AMD's dual core Opteron & Athlon 64 X2 - Server/Desktop Performance Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on April 21, 2005 9:25 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Multitasking Scenario 3: Web Browsing
For this benchmark, we decided to switch things up a bit and keep Firefox as our foreground application while background tasks ran.The Firefox, iTunes and Newsleecher tasks from the first test scenario were also present in this one, plus we did the following:
Open Outlook, immediately import 130MB PST file and immediately switch app focus to Firefox.
We then recorded the total time required to import the new PST while Firefox was our foreground application. The results were very interesting:
Once again, we see some very good results from the dual core platforms; the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ manages to offer significantly better performance than the higher clocked FX-55, as do the two Intel platforms.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.
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comments...Anyway, im really excited about this development of computing, not having good multitasking ability feels so outdated, i've been crying about that for years, and fianlly its here...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... :)
Barneyk - Sunday, April 24, 2005 - link
testjvarszegi - 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". :)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.mechBgon - Saturday, April 23, 2005 - link
Zebo... hehe, yep :Djustly - 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).Zebo - Friday, April 22, 2005 - link
Hahaha makes Chetta's drool: Looks just like you MECH.:)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 saysCOMPARE 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.
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.
;)