LWD - ''Highs'' and ''Lows'' of Modern Multi-Core

Our readers "hinted" that having reviewed high-end dual-core CPUs (Pentium XE 840 and Athlon 64 X2 4800+) as well as low-end dual-core from Intel (Pentium D 820), we undeservingly slid round the low-end multi-core processor from AMD: Athlon 64 X2 3800+. In this article we are going to rectify this error. Thus, diagrams in this article will show performance of the fastest and the slowest dual-core x86-processors from the two leading manufacturers. They will give you an idea of the performance range of modern dual-core x86-platforms.

It's no secret anymore that the situation with performance of dual-core CPUs from Intel is not very bright, but we were surprised to see it that bad. In fact, Pentium D / Pentium XE processors are highly specialized solutions according to our test results, good only for a relatively small group of tasks. AMD rules everywhere else. Another fly in the Intel's ointment is that the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ looks very well as a processor for classic single-threaded tasks, while the 2.8-GHz Pentium D 820 core can pretend only to the "low middle" for these days.

In fact, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is quite a joy. We found no application, where it's outperformed by the A64 X2 4800+ more than its clock lag. It means that the halved L2 Cache does not have a fatal effect on performance (as pessimists could have expected). There is just one "but": the price. Intel's pricing policy concerning low-end dual-cores is very aggressive. Pentium D 820 costs about $240 in Moscow retail (at the time this article was written), while the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ — $380. This difference may drive some users away from AMD, who must have a system with a dual-core CPU — even despite the excellent performance of processors from this company.


Telling it like it is...