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

Business Application Performance

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."

Communication Application Performance

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."

Document Creation Performance

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."

Data Analysis Performance

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.

Memory Performance Multimedia Content Creation Performance
POST A COMMENT

96 Comments

View All Comments

  • xsilver - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    oh and before when you were arguing about heat --- if you didnt understand... let me translate the graph segagenesis provided
    amd 64 3500 at load = 114w
    intel 550, 3.4ghz /load = 207w

    that's close to DOUBLE power consumption with similar performance/price characteristics.
    Reply
  • xsilver - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #54
    I remember reading amd's 3 year roadmap right here on AT.... maybe you missed it

    3 year roadmaps aren't very good anyways, they provide no real hard information.... what are you worried that amd isn't going to exist in 3 years???

    what AT people here are arguing is about performance... now you have jumped from heat output to spelling to performance and now to company profile... please be concise
    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    "The only defense I imagine he could possibly conjure up right now is currently in the market there is the "Nobody got fired for buying Intel" mentality where companies and such are wary of trying non-Intel products mainly because... Dell and other major manufacturers wont offer it in any quantity."

    Actually there are two reasons:

    1) Qualification costs. it can be easy to drop $150k to qualify a new platform.

    2) Product longevity. Change is very expensive to large corporations. Anything we make a commitment to buy must have a lifespan of at least 18 months from the date we qualify the product. We also must be comfortable with the companies 3 year product roadmap. So far there are no teir one vendors that have AMD product lines that meet these requirements.

    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    NVIDIA changed the spelling of their name from nVidia to NVIDIA a few years ago, have a look at NVIDIA's home page for confirmation - http://www.nvidia.com/page/companyinfo.html

    Questar: NVIDIA is the correct corporate capitalization of the company. I actually don't think I've ever seen it spelled "nVidia".

    I stand corrected. Thank you.
    Reply
  • glennpratt - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    I think you mean you disagree with his first statement, since his last statement was about DDR2. Personally, I assume reviews on this site are talking to me (PC enthusiast) and not businesses (except reviews which explicitly state otherwise which are few and far between here). In that context, Anand has a point. Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Questar: NVIDIA is the correct corporate capitalization of the company. I actually don't think I've ever seen it spelled "nVidia".

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • Motley - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Perhaps it should have been worded differently like... offered performance benefits that have only yet to be realized. But as worded, it is misleading and incorrect. Obviously, I read your site often, and I have come to expect technical correctness in what you write ;-)

    That said, I still would have to disagree with your last statement. Where companies purchase and keep PC's around for 3+ years (OMG, I wish we got rid of PC's in 3 years), the ability to purchase PCI-E when it came out knowing that we could upgrade them to iSCSI, etc in the future *IS* a very tangable benefit. At home, it's a different story, where my motherboard changes with every major change (or every other as money permits).
    Reply
  • BaronVonAwesome - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    You have to be leery of anyone who resorts to juvenile symantics in an argument. When Questar derided another person for using the word "worthless" to describe Intel, you had to ignore him. Obviously, "worthless" wasn't meant literally. That's one of the wonders of the English language, the way it evolves, with words taking on more subtle meanings through the gradual societal acceptance of colloquialisms and slang. Words like "worthless" also lose their qualitative and quantitative qualities through this evolution...depending on how the word is used of course. Generally, when people resort to literal symantics, they feel like they are losing the argument. Reminds me of when Bill Clinton questioned the definition of the word "is." Questar's back was against the wall, I guess. Reply
  • glennpratt - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    On another note will there be a non-SLI version of the nF4 Intel Ed.? Reply
  • glennpratt - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Questar - This may have been said before, but I didn't read this whole thread.

    Reviews are generally filled with opinion, it's the nature of the beast. If you wanted an Intel white paper well this isn't the place for it. If you've taken a high school level english class then you should be quite capable of determining opinion from fact in common english.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now