Intel Core Duo (Yonah) Performance Preview - Part II
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 19, 2005 12:55 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overall System Performance with Winstone 2004
Business Winstone 2004
Business Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:
The FP/SSE enhancements to Core Duo have no chance to shine in your everyday run-of-the-mill business applications like Word and Outlook, not to mention that the workload is not heavily multithreaded, so there's no benefit from a dual core processor. So from a performance standpoint, all we see from the Core Duo is a similarly clocked processor to the Pentium M 760, but with a higher latency L2 cache, which explains the performance deficit.
The Athlon 64 X2 running at 2.0GHz with a 1MB L2 per core manages to slightly outperform the Core duo T2500, however the performance margin is negligible.
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:
Not all of the Core Duo's advantage over the Pentium M is due to its dual core nature, but it does account for some of it.
But as we saw in our original article, at 2.0GHz, the Core Duo T2500 just isn't able to offer performance comparable to the Athlon 64 X2 at the same speed. It is worth noting that L2 cache size doesn't really make a difference here to the X2 at all, just clock speed. Thanks to the Athlon 64's on-die memory controller, the architecture is inherently less sensitive to cache size than more conventional designs that rely on an external memory controller.
Business Winstone 2004
Business Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:
. Microsoft Access 2002
. Microsoft Excel 2002
. Microsoft FrontPage 2002
. Microsoft Outlook 2002
. Microsoft PowerPoint 2002
. Microsoft Project 2002
. Microsoft Word 2002
. Norton AntiVirus Professional Edition 2003
. WinZip 8.1
The FP/SSE enhancements to Core Duo have no chance to shine in your everyday run-of-the-mill business applications like Word and Outlook, not to mention that the workload is not heavily multithreaded, so there's no benefit from a dual core processor. So from a performance standpoint, all we see from the Core Duo is a similarly clocked processor to the Pentium M 760, but with a higher latency L2 cache, which explains the performance deficit.
The Athlon 64 X2 running at 2.0GHz with a 1MB L2 per core manages to slightly outperform the Core duo T2500, however the performance margin is negligible.
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:
. Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0.1All chips were tested with Lightwave set to spawn 4 threads.
. Adobe® Premiere® 6.50
. Macromedia® Director MX 9.0
. Macromedia® Dreamweaver MX 6.1
. Microsoft® Windows MediaTM Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980
. NewTek's LightWave® 3D 7.5b
. SteinbergTM WaveLabTM 4.0f
Not all of the Core Duo's advantage over the Pentium M is due to its dual core nature, but it does account for some of it.
But as we saw in our original article, at 2.0GHz, the Core Duo T2500 just isn't able to offer performance comparable to the Athlon 64 X2 at the same speed. It is worth noting that L2 cache size doesn't really make a difference here to the X2 at all, just clock speed. Thanks to the Athlon 64's on-die memory controller, the architecture is inherently less sensitive to cache size than more conventional designs that rely on an external memory controller.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
vailr - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Re: Chipset Drivers used in the review:nForce4 6.66
Intel 7.0.0.25
Check here: http://www.fdrsoft.fr.fm/">http://www.fdrsoft.fr.fm/
Intel Version 7.2.2.1006
nForce4 Version 6.70
Marlin1975 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Being that DVD shrink will not be updated anymore and the creator is now part of Nero, and the Recode program. Why not use Recode?PrinceGaz - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link
Personally I wouldn't touch any of the compressed domain transcoders like DVD Shrink as they sacrifice quality for speed. Something like DVD Rebuilder combined with the excellent CCE SP encoder provide the best possible quality and are just as easy to use as DVD Shrink. It's nowhere near as fast as DVD Shrink, but I'll take better picture quality over saving a few minutes any day.mrred - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Anyone else notice that the game benches seem horribly gpu-bound? How about giving us some lower resolutions in testing?Look at FEAR in particular: X2-4200 and X2-3800 getting exactly the same score? HELLO?!?!?!? That's not a cpu-benchmark. Gimme a break.
Anemone - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link
Frankly I appreciate testing that shows resolutions we actually play at. Now if only we'd see 1920x1200 :)blackbrrd - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
The games are benchmarked at 1024x768.Personally I haven't played a game below 1024x768 since I got my GF2mx four or five years ago.
Most games look horrible below 1024x768, except the games ported from consoles ;)
saratoga - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Yeah and above 1024 you're GPU limited. Its almost like this was a CPU review.tfranzese - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
That's not the point. The point is to relieve the GPU so regardless of what GPUs come out a year or two from now that alieviate this bottleneck we'll have known beforehand how the CPU handles things.Further, this is a CPU preview and as such we don't care about system performance or GPU performance; that shouldn't be the focus or included in the article. Instead, every benchmark should serve the articles purpose of comparing the CPUs - GPU bound benchmarks do NOT serve that purpose and should have their resolution lowered to serve that purpose, otherwise they should not be included because what point do they serve except fluff?
tayhimself - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Yeah this review is horrible, just like the first Yonah review.uop - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
I wouldn't call it horrible.There are some weak points, but it does give a good idea about how the Core Duo performs.
Mainly:
- It's not as good as the A64 when it comes to games
- FP is much improved but not there yet
The article does do a good job of reminding us that Yonah is just the dress rehersal for the real deal. Conroe is supposed to be faster, wider, and full of 64-bit goodness. Think about it - with Yonah's die size, it could be the Celeron-M in just 6 months!
If Yonah can compete with the A64, then unless AMD pull a fast one they're probably heading for the underdog position.