Battle 4: AMD vs. Intel

Coming to our fourth and final battle of this Doom 3 comparison we have the comparison we've all been waiting for, AMD vs. Intel. For this comparison we benchmarked quite a few different CPUs, all K7 based processors (e.g. Athlon XP, Sempron 2800+) are colored green, all K8 based processors (e.g. Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, Sempron 3100+) are colored orange and all Intel processors are blue in the graphs:

The first thing you'll notice is that the top of the chart is dominated almost exclusively by AMD Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX processors. Even the Athlon 64 3400+ manages to outperform the almighty Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4, not to mention that the FX-53 distances itself from Intel's fastest by no less than 18%.

Making our way further down the chart we see that the Athlon 64 3000+ is quite possibly the best buy for excellent Doom 3 performance, weighing in right between the two Extreme Edition processors at less than 20% of the cost of those chips.

Next we have all of the Pentium 4s that manage to offer middle of the road performance under Doom 3, although we do see the K8 based Sempron 3100+ wedged in between the Prescott 3.2 and Prescott 3.0GHz CPUs.

Finally at the bottom we have the Athlon XPs as well as the lonely Celeron D, which is barely saved from a disappointing last place showing.

The standings remain the same at 1280x1024 as you can see below:

Celeron D vs. Sempron Final Words
POST A COMMENT

59 Comments

View All Comments

  • thatsright - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    Great article, but just one quibble. Is it just me, or does it sound like AMD paid AnandTech for the last sentence of the article: "In the end, the winner of the final battle is clear: the AMD Athlon 64 is the processor for Doom 3"

    It sounds like a perfect quote from the AMD marketing dept! LOL
    Reply
  • DAPUNISHER - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    Good stuff! That was the most entertaining set of benchies I've seen in awhile. D3 is evidently turning out to be a better benching tool than game =) Reply
  • kherman - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    Dear anandtech,

    Please do a similar benchmarking wtih system memmorry.

    Sincerely,
    me
    Reply
  • ViRGE - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    #9, Carmack has stated that Doom 3 does not have SMP support. Reply
  • CrimsonDeath - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    How about pumped up XP-M's? I got one running at 2700Mhz, that would make it better than most cpu's out there.
    Overclock till it burns, then overclock more!
    Reply
  • punko - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    Guess my XP 1800+ ain't gonna cut it . . .

    Reply
  • kherman - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    Well, my 2800+ is staying in my box! Reply
  • kherman - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    In the days of GPU shootouts, this article is an EXCELENT idea! Good work! Still have to read it though.

    It's funny to, because I'm contemplating a move to 1 gig of memmory.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    Just to clarify before the comments start, there are TWO 3400+ Athlon 64 as you will see in checking at New Egg for instance. The NEW 3400+ is Socket 754, runs at 2.4GHz and has 512k cache. The original 3400+ is still available and is Socket 754, runs at 2.2GHz, and has 1MB cache. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link

    Please keep in mind that the small Athlon 64 increases in Dual-Channel and Cache-size are cumulative. While it's true that Dual-Channel only adds about 3% to A64 performance and 1MB cache only adds about 5%, the combination adds 8 to 10% improved performance. The FX53 is the ONLY chip that combines BOTH 1MB cache and Dual-Channel memory and is 8 to 10% faster than a comparable chip using Single-Channel (Socket 754) and 512MB cache.

    The Dual-Channel 1MB FX53 should be about 8% to 10% faster than the latest Newcastle SC 512K 3400+ even though both run run at 2.4Ghz. Another interesting point is that since Cache mattered more in Doom3 than Dual-Channel, a 3700+ (SC, 1MB cache) might actually be faster in Doom3 than a 3800+ (DC, 512MB). This was certainly true in Anand's tests of the 3400+ (SC, 1MB0, which was faster than the 3500+ (DC, 512MB).

    Whether the top-performing FX53 is worth the $811 price is up to you, but it is still a bargain in Doom3 compared to the 3.4EE that is 18% slower and still sells for $1000.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now