Articles: CPU
 

Bookmark and Share

(59) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]

Performance in Futuremark PCMark05 and 3DMark05

The new revision of the PCMark test doesn’t differ that greatly from the previous test versions. The CPU test from this benchmark set is based on real-life data encoding and compression algorithms and uses multi-threading a lot. Therefore, the result obtained is quite natural. Dual-core processors show better results in applications of this type than single-core processors, and CPUs with NetBurst architecture that are traditionally faster in PCMark again boast the best performance results in this test.

I would also like to point out that the results of PCMark05 test are the same in 32-bit operating system and in 64-bit OS where AMD64 and EMT64 technologies start working. This is another illustrative evidence of high efficiency of x86-64 architecture: the 32-bit applications performed in the compatibility mode in 64-bit operating system work at the same speed as in their authentic 32-bit environment.

The same is true for 3DMark05 results. The 64-bit Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition OS doesn’t cause any performance drop in 32-bit DirectX programs. So, the gamers shouldn’t fear the migration to 64-bit era supported by AMD processors with AMD64 technology and Intel processors with EMT64 technology.

The 3DMark05 benchmark itself, like many games out there doesn’t support multi-threading. That is why dual-core processors do not stand out here in any way. However, this benchmark set includes specific CPU tests, which use multi-threading for shader calculations and simultaneous modeling of the gaming environment.

The new Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor performs quite up to its price. In the first gaming test it outpaces its single-core competitors being just slightly behind Pentium D 830 working at 3GHz core clock. However, in the second test it really dashes forward, so that all the rivals from the same price group fall far behind.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 59
Discussion started: 08/01/05 03:58:45 AM
Latest comment: 11/10/07 08:46:58 PM

View comments

Add your Comment