Gaming Multitasking Scenario

Our gaming multitasking test basically performs all of the tasks from our first Multitasking Scenario, with the exception of DVD Shrink.  We have Firefox loaded with all 13 tabs from our new suite test, iTunes is running and playing a playlist, and Newsleecher is downloading headers.  We kept Newsleecher in this test simply because it's the best way for us to be able to have a fairly CPU/disk intensive downloading task running in the background while still maintaining some semblance of repeatability.  So, replace Newsleecher with BitTorrent or any other resource-consuming downloading that you may be doing and you're good to go. Note that although we refer to Newsleecher as disk-intensive, it isn't that disk intensive at all, like most downloading operations, in the grand scheme of things; it just acts as a good real world background task to have running.

Of course, Norton AntiVirus 2004 and Microsoft's AntiSpyware Beta were also running in the background. 

First, we ran our Doom 3 benchmark:

Gaming Multitasking Performance (Doom 3)

AMD has always been extremely strong in gaming performance; thus, the results above are no surprise at all. It is worth pointing out that when multitasking is involved, even Intel's dual core CPUs end up being faster than the fastest single core Athlon 64 FX-55.

Next up is Splinter Cell:

Gaming Multitasking Performance (Splinter Cell: CT)

Gaming Multitasking Performance (Splinter Cell: CT)

Gaming Multitasking Performance (Splinter Cell: CT)


Multitasking Scenario 4: 3D Rendering Final Words
POST A COMMENT

107 Comments

View All Comments

  • Viditor - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    Anand

    Consider that an open invitation for dinner and drinks at The Rocks in Sydney Harbour.
    Ya know, Computex Taipei is coming up at the end of this month...and those circle pacific fares aren't THAT expensive... ;-)
    Reply
  • nserra - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    I was looking at the transistor count of both AMD and Intel implementations of dual core and the look almost the same, despite intel uses 300mm vs amd 200mm. But my point is amd have ondie memory controler and intel Hyperthreading, all in all the processors “look” the same? Could i say this? (5% die for HT vs 5% die for Memory controller)

    Of course Amd have a better design since it drains less power and offers better performance.
    Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    We're definately interested in some preliminary overclocking results... well... I am anyway. Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    Samus

    Sorry about that, it's not intentional. I haven't published any overclocking tests for one major reason: the CPUs are still far away from being widely available; I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea based on the overclocking results of these early samples.

    If you guys are interested, I can publish some preliminary findings here however.

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    Viditor

    If I ever manage to get some time off, both Vinney and I would love to head down to Australia :)

    Murst

    If the differences are negligible (around 3% or less) then I'd say that's due to normal variances in the benchmarks - at a quick glance, that's what the majority of single threaded benchmarks are showing. There are other situations where the scheduler may confuse the picture a bit, but for the most part I'm not seeing any evidence of that in these tests.

    tagger123

    I used 32-bit Windows XP Pro. At this stage the 64-bit version of Windows is pretty much useless for the desktop unless you've got some very specific 64-bit desktop apps that you're using.

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • Samus - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    Anand,

    Why are you continuing to neglect our questions regarding overclocking? Is there an NDA or something disallowing you to discuss the topic?

    -Tim
    Reply
  • Murst - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    So, is there any explanation why, in many tests, the single core 2.4 w/ 1mb cache is significantly faster than then dual core 2.4 w/ 1mb per core?

    That just doesn't seem to make any sense. Seems like the design of the dual core is not as great as everyone was saying if it slows down applications by that much.

    It just seems like there shouldn't be a performance hit by adding another core with AMD's implementation, but there obviously is.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    tagger123 - as most (if not all) of the apps are 32bit only, I would guess it was standard XP... Reply
  • tagger123 - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    hi Anand

    Would like to know if you used windows xp or xp64 and if so - would it have any performance hit or increase on amd 64 x2
    Reply
  • Viditor - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    "you going to hire anand as a consultant?"

    Nope...but I'll buy the first round if he and his lady ever hit Sydney...! :-)
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now