Intel's Pentium 4 570J - Will 3.8GHz do the trick?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 14, 2004 10:56 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Gaming Performance
Doom 3
Counterstrike: Source
Half Life 2 is coming this week, here's a preview of what CPUs will run the game the best:
Halo
Star Wars Battlefront
Battlefield Vietnam
Unreal Tournament 2004
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
An oldie but a goodie, Enemy Territory is still played quite a bit and makes for a great CPU test as today's GPUs can easily handle the rendering load of the Quake 3 based game.
The Sims 2
While a clear departure from our usual game tests, The Sims 2 is more popular than any of the other games we've featured here in certain crowds - it is effectively the Doom 3 of those who prefer life-simulation to first person shooters. And interestingly enough, it makes for a very impressive CPU benchmark.
Far Cry
Warcraft III
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
Aha! Thx guys!michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
I meant #8 not #6 for the above post sorrymichaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
#6 You are right probably since they didn't mention 754 and that would give more parameters for the test. Good catch. They simply downclocked the 130nm 939 3500+.Glassmaster - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
#6: I'm pretty sure they downclocked a 130nm 939 3500+ for those measurements.Glassmaster.
Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
Quote:"[...]We also included power consumption figures from 130nm Socket-939 Athlon 64 3200+ and 3000+ chips, which as you may know, do not exist.[...]"
Mea culpa...
Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
Hmmmm so 2CH isn't like dual channel or? coz afaik 754 is single channel!Thx for the info :)
michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
#4. They are using the 754 130nm core 3000+. That is why they say 90nm beside the 3500+ and not any of the other AMD64'sDustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
I don't understand how the A64 3500 90nm consumes less power then the A64 3000 (512/2CH) that is supposed to be also a 90nm part...michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
The power consumption at load is a tad high for the 3.8 at being nearly twice as high as the 3500+. 226 vs. 114. That trend is obviously why Intel killed the 4.0 and beyond and the Tejas I would imagine. I wonder how much the 600 series chips from Intel will be with the extremely expensive L2 cache vs the current 3.6 and 3.8 chips.AtaStrumf - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link
I've probably said this before, but I really like those tables with % numbers. You might wonna switch everything over to it. It gives a much more precise picture of diffence than those graphs.