Dual core shoot-out: Intel versus AMD
Dual core processors work best when software can run in parallel on them. So-called ‘multithreaded applications’ benefit from an additional CPU core because subroutines can be allocated to different arithmetic and logic units. Administering the threads carries an overhead, though, which means that dual core processors are never exactly twice as fast as their single core counterparts.
Chip-makers AMD and Intel have released dual core processors aimed at users who need high arithmetic performance and use mainly multithreaded applications. Programs such as CAD/CAM and audio or video processing benefit particularly from a second processor core. However, AMD and Intel’s dual core chips for this market cost between $500 and $1,000, and are therefore much too expensive for the mass market. .
Dual core and the office
Relatively little multithreaded software is used on standard office and home computers, so the purchase of a high-end dual core processor is rarely justified. Having said that, mainstream users can benefit from dual core technology. If several applications are active at the same time and certain tasks are stalled, then a dual core chip is worth having. For example, a hard disk defragmenter may be running in the background, leaving insufficient resources for a foreground application like a presentation. Similar effects can occur when antivirus or anti-spyware scans are active in the background. In these circumstances, a dual core chip can be very helpful even on a standard office PC.
When you consider what’s going on beneath the surface of a typical office PC in a larger enterprise, it’s arguable that a dual core processor can be justified here, too. Applications installed by the IT department can create a multitude of processes — these may not always be active, but it’s almost inevitable that at some point a crucial productivity task (finishing a presentation, for example) will be held up by a lack of computing resources.
Now that both Intel and AMD have affordable dual core processors available (the $241 Pentium D 820 and the $328 Athlon 64 X2 3800+ respectively), there’s little to stop this technology being widely adopted.
AMDs Athlon 64 X2 3800+ has two CPU cores, each with 512KB of Level 2 cache and running at 2GHz.
Test setup
This benchmark evaluation pits AMD’s and Intel’s entry-level dual core processors — the Athlon 64 X2 3800+and Pentium D 820 respectively — against one another. Performance results from each company’s top-of-the-range model — the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and Pentium Extreme Edition (Pentium EE) 840 — are also presented.
Dual core CPUs on test | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
Transistors | 154m | 233m | 230m | 230m |
Die size | 147mm2 | 199mm2 | 206mm2 | 206mm2 |
Clock frequency | 2GHz | 2. 4GHz | 2.8GHz | 3.2GHz |
Fabrication process | 90nm | 90nm | 90nm | 90nm |
Level 2 cache | 1MB | 2MB | 2MB | 2MB |
Power consumption | 89W | 110W | 130W | 130W |
Hyperthreading | no | no | no | yes |
|
Operating conditions
Intel’s dual core processors can only be used with newer motherboards: specifically, the Pentium D requires the Intel 945 or 955 chipets, while the Pentium EE 840 is restricted to motherboards with the 955 chipset. The situation with AMD’s dual core chips is simpler, as AMD uses the existing Socket 939 architecture. However, not every Socket 939 motherboard is automatically dual-core-compatible, and a BIOS update may be needed before a board correctly recognises the CPU’s two cores.
Power consumption
The new dual core processors consume between 89W (AMD) and 130W (Intel) of power. For users, however, it’s more relevant to consider the power consumption of the entire system, which we determined using a Voltcraft Energy Monitor 3000.
Test system specifications | ||
|
||
Test system | AMD | Intel |
|
||
Motherboard | Asus A8N SLI Deluxe | Asus P5WD2 Premium |
Graphics card | MSI Geforce 6600GT | MSI Geforce 6600GT |
Memory | 2x 512 MByte DDR400 (Corsair) | 2x 512 MByte DDR2-667 (Infineon) |
Hard disk | Maxtor Maxline III 250GB | Maxtor Maxline III 250GB |
Power supply | Antec Truepower 380Sp | Antec Truepower 380Sp |
Operating system | Windows XP Professional SP2 | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
|
As the table below shows, the power consumption of the AMD-based dual core systems is relatively low. This is largely due to AMD’s optimised 90nm SoI (Silicon on Insulator) chip production process, which minimises current leakage – and therefore heat output — from transistors.
With the system sitting idle at the Windows Desktop, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ uses the least power among all the dual core systems (107W). With AMD’s power-saving Cool ‘ n ‘ Quiet mode activated, system power consumption even sinks below 100W, which makes the X2 3800+ particularly suitable for office use. The same cannot be said for Intel’s dual core chips, the Pentium D 820 using 154W in Idle mode; unfortunately the Asus motherboard could not activate the Pentium D 820’s power saving mode, so the high-end Pentium EE 840 delivers the lowest figure for the Intel dual core CPUs (145W) in this test.
Under full load, which was produced using CPU Stability Test 6.0, the high power consumption of the Intel systems compared to their AMD competition is clearly demonstrated. The most power-hungry system is the Pentium EE 840, which uses nearly 300W; even the entry-level Pentium D 820 consumes more power (245W) than AMD’s high-end Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (195W). The clear winner here is AMD’s entry-level X2 3800+, which uses only 162W.
Power consumption of dual core CPU systems | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
Fabrication process | 90nm | 90nm | 90nm | 90nm |
Idle | 107W | 118W | 154W | 175W |
Idle plus power saving mode | 99W | 105W | n/a | 145W |
Fully loaded | 162W | 195W | 245W | 296W |
|
CPU Stability Test 6. 0 allows the processor to be run at maximum load. In the case of the Pentium Extreme Edition 840, the program must be started twice to get all of its CPU cores (two physical and two logical) fully loaded.
Memory and cache performance
Memory performance, as measured by ScienceMark 2, shows substantial differences between the AMD and Intel processors. AMD’s integrated memory controller clearly offers superior memory access due to the lower latency. Since the memory interface is coupled to the CPU’s clock speed, the 2.4GHz Athlon 64 X2 4800+ delivers slightly better memory performance than its 3800+ sibling, which is clocked 400MHz slower at 2GHz.
ScienceMark 2 (Memory throughput; bigger is better) | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
Level 1 cache | 23,073MB/s | 27,405MB/s | n/a | n/a |
Level 2 cache | 7,361MB/s | 8,833MB/s | n/a | n/a |
Memory bandwidth | 5,191MB/s | 5,442MB/s | 4,568MB/s | 4,577MB/s |
|
ScienceMark 2 (Latency; smaller is better) | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
Level 1 cache (32 bytes) |
3 cycles/s | 3 cycles/s | 4 cycles/s | 4 cycles/s |
Level 2 cache (4 bytes) |
3 cycles/s | 3 cycles/s | 6 cycles/s | 6 cycles/s |
Level 2 cache (16 bytes) |
5 cycles/s | 5 cycles/s | 13 cycles/s | 13 cycles/s |
Level 2 cache (64 bytes) |
17 cycles/s | 17 cycles/s | 27 cycles/s | 27 cycles/s |
Level 2 cache (256 bytes) |
12 cycles/s | 12 cycles/s | 26 cycles/s | 26 cycles/s |
Level 2 cache (512 bytes) |
13 cycles/s | 13 cycles/s | 25 cycles/s | 25 cycles/s |
Memory (4 bytes) |
3 cycles/s | 3 cycles/s | 3 cycles/s | 3 cycles/s |
Memory (16 bytes) |
12 cycles/s | 13 cycles/s | 14 cycles/s | 14 cycles/s |
Memory (64 bytes) |
49 cycles/s | 55 cycles/s | 41 cycles/s | 41 cycles/s |
Memory (256 bytes) |
104 cycles/s | 112 cycles/s | 254 cycles/s | 273 cycles/s |
Memory (512 bytes) |
107 cycles/s | 116 cycles/s | 265 cycles/s | 277 cycles/s |
|
Application performance
The Business Winstone and Content Creation Winstone benchmarks carry out typical application-based tasks such as converting video files or creating a PowerPoint presentation. The following applications are used:
Content Creation Winstone 2004 (at 1600 by 1200 resolution)
- Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1
- Adobe Premiere 6.50
- Macromedia Director MX 9.0
- Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 6.1
- Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9.0
- Internet Explorer
- Newtek Lightwave 7.5b
- Steinberg Wavelab 4.0f
Business Winstone 2004 (at 1600 by 1200 resolution)
- 5 Microsoft Office XP applications (Access, Excel, FrontPage, PowerPoint, Word)
- Microsoft Project 2002
- Microsoft Outlook
- Winzip 8.1
- Norton Anti-Virus 2003
- Internet Explorer
Business Winstone 2004 has two modes. In the standard test, there is no multitasking: several applications are loaded in memory, but only the foreground application is active. This corresponds to the work routine of a Web designer, for example, who first prepares graphical elements in Photoshop and then integrates them into a Web site using Dreamweaver.
There is also a multitasking mode in Business Winstone 2004 (BWS-MT Overall), in which the background applications are active. Business Winstone 2004 can also simulate different multitasking scenarios (BWS-MT Test 1, 2 and 3).
In the first scenario (BWS-MT Test 1) files are copied in the background, while Outlook and Internet Explorer process tasks in the foreground. The second scenario (BWS-MT Test 2) starts with Word and Excel in the foreground with Winzip files being compressed in the background. The third scenario (BWS-MT Test 2) runs a Norton Anti-Virus scan in the background, while all of the Microsoft Office programs are busy with tasks in the foreground.
Under Business Winstone 2004 (BWS04), the AMD processors are clearly the superior performers. Only in the multitasking test can Intel’s chips keep up with their AMD counterparts.
Content Creation Winstone 2004 (CCWS04) lacks a multitasking mode, but many of the component programs in this benchmark are multithreaded. The AMD processors are the winners here, too. Even the entry-level $328 Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is faster than Intel’s $999 Pentium EE 840.
It’s worth noting that Intel’s processors perform better under BAPCo’s SYSmark thanks to its greater prevalence of Pentium 4-optimised applications. Ideally, a performance test should go beyond standard benchmark suites, and in the following pages we test AMD’s and Intel’s dual core chips with current applications from the audio, video and 3D-rendering markets.
Dual core processors are not particularly relevant to 3D gaming — highly clocked single core processors such as the Athlon 64 FX57 or Pentium 4 670 are more suitable for this market. As a result, we have only tested with one game, Farcry, here: once again, the AMD chips deliver the best performance.
Business and Content Creation Winstone 2004 (bigger is better) | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
CCWS04 | 37. 7 | 40.7 | 29.8 | 33.4 |
BWS04 | 26.4 | 29.0 | 22.7 | 24.7 |
BWS-MT Overall | 3.23 | 3.51 | 3.06 | 3.14 |
BWS-MT Test 1 | 2.55 | 2.56 | 2.72 | 2.89 |
BWS-MT Test 2 | 2.68 | 2.69 | 2.39 | 2.48 |
BWS-MT Test 3 | 3.96 | 4.75 | 3.56 | 3.58 |
Farcry Regulator (640) | 141.9fps | 169.6fps | 120.4fps | 130.0fps |
|
Video and audio performance
With the exception of Nero Recode, the AMD processors come out top in all of the video tests. In fact, the entry-level Athlon 64 X2 3800+ beats the substantially more expensive Pentium EE 840 in the majority of these tests.
Video performance (smaller is better) | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
Mainconcept h364 (MPEG data) | 13m 16s | 11m 28s | 17m 15s | 15m 31s |
Nero Recode (DVD) | 6m 14s | 5m 41s | 6m 34s | 5m 35s |
MS Media Encoder 9 | 3m 19s | 2m 40s | 3m 48s | 3m 33s |
Real Producer | 14m 4s | 11m 56s | 15m 28s | 14m 40s |
TMPGEnc 3. 0 | 5m 55s | 5m 6s | 7m 6s | 6m 41s |
|
The picture is similar when we look at the table of audio results. Only in the FLAC decompression test are the Intel chips ahead of their AMD competitors. In all the other tests, AMD again emerges victorious.
Audio performance (smaller is better) | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
FLAC (compress) | 123s | 97s | 153s | 133s |
FLAC (decompress) | 32s | 27s | 29s | 25s |
Monkey Audio (APE) compress | 51s | 44s | 61s | 54s |
Monkey Audio (APE) decompress | 63s | 54s | 74s | 65s |
iTunes (AAC, 192Kbps) | 2m 53s | 2m 23s | 3m 28s | 3m 03s |
iTunes (MP3, 192Kbps) | 2m 7s | 1m 44s | 2m 21s | 2m 4s |
|
Rendering performance
When tested using Maxon Cinema 4D rendering software, the dual core Athlon 64 X2 processors are superior to their Intel counterparts. This test also demonstrates the effect of Hyperthreading in Intel’s dual core chips: the HT-equipped Pentium EE 840’s performance in the Multi-CPU test is more than double its Single-CPU result, while the performance increase for the Pentium D, which lacks Hyperthreading, is significantly lower.
Maxon Cinema 4D (bigger is better) | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
Single-CPU | 285 | 340 | 246 | 283 |
Multi-CPU | 536 | 638 | 462 | 613 |
C4-Shading | 342 | 408 | 322 | 367 |
OGL-SW | 1561 | 1833 | 1294 | 1451 |
|
3D Studio Max 7 (smaller is better) | ||||
|
||||
CPU | Athlon 64 X2 | Athlon 64 X2 | Pentium D | Pentium EE |
|
||||
Model number | 3800+ | 4800+ | 820 | 840 |
Stadium | 41s | 36s | 40s | 35s |
Architecture | 65s | 53s | 75s | 60s |
Cballs | 21s | 18s | 25s | 18s |
Single Pipe 2 | 106s | 88s | 132s | 97s |
Underwater | 155s | 122s | 171s | 128s |
|
Conclusion
The value of dual core chips is not in doubt. Today’s PCs run a large number of background processes, and a single CPU can easily become overloaded. Intel has had processors with two logical cores for several years; more efficient chips with two physical cores are a natural progression from this Hyperthreading technology.
Both Intel and AMD now have a good range of dual core processors. Intel offers the biggest range of pricing, from the entry-level $241 Pentium D 820 running at 2.8GHz, through the $316 830 at 3GHz, to the $530 840 at 3.2GHz. The Pentium Extreme Edition 840, meanwhile, costs a princely $999.
AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 4400+, 4600+ and 4800+ processors range from $408 to $803, while the $328 entry-level 3800+model is well suited to both enterprise and home PCs.
AMD currently offers the most attractive dual core option. The entry level Athlon 64 X2 3800+ may cost $87 more than its Intel counterpart, the Pentium D 820, but the AMD chip is a much better performer. It also uses considerably less power. A typical Athlon 64 X2 3800+ system uses less than 100W, while an equivalent Intel-based system uses about 50 per cent more, so it will be easier to build a quiet office PC around an AMD dual core chip. The lower electricity cost could also be a significant factor in enterprises with several thousand PCs.
Dual core CPU pricing (as of October 31) | |
|
|
CPU | Price (in 1ku) |
|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | $803 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ | $643 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ | $507 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | $408 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | $328 |
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840 | $999 |
Intel Pentium D 840 | $530 |
Intel Pentium D 830 | $316 |
Intel Pentium D 820 | $241 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800 Socket 939 Dual Core or Intel Pentium D 940 Presler 800MHz FSB
mofo91105
-
-
#1
I was wondering which one you guys would buy. I know there is a big debate over the new dual cores, so I am looking for the one that will be the best quality, and one that I can use for a while and not have to upgrade for sometime. Mind you, I will not be gaming, I am only looking for performance running many programs at the same time such as itunes, aim, word, outlook, etc, and encoding and dvd decrypting. Please give me your recommendations and why and let me know some good accompanying parts such as mobo, heatsink, ram etc. Thanks for your help
vnf4ultra
Posts: 1,360 +2
-
-
#2
If you won’t be gaming, then the intel would probably be somewhat faster for your uses. They are pretty close in performance, but the amd is faster for gaming. You say you won’t be gaming though, and the intel is cheaper, so go for it IMO.
AMDIsTheBest010
Posts: 359 +0
-
-
#3
do AMD all the way. AMD scores higher i benchmark tests over Intel every time
Pentium D score: 123 (overclocked to 3.46GHZ)
AMD X2 4400 score: 141, the highest score ever for a non-overclocked CPU!
DonNagual
Posts: 2,382 +5
-
-
#4
I agree with vnf4ultra above completely.
Gotta love benchmarks:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=237&chart=74&model2=321
Mess around with the benchmarks drop down list.
For non-gaming, I’d probably go with that Pentium D myself as it is a little cheaper and performs a little better.
mofo91105
-
-
#5
Well yeah I would love an AMD X2 4400, but my wallet seemingly always tells me what I can and can’t have, and right now, I can’t have an X2 4400 hahahah. Don Nagual, thanks for the recommendation, I see intels price is a little lower, but when you talk about performing better, in what aspects are you talking about (i. e. multitasking, decoding)? Also, whats a good board for the Pentium D 940? Thanks as always, you guys are a great help in decision making.
DonNagual
Posts: 2,382 +5
-
-
#6
If you use that dropdown list, you’ll see the Pentium D 940 outperforming the X2 3800 in some applications, and vice versa in others. They are not that much different really, but that PentiumD 940 is almost $50 cheaper.
I myself am into games, so I’d go with the X2 3800, but in your case, I’d say the $50 could be spent on a nicer motherboard (for example).
What kind of budget are you working on? Do you have some other parts you are hoping to reuse, or are you building a complete system?
mofo91105
-
-
#7
Everything is new except my radeon x800. I am doing a complete system and I just want to get good quality stuff that will last. I am not planning to overclock (not yet anyways), just have something reliable that will satisfy all of my needs. I am currently running an athlon 2400 XP with 768mb of ram, so anything would be better hehehe. DonNugaul, I am interested to know what you would get along with the Pentium D 940? Your input is appreciated. Budget is tough to gauge, because it will be based off what I will making in the summer, but my guess is around 800-900? That too low, or could I build something quality for less? Please don’t laugh at my noob status too much
DonNagual
Posts: 2,382 +5
-
-
#8
Will you also need a monitor? WindowsXP? Keyboard? Mouse?
You are going to use your current graphics card, is it AGP or PCI-e? If it’s AGP, that’s a bit of a tough spot to be in….
For building a new system, I’d highly recommend getting a motherboard with a PCI-express graphics slot, not an AGP slot. This would mean you COULDN’T use your X800 (which will hurt) but what it will do is future proof your system for you.
AGP graphics are a dead end street. In a year, or more importantly two years, you will not be able to upgrade your card to anything usable, as AGP cards will not be powerful enough. You will be wishing you had a PCIe slot.
Can you sell your X800?
mofo91105
-
-
#9
I have a 15 inch LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse, and XP Pro.
I am upgrading the following: CPU, Motherboard, RAM, Power Supply, Case, Heatsink and Fans, Hard Drive, and 1 new DVD Burner
I never paid for the X800, so I guess I could give it back to my buddy. Also, I was planning on getting a mobo with pci-e slot since most of the dual core mobos are pci-e equipped. I don’t game so I don’t need a phenominal video card, i just want something decent.
DonNagaul, hopefully now you can make recommendations knowing what I am upgrading. I am basing things around the Pentium D 940, so i would like to hear what you would buy considering I don’t game. I am not looking to make some super fast machine, just something that is versatile and not too much on the wallet.
DonNagual
Posts: 2,382 +5
-
-
#10
Very nice high end motherboard: ASUS P5WD2 Premium $197
http://www. newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131534
Very nice budget level motherboard: Gigabyte GA-8I945P-G $99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813128294
CPU: Intel Pentium D 940 Presler $256
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116239
Ram: CORSAIR VALUE SELECT 1GB (2 x 512MB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM Unbuffered DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) $77
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145568
or
CORSAIR ValueSelect 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM Unbuffered DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) $146
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145098
Case (this one is tough to recommend, as everyones taste is different)
Antec LifeStyle SONATA II w/ Antec 450w psu $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811129155
Happens to be the case I have, and I love it. The pics don’t do it justice. Very elegant high gloss black case. You can see your face in it. And with a high quality antec 450w power supply, you can’t go wrong for the price.
DVD multi drive:
NEC 16X DVD±R DVD Burner Black IDE Model ND-3550A $38 (combo with case special)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16827152055
Hard drive:
Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB 3.5″ SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive — OEM $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144701
Graphics card: XFX 6800 XTreme 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16
This card is WAY more powerful than you will need (as you don’t play any games), however the price is absolutely amazing at $99 after the mail-in rebate. You won’t find a better deal right now. With windows Vista coming out, you’ll want a 256mb graphics card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150130
Heatsink/fans: personally, I’d go with stock.
So with the higher end asus motherboard and only 1Gb ram, this totals $850
mofo91105
-
-
#11
DonNagaul, that was just what I was looking for! Everything you recommended looks great and I sincerely appreciate your input. This will make piecing everything together a lot easier.
I do wonder though why you say just go with the stock heatsink? I have heard that these Pentium Ds run very hot, and i wouldn’t want to fry a nice new dual core.
Again though, thanks for everything
DonNagual
Posts: 2,382 +5
-
-
#12
Of course you can go for a 3rd party heatsink should you choose to. You won’t overheat with the stock fan (assuming your seat it correctly and put some good ol’ arctic silver in there), but a 3rd party fan will keep it even cooler, and if you choose well, quieter.
A lot of it depends on the case you get too. The case i have recommended above is more focused on keeping things quiet, so if you do go for the case I have recommended, perhaps a nice Zalman CPU heatsink/fan would be a good idea since the case only has one 12″ fan blowing out the back.
Or you could upgrade to a great cooling case such as the P180
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811129154
(note, it doesn’t come with a PSU, so you’d need to add one to your list in this case)
mofo91105
-
-
#13
I was thinking about the Zalman, just to be safe and also to have it be queit.
Does the Zalman clear everything (space wise) in the case you linked me from newegg?
Antec LifeStyle SONATA II w/ Antec 450w psu $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ…N82E16811129155
DonNagual
Posts: 2,382 +5
-
-
#14
Which Zalman fan are you going to get? Go to their website and tell me how much space they say the heatsink/fan needs, and I will measure to see if there is enough clearance.
It won’t be exact since my mobo and CPU are different from yours, but should be close enough to give you an idea.