As far as I know, Core 2 uses 64-bit wide SSE units. This article does discuss the topic but it really is not black and white:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-preview_5.html

I thought I saw Opteron (Barcelona) vs Xeon (Clovertown) benchmarks that showed a significant SSE performance advantage going to the Opteron (the only test the Opteron stood out in). I can't seem to find it though.

I've seen several benchmark results with the Athlon 64, Phenom X4, Core 2 Duo & Core 2 Quad all running at 2.20 GHz for testing purposes.

The Core 2 Quad was faster in a few benchmarks vs. the Phenom X4, but AMD did take a few wins. It seems both have advantages and disadvantages just like ATI winning some and NVIDIA winning some. But several Core 2 were not that far behind Phenom X4.

But in no way is Core 2 running circles around Phenom X4.

core 2 doesnt run rings around it clock for clock. but it IS faster then phenom. lots of tests were done and phenom was all well and dandy on the synthetic benches that are basically meaningless, such as memory bandwidth as expected. then when you look at the real world tests, encoding, gaming, video etc the 18 month old core 2 is faster. kentsfield is faster than phenom, yorkfield is faster per clock than kentsfield. so when you overclock them to par, the intel will be faster anyway.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3272

its quite a comprehensive test. in nearly every single test (of lots!), the old old Q6600 beats out not only the 2.4 phenom, but the 2.5 phenom too. kentsfield core 2 architecture is at around ten percent faster per clock, as i said before. then yorkfield is about 7 percent quicker than kentsfield. theres enough tests out there to confirm it.

vulcan raven said:

When the Intel chip at the same clock speed is 10 - 20% faster at the same clock rate (depending on weather its conroe/kentsfield or wolfdale/yorkfield) AND the intel chip also has 800 - 1200MHz more overclocking head room AND it uses less power doing it you're right its not "running rings around it" its stumbling drunk while laughing circles around it.

Clock for Clock - Intel offers the faster solution but not by much. The only difference between AMD and Intel is Intel can offer CPU speeds in excess of 3.0 GHz where as AMD right now cannot.

If and when AMD releases 3.0 GHz CPU's that should be enough to keep them competitive enough to stay in the game. This is where high k 45nm parts come to play. Hopefully they execute these new CPU's the right way.

You guys should also note both AMD and Intel have completely different CPU designs, so both have their strengths and both have there weaknesses.
Core 2 is not older than Phenom and Phenom is not older than Core 2. The only difference is Intel had the ability to release Core 2 when they did where as AMD was not ready to release Phenom.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=711&p=0

In CINEBENCH 10, the Phenom at 2.2GHz kills the Core 2 at 2.2GHz in performance.
In EVEREST ULTIMATE EDITION v4.0, the Phenom at 2.2GHz kills both Core 2 and Core 2 Quad in Processor Performance.
SiSoftware Sandra XII (2008), the Phenom at 2.2GHz kills the Core 2 in Processor Performance.
Futuremark PCmark05 v120, the Phenom at 2.2GHz kills the Core 2 and Core 2 Quad in (Not Processor)/Graphics Performance.
etc. My point is Phenom is no slouch.

Wide Dynamic Execution:



MACRO-OPS

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel_Core_2_Duo__Core_2_Extre...is/?page=2

look. intel; is faster which you first denied and are now forced to admit. faster clock for clock with the old kentsfield out a year before phenom, which makes it a lot older as the architecture it was based on was already 6 months old conroe. if that isnt older than AMD's parts then im the pope. theres no way around the fact AMD were a year late to the punch with quads and still slower per clock, and nothing faster than 2.6ghz which intel had almost straight away after Q6600.

secondly, for a kentsfield to beat phenoms best at stock is just embarassing, kentsfield is dated. Q6600 is the basic quad, and it can beat out the best and most expensive phenom without breaking sweat at its stock speeds. yorkfield is faster, its clocks are higher, its better in almsot every way than kensfield including overclocking. the chipsets that you can overclock the intel parts on are cheap. plentiful, choice is huge.

AMD wont have faster than 3ghz parts by the time nehalem hits, or long before it hits. either way AMD arent and wont be in the game because intel have 3.16ghz parts right now and have had them for months already. the tests where the chips are running 2.2ghz is just silly, because reducing the speed of the intel processor to match to the phenoms crappy low clockspeeds is pretty sneaky, of course the intel part is going to suffer, it has to use a FSB. that test is just tailored to make the AMD parts look good, why couldnt they just use an AMD part on the level like the anandtech tests i posted. maybe cos there wasnt any even as good as intel had at its low end at the time?

says it all really having to slow an intel part just to try and accomodate phenoms poor clock steppings!

my point is phenom is a joke. only you cant seem to see otherwise and the hope for its chances of success is fading as every day nehalem closes in and prepares to make the faster than phenom core 2 parts budget end. no one is going to buy a phenom if they can get a core 2 as cheap for a new build, its gonna stay that way up to nehalems launch and afterwards too. its that simple.

I never denied Intel was faster. Please get your facts straight.
I am stating my opinion with linked proof. So this conversation is over. No point in reminiscing the same info over and over again.
Just in case you didn’t know I have a Core 2 based PC and a Phenom X4 based PC and really like them both. Both companies offer different solutions for different needs.

Phenom isn't a joke; it is just too little, too late. The Phenom was designed to counter a "Pentium Q" when a "Core 2 Quad" actually happened. AMD vastly underestimated Intel and as a result, came in an expected second place. Had Core 2 not have happened, Phenom would have been a remarkable chip. AMD took a gamble and lost.

Thanks for clarifying that Ford. You said it just as it happened. Hopefully AMD will learn from this costly mistake.

Super XP said:

10 percent versus kentsfield isnt neck and neck. 15 percent for yorkfield roughly. thats denying intel isnt faster, i just wanted to make sure its clarified that they are faster per clock after what you said here. hence the intel parts on level pegging clockspeeds will still be markedly faster after overclocking. clarification so as not to raise confusion over the matter.

AMD need a new architecture or major phenom revisions to stay in the market after nehalem launch, because of the vast array of faster core 2 parts that will suddenly be choking the channels and selling cheap, as a result of nehalem raising the bar and shifting the performance benchmark. AMD probably wont get a window to catch up with intel for another 18 months from now, if phenom doesnt stand up to core 2 before the end of this generation circa Q4 2008 with a top to bottom clocked desktop launch of quad core parts. if the bottom part is 2.66ghz, then performance indications point to it making the current quad king 3.2ghz yorkfield obsolete as a high end part.

Once again, Intel is not faster in every benchmark vs. Phenom. But yes I agree overall the Core 2 is a faster CPU.

Super XP said:

You must be talking about the one that measures the amount of time between when a CPU is installed and when it reaches obsolesence.

Jim H said:
LOL
Here is a great example with a 2.50 GHz Phenom vs. both the Core 2 and Core 2 Quad at the same speed:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2282397,00.asp

uh, the Phenom wins in like 2 tests... out of 30 or so... thats pretty one sided.

The following quote is from Fudzilla I found it to be quite appropriate
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=...p;Itemid=1

regardless the Phenom X4, is a great CPU and the benches that it looses in are not by a significant gain. AMD has established its foot back in the game again, that is undeniable, with a good price and performance ratio. And with the GPU side of things it looks like its brinig back the pwning from the classic 9700-9800pro series with the new 4870 not to mention the 4870 X2 that are fixing to make there debut.

I'll also note I have a 6400 X2 with 4GB of DDR2 and my system screams I'm extremely pleased with my Dual core set up. I dont think I'll be looking @ getting in the Quad Core game until 2 or 3rd Quarter 09

SombaSan said:
Agreed. That is why I went with the Phenom X4 9850, the price was just too good. Phenom did lose out in the benchmarks but like you said not by a significant number.

Meats of Evil said:

Here's the thing, your news is undoubtably biased, do you also never trust your news? I know, I understand, and I appreciate that news should NOT be biased and catering to the people but in the real world, this is never the case. Ultimately (yes even the news industry) it's a business. They cater to whoever brings in the all mighty dollar. In fact, this is probably the reason why the news seems more obsessed about which exotic baby Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have gotten themselves this time than what's happening in Iraq, the situation behind inflating gas prices, etc. Rumour, fear and doubt run the show. I recall a line from somewhere: "There's no news, like bad news".

Off-topic rant aside...

I really don't have a problem with the Inquirer in terms of writing style, bias, or even its mere existence... however, why are some of their articles so short and without substance? I also have a little trouble deciphering between news and tabloid sometimes with the Inquirer. However, before you attack the source in question, perhaps just a simple consideration is in order?

And back on topic:

I really do not care what happens next generation as long as AMD and ATi don't die, and force Intel and nVidia to keep working their asses off and dropping prices to remain competitive. Ultimately, it's a win-win situation for the consumer. However, it would appear AMD still has a lot of work to do.

Well Dilbert - their GPU side (ATI) are doing just fine right now.

Its their CPU engineers need to get their colective heads out of their asses and get designs done on a timely basis.

DublinGunner said:
To me it just sounds like AMD cut the budget in the wrong place. They need more R&D imo. If they can do what they've just done with the new Radeon cards but this time with the CPU, then they would be on a good track.