Benchmark Analysis

The overall system and gaming benchmarks are right where we anticipated, given that the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is simply a 200 MHz increase over the 2.8 GHz Athlon 64 FX-62. This processor features the same dual core Athlon 64 2x1MB architecture, with no new features or revisions; even the 90nm core process remains consistent. Due to this, it's quite natural where the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ excelled and where it fell back a bit. The main advantage AMD holds is the integrated memory controller, which increases overall bandwidth while lowering latencies. Unfortunately, the non-standard DDR2 speed of the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ does hamper it a bit in this category, but it still scores extremely high in most benchmarks.

The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ failed to make a performance significant impact in areas where the Core 2 already holds a significant lead. This comes back to the 200 MHz clock speed increase, which does make up some ground, but it not large enough to provide any significant improvement. Benchmarks like multi-threaded CPU performance and gaming speed are the two most prominent, but the Core 2 lineup is very impressive across the board. AMD and the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ doesn't fare badly against the dual core models, but once we trot out the Core 2 Quad, Intel far outpaces the multi-threaded performance of any single AMD processor.

Total System Power Consumption Testing

The power consumption of high-end desktops is a definite concern, especially for those who build small form factor and low-noise systems, or for buyers wanting to keep energy costs down. We took each of the reference systems, ran these through a Power Analyzer, and then compiled consumption figures (in Watts) for Idle and Load scenarios. In order to keep the systems and results consistent, we used the same configuration for the AMD and Intel processors as listed on the Test Systems page.

The first test measures the total system power usage with both AMD and Intel processors set to power-saving mode. For AMD, this means enabling Cool'n'Quiet, while for Intel it we need to activate Enhanced SpeedStep. The test was performed after Windows XP had loaded, and all of the various software and hardware components had initialized. It's a bit of a surprise that AMD performs the upset here, and posts the top four results. And even at 3.0 GHz, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is efficient enough to finish in the middle of the pack.

The second test was performed also at idle, but this time under the scenario many power users employ, with the processors operating at standard frequencies and stepping. This was performed by manually selecting the clock multiplier in the BIOS and disabling any BIOS and Windows XP support for power-saving features. Under this scenario, the Core 2 Duo and Extreme processors take back the top chart positions, and prove exactly how important power-savings is to the AMD power usage figures. Intel power consumption also increased with power savings disabled, just not as much.

The third test changes the operating conditions from Idle to Load, and the SANDRA XI Multimedia CPU benchmark pushes processor usage to 100%, while ensuring that no extraneous hard drive or peripheral activity artificially ramps up the power consumption rates. The results using SANDRA are also incredibly consistent, with the wattage numbers remaining stable through the entire test. Now that the processors are humming at peak usage, the numbers start to follow along with core speed and design for the most part.

With the AMD and Intel processors firing on all cylinders, we see the dual core Core 2 Duo models at the top of the chart, AMD in the middle, and the quad core models at the bottom. This kind of real-world power consumption gets back to the basics, where the number of cores and the clock speed help determine placement on this chart.