Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Preview from Taiwan
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Gary Key on June 6, 2006 7:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Business Application Performance
We start off with Business Winstone 2004, a benchmark that has since been discontinued by VeriTest but one we continue to use because of the relevance of its results. Business Winstone doesn't generally vary all that much with CPU speed as the benchmark itself is quite I/O heavy. As you can see below, this doesn't stop the Core 2 Extreme X6800 from maintaining a healthy lead over the FX-62:
With a 17.5% performance advantage, the Core 2 Extreme starts off by performing very well in an area where the Pentium 4 could not: general business applications. The Pentium D would not only offer mediocre performance here, but also produce a lot of heat while doing it; Intel's Core architecture is a very different beast and the results here show it.
We turned to SYSMark 2004's Office Productivity suite for another look at office application performance, and the results were no less impressive:
Overall Office Productivity performance with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 is just over 26% faster than the identically configured FX-62. The breakdown of the OP suite is below, as you can see some individual tests are closer than others:
The Communication tests in particular are very close, but there's a strong possibility that is because of the I/O bound nature of those benchmarks. The Communication suite was great at showcasing hard disk performance, so it's not a surprise that it barely shows any performance difference between the two CPUs.
134 Comments
View All Comments
fikimiki - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
You are right except 2 points:- Motherboards for 2 CPUs are expensive, 4x4 should cost no more than standard motherboard
- 4x4 is aimed also for X2, so two X2 3800+ means cheap monster!
From AMD side I don't see any panic, they are executing their plan and nothing more.
gramboh - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
Are you serious? I can't see AMD pricing FX62 much under $800 it would screw up the rest of their pricing scheme too much, spending $1600 on CPUs to best a $500 CPU is insane. If you need to wait month to month for free cash flow to build a computer, you really don't have enough wealth to afford $1600-$2000 on cpu alone.
rqle - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
if 2.6ghz beat out FX62, then a 2.4ghz conroe should equal the same, i rather take a $300 2.4ghz then a $1000 FX2.ShapeGSX - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
So you are willing to buy $2000 worth of processors to beat an Intel processor?