whilst the Core 2 Duo is stronger in some tests than others it does not loose a single benchmark to the previous king of the hill; the FX62.
