Multitasking Scenario 5: Compiling

Our final non-gaming multitasking scenario is quite possibly our most strenuous. It involves the following background tasks: iTunes playing a playlist, Firefox with the same 13 tabs open as in our other tests, and Newsleecher updating newsgroup headers. On top of those tasks, we compiled Firefox as well as ran our DVD Shrink operation on the "Star Wars Episode VI" DVD. Firefox remained the application in focus during the test.

The results were fairly interesting. First, let's look at how long it took us to compile Firefox:

Compiling + Multitaking Environment

The Athlon 64 X2 4400+ was stronger than either of the Intel CPUs in compiler performance, so it is no surprise that it is faster here. You'll notice that the single core Athlon 64 FX-55 isn't present in this chart - you'll find out why in a moment, but first, let's look at the performance of our DVD Shrink task that also ran in the background:

DVD Shrink + Multitasking Environment

Once again, AMD is ahead of the competition, thanks to better general performance as well as all of the benefits of their low latency architecture. As for why the single core Athlon 64 FX-55 wasn't included here, well in this particular test, the DVD Shrink operation would have taken over 13 hours - which doesn't exactly fit with our graph's scale. The compiler operation also took significantly longer to complete. Whichever task completed first would eventually have let the other finish sooner, but we didn't care to find out as it was already ridiculously longer than any of the dual core solutions.

Multitasking Scenario 4: 3D Rendering Gaming Multitasking Scenario
POST A COMMENT

144 Comments

View All Comments

  • patrick0 - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link

    If they would have the dual-core in stores in June, I would buy one, but this isn't the case, so I'll buy San-Diego 4000+.
    I'll upgrade when quad-core will be out.
    Reply
  • Barneyk - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link

    oh, you cant edit your comments...

    Anyway, im really excited about this development of computing, not having good multitasking ability feels so outdated, i've been crying about that for years, and fianlly its here...
    Well, almost, and its probably another year before i can afford it, but still... :)
    Reply
  • Barneyk - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link

    test Reply
  • jvarszegi - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link

    Again, the lack of technical superiority of AT's "experts" is obvious. On SQL Server, you're not supposed to prepend stored-procedure names with "sp_", as it introduces a performance penalty. This is basic knowledge. Some have remarked before on how their .NET "experts" code like, um, transplanted ColdFusion "experts". :) Reply
  • Visual - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link

    a minor error: on page 12 right above the graph it says "The Dual Opteron 252's lead by 19% over the closest Xeon, which was the Quad Xeon 3.6 GHz 667MHz FSB" but the slowest xeon is the 3.3 GHz one. Reply
  • mechBgon - Saturday, April 23, 2005 - link

    Zebo... hehe, yep :D Reply
  • justly - Friday, April 22, 2005 - link

    An outstanding article about AMDs duel core, just what I would expect from Anandtech (to bad I had to go to techreport.com to read it). Reply
  • Zebo - Friday, April 22, 2005 - link

    Hahaha makes Chetta's drool: Looks just like you MECH.:) Reply
  • MACKTEK - Friday, April 22, 2005 - link

    I appreciate the article but am disappointed by the misleading title... AMD's dual core Opteron & Athlon 64 X2 - Server/Desktop Performance Preview. The 939 is not equal to 940. Also, the article clearly says
    COMPARE ATHLON 64 X2... right on the 1st page. In fact the article does not admit to "not having a real x2" until page 13. I love reading anandtech's articles and visit frequently... Perhaps a better title would have been... Preview of Athlon64 X2 using an Opteron CPU.
    Reply
  • mechBgon - Friday, April 22, 2005 - link

    http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/mechBgon/drool.jpg



    #82 says "and corporate PCs could work perfectly and more with a K5-K6/P2-P3."

    Ahhh, this again. You obviously haven't worked with a fully-armed installation of McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.0i. *evil grin* Hope you enjoyed your stay in 1999... welcome to 2005.

    ;)
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now