Performance Test Configuration
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD Opteron Socket 940 at 2.0GHz (9x222) 444FSB AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz, 400MHz FSB) Intel Dual Xeon 3.06 (1 Mb Cache)* 533FSB Intel Pentium 4 at 3.0GHz (800FSB) |
| RAM: | 4 x 512MB Legacy ECC at 2.5-3-4-5 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II 2 x 256MB Corsair PC3200 TwinX LL (v1.1 or 1.2) Modules (SPD rated) |
| Hard Drive(s): | Maxtor 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer) Western Digital 120GB 7200 RPM Special Edition (8MB Buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | NVIDIA nForce version 2.45 (7/29/2003) NVIDIA nForce version 2.03 (1/30/03) VIA 4in1 Hyperion 4.47 (May 20, 2003) |
| Video Card(s): | ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (AGP 8X) |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 3.6 |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | nVidia Reference nForce3 @ 222.0 MHz FSB DFI NFII Ultra LANParty (nForce2 Ultra 400) @ 201.35 MHz FSB Gigabyte 7NNXP (nForce2 Ultra 400) @ 202.77MHz FSB Soltek KT600-R (KT600)@200.01 FSB Asus PC-DL Dual 3.06 Xeon* @200.0 MHz Asus P4C800-E @200.5 MHz ABIT IS7-G (865PE) ABIT IC7-G (875P) Gigabyte 8KNXP (875P) |
| *IMPORTANT: While the Dual Xeon 3.06 Asus PC-DL was included for comparison, please keep in mind that our standard benchmarks are not multi-threading enabled. Results should not be considered a comparison of multi-threading to a single processor. Since the Dual 875 is being targeted at the Gaming and Enthusiast markets, we believe it is fair to include the Dual Xeon 875 in comparisons to other solutions that also target the gaming and enthusiast market. | |
Recent performance tests on Intel 875/865 boards used 2x512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II Double-bank memory. Previous tests of Intel motherboards used 2x256MB Corsair 3200LL Ver. 1.1.
All performance tests run on nForce2 Ultra 400 motherboards utilized two 256MB Corsair TwinX LL PC3200 (v1.1 or 1.2) modules set to SPD timings in Dual-Channel DDR400 mode.
All performance tests that ran on the KT600-based motherboard used two 256MB Corsair TwinX LL PC3200 (v1.1 or 1.2) Corsair modules in DDR400 mode. 4-bank interleave and the highest available timing option (Turbo or Ultra) was used.
All performance tests were run with the ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32.
Additions to Performance Tests
We have standardized on ZD Labs Internet Content Creation Winstone 2003 and ZD Labs Business Winstone 2002 for system benchmarking.Game Benchmarks
We have added Gun Metal DirectX Benchmark 2 from Yeti Labs as a standard game benchmark. We are also evaluating the new X2 Benchmark, which includes Transform and Lighting effects as part of the standard benchmark. Results are reported here for reference.Jedi Knight II has been dropped form our standard Benchmark Suite. We were forced to use different patches for operation on Athlon and Intel Pentium 4, which made cross-platform comparison difficult, if not impossible. In addition, Opteron/Athlon64 requires a third patching variation for benchmarking. JK2 uses a Quake engine, and we are continuing Quake3 as a standard benchmark for the time being.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
If you're going to compare an overclocked Opteron to the Pentium 4, shouldn't you at least use the fastest P4 available (3.2ghz vs 3.0) ?Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
LOL, you mean Onlt = only? whilee = while and 22Hz = 222Mhz=Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
You fools! Onlt the HT-bus was overclocked not the memory bus! You guys need to educate about hammer systems. I sugest you get yourself and nf3 then you can see that you can overclock the HT bus and not the memory!! The test is very valid cause the 2Ghz is the real frequency whilee the 22Ghz is plain bus HTB speed and has nothing to do with the memory controller or memory bus speed.dvinnen - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
#39: You twit, I never said that the HT line had anything to do with the memory. It is used for the clock of the computer. THat was what they where ocing, not the memory.#44: I also dought there will be that mch difference in proformance between the dual channel and single channel. Just as the current athlon dosen't really beniffent from the extra bandwidth, I dought the Athlon64 will. And the fact that this is an ethuist website is exactly why they should be doing a preview of it.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
Can I please have benchmarks under linux compiled in 64-bit mode :). I disagree with your "we will have to wait for 64-bit windows" philosophy. :)Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
There is either a lot of AMD bias, ignorance, or both in this article. There is no way that the performance of an upcoming true Athlon64 can be compared to a current overclocked Opteron. The Athlon64 is going to be a socket 754 single channel DDR400 solution that will barely keep up with an Athlon XP 3200+ let alone a P4 3.2 GHz or upcoming Prescott 3.4 GHz. The author should have compared the overclocked Opteron in his article to an upcoming Athlon FX which is just a remarked socket 940 Opteron that runs dual channel DDR400 ECC registered memory. The only difference is in price - which seems funny that is is never mentioned in articles where AMD wins but when Intel wins it's all about COST!!! Athlon64 socket 754 is expected to be price competitive with current Athlon XP 3200+ since the Athlon64 will initially be marked either 3100+ or 3200+. However, Athlon FX is expected to sell anywhere from $700 - $900 USD or even more at launch. So once you buy the 6-layer motherboard, the ECC registered DDR400 memory, and the Athlon FX, you'll have paid almost twice as much for a system that is almost "faster than a P4 3.2 GHz in every way" as some Fudo person stated it on the inquirer.net. I'm collecting a compilation of all of these hype articles to send back to the authors after the real launch when the real truth is known. AMD has been promising that the 64-bit Hammer was going to be the next best thing to sliced bread for the last 3 years and that the Athlon64 was going to wipe Intel off the face of the earth for the past year or so and they still haven't delivered. Everyone who is waiting to get an Athlon FX better pre-order one pretty quick because there will probably only be about 10,000 available world-wide this year.Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
Reply to #41It is nice to support Athlon 64, but dont tell people that it would recieve an 1 MB L2 cache, as AMD is already building 512 KB CPU's to ship on the launch date.
And if gunmetal was a good DX9 benchmark, my FX 5200 would be a good R 9800 alternative, and you can see in other reviews that this is not so.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
And #39, you're stupid. They overclocked the FSB to get it to 2.0GHz while keeping the memory at DDR400. You can do that with modern boards and you can certainly do it with A64 boards or Opteron boards.Get a clue.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
#40, get a clue. The enthusiast edition of the Athlon 64 will have the exact same L2 cache as the Opteron (1MB). In fact, this same high-end Athlon 64 will have a higher clock speed (probably 2.2GHz) and will be identical to the Opteron. Therefore, this review is VERY useful.And no, you're wrong about Gunmetal, it's a very good DX9 benchmark.
Based on these facts, this review gave the A64 exactly the credit it's due.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link
A point that I think was overlooked in this review is that the Athlon 64 has a lot less L2 cache than the tested Opteron, about a P4 to Celeron difference. So you might be very dissapointed when you actually buy an Athlon 64, when you compare it to the review.Besides, the best score was made in an added benchmark, gun metal, that seems to use some kind of software rendering for 3d, a very unrealistic scenario. I think so because my Geforce FX 5200 scores almost the same as the tested Radeon 9800, as I have one of the tested CPU's.
And another point of intrest is the video editing, that is hardly covered and does not even get its own part in the review, altrough this might be the only point where consumers actually use their full CPU power, as gaming is more a GPU thing, and anything above 60 fps does not make it more fun than just 60 fps. And it is also the only point where the Opteron seems to lack to most other CPU's.
Based on my other points, I have to conclude that Athlon 64 got more credit here than it deserved.