Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs Atom Z3580?

[Red Hawk]

I'm considering getting an Asus Zenfone 2 with the 2.3 GHz Atom Z3580 quad core processor. I'm curious how it compares to the old Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz that my brother still uses in his old Dell PC. They're both x86 and 64 bit, so I figure the comparison is apt.

 

[CHADBOGA]

The Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz should be at least twice as fast.

 

[Burpo]

One is mobile, one is desktop. Of course the desktop trounces it, by a lot more than 2X..

 

[Soulkeeper]

the atoms are better compared to via's CPUs or old P4's imo
phoronix did a recent retro comparison that gives you a good idea:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-478-retro&num=3

 

[soccerballtux]

we've got a guy here who's done a lot of POVray testing and discovered atom with HT roughly compares to P4 architecture clock/clock, which is about half as fast as Core2 architecture clock/clock

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2414161&highlight=povray

 

[VirtualLarry]

we've got a guy here who's done a lot of POVray testing and discovered atom with HT roughly compares to P4 architecture clock/clock, which is about half as fast as Core2 architecture clock/clock

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2414161&highlight=povray

Pretty sure the Atom CPU mentioned in the OP is a Silvermont or Braswell. Which don't have HT. Which means that they are newer architecturally, which means that that thread is mostly irrelevant.

 

[soccerballtux]

Hyper thread is relevant

Heh

Anyways I still consider it useful simply as comparison, e.g. If we know how much faster those newer architectures are...

Edit; OK big difference, no comparison, we need that dude to rebench

 

[krumme]

No way more than twice as fast. 2.3 new bt arch atom is aprox 1.5ghz core2 speed.

 

[Red Hawk]

Gah, part of me is still itching to get to the bottom of this comparison. I'm tempted to buy 3DMark on Steam so I can run a comparison using the physics part of the Ice Storm bench...anyone know a good CPU benchmark that runs on both Windows and Android?

Looking at the specs though, I know the Q6600 should come out on top. It has a higher frequency, and it shouldn't fluctuate from that, while the Z3580 has a "burst" frequency, meaning it's a form of boosting, and it won't stay at 2.3 GHz under full load. Also, the Q6600 has 8 MB of cache, while the Z3580 only has 2 MB. I'm just curious how much of a practical difference there actually is.

 

[SPBHM]

with 2.6 turbo vs the q6600
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/53?vs=1229

bay trail is a lot slower on ST for cinebench 10, and even with 8 vs 4 cores, at the same clock it looks a lot closer on MT...

the phone CPU is not going to hold 2.3GHz for long, it's also a quad core, and even at 2.3GHz it's a lot slower... so...

Bay Trail can't even touch k8 at the same clock
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1229?vs=33

(again ST should give 2.6GHz for this CPU)...

but... it's designed for low TDP to compete with ARM...

 

[therealnickdanger]

I have a Z3735D tablet and a Q6600 machine kickin' around. I could see about doing some comparisons for you.

The tablet is running Bingdows 8.1 64-bit, but only has 2GB DDR3 that I cannot change. Since it's a tablet, there isn't a lot I can do to cool it, but I can conduct the tests in the basement on a laptop cooler pad to keep it from throttling (maybe). The Q6600 machine I can configure just about any way that I want, but for comparison sake, I'll stick with 2GB RAM. I also have some Q8400 and Q8300 machines already built and running.

I can pretty much guarantee that the Q6600 will decimate the Atom on CPU functions, but the Atom's IVB IGP will more than likely outperform the DG965WH's GMA X3000 by a substantial amount.

1. Should I wait one more week and put Windows 10 RTM on both?
2. What benchmarks do you want to see?

I'll update this post with requested benchmarks below.

Web benchmarks using Chrome v.whatever:
1. Kraken JavaScript Benchmark (version 1.1) http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/
2. Octane 2.0 https://github.com/chromium/octane-benchmark
3. Sunspider 1.0.2 https://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-1.0.2/sunspider-1.0.2/driver.html
4. ?

Graphics benchmarks will probably all be tested at lowest settings at 1024x768:
1. Unigine Valley Basic DX9 https://unigine.com/products/valley/
2. Halo: Combat Evolved v1.10 (scripted benchmark)
3. ?

CPU benchmarks:
1. ?

 

[sm625]

I imagine web benchmarks would be the most telling. The Q6600 should be at least 50% faster at kraken, octane, and sunspider.

 

[Face2Face]

OP - Checkout some Z3580 benches here -

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Atom-Z3580-SoC.123974.0.html

I have a Z3735D tablet and a Q6600 machine kickin' around.

I also have a Baytaill based Z3735D SOC in my tablet, but it's slower than the Z3580 in a couple ways.

I believe they share the same CPU architecture, but Moorefield has dual channel ram vs. single channel found on Baytrail. Moorefield also has higher boost frequencies.

Baytrail also has the slower Intel HD Gen 7 GPU, while Moorefield has the faster PowerVR G6430, like found in the iPad Air/5s, albeit with faster clock speeds thanks to the smaller process node (22nm vs. 28nm).

So to make a direct comparison would be tough.

 

[therealnickdanger]

So to make a direct comparison would be tough.

Not tough - impossible. But that's not really the point of the exercise, is it?

 

[ShintaiDK]

50-100% depending on apps.

 

[Face2Face]

Not tough - impossible. But that's not really the point of the exercise, is it?

Out of curiosity, I fired up Cinebench R10 (32bit) with my lowly Z3735D.

EDIT Revised

Single core - 959
Muti-core - 2939

Q6600 - per AnandTech CPU bench

Single core - 2778
Muti-core - 9681

 

[therealnickdanger]

Out of curiosity, I fired up Cinebench R10 (32bit) with my lowly Z3735D.

Single core - 456
Muti-core - 2804

Q6600 - per AnandTech CPU bench

Single core - 2778
Muti-core - 9681

Brutal.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Out of curiosity, I fired up Cinebench R10 (32bit) with my lowly Z3735D.

Single core - 456
Muti-core - 2804

Q6600 - per AnandTech CPU bench

Single core - 2778
Muti-core - 9681

That just cant be right. There is no way its going to be ~6x faster with 4 cores vs 1.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

OP - Checkout some Z3580 benches here -

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Atom-Z3580-SoC.123974.0.html





I also have a Baytaill based Z3735D SOC in my tablet, but it's slower than the Z3580 in a couple ways.

I believe they share the same CPU architecture, but Moorefield has dual channel ram vs. single channel found on Baytrail. Moorefield also has higher boost frequencies.

Baytrail also has the slower Intel HD Gen 7 GPU, while Moorefield has the faster PowerVR G6430, like found in the iPad Air/5s, albeit with faster clock speeds thanks to the smaller process node (22nm vs. 28nm).

So to make a direct comparison would be tough.

True. I just want to point out, though, that Bay Trail does in fact support dual-channel memory, just not in the few models ending with the "D" designation. That is to say, an Atom Z3740 supports dual-channel while a Z3740D does not. I have a Lenovo Miix 2 8" with a Z3740 running Windows 8.1. The platform and SoC support 64-bit, but the OS comes preinstalled 32-bit so as a point of comparison you'd have to run apps in 32-bit because it changes performance.

With that being said, what would be good, accurate programs that could be run to compare CPU performance?

Edit: also, when running anything that pushes the CPU it stays pegged at 1.86GHz.

 

[Face2Face]

That just cant be right. There is no way its going to be ~6x faster with 4 cores vs 1.

I'm running the test again to be sure. - EDIT - Looks like something went wrong with the first test - I'm running it two more times to be sure - I'll update. Thanks ShintaiDK!

True. I just want to point out, though, that Bay Trail does in fact support dual-channel memory, just not in the few models ending with the "D" designation. That is to say, an Atom Z3740 supports dual-channel while a Z3740D does not. I have a Lenovo Miix 2 8" with a Z3740 running Windows 8.1. The platform and SoC support 64-bit, but the OS comes preinstalled 32-bit so as a point of comparison you'd have to run apps in 32-bit because it changes performance.

Good info and thanks for pointing that out. It also appears models with the F and G on the end, are also single channel only as well. Same here on the 1.83GHz, mine stays pegged when needed, as long as i'm not doing anything GPU intensive; like gaming. The 4w TDP is shared between the GPU and CPU.

http://ark.intel.com/products/series/76761/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z3700-Series

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I'm considering getting an Asus Zenfone 2 with the 2.3 GHz Atom Z3580 quad core processor. I'm curious how it compares to the old Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz that my brother still uses in his old Dell PC. They're both x86 and 64 bit, so I figure the comparison is apt.

Could you maybe get your brother to run WPrime 2.X (any version after 2.0)? It tests multi-threaded CPU performance. An Atom Z3770 (up to 2.39GHz; Z3580 is up to 2.33GHz) scores 26.6 seconds (lower is better). Maybe also Cinebench R15?

If someone with a Z3770 tablet like a Dell Venue 11 Pro 5130, HP Omni 10 or Lenovo ThinkPad 8 could chime in it'd make for a pretty good comparison when it comes to CPU performance taking into account one is 7 years newer than the other and a 4W TDP vs 95W TDP.

Edit: Imgur is down right now so I have no way to post screenshots. In wPrime 2.10 32M I score 31.159 seconds; on 7-zip I score 3751 MIPS on Compression and 5883 MIPS on Decompression on 32MB dictionary size. Compressing results in 325% CPU usage and decompressing results in 393% CPU usage. CineBench R10 32-bit I score 3392 and CPU stayed pegged at 1.86GHz in all of them. I will post screenshots in a new comment later.

 

[Face2Face]

Revised. I ran the test a few more times and came up with this avg. result.

Intel Z3735D

Cinebench R10

Single core - 959
Muti-core - 2939
OpenGL - 1767

 

[ShintaiDK]

Revised. I ran the test a few more times and came up with this avg. result.

Intel Z3735D

Cinebench R10

Single core - 959
Muti-core - 2939
OpenGL - 1767

Looks much more normal :thumbsup:

 

[dark zero]

The Atom Quad even can't match to old Athlon x2 and you want to compare to the futureproff Q6600?
Really?

Maybe Intel should start to seriously think to improve Atom or ditch it for CORE M

 

[Face2Face]

Looks much more normal :thumbsup:

Thanks for pointing it out. Flew right over my head

The Atom Quad even can't match to old Athlon x2 and you want to compare to the futureproff Q6600?
Really?

Maybe Intel should start to seriously think to improve Atom or ditch it for CORE M

Keep in mind Baytrail is cheap; under $10 for the low end chip (Z3735F/D)
Core M... not so much - $250-300+ per chip

I have a couple of Baytrail devices and for day to day basic tasks, they're actually pretty decent. I have a Zotac PI320 behind my TV that I use to play Awesomenaughts and other Indie games with my kids. You'd be surprised how well this little Baytrail powered device does playing Indie games @ 1080p. Though I'm looking forward to some devices using the Cherrytrail based ATOM, as the GPU is Broadwell based and up to 16 EUs.