Articles: CPU
 

Bookmark and Share

(43) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ]

Performance in Gaming Applications

Both new processor families: Athlon 64 FX from AMD and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition from Intel, are positioned by the manufacturers as extreme gaming solutions, in the first place. Therefore, this particular section of our test session is the most interesting for all of us. Let’s see what the newcomers are worth in contemporary games.

In the popular 3DMark2001 SE test AMD’s processor is a little faster than Intel’s gaming CPU. The difference makes less than 1%, which doesn’t allow us to call any of the them a leader here.

CPU test from the 3DMark2003 test set executing shader algorithms with the help of CPU’s computing power names Athlon 64 FX-51 the leader. Its advantage over the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.2GHz reached 8.7%, and over the regular Pentium 4 3.2GHz – 18%.

The total 3DMark2003 score appears to be in favor of both Pentium 4 processors. It is pretty hard to say what caused such a big difference in results of these benchmarks. However, we tend to believe that it has to do with better optimization of the Detonator driver for NetBurst architecture.

For this test we also used a recently released Aquamark3 test package. This new benchmark is based on a real gaming engine supporting DirectX 9 and is the first one of all today’s 3D applications that really knows to use Hyper-Threading technology. Of course, it affects the results: even the regular Pentium 4 3.2GHz processor is a little ahead of Athlon 64 FX-51. To tell the truth, it’s a pity that AMD didn’t implement any algorithms similar to Hyper-Threading in its CPUs.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 43
Discussion started: 09/23/03 10:36:05 AM
Latest comment: 12/03/06 07:45:26 AM

View comments

Add your Comment