Memory & cache tests
The memory and cache tests determine how quickly data is transferred between the CPU and the memory subsystem. This does not indicate how a system will perform overall, but it's an important component of a balanced evaluation.
The results of the ScienceMark 2 test are interesting -- especially if you use software that's sensitive to long memory access times. Memory bandwidth is the first performance criterion -- the total output of a memory subsystem depends on the bandwidth and the latency. The latter is measured in bus cycles, with lower values better. With bandwidth, which is measured in megabytes per second (MB/s), a higher value is better.
Unfortunately, ScienceMark 2 can't measure bandwidth of the L1 and L2 cache for the Prescott Pentium 4. However, results for the Athlon 64 show that, thanks to the integration of the memory controller, cache performance increases with clock frequency. Both with latency and bandwidth, the Athlon 64 delivers better performance than the Pentium 4. To a large extent, this underpins the very good overall performance of the two AMD processors.
Talkback
Folks:
The slide and the text don't match on all of the charts. In at least 2 cases, the text indicates Intel is the winner while the charts show that AMD is clearly superior. Which is correct?
Great review! I appreciate the input as do others I'm sure. I'm about to build a pc and have had a hard time deciding Intel or AMD.Your article will be a definetly be a factor!
Good review, although I'd like to see a Visual C++ compilation benchmark or something. I spend a lot of time compiling software and I want to be able to point to a benchmark which compiles several different types of code (heavily templated code, STL, MFC, the effect of compiling with optimisations etc)
Strange how you hide the benchmarks from view unless you click on the link. Could this be because if you check them out, they don't match the conclusion? From what I could see AMD won the MAJORITY of the tests, while Intel won a few. Unless you are doing the few things that the Intel chip is better at, the AMD chip is the best choice by far.
Whose computers are not needing to multitask all the time? Email, web, antivirus and applicatiions software, not to mention database software are usually running on machines concurrently. Software using threading would also have an impact on requiring multitasking.
Tests that remove multitasking do not seem very valid in today's world.
Why do the Charts not match the review. I see AMD out performing Intel in almost all of the test and the review says the reverse. For someone to get a true review, you should at least make the chart match the text in the review.
Multi-tasking means USING multiple programs at the same time (i.e. using outlook while encoding an MP3), not just having multiple programs open. HT is over-hyped! The value is limited for the majority of users. (Think about it, how often do you actually actively use 2 programs at the same time??)
FX53 is the fastest AMD workstation cpu.
Text and Graphics do match, you need to look at the scale indicator, as it reads more is better in some cases and more is worse is others.
This review is clearly flawed. Chips that are clocked higher of the same brand and design underperform their lower clocked cousins on many tests. This is not possible.
Just to confirm: some of the test metrics are 'bigger is better' (e.g. frames per second); others are 'smaller is better' (e.g. seconds). This should explain any confusion over text/chart correspondence.
Hi, I have a AMD Athlon 2400 (2.0)ghz XP processor with 512MB of RAM ; I use it everyday and playgames. I bought it for $2200 CN in 2003 and now if i sell it i don't even get $1500 CN. Thats the difference you get after buying a AMD processor. So what i think is that you should but a Pentium4 processor :D
Although windows is not 64 bit, you can run 64bit linux right now.
Why are you so focused on windows. Athlon64 is an excellent processor for running 64bit linux. Nvidia has fixed 64bit drivers for their gfx cards also.
Suse, Gentoo, Mandrake, Fedora and probably many more all have AMD X86_64 distros ready.
If you overclock a cpu, you may create imbalance in the delicate cache and instruction hierarchy, this may result in a timing problem and cache miss having to wait for next cycle.
That's why often celerons with little cache are the best to overclock.
If you try overclocking an itanium2 it wont even work.
how do those compare with the Apple G5?
AMD's Athlon 64 CPUs clearly outperform Intel's Pentium 4 even though they are clocked 1.2 GHz less, use DDR and not DDR2 SDRAM, they don't don't have Hyper Threading and have half the cache of Prescotts. This shows that AMD's theory of performance based on Work done per clock cycle multiplied by clock speed stands correct. Also look at the massive power consumption and heat generation of the Prescotts. Their fans make so much noise!!! Wake up guys... Prescott sucks.... absolutely, AMD64 is gr8.
NOTHING! depreciates faster than a computer. If you can get 66% of your original price on a year old computer you're doing really well. The only difference here between a P4 and an AMD is the P4 would have cost more originally, so you'd lose even more on depreciation. Sounds to me like you don't know very much about computers, or computer pricing.
The article says the Prescott wins on apps that are optimised for SSE2, however I was sure the Hammer was ment to support SSE2? Is this not true?
This benchmark clearly shows that a chips Core Speed is NOT everything. with a chip that clocks slower than another AMD can still compete Equally if not better at some of the Benchmarks.
Hi Folks: Just an observation here which is, that many people are reading this review and not understanding what is being said. Yes, some of the charts are marked incorrectly, but the comments by the reviewer set that straight. Yes you lose money when you try to sell a computer a year after you buy it. That's why it would be classed as "Used", and why people will not pay the "new" price, because it's "used", and so is worth less than "new". As for who is the better chip maker, well the reviewer said it well. It depends on your particular situation. Gaming, AMD wins. Video editing, Intel wins. power consumption, AMD wins. Multitasking, Intel wins, and so on and so on. In technology, it's more important to keep an open mind, than it is to be "brand loyal", which is a 'consumer' perspective which can lead to heartache and financial ruin (I exagerate....lol). The people who are technical (engineers, technicians, etceteras) try to be as objective as possible, because they want the best product for the job (I fall into this category). It's also important to understand what you read about a product, or if you don't, then to seek the advice of someone who does, and then listen to what they tell you, and act on it.
cheers
lol, @Harjas:
"Hi, I have a AMD Athlon 2400 (2.0)ghz XP processor with 512MB of RAM ; I use it everyday and playgames. I bought it for $2200 CN in 2003 and now if i sell it i don't even get $1500 CN. Thats the difference you get after buying a AMD processor. So what i think is that you should but a Pentium4 processor :D"
It would have been a little diefferent when you would have bought a pentium4 s423 2 years before. You would have paied over 500?uros and one year later you couldn't even sell it for 100 LOL
The difference you are talking about simply doesent exists.
I bought a 1800+DLT3C 2 years before for 70?uros and it is still worth more than 60? (running at 2,33ghz 1,65Vcore, multi not locked), thats rellay nice, thx2AMD.
lol, @Harjas:
"Hi, I have a AMD Athlon 2400 (2.0)ghz XP processor with 512MB of RAM ; I use it everyday and playgames. I bought it for $2200 CN in 2003 and now if i sell it i don't even get $1500 CN. Thats the difference you get after buying a AMD processor. So what i think is that you should but a Pentium4 processor :D"
gee...I have thesame thing, and I love it, payed $600(2002) to buld it, I can still sell this PC for about $400....but i really dont want to, AMD by far the best choice processor, thanks for the review guys.
>Whose computers are not needing to multitask all the time? Email, web, antivirus and applicatiions software, not to mention database software are usually running on machines concurrently. Software using threading would also have an impact on requiring multitasking.
Tests that remove multitasking do not seem very valid in today's world. <
But even when multitasking as most people do it, the computer spends more time waiting on input from you, rather than you waiting on the computer. At least that is the case with the high end systems.
There isn't a clear winner?? Bawhahaha...take a look at test results again. AMD is a CLEAR winner on nearly every test. If your into gaming,which most people who buy the fastest processor are ,then AMD is the only WINNER in these tests. Geezzeee....
The time is giving us a very difficult decision in order to know what PC system is best for buy. If we care future technologies like DDR2 or PCI-Express, some people will decide to buy an Intel PC (and also spent much money). Although, AMD is making an effort to bring us 64-bit technology and a powerful level of computation. In the future we'll see who wins this battle. The war continues...
The Athlon chips' 64-bit capability is currently no advantage, as 64-bit Windows XP isn't due to ship until 2005.
True if you forget linux, or.
True, linux tests should be documented in this benchmark, as the 64 bit capabilities would definitely add some more bang, we saw this in the move from 16 to 32 bit.
The best advantage (IMHO) of 64 bit processors is increased address space for memory. Currently 32 bit processors have a limit of 4GB, cram in it there how you want, thats where the addresses run out. Get out your calculator and do 2 ^ 64 and you get WAY more. Yes thats 18,446,744,073 GIGABYTES of possible ram you could have. Pretty soon youre not gonna be able to find a 512mb stick of ram unless you look in a trash can.
Harjas, it's nattural that the price of your computer to lay down, that happend even here, in Romania. Amd reduce the price of it's processors because they increase the product gamma, now they come up to the market with Semprom, witch combine technology from Athlon and Athlon 64....i'n my country an semprom sink up to 45 $, and a few months ago he worth 60$....i think it'a a good policy, because soon we will be able to buy at reasonable prices amd 64...and i hardly espected.......by the way, if you buy a computer, don't sale it, UPGRADE it.
bye
ps.sorry for my english
does an amd 3000+ makes more noice while running just f.e. an excel programm than an intel centrino would do ?
somebody ask if an amd 3000+ make more noise than a intel centrino....well, the processors make no noise, but the cooler you installed on motherboard, for an amd 3000+ i'll reccomend you an Volcano cooler that supports amd 3200+ at 2700 r/pm...it's very quiet, and dissipate verry well the heat...
Which one cost less? AMD
Which one uses less power, saving you money? AMD
Which one won most benchmarks? AMD
AMD = 3 for 3
Intel = 0 for 3
AMD = winner
If you prefer to buy a processor because there marketing campaign is better than buy an Intel. They will charge you for their ads by marking up their cpu.
I own two computers. An Intel Pentium 4: 3E GHz (Prescott core) and an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (Barton core I believe) and handsdown, Intel is much faster. I did some research on amd.com because I had a question. Whats with the "3000"? it operates at 2.16 GHz. Turns out the 3000 is mean't to be the equivalent of an Intel working at 3 GHz. The intel is running a Maxtor 40 GB, 2 MB buffer with 512 MB of DDR 400 memory. The Athlon is running a Western Digital 80 GB, 8 MB buffer with 768 MB DDR 333 because thats the max it can go. The Athlon can't operate at DDR 400. With all that in mind the Intel still does EVERYTHING faster. It multitasks, plays games and surfs the internet better and faster than the Athlon. Both processors are how they are. I don't know how to overclock. And the Intel's manufacture heatsink does a better job than the Athlon heatsink. So Intel runs with a slower HHD, less heat, and carrys things out faster and better? I feel Intel has the upper hand til some 64 bit software comes out and the Athlon 64 can try and take over.
This is a little off the topic but what is the differance between the AMD 64 3500+ and the AMD FX-53 other than 400Mhz and about $800? and would the differance between the two be worth the extra price?
**This is for a gaming computer**
for me, im conscious with the parts that i bought for my pc, i think both intel and amd are the best processors in the market, it depends on the setup, proper installation and the various types of expansion cards do u have, i have here, pentium 2.4GHZ, 512MB DDR ram, 80 GB SATA HDD, but it performs well, but i planned to rebuild my pc but with new motherboard that can support 800MHZ bus, i have here a p4 3.0E GHZ just preparing to prep and start again...
Hi Peter
A lot of folks seem to think that FSB speeds are everything. Both Intel and AMD would be very pleased to see their marketing strategies getting consumers to concentrate so hard on their products while almost neglecting others. Your P4 is not a slow computer and a S478 3.0 Prescott is not a world beater. I suggest you look into getting hold of a great 3D video card and invest in some more RAM and you will find that your 2.4 will do very nicely. Let me give an example. A good friend of my son proudly brought his A64 3.0 around to show off. After some benchmarking this machine came 5th to a Prescott 3.0 (I was building for a colleague for video editing), which in turn was beaten by an XP 2800+ Barton, which was itself beaten by a 2600+ Barton, which was beaten by a 2500+ Barton. The message is very clear. Unless you are absolutely sure that you need a performance increase based soley on CPU performance, (and there is very little of that kind of software around) you may be overlooking serious gains in performance that other components in the system can provide. I have seen a few CPU upgrades by hundreds of MHz that yeilded little if any "real world." gain.
The multi-tasking test is intersting to say the least. AMD must have the Intel spin doctors well and truly spinning if this is what's needed to knock off an AMD processor. Firstly of the three senarios shown probably the test won by the AMD's (No.2) would be most users experience in multitasking. Secondly I suspect that if the virus checker gets too active, like most operators, I swear at it and threaten to flame the manufacturer. Thirdly. I just love the inclusion of the overall average so that it looks like another CPU test that AMD lost. Sorry Intel won. Forthly, wouldn't it be a better comparison to show the overall impact on processing performance during multitasking? What do the numbers 30 plus in the previous test have in common with with the 3.0 something numbers in the multitasking test? Has the PC actually slowed down by 90%? If that's the case you'd be better off doing each task on its own, wouldn't you?
Hi Branden. As with A64's the raw cpu MHz of a Barton CPU is not of its own an indicator of how well it performs. Just reading between the lines your Barton set up looks well below par (particularly the main board) and with a little work I'm sure it could be spruced up by some margin. The Barton is well capable of running at 400 MHz FSB as all Bartons are. Only trouble is you need to unlock the multiplier and set it to a speed that it can handle. Currently your cpu runs 166 (333) X 12.5, if you unlock the multiplier then you should be able to run at least 200 (400)X 10. Your CPU speed is nearly the same but your mobo and RAM is now at 400 MHz. You will need to buy 400 MHz RAM unless your 2700 (333) sims are of the highest quality. If you can't or are unwilling to try unlocking the multiplier you can try running at stock 200 X 12.5 but you will need to upgrade your CPU cooler and RAM to do it. This is why personally I chose the 2500+ Barton since it has the same multiplier as the 3200+ which runs at 400 MHz FSB so upping the voltage and setting the FSB to 200 results in exactly the same performace as a 3200+ (2200 MHz). But at 2500+ (1834 MHz) with a Radeon 9800 pro my system is at full graphics 1024 X 768 in Far Cry so I haven't really needed this option at this point other than I know that my system can handle this under stock cooling. However I will still opt to beef the cooling before doing longer stints at 3200+ just to play it safe. Of course some enthusiats have acheived considerably higher OC's than this.
Apply your techonogy to end suffering.
Heck what better reason to upgradeand Justify the expense of the latest and greatest CPU !
http://www.grid.org/home.htm
thanks in advance
"I own two computers. An Intel Pentium 4: 3E GHz (Prescott core) and an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (Barton core I believe) and handsdown, Intel is much faster. I did some research on amd.com because I had a question. Whats with the "3000"? it operates at 2.16 GHz. Turns out the 3000 is mean't to be the equivalent of an Intel working at 3 GHz. The intel is running a Maxtor 40 GB, 2 MB buffer with 512 MB of DDR 400 memory. The Athlon is running a Western Digital 80 GB, 8 MB buffer with 768 MB DDR 333 because thats the max it can go. The Athlon can't operate at DDR 400. With all that in mind the Intel still does EVERYTHING faster. It multitasks, plays games and surfs the internet better and faster than the Athlon. Both processors are how they are. I don't know how to overclock. And the Intel's manufacture heatsink does a better job than the Athlon heatsink. So Intel runs with a slower HHD, less heat, and carrys things out faster and better? I feel Intel has the upper hand til some 64 bit software comes out and the Athlon 64 can try and take over. "
Well, first of all, I highly doubt that the Prescott is actually much faster at all, its probably just your candy soaked pee brain, and the blue man group on commercials that tell you that. Seccond, the 3000+ Barton came out quite a while before Prescotts. Third, you ignorant people, core clock is about only 20% of how the computer runs. Still even, the Prescott cannot sort information as fast as a much cheaper opponent. It has 12k + 16k (I think) lv1 cache, while the Barton has 64k + 64k. That means regardless of how much lv2 cache it has, it enters and exits a hell of alot faster. In addition, your Barton probably is running on a not-so-great board with insufficent ram. Plus, the Barton can and will run at 400mhz clock, and not any hotter either. Its just that the blue man people didn't tell you that there is most likely an option in your BIOS that lets you step it up. On top of that, the price it costs to build a Barton system is half of that for a Prescott system. Comparing the Barton to a Prescott is like comparing a GeForce 3 to a GeForce 4, its in another league. Sadly though, the Barton isn't much slower.
to: Brandon Craig
Pentium 4: 3E GHz (Prescott core) and an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (Barton core I believe) and handsdown, Intel is much faster. I did some research on amd.com because I had a question. Whats with the "3000"? it operates at 2.16 GHz. Turns out the 3000 is mean't to be the equivalent of an Intel working at 3 GHz. The intel is running a Maxtor 40 GB, 2 MB buffer with 512 MB of DDR 400 memory. The Athlon is running a Western Digital 80 GB, 8 MB buffer with 768 MB DDR 333 because thats the max it can go. The Athlon can't operate at DDR 400. With all that in mind the Intel still does EVERYTHING faster. It multitasks, plays games and surfs the internet better and faster than the Athlon. Both processors are how they are. I don't know how to overclock. And the Intel's manufacture heatsink does a better job than the Athlon heatsink. So Intel runs with a slower HHD, less heat, and carrys things out faster and better? I feel Intel has the upper hand til some 64 bit software comes out and the Athlon 64 can try and take over.
I think your quite biased with this as I read, what the heck in the world are you comparing an Athlon XP 3000+ with P4 3Ghz Prescott core? Your living in a stone age my friend. You should read more before posting such a dumb, brainless claims. Research boy and understand it. I think your one of the major victim of Intels strategic marketing, I suddenly felt sorry for you.
The text and the charts are OK, the confusion may occur because in some charts a grater number indicates a worse mark. (this is indicated in the lower right corner in each chart)
Friends,
During my research in “silicon performance” Performance of AMD processor is going down after one year (it happening in all silicon ,but AMD’s very fast compared to Intel silicon ) .
Regards
John
Folks: A lower score is BETTER on SOME of theses benchmarks-hence the discrepency with the text/chip clock speeds.
*" During my research in “silicon performance” Performance of AMD processor is going down after one year (it happening in all silicon ,but AMD’s very fast compared to Intel silicon )"*
This is most likely (and only due to) the unfortunate side effect of overclocking. We who do it know what we're getting into, but hey... the chips are cheaper(moneywise) and easier to OC, also if they do go down(in flames?) they are cheaper to buy again. I have a 2800+ that ive been running for almost 2 years straight... without shutting it down AND its OC'd... im not seeing this 1 year life....
Charts and text do match up. Read the Better/Worse comment on each chart.
Duo and Dual core offerings benefit greatly from this engagement using 1MB L2 for their productivity reporting. Though, this evo does little to simplify drivers or eight and up to sixty four combined core allocations using pci-x; with pcie CNR/DP into mutiplexed routers for ISP/VPN. (I have viewed the USA approved quad-Opteron/FX Tyan motherboard and personnally feel through self help and my redition Athlon 3400+ single core processer; that this article validates the measurable increases of data movment and use of broadband in comparison.)
Whats up with the cheesy memory in the Intel systems? Use the same memory in bothg systems or this test isn't legitamate.
some real in depth guides here for you to look at many test done http://computech-pcs.co.uk
This post has been removed by a moderator.