Content Creation Performance

We were a bit surprised by the close race in the Multimedia Content Creation Winstone tests, but it does look like the Athlon 64 FX-62 can still be pretty competitive in some areas:

Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004

The Core 2 Extreme X6800 is still faster by 5.7%, but no where near the huge performance increases we saw on the previous page.  Looking at SYSMark's ICC tests however, the picture changes dramatically:

SYSMark 2004 - Overall Internet Content Creation Performance

When AMD introduced the Athlon 64 X2 we saw SYSMark 2004 scores hit new, never before seen, highs. 

SYSMark 2004 - 3D Content Creation Performance

SYSMark 2004 - 2D Content Creation Performance

SYSMark 2004 - Web Publishing Performance

With Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800, our performance expectations are reset once more.  In all of the Content Creation tests, the Core 2 Extreme outpaces the FX-62 by anywhere from 27% to 28%.

Business Application Performance Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

134 Comments

View All Comments

  • munky - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    Good work on running some benches on a system not built by Intel. Conroe puts out impressive numbers, it may just live up to the hype when launched.
  • xFlankerx - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    Perfectly in line with older performance figures. Conroe's looking like a surefire winner.
  • PCSJEFF - Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - link

    If you wanna test the CPU in games, why don't you use Grand Prix 4 and Everquest 2: those two games 3D engines use a lot more the CPU than the video card.
  • Supa - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    In the original benchmark, if you still remember, the 20% performance advantage was achieved by E6700 (2.67) over 2.8 AMD.

    Now the new 20% advantage was achieved by X6800 (2.93) over 2.8 AMD.

    Not quite the same 20%.


    If anything, the tightening of memory latency (5-5-5-12 in this test) can only benefit AMD a bit more.


    ---
  • Gary Key - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link

    quote:

    If anything, the tightening of memory latency (5-5-5-12 in this test) can only benefit AMD a bit more.


    It benefits the Intel based system just as much. ;-)
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    quote:

    In the original benchmark, if you still remember, the 20% performance advantage was achieved by E6700 (2.67) over 2.8 AMD.

    Now the new 20% advantage was achieved by X6800 (2.93) over 2.8 AMD.

    Not quite the same 20%.


    If anything, the tightening of memory latency (5-5-5-12 in this test) can only benefit AMD a bit more.



    Original benchmark: Using Crossfire X1900XTX to alleviate bottlenecks
    Now: Single Geforce 7900GTX

    If you see FEAR benchmarks you'll see it'll be better in real world gaming as there is bigger advantage in minimum frame rates. At IDF system there is bigger difference in max frame rates.
  • Carfax - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    Wow, the Core 2 is obviously bottlenecked by the single 7900 GTX O_O!!!

    Who'd have thought this would happen a few months ago?
  • peternelson - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link


    Good point, when hardware permits, redo the test with TWO gpus in there and see if the same lead is evident.
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    The tightening of memory will benefit Core too.
  • peternelson - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link


    And based on these performance figures,

    a 4x4 board with TWO FX62 will vastly outperform a lonely Intel Conroe.

    And for heavy I/O ie beating network and disk to death, Intel has not been shown to have the performance headroom. AMD I/O will scale nicely.

    When Intel counter with quadcore, they will find their FSB even more limiting, at which point the wisdom of the Hypertransport approach will be evident.

    Depends how quickly 4x4 comes to market (but said to be 2H2006)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now