WinRAR 3.9b5 x64

This benchmark compresses our AT workload consisting of a main folder that contains 954MB of data spread across 28 files in 15 subfolders. The result is a file approximately 829MB in size.

Application
Performance - WinRAR 3.9b5 64-bit

WinRAR loves processor speed and bandwidth improvements. Our two DDR3 systems finish in first. The 785G DDR3 platform holds a 3% advantage over its DDR2 sibling and 5% advantage over the G41 combination.

iTunes 8 x64

We import the album Tommy by The Who to our disk in WAV format. The directory consists of 25 songs totaling 751MB. We then convert this music collection to an AAC format using the iTune Plus option.

Application Performance - iTunes

Umm, normally this application only responds to CPU speed but our AMD platform holds a 7% advantage in that area so these results are interesting to say the least. Could it be that since Apple’s current products run on Intel processors that this application is highly optimized for the Core 2 series. Regardless of the reason, the G41 setup holds a 9% advantage over our 785G platform.

Blender 2.49 x64

We complete a full render operation on our Flying Squirrel image utilizing this very popular open source program.

Application Performance - Blender 2.49 64-bit

Our 785G platform is 4% faster than the G41 setup. Blender typically responds well to CPU speed with the 7% core speed advantage favoring the AMD system.

Cinema 4D R11 x64

Cinema 4D R11 is one of our favorite programs to create high-end 3D images and animations. We track the time it takes to render a swimming pool layout.

Application Performance - Maxon Cinema 4D R11 64-bit

We could not get Maxon’s premier application to work with the current Intel Win7 driver set so there is no score to report here.

LightWave 3D 9.6 x64

Another popular 3D rendering program is Lightwave 3D 9.6. In this test, we time the rendering of a single frame from an office building animation. The time to render the full scene is approximately four and a half hours.

Application Performance - Lightwave 3D 9.6 64-bit

The G41 platform slides in with a 2% advantage over its 785G counterpart.

Overall, the 785G platform can be utilized for a variety of applications, including 3D rendering where the graphics core is not of primary importance during rendering. In this case, we would suggest a Phenom II based processor along with DDR3 memory for best results.

General System Performance Video Content Creation Performance
Comments Locked

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hrel - Saturday, August 22, 2009 - link

    You showed Nvidia stats on the first page... I guess you didn't include them cause ATI and Intel can't even compare???

    Next time include the Nvidia results... would've thought that it'd an impulsory action; guess not.
  • crochat - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link

    Gary,

    You mentioned a motherboard roundup in your conclusion. I thought it would come sooner.

    Regards
  • AlB80 - Sunday, August 16, 2009 - link

    1. The A-Link Express II is a proprietary interface developed by AMD basing on the PCI Express Gen2 version 2.0 technology, with additional Northbridge-Southbridge messaging functionalities.
    2. High data transfer bandwidth (up to 2.5 Gb/s / Lane)
  • Concillian - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link

    "Remember when ATI made crappy chipsets that no one bought, and all AMD systems were built with NVIDIA or even VIA chipsets? "

    Yeah, I remember that, thats when they were really AMD chipsets and not ATi chipsets with an AMD label on them. ATi started making good Crossfire chipsets shortly before AMD bought them.

    I like AMD as much as the next guy, but let's not be patting them on the back too hard. They tried, failed, then did what any good American businessman would do... bought a struggling competitor to use their IP.
  • IntelUser2000 - Saturday, August 8, 2009 - link

    Gary, you got the clock speed of the G41 IGP wrong:

    http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=543&...">http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=543&...

    G41 and G43 uses a 667MHz core while G45 uses 800MHz.

    Notice the differences here: http://global.hkepc.com/1525/page/3#view">http://global.hkepc.com/1525/page/3#view
  • ClagMaster - Saturday, August 8, 2009 - link

    The 785G is just a 780G which has recieved a fine tuning. Which is OK. There are slight improvements in performance over the 780G but nothing to be excited about. 785G Seems to work well with DDR3 memory and Athlon II processors.

    I have an ASUS M3A78EM 780G Mobo with an AMD BE2400 X2 CPU I use as a secondary computer I keep off-line for private matters. It's a fairly powerful rig for the media applications I run.

    The HD 3200 GPU is just as powerful as a Geforce 4200 graphics card. I can play DX8 and DX9 games from the 2002-2004 period (Max Payne, Aquanox, Homeworld2) with acceptable framerates at 1280 x 1024 resolution. I run Windows XP Home.

    The 785G is not bad. But if I had a choice between a 785G mobo and a 780G mobo with the 780G costing $5-$10 less, I would buy the 780G mobo. I can still run Windows 7 with the 780G with the HD3200.


  • ClagMaster - Saturday, August 8, 2009 - link

    BTW-

    This article was not boring. It honestly compared the performance capabilities of the 785G to other chipsets of its class (780G and G41).

    Most differences between the 785G and 780G were small and within the combined statistical uncertainty of the benchmark measurements measurements +/-10% (i.e. statistically insignificant). Not very surprising. Most of the larger differences observed were between systems with DDR2-1066 and DDR3-1333 memory systems.

    I agree the 785G is a better balanced chipset than the 780G and G41 for multimedia.

    I wish Gary would have used an older benchmarking suite so I can compare the performance between current and systems 2-3 years old. I prefer PCMark2005 and 3DMark2005 since these are reliable indicators of performance. This is important to me because I try to make my purchasing decisions on the criteria of having double the performance for the same cost and power consumption.
  • ClagMaster - Saturday, August 8, 2009 - link

    BTW-

    This article was not boring. It honestly compared the performance capabilities of the 785G to other chipsets of its class (780G and G41).

    Most differences between the 785G and 780G were small and within the combined statistical uncertainty of the benchmark measurements measurements +/-10% (i.e. statistically insignificant). Not very surprising. Most of the larger differences observed were between systems with DDR2-1066 and DDR3-1333 memory systems.

    I agree the 785G is a better balanced chipset than the 780G and G41 for multimedia.

    I wish Gary would have used an older benchmarking suite so I can compare the performance between current and systems 2-3 years old. I prefer PCMark2005 and 3DMark2005 since these are reliable indicators of performance. This is important to me because I try to make my purchasing decisions on the criteria of having double the performance for the same cost and power consumption.
  • 7Enigma - Thursday, August 6, 2009 - link

    Gary,

    Thanks for the article but could you keep in mind for future articles on non-gaming hardware (i.e. IG's, budget GPU's, etc.) to make sure the game description is in line with the actual article? I can tell they were just copied directly from a previous gaming article, so it's a bit silly to see, "We crank up all the details to max", only to see the data chart show 1024X768 with low settings.

    :)
  • AlB80 - Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - link

    DMI 10Gb/s each direction, full duplex
    aka
    4 lane PCIe 1.1

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now