I rated the article as poor. As other posters have pointed out Windows XP 64-bit is not a pure 64-bit operating system.

What I would like to see is a comparison of 32-bit and 64-bit (Gentoo) Linux optimized for Core 2 Duo with GCC 4 with vectorization support and/or ICC 9.1 vs 32-bit and 64-bit Linux optimized for AMD Opteron with GCC 4 with vectorization support and/or the Pathscale high performance compiler.

Then we can really draw conclusions as to what both CPUs can do instead of naive comparisons like this.

And I am not biased to one or the other as I own as many Intel Pentium II/IIIs as AMD Athlons and am looking for something new soon.

Probably most compilers are not still able to optimize for x64 Conroe.

Maybe Intel C++ 9.1 is able to.

Regards Guti.

Very detailed and informative.

I found this article to be well thought out and comprehensive .. the Info provided was exactly what i was looking for. Keep it coming

Xbitlabs, get your math right.

Tomshardware forum post stolen from:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Conroe-EM64T-Prob lem-ftopict192762.html

See the image at:
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/32/core264bitrunol4.jpg

Better to indicate lower/higher preferred in figures

CORE 2 ARE THE BEST

pretty confusing.
Is that the entire article mentioned mean Conroe e6800 extreme is 64bits CPU and so as other conroe CPU? such as e6600 also a 64bits processor?

I got excited after reading the article. Pull out an use 100 g HD and try install 64bits linux in it. :( The OS couldn't even recognize my e6600 as 64 bits CPU. What's wrong?

Just an other reason to buy AMD CPU´s?
Well of course AMD Fanboys need something where the AMD 64 is better than the new Core 2 Duo.

Why did you use 64 bit windows? Why not do a real benchmark like Suse 64 doing MySQL? MS pushed 64 bit windows out the door. It is by no means optimal. You just did a bunch of worthless tests.

The author just try to tell us that with or wthout Macrofusion technology, Intel CPU do equally well on 32bit and 64bit.
So the author just try to tell us that Macrofusion technology is a bu..sh..!
What a smart Intel fan-boy/girl!

I don't know why you guys test from 32 bit to 64 bit just to find out which processor gets most of the 64bit switch. It's kinda lame. I'am a gaming fan so I was looking forward into seeing what cpu can handle the latest games that our current pc cant handle, and what I see as test subjects are just weak softwares.

This doesn't help at all, we want to know if you overclock Conroe Core 2 Duo E6600 to 3.4ghz and becomes faster than Intel Core 2 Duo X6800. What if you overclock X6800. Is it better or faster. Or can it handle the highest fps in the highest pixel of games?

No doubt the article was excellent and informative like othere articles from XBIT.

Nice article, thanks. Basically there's no point to bother messing around with a 64 bit Windows OS. That's all I need to know - as for lack of Linux / xBSD performance coverage, come on guys, don't complain about it - WRITE YOUR OWN ARTICLES AND POST YOUR DISCOVERIES!

intel engg failure & mktg goodness for sale

AMD sure led this “64-bit to the Desktop market” invention...
Intel was dieing to “copy paste” AMD's 64-bit technology...but their falls pride... prevented them from admitting the cheat...
So the modified here & there, to make it look an Intel genuine invention...

As for your article... you should be fairer... everybody is aware of the fact that the young Core2 architecture is a better performer in operation per clock cycle...
so saying "However, this difference cannot compensate for the 20% performance advantage of the Intel Core 2 Duo over the Athlon 64 X2 working at the same clock speed," with all due respect, is a non sense & misleading.
You should have compared processors in the same price range... fx-62 is nearer to E6700... & from the chart (X6800 vs. FX-62 in 64-bit) you have shown in your article…
I bet FX-62 can beat the sh... out of the New Core2 E6700 with it’s old 3 years old architecture...

Please, be more faithful to the IT fans & experts that have faith & respect to your site...

Regards,

Did anyone notice that the comparsion was _ umm... unfair?
They used 2 Intel processors worth $1000 (PE 965, and the Core 2 Duo X6800)
And they butcher AMD by using a $600 FX-62 (That was not the flagship)

Also, the X6800 is a Quad core - it did not belong in that comparison
They should have used a high end "Dual-Core" Core 2 Duo to be relatively even

The PE 965 v. FX-62 was more fair of a technical comparsion with the results
Both of them flip-flopped on one another, it was relatively even
But money matters in this comparsion - especially to fact of a sub $400 difference

good for amd.god bless AMD.

o jailsom nao quer falar nada a respeito desse artigo..o.o