General Performance and Media Encoding
Winstones follow an expected pattern with Business Winstone 2004 performing about the same as a similar speed single core CPU. Multimedia Content Creation, however, has some components which benefit from the improved multitasking of the dual-core CPU and it performs better on the dual-core processor. Both Winstones scale very well with CPU speed, so we see a sizable boost in performance at the overclocked 2.7GHz setting.
PCMark2004 is astonishingly sensitive to the multitasking advantages of the dual core 4200+. At stock speed the 4200+ outperforms the higher speed 4000+ by over 35%. PCMark2004 has performed best on the Intel platform in the past, but that advantage appears gone with the launch of the dual-core Athlon 64. We were unable, however, to get PCMark2004 to work at overclocked speeds on the X2 processor. Tests would run, but PCMark04 refused to generate a PCMark2004 score even at modest overclocks. Since Futuremark is preparing to launch PCMark2005 shortly, we suspect this anomaly will be corrected in the new version.
Our AutoGK 1.6 Media Encoding benchmark dramatically shows the impact of Dual-Core on Encoding speed. Comparing the 4200+ to the higher speed single-core 4000+ we find encoding jumps to 68.6 FPS from 48.5 on the single-core. This is a 41% performance improvement. Overclocking the 4200+ to 2.7GHz raises the encoding speed to 82.8 FPS.
Media Encoding was one area where Intel continued to enjoy a small advantage, but it certainly appears the dual-core Athlon 64 will be an excellent choice for media encoding.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
View All Comments
cryptonomicon - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#42 you are a moron. if their 4200 was really cherry picked, they would have it at 3ghz on air. i think this is valid. 2.6-2.7ghz is average ground on the DFI board with 90nm proc, and i see overclocking results every day. its not extordinary.end of story
DavidHull - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
This article is crap. As long as Anandtech uses cherry-picked processors directly from the manufacturer, it is no more than hired advertising. What happened to journalistic integrity? Do you think that AMD is going to send you a randomly picked processor from the line? How about you test my processor that I bought from a retailer and they we'll talk about how good XX CPU really is.phaxmohdem - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#38, I was kind of pissed about that myself, however I have to wonder, lots of times the prices chip manufacturers quote, are for retailers at a quantity of 1000 chips or more. Perhaps that is why? OR perhaps too many geeks spooged prematurely and are willing to shell out extra cash on inflated prices for new and top of the line shiznat. Who knows. All I know is I"m stuck on socket 940 for a while :(Klaasman - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
I have tested Battlefield2 with 1 gig of ram and 2 gig of ram. With 1 gig, it uses about 675mb. With 2 gig, it uses about 750mb. And still has 725mb in swap. It should use more but don't for some reason.miketheidiot - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
i agree with #17, rome: total war definately needs to be added to the game benchmarks, especailly for CPU tests. I'm not sure if its ram or processor limited, but it easily brings my 2.55ghz winchester and 1gig of ram to its knees in some of the larger battles.yacoub - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
Btw I like how the AMD chart shows the 4200+ sold at around $530 but if you check the RTPE, the cheapest is $575 plus shipping. =PSilthDraeth - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
I believe Val brings up interesting points. I would like to see benchmarks of identicly systems, except for the amount of RAM. This would prove if his perceptions have merit. I believe they do, but I do not have any benchmarks to prove it.Gatak - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
#35You are right that overclocking is highly random. All chips are made with lots of things in mind. For example different target models, performance, and not to forget minimum life expectancy.
If you overclock and stress the components you _WILL_ reduce the lifetime. Also, things like temperature also affect both achievable performance and lifetime. If you increase the temperature by 10c you would reduce the life expectancy by half!
The amount you can overclock is usually the margin you have against lifetime and stability.
fishbits - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
"We have asked AMD for a 4400+ and 4800+ for comparison"OK, non-overclocker questions about that: My understanding that the overclocking of a chip can vary from production run to production run, and even individual CPU to individual CPU. So wouldn't any CPU (or GPU etc) manufacturer test some of their CPUs and set aside a box full of the best overclockers to be sent to review sites, to give the impression that that's what the average one can achieve? I guess this kind of arrangement is a necessity though so that you have a sample in a timely fashion.
Granted in the real world there's money concerns, availability concerns, etc. But wouldn't it theoretically be better to buy a random one from a random vendor who doesn't know it's going to reviewers? If it is an issue in any way in OC situations, maybe it's worth noting early on that the sample was provided to the staff by the manufacturer, but then again perhaps that should go without saying.
val - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
***75-80 percent of available main...****