ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components
Smartphones & tablets
Systems
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES

AMD Athlon 64 FX-60: A Dual-Core farewell to Socket-939

 by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 9, 2006 11:59 PM EST
94 Comments | Add A Comment
94 Comments
3D Rendering Performance using 3dsmax 7

Once again, we're using an updated version of the SPECapc 3dsmax test for version 7 of the application.  The scenes being rendered haven't actually changed, but the reference numbers used to compute the composite scores have, so these scores aren't directly comparable to results from earlier SPECapc tests.

3dsmax 7 - SPECapc Benchmark

The performance domination continues in the SPECapc 3dsmax 7 benchmark; this time, regaining the crown by slightly outperforming the new Pentium Extreme Edition 955 by 4%. The use of Hyper Threading helps the Pentium Extreme Edition a lot here, and it is one thing that AMD does lack, but despite the disadvantage performance under 3dsmax is in AMD's territory.

Overall Performance using WorldBench 5 Media Encoding Performance using DVD Shrink, WME9, Quicktime and iTunes
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

94 Comments

View All Comments

  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Yes, It is well known that P4 need more power than X2, but P4 is still able to overclock.
    While X2 need less power than P4, but both of them(anand & xbitlabs) find that they can't OC X2 any more (15X).

  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    In fact, those tests show that:
    X2 is overclocked in those benchmarks still slower then P4.

    We find the truth.
    Without OC:
    955 is 3.46GHz, FX-60 is 2.6GHz --> the ratio is 1.33 (3.46/2.6). -->In most tests, X2 is better than P4.

    OC:
    955 is 4.26GHz, FX-60 is 2.9GHz -->Now, the ratio is 1.46 (4.26/2.9). -->P4 starts to be better than X2.

    It is very simple:
    The ratio

  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    quote:
    In fact, those tests show that:
    X2 is overclocked in those benchmarks still slower then P4.


    p4 wins one test the others it is way behind. you reversed it. p4 overclocked is still slower in those benchmarks.

    overclocked
    FX 2.8/ FX 2.6/ XE 4.266

    UT 2004 : 95.8 / 90.5 / 82.4
    Cinebench : 963 / 891 / 928

    only tests they did overclocked. p4 wins none of them. it is just edges above or around the normal FX 60.


    ow yeah your ratio... you have found a way for perfect scaling ? great, there will be people intrested....
    not even talking about the fact that your primary ratio is wrong because @ those frequencys p4 wins nonthing, so is not even equal. and oced is comes close it will probably win some and lose some (like in those 2 test) so then they are about equal.

    so the more accurate ratio will be 1.40-1.50. for equal performance. in which case p 4 should run above 4.5GHz before it has a noticeable gap over the FX60 overall.....

  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    P4 better than X2.
    Ratio is the key.

    The ratio below 1.33 -- P4 is behide.
    ratio above 1.4x -- P4 is competitive. Intel 4.26GHz VS AMD 2.9GHz

    For the ratio of intel 820 VS AMD 3800+ 165 170? see the benchmark of spec cpu2000 rates for 2 core 1 chip:
    The float point performance(under windows OS/32-bit):

    PD 820 SPECfp_rate_base2000 29.9 SPECfp_rate2000 30.0
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...
    170(939-pin 2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 25.2 SPECfp_rate2000 26.3
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...

    We don't find the benchmark of 165 and 3800+, but we find the benchmark of 175.
    170(939-pin 2.2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 26.2 SPECfp_rate2000 27.3
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...

    We don't find the benchmark of both PD and X2/opteron dc under windows OS/64bit, so we can not compare the dual-core float point performance 64-bit directly.

    The test--SPECfp_rate is the most important test for CPU float performance. AMD approbate SPECfp_rate for testing dual-core's FP performance.AMD think it is a fair test.

  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Edit:
    175(939-pin 2.2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 26.2 SPECfp_rate2000 27.3
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...

    It is not 170.

  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    ProLiant DL145 G2 (AMD Opteron (TM) 275) 2 cores, 1 chip, 2 cores/chip 30.3 32.4

  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    We find the 270(2GHz) FP benchmark of 32-bit under windows OS.
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/...
    270(not 939-pin ) SPECfp_rate_base2000 27.1 SPECfp_rate2000 28.3
    But PD820 SPECfp_rate_base2000 29.x SPECfp_rate2000 30.x
    better
    Now, ratio is 2.8/2=1.4.

  • Questar - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    You know, I pretty much favor Intel chips, but I still wish you stop your ranting.

  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    You know, I do not favor Intel chips, and I wish you stop your favor of Intel.
    Because we know the spec is not favor of Intel, and AMD knew it.

  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    rates
    275
    It is FP benchmark under 64-bit and Linux, but not the FP benchmark under 32-bit and windows.
    And 275 is 2.2GHz

    PD820 is 2.8GHz
    ratio: 2.8/2.2 = 1.22(only).
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now