The Test and Business/General Use Performance

The Test
Our hardware configurations are similar to what we've used in previous comparisons.

AMD Athlon 64 Configuration

Socket-939 Athlon 64 CPUs
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
ASUS nForce4 SLI Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT PCI Express

Intel Pentium 4 Configuration

LGA-775 Intel Pentium 4 and Extreme Edition CPUs
2 x 512MB Crucial DDR-II 533 Dual Channel DIMMs 3-3-3-12
Intel 925XE and 945G Motherboards
ATI Radeon X800 XT PCI Express


Business/General Use 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 Winstone 2004


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 SYSMark 2004


The next test is Document Creation performance, which shows very little difference in drive performance between the contenders:

"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 SYSMark 2004


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 SYSMark 2004


Microsoft Office XP SP-2

Here we see in that the purest of office application tests, performance doesn't vary all too much.

Microsoft Office XP with SP-2


Mozilla 1.4

Quite possibly the most frequently used application on any desktop is the one we pay the least amount of attention to when it comes to performance. While a bit older than the core that is now used in Firefox, performance in Mozilla is worth looking at as many users are switching from IE to a much more capable browser on the PC - Firefox.

Mozilla 1.4


ACD Systems ACDSee PowerPack 5.0

ACDSee is a popular image editing tool that is great for basic image editing options such as batch resizing, rotating, cropping and other such features that are too elementary to justify purchasing something as powerful as Photoshop for. There are no extremely complex filters here, just pure batch image processing.

ACD Systems ACDSee PowerPack 5.0


Ahead Software Nero Express 6.0.0.3

While it was a major issue in the past, these days buffer underrun errors while burning a CD or DVD are few and far between thanks to high performance CPUs as well as vastly improved optical drives. When you take the optical drive out of the equation, how do these CPU's stack up with burning performance?

Ahead Software Nero Express 6.0.0.3


Winzip

Archiving performance ends up being fairly CPU bound as well as I/O limited.

WinZip Computing WinZip 8.1


Index Multitasking Content Creation
Comments Locked

56 Comments

View All Comments

  • cryptonomicon - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    what a beast
  • saratoga - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    The 533 vs. 400 would make an interesting benchmark. Given the availability of relatively low latency 533 (or at least 500), it might be worthwhile for people who must have the best performance (most FX buyers I'd guess).
  • dougSF30 - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    > Who is being realistic here?

    Hello? As you said *in your own post*, anyone splashing out $1000 for an FX-57 can afford to buy top-end memory for it.

    Otherwise, what's the point? DDR-333 is really cheap these days, maybe they should test with that?
  • Viditor - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    I have a feeling that the mobo AT used was a poor choice...
    I have checked all of the other reviews I could find, and every one of them that overclocked was able to be stable at 3.0 GHz on air...
  • Goi - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    I would've liked a bit more analysis rather than just describing the tests and displaying the results. I notice that this has become more or less an AT template in reviews, with little analysis and a lot of data. I think a bit more analysis on interesting points would be helpful. For example, the 200MHz bump from the FX-55 to the FX-57 causes disproportionate performance increases in certain benchmarks. An detailed analysis on why(going from the 130nm hammer core to the 90nm Venice core with improved memory controller for example) would be helpful I think. There's just too much numbers and not enough analysis IMHO.
  • Viditor - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    blckgrffn - I understand your point, but this is a Dream Machine chip anyway, so we should definately see it at it's best (latest mobo, DDR533 LL, etc...).
    JMHO
  • miketheidiot - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    this new memory controller has me thinking ddr2....
  • blckgrffn - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    For those of you who want DDR500 etc included, I don't think that you understand how/why these articles are written. I can appreciate that you want the whole platform to be about the best performance, but then we would lose all sense of just how much better this CPU is compared to the old ones.

    So, LL DDR500 performs awesome. Great. I suppose if you are buying a $1000 processor you will probably drop $250 on a gig of ram. Super. But for the rest of us, getting ram that runs 2-2-2-10 is hard enough, let alone trying for that super duper ram that runs in how many mobos due to voltage requirements? One or two? Who is being realistic here?
  • suryad - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    Looks like if AMD had some sort of HT scheme like Intel did...there would be no benchmark where the Intel would be ahead...but I am most impressed that AMD has now taken over the domain of multimedia and encoding and so on from Intel...cant wait for 3 ghz multicore FX procs!
  • dougSF30 - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    Dear Lord! Low latency DDR-500 or DDR-533 will peform better than low latency DDR-400!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now