[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The title above is pointedly laconic, and the article itself is up to the spirit. It was fascinating to evaluate performance of the first 45-nm processor from the Pentium dual-core series. However, we already benchmarked Wolfdale core versus older Conroe core long ago, and we were not surprised by the frequency and cache size of Pentium E5200, so no big news was expected. In fact, we were absolutely right, except for one "microsensation".
The choice of opponents is also apparent: these are all previous processors from the Pentium dual-core line, the entire Core 2 Duo E4xxx series as the next family after Pentium dial-core, and the slowest representative of Core 2 Duo E7xxx, which will replace E4xxx. Why the slowest? The answer is simple: because one processor was enough to get the whole picture.
Perhaps some of our readers may think that we selected too many contenders, that we could have left only top models from each series. However, we decided that an article with test results of all such processors would be very convenient for readers.
Hardware and Software
Testbed configurations
CPU
Motherboard
Memory
Video
Intel processors
ASUS Maximus Extreme
Corsair CM3X1024-1800C7DIN
GeForce 8800 GTX
Memory: 4 GB (4 x 1 GB)
HDD: Samsung HD401LJ (SATA-2)
Cooler: Thermaltake TMG i1
Power supply unit: Cooler Master RS-A00-EMBA
Processor
Core clock, MHz
FSB clock, MHz
Multiplier
Memory clock, MHz
Number of cores
L1 cache, I/D, KB*
L2 Cache, KB
Socket
Fab. process, nm
TDP
Pentium E2140
1600
200 (800)
8
400 (800)
2
32/32
1024
LGA775
65
65
Pentium E2160
1800
200 (800)
9
400 (800)
2
32/32
1024
LGA775
65
65
Pentium E2180
2000
200 (800)
10
400 (800)
2
32/32
1024
LGA775
65
65
Pentium E2200
2200
200 (800)
11
400 (800)
2
32/32
1024
LGA775
65
65
Pentium E2220
2400
200 (800)
12
400 (800)
2
32/32
1024
LGA775
65
65
Pentium E5200
2500
200 (800)
12.5
400 (800)
2
32/32
2048
LGA775
45
65
Core 2 Duo E4300
1800
200 (800)
9
400 (800)
2
32/32
2048
LGA775
65
65
Core 2 Duo E4400
2000
200 (800)
10
400 (800)
2
32/32
2048
LGA775
65
65
Core 2 Duo E4500
2200
200 (800)
11
400 (800)
2
32/32
2048
LGA775
65
65
Core 2 Duo E4600
2400
200 (800)
12
400 (800)
2
32/32
2048
LGA775
65
65
Core 2 Duo E4700
2600
200 (800)
13
400 (800)
2
32/32
2048
LGA775
65
65
Core 2 Duo E7200
2530
266 (1066)
9.5
533 (1066)
2
32/32
3072
LGA775
45
65
* – in multi-core processors – per single core
Software
64-bit application
Multi-threaded application*
Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2
+
+
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1
+
+
Autodesk 3ds max 9 SP2
+
+
V-Ray 1.5 SP1
+
+
Autodesk Maya 2008 Ultimate
+
+
NewTek Lightwave 3D 9.2
+
+
SolidWorks 2007 SP0.0
+
+
PTC Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 3.0 M120
+
–
UGS NX5 5.0.0.25
+
+
Wolfram Research Mathematica 6
+
+
MapleSoft Maple 11
–
+
MathWorks MATLAB 2007
+
+
Adobe Photoshop CS3 10.0
–
+
Microsoft Visual Studio 2008
+
+
Apache HTTP Server 2.2.8
–
+
PHP 5.2.5
–
+
MySQL Community Server 5.0.51a
–
+
ACDSee 10 Photo Manager
–
+
xat.com Image Optimizer 5.10
–
–
IrfanView 4.10
–
–
XnView 1.93.4
–
–
Paint.NET 3.30
+
+
7-Zip 4.57
+
+
WinRAR 3.71
–
+
UltimateZip 3.2
–
–
FLAC 1.2.1
–
–
LAME-MT 3.97
+
+
Musepack MPC Encoder 1.16
–
–
Nero Digital Audio Encoder 1.1.34.2
–
+
Ogg Encoder 2.83 (Lancer)
–
+
Canopus ProCoder 3.0
–
+
DivX Codec 6.8.2
–
+
XviD Codec 1.1.3 Final
–
–
x264 Codec rev 807
–
+
VirtualDub 1.8.0
–
+
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Patch 1.5)
–
+
Call of Juarez (Patch 1.1.0.0) + DX10 Enhancements Pack
–
–
Crysis (Patch 1.2)
+
+
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (Patch 1.006)
–
+
Unreal Tournament 3 (Patch 1.2)
–
+
Company of Heroes (Patch 1.71)
–
+
World in Conflict (Patch 1.007)
–
+
* – not just generating several threads by the process, but two or more simultaneously active threads in the process of running tests
Testing
Necessary preface to the diagrams
Our test procedure features two peculiarities of data representation: firstly, all data types are reduced to one – integer relative score (performance of a given processor relative to Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, its performance taken for 100 points), and secondly, detailed results are published in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, while the article contains only summary diagrams for benchmark classes. Nevertheless, we'll sometimes draw your attention to detailed results, if they are noteworthy.
Professional group of tests
3D Modeling and Rendering
We knew from the very beginning that Pentium E2220 couldn't compete with E5200 (from their specs). The new core has never performed worse than the old one in any of our tests, and the E5200 has a higher clock rate and a larger cache. From the technical point of view, the most interesting comparison is Pentium E5200 versus Core 2 Duo E4700 (top processor from the Core 2 Duo E4xxx series): the E5200 has a newer core, and the E4700 is faster by 100 MHz. No miracles here – Core 2 Duo E4700 wins this contest. E7200 is predictably the fastest processor here, but we were not surprised.
CAD/CAM
Pentium E5200 leaves the previous top model of its series way behind again, but it fails to catch up with the top Core 2 Duo E4xxx processor.
Compile
The same situation here. Moreover, it repeats itself throughout the entire article. For the only exception of the following diagram.
Professional photo processing
That the first and only time when the new core demonstrates its advantages: Pentium E5200 outperforms Core 2 Duo E4700 by almost 4%, even though the latter has a higher clock rate. It goes without saying, we checked what test provided this victory. The situation is quite interesting: the E5200 is even defeated in some tests (there is nothing surprising about it – clock rate...), but its victory is provided by a serious advantage of the E5200 in Size test.
Scientific applications
It's a standard situation here.
Web server
The same here.
Total professional score
As we expected, the only victory in Photoshop hasn't affected the total score in professional applications: the new Pentium E5200 fares in between the old Core 2 Duo E4600 and E4700. Strictly according to their clock rates: 2.4 GHz – 2.5 GHz – 2.6 GHz.
Non-professional/home group of tests
Archivers
The same situation again, only the Core 2 Duo E4600 is not outperformed much.
Encode
On the contrary, the E5200 almost repeats its achievement in Photoshop, trying to catch up with the E4700. But it's still short of one point...
Games
Strange as it may seem, the E5200 fails to outperform the lower-clocked E4600 in games.
Non-professional photo processing
We've already seen a similar layout of forces two diagrams above...
Total non-professional score
There is only one noteworthy fact – Pentium E5200 is closer to the Core 2 Duo E4700 in home applications than in professional ones. By the way, this fact agrees with the official positioning of this model.
Conclusion
We've just tested another Intel processor from the price range below $100. It's a good processor – copes with code well, does not get very hot (subjectively), outperforms many more expensive older processors (Core 2 Duo E4600, for example). What else can we say about Pentium E5200? With its price tag, it's certainly a much better choice than the other Pentium dual-core processors. What concerns its price/performance ratio, it's probably better than any Core 2 Duo E4xxx model. And of course, there are no miracles here. Even the cheapest Core 2 Duo E7xxx processor is still significantly faster: Intel hasn't made glaring mistakes in new model positioning for a long time already. We have nothing to add. Examine diagrams, everything is there.
