• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Core 2 vs Piledriver FX?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dent1 said:
They are popular games, its almost impossible to find a review that excludes those titles.


Gaming Tests: http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/processors/AMD_Phenom_II_X2_550_10.html

E8400 (3GHz) vs Phenom II X4 940 (3GHz)

Lost Planet: Colonies (low res)
Phenom II X4 940 - 52.00FPS
E8400 - 39.58 FPS

Farcry 2: (low res)
Phenom II X4 940 - 62.17
E8400 - 67.05

Farcry 2: (high es)
Phenom II X4 940 - 51.20
E8400 - 52.97

Crysis Warhead: (low res)
Phenom II 940: 70 FPS
E8400: 85 FPS

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (low res)
Phenom II X4 940: 156.80 FPS
E8400: 144.00 FPS

Valve particle simulation
Phenom II X4 940: 80 score
E8400: 59.40 score

Valve VRAD Map Build Time
Phenom II X4 940: 138.33 seconds
E8400: 224 seconds

Interesting set of results. I think one distinct message all the review sites (Bit Tech, Anandtech, Extreme Overclocking) share in common is the final iteration of the Phenom II (C3 stepping) could more than keep up with the Core 2 series in gaming and in some situations outperforming it by a fair bit. I want to dispel this stupid myth that says otherwise once and for all.

Using the evidence above it just seems preposterous that people still believe the Core 2 can outperform the FX Piledriver in gaming when we know its well ABOVE the Phenom II.
Click to expand...
didn't say ditch the whole link, just the Apple's and oranges comparisons. :)

On your latest dataset, Some of those are multi threaded benchmarks and you have a dual vs a quad... Also not a fair comparison between the two.

At least parse your own data for relevence OP...
 
The Core series was based on the Pentium M microarchitecture, which in turn was based on the Pentium III. You could effectively call the original Core Duos dual-core Pentium III's, as they were known as the "Enhanced Pentium M Microrchitecture" within Intel. They were part of the P6 microarchitecture series, which had its roots in the Pentium Pro from 1995. The Core2 series is a distant relative of the P6 microarchitecture, as is the current Core i-series line-up.
 
Last edited:
EarthDog said:
didn't say ditch the whole link, just the Apple's and oranges comparisons. :)

On your latest dataset, Some of those are multi threaded benchmarks and you have a dual vs a quad... Also not a fair comparison between the two.

At least parse your own data for relevence OP...
Click to expand...

That is why in the other thread, a Core 2 chip will likely do better in Skyrim since its heavily single threaded game. AMD doesnt too to well in that compared to Intel, i thought that was a well known fact.
 
I vaguely recall them being close in IPC.. I remember bulldozer and piledriver being incremental upgrades to phenom ii. I recall Nehalem being as fast as piledriver for ipc.

It's going to be tough to find proper benchmarks that are run at the same.clock speed , are not using gpu heavy benchmarks, and not multi(more than two) threaded.
 
i cant comment on gaming performance, vut my dual quad xeons @ 2.33FHz compiled the linux kernel about 1min faster than my 8330 @ 3.5. Those xeons have gobs of cache as well.
 
Cool.

8 real cores vs...well, don't want to debate what is a true core, lol!
 
I am kind of surprised this wasn't posted in the OP or anywhere in the thread.

Dent1 said:
Opening this thread to correct some of the misguided information in this community. In light of another thread where a few individuals believed than the Core 2 Duo E8400 could yield better performance in single threaded applications or games than the Piledriver FX 6300.
Click to expand...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/56?vs=699
The benchmarks here show the amd 6300 beating the c2d 8400 in every benchmark. It didn't win by a lot in single threaded but it did win. So yes, the terrible bulldozer 6300 does beat the ancient c2d 8400.

On a side note, the 6300 has a 500 megahertz advantage. Maybe they are the same in single threaded performance clock for clock.
 
james888 said:
On a side note, the 6300 has a 500 megahertz advantage. Maybe they are the same in single threaded performance clock for clock.
Click to expand...
that was the entire point of this thread was IPC (instructions per clock)...so any testing that isn't the same clock speed doesn't tell a worthwhile story in that context. Use the 8600 @ 3.3ghz for closer results...

Not to mention, the vast majority of things there are multi threaded (3+ threads) so we can't compare ipc anyway since more threads than two are involved. Look at cinebench single thread... With an e8600, it beats the fx6300 with a 166mhz clock deficit. ;)
 
Last edited:
EarthDog said:
that was the entire point of.this thread was IPC (instructions per clock)...so any testing that isn't the same clock speed doesn't tell a worthwhile story. Use the 8600 @ 3.3ghz for closer results...

Not to mention, the vast majority of things there are multi threaded (2+ threads) so we can't compare ipc anyway since more threads are involved.
Click to expand...
The c2d 8600 beats the 6300 in single threaded by what could be considered margin of error even with the 200mhz lead.
 
MOdbG.gif
 
Cinebench is actually remarkably consistent run for run...but for giggles I will give it a tie. Then give the e8600 another 166mhz to match the fx and that story should write it's own conclusion (that it's faster clock for clock in this kind of rendering).
 
EarthDog said:
Not to mention, the vast majority of things there are multi threaded (3+ threads) so we can't compare ipc anyway since more threads than two are involved.
Click to expand...
System bus speed and memory subsystem are also variables to take into account. Finding anyone willing to retest old architectures makes the comparisons doubly hard. It's a pity Hardware France's mammoth CPU comparison hasn't been updated for while.
 
The motherboard and memory that the E8400 is running on makes a difference. An FX or Phenom II system can be overclocked without touching the IMC, the E8400 is a much different animal. Back in those days the memory controller was on the motherboard, so a E8400 running with an older 975 Express MCH running at 1066Mhz FSB with DDR2-667 is going to run much slower than a more modern X48 MCH running at 1600Mhz FSB and DDR3-1333. Also overclocking the E8400 naturally overclocks memory and cache as well where overclocking the FX chip might only impact core clock speed.

I think comparing these two CPUs is a little insane because they're two very different animals that don't just work rather differently, they behave differently when overclocked. Both could be clocked the same and a little bump on the NB clock on the FX chip could give you a considerable difference in performance. Too many factors are uncontrollable between the two CPUs which makes any comparison at this level a little weak.

I read the last thread too and I really think people need to stop beating this poor dead horse. I think this needs to be given a rest.
 
Lionheart said:
AMD fanboy thread? o_O

This site is Pro Intel & Nvidia:roll:
Click to expand...
are you sure?
because you will find more of these types of threads

stop living in denial :)
 
Enough. Stay on the topic (it is pretty easy) or move along.
 
So the choice is E8400 or FX6300? Well the E8400 is worth about $15 and the FX6300 $50 Phenom II 940 $40 USED
 
Jetster said:
So the choice is E8400 or FX6300? Well the E8400 is worth about $15 and the FX6300 $50 Phenom II 940 $40 USED
Click to expand...
well what about gpu scaling?
I think that's important as well
My 1100T can only do a gtx 660 ti without bottle necking :/
 
mroofie said:
are you sure?
because you will find more of these types of threads

stop living in denial :)
Click to expand...

Yes I am sure! o_O I've been on this site long enough to see that it is pro Nvidia & Intel & its pretty obvious why! Because they're f..king better right now, especially Intel! What I don't understand is the constant AMD bashing :wtf:

And you're telling me to stop living in denial :shadedshu: gtfo you obvious troll!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top