Articles: CPU
 

Bookmark and Share

(33) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Performance in Gaming Applications

The performance of the new Athlon 64 3400+ in the popular “semi-synthetic” 3DMark 2001 SE 3D test appears very close to that of Athlon 64 FX-51 processor. Since these both CPUs differ only by the integrated memory controller we can conclude that the average performance of the single-channel memory controller in Athlon 64 3400+ is comparable with that of the dual-channel controller used in Athlon 64 FX-51 CPU. How is that possible if the bandwidth of the latter is twice as high? In fact, everything is very simple: Athlon 64 FX-51 uses registered memory modules with higher latency than that of the regular unbuffered memory modules used in Athlon 64 systems, even despite the similar timings we set for both test systems.

CPU Score in 3DMark03 is not quite a CPU benchmark. This result is very dependent on the memory bandwidth, too. This is one of the reasons, why Athlon 64 FX-51 is tangibly faster than Athlon 64 3400+, despite the same core architecture and working frequency.

All in all, Athlon 64 3400+ is just a little bit behind Athlon 64 FX-51 in the general result.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 33
Discussion started: 01/05/04 10:14:10 PM
Latest comment: 04/14/08 02:59:26 AM

View comments

Add your Comment