Dual Core Intel Platform Shootout - NVIDIA nForce4 vs. Intel 955X
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 14, 2005 1:01 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Business Application Performance
Business Winstone 2004
Business Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:
- Microsoft Access 2002
- Microsoft Excel 2002
- Microsoft FrontPage 2002
- Microsoft Outlook 2002
- Microsoft PowerPoint 2002
- Microsoft Project 2002
- Microsoft Word 2002
- Norton AntiVirus Professional Edition 2003
- WinZip 8.1
NVIDIA is normally the strongest performer in Business Winstone, but here, the nForce4 takes a close backseat to Intel's 955X. The two basically perform the same.
Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
SYSMark's Office Productivity suite consists of three tests, the first of which is the Communication test. The Communication test consists of the following:
"The user receives an email in Outlook 2002 that contains a collection of documents in a zip file. The user reviews his email and updates his calendar while VirusScan 7.0 scans the system. The corporate web site is viewed in Internet Explorer 6.0. Finally, Internet Explorer is used to look at samples of the web pages and documents created during the scenario."
The next test is Document Creation performance:
"The user edits the document using Word 2002. He transcribes an audio file into a document using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 6. Once the document has all the necessary pieces in place, the user changes it into a portable format for easy and secure distribution using Acrobat 5.0.5. The user creates a marketing presentation in PowerPoint 2002 and adds elements to a slide show template."
The final test in our Office Productivity suite is Data Analysis, which BAPCo describes as:
"The user opens a database using Access 2002 and runs some queries. A collection of documents are archived using WinZip 8.1. The queries' results are imported into a spreadsheet using Excel 2002 and are used to generate graphical charts."
NVIDIA is actually slightly stronger than Intel in the Office Productivity suite of SYSMark 2004. In the communication tests, we see that NVIDIA actually holds a 13% performance advantage. Given that the communication suite is particularly disk intensive, we will look at SATA controller performance later on in this article to see if NVIDIA possibly has a stronger SATA controller.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
Spajky - Saturday, May 7, 2005 - link
Some comments:Memory Performance:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
Here should be included also WinRAR´s built_in benchmark & hardware test" in KB/s,
since it can be treated as a real life memory subsystem benchmark (& NOT a Data
Compression Bench! for CPU for example)
WinRAR´s built_in benchmark & hardware test" :
some tests/benchmarks & explanation HOW IT WORKS, here:
http://freeweb.siol.net/jerman55/HP/benchMem.htm
Pontius - Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - link
Didn't realize there was no hardware XOR. Thanks for clearing that up elecrzy.xsilver, RAID 5 is a big deal and is a long way ahead of RAIDs 0 and 1. Most motherboards offer RAIDs 0 and 1, but only high end expensive ones offer onboard RAID 5. Without it, you need a SCSI or SATA RAID card which will run you a couple hundred bucks. To have that on a desktop board is a major deal. But again, since it's done by the CPU without XOR hardware, it's not that big a deal I guess.
elecrzy - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link
sorry i meant #88elecrzy - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link
#89: the chipset doesn't offer its own XOR processor for RAID 5 so it has to rely on the cpu to do the calcs. this basically means you lose alot of performance(high cpu usage) when compared to hardware raid cards.mickyb - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link
RAID 5 and 10 is indeed a big deal for a built in chipset. It is a little outside the scope for a desktop, but cool none the less. I would have to also give a win to nVidia for providing GbE on the chip. I guess Intel would rather people use their GbE separate chip.Zebo - Sunday, April 17, 2005 - link
Zebo - Sunday, April 17, 2005 - link
Intel has a nice chipset, as usual. Nvidia, as usual, clueless about audio desires which would add insignifigant price to chipset at great gains to most consumers. I don't really see the Nvidia recomendation at all unless you NEED, Sli. Intel has more feature, way better audio, the NCQ differences are really none and it's cheaper.xsilver - Sunday, April 17, 2005 - link
#88 -- I think it is old news... I think the older 9xx chipsets offered raid 0,1 for free so offering raid 5 on the newer chip may not be so crash hot??and questar, talking to you is a bit like talking to a brick wall....
a lot of us here already explained that we are arguing about performance NOT volume... what you specify as "qualifications" is due to the sheer volume intel ships.... most people are aware that AMD only has 15% of the market.
If IBM,HP,Dell dont want to "qualify" AMD systems, its their loss, not ours
but no matter how you argue it, AMD has the performance advantage on everything, high end, middle and low end right now and only the laptop pentium M is the performance advantage for intel right now
Pontius - Sunday, April 17, 2005 - link
Am I the only one that noticed that the Intel chipset supports on board RAID 5?!?! That's amazing! No need to buy expensive raid cards anymore. I'm surprised they didn't pay any attention to that in the article.stevty2889 - Saturday, April 16, 2005 - link
My case meets the standards for running prescotts..my 3.2 ES and my 2.8@3.5ghz ran perfectly fine in the same case, the 3.2ES also on the same motherboard, with all the same components, and neither my 2.8 or 3.2ES had the heat issues of my 3.4ghz chip. Not all of them run too hot, but some seem to do so no matter what cooling you throw at them. The 3.4 is still running warmer with water cooling, than my 3.2 ES(which I got from the chip loaner program) is with air.