Euler3D, WME 64, and PowerEuler 3D
This benchmark is based on a fluid dynamics simulation, but the workload has always appeared to favor Intel CPUs. Still, it is a good indication of multi-core performance in a professional application.
The Intel E8500 just destroys the AMD processors when 1 thread is used. Once 4 threads are utilized though, the AMD parts overtake the E8500.
Windows Media Encoder 64 Bit
Video transcode is going to be one of the most oft used application which is multi-cpu aware. With as many mobile devices out there that can handle video, people are becoming more and more comfortable transcoding their standard def and high def media files to more portable friendly formats.
AMD takes a comfortable lead here due to their extra cores over the E8500. Again, it is not exactly fair, but the E8500 does cost a whopping $70 more!
No modern review can be complete with a look at the power consumption of a new processor and its accompanying motherboard. Power is measured at the wall, with only the power supply of the computer attached.
At idle, both AMD and Intel show impressive power consumption. Once the CPUs are put under load, we see some interesting differences. The E8500 is overall more efficient, but then again it only has 2 cores running at full bore. What is most striking is that the X4 630 is slightly more efficient than the slower clocked X4 620.
If we look at the markings on the CPUs, the X4 620 was manufactured about 4 weeks before the faster X4 630. A few potential reasons for this could be; the X4 620 is one of the first Athlon II quad runs from the fab, the X4 630 could have benefited from lessons learned from earlier runs and the process adjusted to improve bins, or we just have a strange confluence of a very efficient X4 630 and a slightly more leaky X4 620. Any of those could work. But 6 watts either way is not going to destroy a line.