Content Creation and General Usage Performance

AnandTech has always considered Content Creation and General Usage benchmarks very important in looking at the real-world performance of computers. Intel has led in this area lately, in particular Content Creation, and certainly PC-DL did nothing to change that. The Asus PC-DL dominates Content Creation in the Multimedia Winstone, exactly as we expected it would.

The General Usage or Office Productivity Winstone is another story, however, with PC-DL coming in at the bottom of our chart. In this benchmark, AMD processors have done better, and AMD performs better across the board.


High-End Workstation Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 8, 2003 - link

    Xeon DPs are still at the 533 right now. Xeon MPs are worse off at just 400. Faster Xeons are just around the corner though.
  • sprockkets - Monday, September 8, 2003 - link

    Aren't the Xenons at 667FSB? But as usual, they share the bandwidth, which is really bad since they crave bandwidth, but good for memory access. But clearly the HT idea is faster.

    Running though at 800 maybe really too hard to do, or not ?
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 8, 2003 - link

    Remember Xeons were built for the server market where stability is king. Intel knew this and this is why the 533MHz FSB has stuck around so long. As Intel rolls out more 800Mhz FSB chipsets and P4 chips the 800Mhz FSB Xeon should follow several months later. The same process could be seen back when the 400Mhz FSB Xeons were around.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 8, 2003 - link

    Well don't take my word for it, wait for the results yourself and then you can admit you are a fool! Clueless kids looking to argue... What a waste of time.
  • Anonymous User - Sunday, September 7, 2003 - link

    Is HyperThreading enabled for those Dual Xeons?
  • Anonymous User - Sunday, September 7, 2003 - link

    @13 "it would not improve performance enough to even be competitive"

    lol... what reviews have you been reading? the extra fsb makes a huge difference! THG overclocked the Xeons by 7 mhz and averaged somewhere around 4-4.5% performance increase! That's pretty damn significant. Even bringing the Xeons up to 667 FSB would make it a very good performer!
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    Don't believe everything you read... ESPECIALLY from Intel. Go read THG's review and *maybe* you'll have a better appreciation for why Intel ain't likely to release a 800 MHS FSB Xeon any time soon and it would not improve performance enough to even be competitive when a 2.0 Gig. Opteron/A64 blows the doors off a dual 3.06 Gig. Xeon. If you wanna feel bad... look at how the dual Opteron beats up on a dual Xeon.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    Read the news -- Intel has said it WILL produce 800Mhz FSB Xeons (when is a bit of a question: the last report I read over a month ago said Q1 '04 but they may have moved it up -- that's what this article seems to imply).
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    There are technical reasons why the Xeon can't do 800 MHz FSB. Tom's Hardware went into some of the reasons in their dual Xeon test where Opteron also smoked the Xeon even with the new L3 cache. The reality is that Intels current processors have just become obsolete with Opteron and A64. The benches for A64 will show equal or better performance for a single CPU than Opteron. For multi-processor systems above (4) CPUs the Opteron has an advantage over the A64. As the benches show Intel simply has nothing to compete in either the desktop or server segments and soon the A64 will be available in laptop to so Intel needs to get it in gear. Needless to say all Opteron/A64 CPUs will run both 32-bit and 64-bit O/S's. Linux has been available and Windoze will be available soon. AMD has definitety made a qunatum performance leap over Intel this time, no doubt.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    Remember that server boards have to go through more stringent evaluation then desktop boards. I don't think Intel even considers 800Mhz FSB stable enough for their Xeons yet, and it's a shame. There is only so much increasing your L2 cache size can do for you. I don't think you can use 2.4Cs on this board even if you could find a socket adapter -- remember the 'overclocking settings' were limited to 133->165 (that's almost the 667Mhz FSB that Intel might move the Xeon to soon). So you'd be underclocking it by at least 17%, and at that point why bother? That's if you can find some video card that will take a 79Mhz AGP speed -- good luck with that.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now