Windows XP 64-Bit Preview: First Look at Athlon 64 Performance
by Wesley Fink on February 7, 2004 12:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Windows XP 64-Bit Preview: Performance Test Configuration
|
Athlon64 FX51 Performance
Test Configuration |
|
|
Processor(s): |
AMD Athlon64 FX51 |
|
Operating
Systems: |
Windows XP 64-Bit Preview Edition Windows XP Professional, SP1 |
|
RAM: |
2 x 512MB Mushkin ECC Registered High Performance 2:3:2 #991125 |
|
Hard
Drive(s): |
Seagate 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer) |
|
Video
AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: |
VIA Hyperion BETA for XP64 (2/04/04) VIA Hyperion 4.51 (12/02/03) |
|
Video
Card(s): |
Albatron FX5950 Ultra 256MB |
|
Video
Drivers: |
nVidia WHQL 52.14 for Win XP64 nVidia WHQL 52.16 for XP |
|
Motherboards: |
Asus
SK8V (VIA K8T800) |
Since we
awarded Editor's
Choice to the Asus SK8V for top Socket 940 board, we decided to run all
benchmarks with the SK8V with Dual-Channel Registered Memory and the top-line
Athlon 64 FX51. The 3400+ runs at the
same real speed as the FX51, but uses Single-Channel unbuffered memory. We plan to take a closer look comparing the performance of the
3400+ and FX51 on XP64 in a future article.
Please forgive us for not including it here - but we wanted to get some
benchmarks to you as soon as possible.
Consider this a preview - with more to come.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
Staples - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
I really hope those game scores are due to premature video drivers. As you see, Halo did almost as well as the 32bit platform and as you should know, DX9 games are almost solely based on the GPU. So if Halo did almost as well on both platforms, it says that the video drivers can't be that premature, either that or explanation 2 is that we can expect a huge increase in DX9 games.Corsairpro - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
Too bad there weren't any decent video drivers. Every one who just glances at the numbers is going to claim "The message is clear x86-64 has failed" when it comes to games. Oh well, more supply for me to buy!buleyb - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
Not that I'm not excited, but you should point out Wes that this isn't just a 64bit OS, but an AMD 64bit OS, meaning that the performance improvement has a lot to do with the new general purpose registers and such. I don't want people thinking that 64bit is a pure performance improvement, because it really isn't by itself.But still, nice work :)
KristopherKubicki - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
Skol. Well done Wes.saechaka - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
boy am i glad i just bought this athlon 64 notebook. huurraaayy for meWesley Fink - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
There are times editing would be useful in this comments section. XP, and not Halo, had about the same performance.Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
Halo was the game that was close to the same performance in XP and XP64, and not Halo as #4 pointed out. Since X2 is DirectX 8.1 with heavy use of transform and lighting effects, it has little relevance to the Halo performance. Corrected in the article.Emma - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
"It is very interesting that the DirectX 9 game Halo is already very close to 32-bit performance at only 4% slower than 32-bit performance. This means the newest 32-bit games, or at least the newest games from Microsoft, may be as fast on 64-bit as 32-bit at the launch of XP64, or possibly even faster."Can you clarify this please. The table shows there being a -19.1% change...
Boonesmi - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
by the way ive read in several threads of guys using pcmark 2004 and getting incredible fps in divx encodingEcmaster76 - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
Very interesting. That 15% increase in media encoding should have the AMD execs laughing maniacally. That might end up getting them a 15% increase in market share.