Fallout 3 Game Performance

Bethesda’s latest game uses an updated version of the Gamebryo engine (Oblivion). This benchmark takes place immediately outside Vault 101. The character walks away from the vault through the Springvale ruins. The benchmark is measured manually using FRAPS.

Fallout 3 - 1680 x 1050 - Medium Quality

Gaming performance clearly goes to the Athlon II X2 and the Phenom II X2. Because of its high clock speed and very high core-to-cache ratio, the Phenom II X2 550 is actually faster than the Phenom II X4 940 in this test. Note that Fallout 3 isn't particularly heavily threaded so the X4's additional cores don't do much good here.

Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (No AA/AF/Vsync)

AMD continues to hold on to the gaming performance lead.

FarCry 2 Multithreaded Game Performance

FarCry 2 ships with the most impressive benchmark tool we’ve ever seen in a PC game. Part of this is due to the fact that Ubisoft actually tapped a number of hardware sites (AnandTech included) from around the world to aid in the planning for the benchmark.

For our purposes we ran the CPU benchmark included in the latest patch:

Far Cry 2 - 1680 x 1050 - Playback (Action Scene) - Medium Quality

In the newer game engines we see the E6300 catching up to the Athlon II X2 250. The old Pentium 4 660 starves our testbed's GeForce GTX 280 for data; it's horrendously slow.

Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead - 1680 x 1050 - Mainstream Quality (Physics on Enthusiast) - assault bench

Archiving, Excel Monte Carlo, Blu-ray & FLV Creation Performance Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

55 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gary Key - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link

    The X2 6400+ is in the charts now and you can always use our Bench tool to compare a whole litany of processors against each other. AMD is currently phasing out of 90nm production and even several 65nm products will be phased out this year as they ramp the 45nm production. Reply
  • Spoelie - Thursday, June 4, 2009 - link

    WOW, it really amazes me how little performance has improved. Athlon II X2 750 (3ghz) is barely faster in most benchmarks than a Athlon X2 6400+ (3,2ghz), and loses in 1 or 2.

    So the phenom core redesign buys around 300mhz around 3ghz, or only 10%. Everything else that improved in phenom is uncore.

    And this while the original is at 90nm and the new one is 45nm, what a waste of potential. It seems to me AMD could've tried a little harder with the Athlon II.
    Reply
  • Spoelie - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link

    There's a small util/service out there that brings phenom II cnq behaviour from vista over to windows xp (phenom II's cnq behaves like phenom I's cnq under windows xp). It does this by disabling standard cnq (set power management not on "minimal") and implementing pstate changing itself

    http://home.comcast.net/~pmc650/site/?/page/CNQ_Ph...">http://home.comcast.net/~pmc650/site/?/page/CNQ_Ph...

    Maybe it can do the same for the Athlon II X2 on vista...
    Reply
  • mohindar - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link

    Hello Anand,

    It will be very nice to provide some benches regarding desktop virtualization, like how windows-xp usage on this chip and so on...
    Reply
  • plonk420 - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link

    i'm curious to see this on the bench! Reply
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link


    I'm beginning to wonder whether AMD/Intel are making the same mistake
    we saw last year with gfx cards, ie. too many different options. What
    is the target market for the new AMD CPUs? Many retailers seem to
    offer just a small selection.


    Any chance you could add an i7 920 and a 6000+ to the tables please?
    The former for completeness, the latter to show how the newer AMD
    parts stack up against a typical older product. I'd been hoping for
    a suitable replacement for the 6000+ in my ASUS board, but still nothing (no BIOS support).

    Atm it looks like my next system will be an i7 920 setup (core task
    is video encoding). In the past there's been lots of talk about the
    higher cost of an i7 system, but looking around yesterday, I was
    surprised at how small the difference has now become. The i7 920 is
    only 18% more than the Ph2 955 BE. Expecting a larger difference for
    the mbd cost, I found an X58 board from Gigabyte (the GA-EX58-UD3R,
    135 UKP from LambdaTek) right in the middle of the price range of
    typical AM3 boards. They both use DDR3, so that isn't a factor. I
    was going to build a Ph2 955 BE system for my brother as his next
    gaming rig, but with such small price differences now in play, the
    i7 looks more sensible.

    Oh, a typo on the first page perhaps? Surely it should be 2 cores for
    the Athlon64 X2?

    Ian.

    Reply
  • smilingcrow - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link

    Judging by other reviews your choice of using the x264 HD Bench Pass 1 for the Power Consumption comparison doesn’t give a true representation of the situation.
    As expected other reviews shows the Athlon II X2 having a noticeably lower power consumption under typical loads.

    The Phenom II X2 has too much extra circuitry to have lower power consumption and I’m surprised that you didn’t deduce that something was amiss.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link

    As I mentioned on the power consumption page, I'm guessing it has more to do with the current level of BIOS support for the Athlon II's power management. AMD is expecting a much better situation in the coming weeks.

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link

    The one comparing various Athlon X2 specs. The table says the Athlon 64 X2 has 4 cores. Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - link

    Woops, thank you :)

    -A
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now