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


View All Comments

  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    Except for you I suppose?

    Imagine you own a car with a turbocharger. When you accelerate, the turbo just happens to kick in. Is it illegal for the manufacturer to have put the turbo in there in the first place?

    I agree it's not a completely parallel analogy due to the fact that a turbocharger provides a free power boost from otherwise wasted energy, but the point is that it's a part of the design and people have, and always will, accept that.

    How are the Lynnfield's results false? It clearly states in the nomenclature that the Lynnfield possesses a turbo mode designed so that the processor operates at a higher clock speed for a stated number of cores dependent on the load being imposed upon it. Imagine if a new SIMD instruction set appears and only AMD processors can use it, and software is accelerated as a result - is this illegal?

    I feel my intelligence slipping away as I try to reason with you.
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    turbo overclocking is just overclocking, nothing else.
    overclocked results are illegal if you try to present them as stock speed results.
    you can call overclocking 'banana' if you want, but still that banana is illegal
  • Kaleid - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link

    There is nothing illegal about it. Repeating it doesn't make it so. Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    But they haven't! Why can't you see this?

    Let me put it another way. In single core mode, with turbo enabled, the i5 750 is clocked at 3.2GHz. The Phenom II X4 965 BE is STILL clocked at 3.4GHz and it STILL loses. And guess what, add turbo to more cores and they all slow down, thus making the 965 BE look even worse in most situations as its clock speed gap increases even further.

    I've read over those 3.8GHz results. No turbo mode (not illegal, then!). i5 still wins most of the benches. Granted, some of the tests are Intel-optimised applications, but a) it's not Intel's fault that AMD optimisations are lacking from specific programs, and b) in games with no specific optimisations for either architecture, the Lynnfield is still going to win because even with turbo enabled, the i5 750 is STILL clocked lower than the 965 BE and it's STILL equalling or beating AMD's strongest CPU.

    End of.
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    don't fool yourself by over-thinking to justify an illegal activity.

    turbo overclocking is just overclocking.

    and phenom 2 955 beats core i5 750 at stocks speeds, that is lynnfield without overclocking.

    lynnfield is a failure, because when overclocked to 4ghz temps are almost 100C. and power compsumption skycket.

    phenom 2 overclocked to 4ghz is cool at 55C.
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    if you overclock phenom 2 955 the same 600 mhz that lynnfield is overclocked, it wipes and mops the floor with lynnfield 750.
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    Umm, check your numbers again. Unless you want to claim a 955 at 3.8GHz would perform differently than a 965 at 3.8 GHz. See here: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&am...

    All the 3.8GHz numbers are clock-for-clock, with no turbo (and no HT since the 750 doesn't have it) and the only test where the 965 tops the 750 is the Lightwave3D portion of the multitasking test. The 750 does beat the 965 in the overall multitasking test.
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    as you can see, at stock speed, when lynnfield 750 has turbo overclocking off, then phenom 2 965 annihilates lynnfield.
    look at all the tests.
  • strikeback03 - Friday, September 18, 2009 - link

    Well, yes, a 965@3.4GHz does beat a 750@2.66GHz, AMD's architecture isn't that far behind in most cases. But the only ones likely to leave the clocks stock are OEMs, who will also leave the turbo mode which seems to be the bane of your existence turned on. In stock configuration for both processors and looking at only the tests Gary conducted in the above article, the 965 carries advantages of 10%, 19%, -8%, -2%, -6%, 7%, and 12% over the 750. Using pricegrabber, Newegg has the best prices for each right now, at $199.99 for the 750 and $245 for the 965BE. This is a 22.5% difference in price, the performance gain is not that high in any of the tests. This is also ignoring all the tests in Anand's i5/i7 launch article, the majority of which the 750 topped the 965 in. Reply
  • mdk77777 - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    You buy a new Computer every five minutes?
    Really, I5 750 started shipping like a few days ago.
    Competitive product, but requires a new MB.

    Declare the end of the war after 1 Second of battle doesn't make much sense.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now