Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part II: A Deeper Look
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 6, 2005 12:23 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Gaming Multitasking Scenario 1: Heavy Downloading
In the first article, we ran under the assumption that gamers wanted to have as little running in the background while playing a game. While that ended up being true for a lot of folks, we also received quite a bit of feedback asking for some pretty intense multitasking tests while gaming. The requests were far more intense than even the most strenuous setup that we came up with, but because of the demand for such benchmarks, we spent some time putting a few together. Note that this is by no means supposed to be an exhaustive comparison of all gaming scenarios. We are working on creating more and we apologize if your desired scenario didn't make it into this review, but keep sending in suggestions on how you play and we'll do our best to model some benchmarks after how you use your computer.
The first test basically performs all of the tasks from our first Multitasking Scenario, with the exception of DVD Shrink. We have Firefox loaded, but with all 12 tabs from the third test, iTunes is running and playing a playlist, and Newsleecher is downloading headers. We kept Newsleecher in this test simply because it's the best way for us to be able to have a fairly CPU/disk intensive downloading task running in the background while still maintaining some semblance of repeatability. So, replace Newsleecher with BitTorrent or any other resource-consuming downloading that you may be doing and you're good to go.
Of course, Norton AntiVirus 2004 and Microsoft's AntiSpyware Beta were also running in the background.
First, we ran our Doom 3 benchmark:
The tables have now been turned. While the Athlon 64 held a 30% lead with no multitasking, it's now outpaced by both Intel processors, with the Pentium D holding a 25% performance advantage.
It's no surprise that having two cores yield less of a performance impact to having more applications run in the background.
Doom 3 was actually quite playable on both machines; although, loading the game and the levels took a lot longer on the A64, and there's a lot of stuttering during the actual game.
The Pentium 4 platform was quite a bit better, but there is a definite reduction in performance. Obviously, the Pentium D did the best out of the group, but you still notice the performance drop.
Next, we ran the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory benchmark:
Once again, the Pentium D is ahead of the Athlon 64, but the improvement in minimum frame rates is particularly impressive. The Pentium D offers twice the minimum frame rate of the Athlon 64 in this scenario.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
106 Comments
View All Comments
GregL - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
P.S. I love your site... been reading it for years now.GregL - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Anand,Thanks for the explanation and the quick reply.
Have an excellent day,
Greg
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
GregLLast time I checked (which admittedly was a while ago), SMP support was broken in the later builds of Q3A. I can't remember if it was Quake 3 or the combination of Q3 and ATI/NV drivers, but the performance stopped improving.
Take care,
Anand
GregL - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
I know Quake3 is dated but how about a quick benchmark with the new dual core CPU. Quake 3 is supposed to support dual core.seta r_smp "1"
Thanks,
Greg
Goi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
I didn't know 50 cent was an avid reader of ATTuborg - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
It`s nice to finaly see some competition from Intel.They slapped together theyr old stuff in a new package. But we all know that a new package isen`t going to change anything(Like wrapping s*** in gold paper).
Be happy as longe as it last, and have your 15min of fame.
Remember they rushed out the dual core, and they did it for you IndelJugen!.
Viditor - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Thanks for the article Anand...none of us take Charlie seriously anyway..."AMD's dual core will be quite impressive, even more so than Intel's"
I am hearing the same. There is some serious research work being done in the TV and Film industry right now with the dualcore Opterons, and it is MOST impressive! Still under NDA (as are we all), I can only say that the results so far have been much better than expected!
Son of a N00b - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Thank You Anand for the great article, especially the info on the NCQ. Great writing, and overall a very good read.btw, I understand how fusterated you must feel making these benchmarks, not having things work, trying to remember all the things you want/have to do next, ect......Keep it up Anand, that is why you are the best!...try to get some sleep though m8 :-P
I would probably say that the 2.2 ghz from AMD it would not be compared to the dualCPU in this article because if the 2.2 is going to probably be the FX line, then it would be compared with the top of the line of Intel's...remember this was an article about "value" dual cores (oxymoron ;-))...so due to price and probably performace it would not be paired with the Pentium D at 2.8...sort of like AMD's naming scheme, an AMD 2800 at 1.8 ghz matches up with a 2.8 ghz Intel...so I would assume that AMD's biggest baddest dualy will blow Intel out of the water...and not because i am an incessant AMD fanboy because i am an avid gamer, but becuase of AMD's past performace, and AMD architechure is designed for dual core. We shall see, wh shall see...
*STATEMENT: The author of this post is not hereby responsible for any grammatical errors, typing, or syntax, of any kind.* lol
Googer - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
In adition to my #57 post,In the future I cannot Imagine the power requrements of CPU's they may end up needing their own 500watt dedicated supply and a second one for HDD's, GPU's, Fans, motherboards, and accessories.
Googer - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
The only thing more ineffieciant than a 250watt fully loaded Prescott is the old eniac, It was said that when it was turned on the Whole City of Philadelphia would go in to a brown out. I am afraid that modern processors are taking steps back instead of forward.