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

Will $99 get you a potent gaming processor? Compared to anything similarly priced, yes, yes it will. If you're building a gaming box you're still better suited for todays games with a faster dual-core processor but if you care about multithreaded performance elsewhere, the X4 won't disappoint.

Left 4 Dead

Zombies? Check. Zombie killing performance:

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

If this thing only had Lynnfield's turbo modes it would be at the top of these charts. We get respectable performance out of the Athlon II X4s, just nothing earth shattering.

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

The FarCry 2 CPU bench seriously favors the Intel CPUs. This is the first and only time where the Athlon II X4 looks like it doesn't make sense. Given its success in the rest of the suite, I'll give it a pass.

Crysis Warhead

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

Faster than an E6300 (cheaper) but slower than a Q8200 (more expensive), the Athlon II X4 620 does very well given its price.

Archiving Performance Power Consumption & Overclocking
POST A COMMENT

150 Comments

View All Comments

  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    the turbo overclocking is plain overclocking of all lynnfield cores at least 600 mhz and you are comparing lynfield overcloded results versus phenom 2 955 stock speeds.

    phenom 2 is much better than lynnfied 750 and when overclocked to 4ghz remains at 55 C while lynnfield temps are almost 100C. which sucks.

    all the 'advantage' of lynnfied in these results comes from benchmarking an overclocked processor and present it as if it were stock speed, which is illegal
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    Wrong. I'll help you here...

    i5 750
    Default: 2.66GHz
    4 cores: 2.93GHz 3 cores: 2.93GHz 2 cores: 3.06GHz 1 core: 3.20GHz (gains: 266MHz/266MHz/400MHz/533MHz)

    i7 860
    Default: 2.80GHz
    4 cores: 3.06GHz 3 cores: 3.06GHz 2 cores: 3.33GHz 1 core: 3.46GHz (gains: 266MHz/266MHz/533MHz/667MHz)

    (all data reassembled from the second table at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    The turbo mode gives a minimum boost of 266MHz and a maximum of either 533MHz for the i5 or 667MHz for the i7. NOT 600MHz for all cores. Quite where you got that from is beyond me. Additionally, Turbo is a 100% legitimate technology. Would you be happier if the default clock was throttled?

    As for illegal... we have a word in the UK for this sort of comments, and it's "bollocks".
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    Good chart, though you linked to the wrong page. It was on the Turbo Mode page. I have no idea how I missed that chart the first time I read the article.

    But for the i5 750, if the lowest GHz Turbo mode will operate at is 2.93 GHz, why doesn't Intel just call it an i5 750 at 2.93 GHz, instead of 2.66 GHz?
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    My bad - the link has a ) after it which sends you to the intro page. I should've put a space after the link.

    At least you checked through to find it... I doubt "the zorro" has bothered as of yet.

    You make a very good point about Turbo but it's not as if Intel is pretending it doesn't exist or it's disabled; it should be relatively easy for people to make comparisons using the benchmarks in this article as well as others. I suppose it may have helped if there was data suggesting the clock speed at the time of a specific test, but I can't imagine that'd be a very easy thing to do especially if threads are being bounced across cores and as a result, the clock speed is constantly fluctuating. The alternative would've been to disable Turbo and that would've prevented people like "the zorro" from his pointless tirade on here, but they would've been disabling a feature of the processor to test it against rivals that lack that feature.
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    > I suppose it may have helped if there was data suggesting the clock speed at the time of a specific test, but I can't imagine that'd be a very easy thing to do especially if threads are being bounced across cores and as a result, the clock speed is constantly fluctuating.
    - No, but the troll does make one point that I agree with. When an i5 is run with Turbo mode, Anand's charts should NOT list that it is at 2.66 GHz. He should list it as 2.93-3.20 GHz, especially if it is 100% certain that Turbo mode NEVER reaches the baseline Turbo off clock of 2.66 GHz.

    > The alternative would've been to disable Turbo and that would've prevented people like "the zorro" from his pointless tirade on here, but they would've been disabling a feature of the processor to test it against rivals that lack that feature.
    - Well, I've asked for the same thing, but for different reasons that I don't want to repeat in this comment or I'll sound like a troll. :)
    Reply
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    if you are an accountant and do the same thing and try to present false results as real then you would go to jail.
    you can call a bank robbery an 'auto loan' but still is robbery and you still go to jail.
    people is not stupid.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    AMD, please just incorporate a turbo mode into your next CPUs so we can get rid of trolls like this one. Do it for me.

    Please.
    Reply
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    no amd wont do that.
    why?
    because a platform at stock speed is more stable than other that is auto overclocking, also intel created the turbo crap story to charge for the overclocking.
    yes intel is charging their users for the overclocking,now overclocking is a feature and intel charges for it.
    amd phenom 2 overclocking is free.
    try to auto overclock a server, that is not good and creates instability in the platform.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    And if they do, oh what will you do then?

    Additionally, try to explain to me what the 965 BE is other than an overclocked variant of the 955, which in turn was an overclocked variant of the 945. Isn't it interesting how none of these overclocks better than the others, and why the 965 BE has a higher TDP than the 955?

    You act as if AMD and Intel have never produced an overclocked variant of any of their CPUs until Nehalem turned up.
    Reply
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    i can see that you have no clue, when a new processor is introduced that is 200 mhz faster than another model, is not an overclocked processor, is a more refined silicon, with better electrical properties and more stable at highers speeds. and also with higher overclocking headroom.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now