AMD Athlon 64 4000+ & FX-55: A Thorough Investigation
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 19, 2004 1:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Multitasking Content Creation
MCC Winstone 2004
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:
. Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0.1
. Adobe® Premiere® 6.50
. Macromedia® Director MX 9.0
. Macromedia® Dreamweaver MX 6.1
. Microsoft® Windows MediaTM Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980
. NewTek's LightWave® 3D 7.5b
. SteinbergTM WaveLabTM 4.0f
As you can see above, Lightwave is part of the MCC Winstone 2004 benchmark suite. As an individual application, Lightwave does manage to get a healthy performance benefit with multithreaded rendering enabled, especially when paired with Hyperthreading enabled CPUs like the Pentium 4s here today. The latest MCC Winstone patch allows for a selection of how many threads to launch during the Lightwave test, the options range from 1 - 8 threads.
Based on our tests it seems as if 4 threads yields the highest performance on the Pentium 4 platform, and thus we used that setting for all of our tests. The Athlon 64s perform identically with 1 or 4 threads as they are not multithreading capable processors, so the AMD scores did not change.
Despite the inclusion of Hyperthreading support, MCC Winstone 2004 still shows AMD performing much better in an area where Intel once dominated. While the Prescott based Pentium 4 560 is at the front of the Intel pack, it is still outperformed by the Athlon 64 3400+.
Here the single vs. dual channel memory gap shrinks to under 3% when we compare the 3400 and 3800+ processors, but also worth noting that the added cache of the 4000+ is also only responsible for about a 2% performance gain. Put the two together and you've got a decent combination in the Athlon 64 4000+, but separately the features don't bring much to the table to justify the added cost.
ICC SYSMark 2004
The first category that we will deal with is 3D Content Creation. The tests that make up this benchmark are described below:
"The user renders a 3D model to a bitmap using 3ds max 5.1, while preparing web pages in Dreamweaver MX. Then the user renders a 3D animation in a vector graphics format."
Intel has historically done very well under SYSMark 2004, especially when it comes to Internet Content Creation applications. Here we've got a number of very NetBurst friendly applications running at the same time and the results aren't too surprising.
For once we have the Pentium 4 560 out on top, distancing itself from the Athlon 64 FX-55 by almost 5%. The Prescott core flexes its muscle as the longer pipeline does it no harm, with the Pentium 4 550 performing on level ground with the Northwood based 3.4EE.
The three 2.4GHz AMD chips settle in the middle of the pack, followed by the Pentium 4 530 and the remaining Athlon 64s and Athlon XP. 3D rendering continues to be a strongpoint for the Pentium 4, with the combination of 3D rendering and animation giving Intel the much needed lead here.
Next, we have 2D Content Creation performance:
"The user uses Premiere 6.5 to create a movie from several raw input movie cuts and sound cuts and starts exporting it. While waiting on this operation, the user imports the rendered image into Photoshop 7.01, modifies it and saves the results. Once the movie is assembled, the user edits it and creates special effects using After Effects 5.5."
The race is much closer in the 2D Content Creation test, with the Pentium 4 560 virtually tied for the lead with AMD's Athlon 64 FX-55.
Once again we see no difference between the 512KB L2 3800+ and the new 4000+ armed with a 1MB L2 cache. There continues, however, to be a slight performance impact when going down to the single channel Athlon 64 3400+.
Looking at the Athlon XP we see just how important the Athlon 64 has been
to AMD, without it we'd be analyzing another Intel dominated test.
Here's another situation where Prescott seems to be breaking even when
it comes to performance. Remember that Prescott's lengthened pipeline should
penalize it significantly, but thanks to Prescott's other core optimizations
and larger cache it manages to perform just as well as the Northwood based
Extreme Edition here.
The Internet Content Creation suite is rounded up with a Web Publishing performance test:
"The user extracts content from an archive using WinZip 8.1. Meanwhile, he uses Flash MX to open the exported 3D vector graphics file. He modifies it by including other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The final movie with the special effects is then compressed using Windows Media Encoder 9 series in a format that can be broadcast over broadband Internet. The web site is given the final touches in Dreamweaver MX and the system is scanned by VirusScan 7.0."
The situation remains mostly unchanged in SYSMark's final Internet Content Creation test. The Pentium 4 560 heads up the pack, followed very closely by the Athlon 64 FX-55 as well as the Pentium 4 550 and 3.4EE.
Mozilla + Media Encoder
While AMD dominated in WorldBench 5's Mozilla test, encoding a file using Windows Media Encoder in the background not only makes this test more appreciative of the Pentium 4 but also of Hyper Threading.
Despite the seemingly perfect Hyper Threading scenario, it doesn't help Intel win the lead here. The Athlon 64 FX-55 and the 4000+ manage to win here, followed by the 3.4EE. Without any spatial locality between the two very different applications being run enabling Hyper Threading essentially gives each one of the applications half of the cache they would have running solo, thus giving the 3.4EE an advantage over the Pentium 4 560.
We also see that the cache advantage is clearly present on the AMD side as well, with the 4000+ enjoying a 6.7% advantage over the 3800+, with the only difference between the chips being an additional 512KB of L2 cache.
The rest of the results are no surprise given the leaders, the Athlon 64 continues to be quite strong here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
mlittl3 - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
Oh and one more thing and then I will shut up. With regards to trusting your research, how about I trust Anandtech's, Tomshardware's, Xbitlabs', Acehardware's, [H]ardocp's, etc. research over yours. None of these sites have made an official statement that you are mad to choose AMD over Intel. I will trust their research before I trust yours (unless you run a hardware review site that proves that AMD processors are less stable and slower than Intel processors).mlittl3 - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
t, Valeria was refering to the AMD 8000 series chipsets lacking the features you listed. If you want an AMD chipset, you will have to have third-party addon chips to support SATA, firewire, etc.Valerie, you said you liked it when people answered your comments so here goes.
"More competitors to the battlefield or some kind of regulation is needed."
I agree with you here. We need companies like AMD because they help continue progress and make equal if not better processors than Intel, forcing Intel in turn to make equal or better processors than AMD and so on.
"...that AMD madness will end one time..."
This contradicts your statement about competition. You want regulation and competition but you want AMD gone. Why do you hate other companies besides Intel?
"Name me one company which prefers AMD and doesnt produce intel, name me one industrial computer who support AMDs, one automotive rack test system provider, hospital equipment, avionic systems, and so on"
According to your request for more competition, why would you want a company that only supports AMD. If all companies support all processors, we have the ability to make choices based on the strong points of each technology for a given application that we desire.
"its about quality and support what you will never get from AMD/taiwan"
I don't understand why you typed Taiwan (refering to Via I guess), but anyway, Intel has delayed/cancelled products over 10 times in the last year. They cancelled Tejas and 4GHz Prescott. They delayed Dothan, Whitefield (dual-cores I believe) and Itanium progress has been delayed like crazy. AMD has had a lot less setbacks. I don't know what the definition of quality is in Europe, but here in America, such cancellations and delays are unacceptable.
"Get Intel, and dont fall to temporaly madness"
No one will respect your "research" with statements like these. Again you contradict your desire for competition. No one is mad to choose AMD, Via, Transmeta, Apple, IBM, Sun, etc. Everyone has a specific application and no one processor does well at everything. Do you know anything about the following processors?
Via C3
Transmeta Crusoe
IBM Power series (4,5)
Sun Ultrasparc (III, III+, IV, IV+)
Apple G4 (Motorola) G5 (IBM)
Do you think people who choose these are "mad" or do you only hate AMD?
"Respected companies doesnt change so fast"
My respect for your research is getting worse. Intel has changed their mind about issues left and right in short periods of time (sorry but I have to say it, they are "flip-flopping"). At one point, they insulted and ridiculed model numbers for processors. They also said that only megahertz(hurtz) matters. They also said that it is not the time for 64-bit. They have changed their position on all these points. Intel changing their minds so much is not a good quality a company should have that is supposedly "leading" the industry.
"everybody makes mistakes, but with intel you have allways choice"
If Intel and AMD both make mistakes, why are you so much in bed with Intel. If you want all the "mad" people to get over AMD and only go with Intel, how is this choice? How do you have choice without competition. If Intel only existed, then we would have no choice. You contradict yourself again.
"now i am happy that AMD is here, same as i am happy that there is cheap cars to buy, competing is good for all."
You are all over the place. First you say that people should get over their temporary madness now you are glad AMD is here. What are you trying to say? If competing is good for all, then we should have many processor companies driving technological progress. One day, AMD might be bigger than Intel. Do you think Intel will be the largest company for processors over the next 100 years? No one can predict that. Are you going to tell people they are "mad" when they choose Intel if AMD one day gets larger than Intel. With regards to your cheap comments, Intel and AMD both make expensive and cheap processors. Their price points are almost identical. Do some freaking research why don't you?
"Stop that anti intel BS which is based on fool synthetic benchmarks and theoretical "if than" visions"
You obviously have not done any research. Intel wins the majority of the synthetic benchmarks. That is why many companies pick them because there are so many apps out there, synthetic benchmarks represent an overall processor goodness. However, hardware enthusiats know that synthetic benchmarks don't mean crap, and they hunt down a review site that did tests with the application they are interested in. People who play games buy AMD, people who do video/audio encoding and rendering pick Intel, people who do scientific apps pick AMD, etc. (I know this is always changing people so don't flame me). Try doing your research again.
"I did lot of research, trust me."
How about I do not trust you based on your above statements which contradict themselves constantly. I believe you are an Intel Fangirl just like an AMD fangirl/boy with very little info.
"We need better chipsets, better support from OS and for developers to be close to intel."
Again, you are contradicting your statements about competition. How are other companies supposed to compete if they only work with Intel? This is the problem we have with the horrible Windows operating system. Developers only work with Microsoft and we are plagued with problems because of that monopoly.
Sorry, Valerie, but your statements are flawed and they contradict themselves. You are an Intel Fangirl and nothing else. Both AMD and Intel Fangirls/boys never present a valid argument. Technology is technology. It benefits mankind regardless of whether or not AMD or Intel is in front of the name. People will pick a product that suits their needs. Both AMD and Intel provide for different needs from different people.
blckgrffn - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
Val!Enough!
It is really obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about! You made your "points" and now it is time to stop. The comments you made here will be remembered and if you try to make any discussion in the future, not matter how valid, you will be dismissed as the intel fan"girl" that you seem to be. Whatever, I am glad that someone will stick with intel through their development slump...
PrinceGaz - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
#72 Val: "[AMD] Is cheaper, but not much. Whats the difference some stupid 100euro for CPU which lasts for one year? I dont think that they are worse because they are cheaper, but they are cheaper because they are worse."Its news to me that AMD processors only last one year. My Athlon XP 1700+ purchased in Dec 2001 and used almost continually for the three or so years since then is still working fine. I must have been very lucky. I've been doubly lucky as my other machine, with an AMD K6-III/400 purchased early in 1999 is also still running without any problems.
Do you have a link to a reliable source which supports your statement that AMD processors only last one year? Or is this just some more BS you invented?
t - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
74:why exactly do "we need...better support from OS and fro developers to be close to intel"?
given that there are a number of x86-64 linux distrobutions available now... and linux is a fast growing segment of the server market, it would seem that the 'better support' is in place. Remember that it is intel who is also releasing x86-64 based xeons... as a direct response to AMD's strategy.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RW...
also, sun are porting solaris (like it or lump it, its still a major player in the server market) to x86-64
and back to chipsets... one of the majore chipset suppliers for xeon systems is serverworks, who are also supporting opteron
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1604929,00.as...
so...it would seem that both OS support AND chipset support is in place, or rapidly falling so.
intel is a miniscule percentage of the server market for non 32bit x86 systems.... see the realwordtech article linked above.... most 'serious' server developers don't work with intel, because intel systems don't make up a high percentage of the market...instead u have sun/hp/ibm being the majority.
heh, 'special boards'... im sure tyan would happily sell u an amd OR intel based board for a hefty price above any mainstream product. its not like intels server boards are dirt cheap either...
what do you mean 'affordable mainboard with enough features'... the only 'feature' lacking from amd system chipsets is ddr2. They have sata, pci-e, raid, etc, etc.
i dont wanna be all condescending...but if you did 'a lot of research' and want ppl to 'look away from [their] overclocked gaming machines', perhaps you should practise what you preach a little... or do some more extensive research.
the world is not x86, and in the non x86 market, it is definately not intel.
out of curiousity... what are your thoughts on the non intel power5 processors? :)
t.
val - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
71:>As to verification... seeing as sun/ibm/hp
> offer k8 based servers, they HAVE to be
> verified, you know tier1 oem..that kinda
> thing.
where AMD chipset is used and completely different design than you can ever buy for normal PC. so the efect is same. You are right in that k8 is changing things (for better for AMD) but it is still far from perfect. We need better chipsets, better support from OS and for developers to be close to intel.
>also...amd do make their own chipsets, always >have....just that sis/via/nvidia chipsets are >more targetted at the mainstream.
yes they are much worse and with AMD chipset you cannot buy affordable mainboard with enough features. Not counting those special mainboards.
So it is nothing else than what i said: no good chipset available.
Valerie
Gnoad - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
god, someone just end it already. Its obvious arguing our points is gonna accomplish anything here, so lets just let it be now.val - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
68: i dont have only celerons. And i am not him, but her.67: at least somebody answers my questions, unfortunately only some and catching only wrong data out of them.
1.Who cares that 1.7 AMD outperforms it? 1.7 AMD is rated 2000+ and if you tell me that you need 2000+ to play movies, get mails and write office stuff, than heh. i have celeron 2 Ghz and even video encoding is fast on it (23% under athlon 64 3200+) who cares? Far cry i have 60 FPS, Doom3 30 and race driver 2 67 fps. Please do not make me tired.
2. Mostly outsourced as i heard, i am not sure right now here.
3. They don't! They should rather take few bucks they are giving to marketing company which is one year raising PR numbers with same CPU frequency and give them to microsoft to include support in VC++ and speed up the XP64bit. There is no good support for hardware developers at all. No discussion here, look to industrial business.
4. Is cheaper, but not much. Whats the difference some stupid 100euro for CPU which lasts for one year? I dont think that they are worse because they are cheaper, but they are cheaper because they are worse. I am 19+ and dont call me kid.
5. PR filtered.
I did lot of research, trust me. seems like you dont. Please look away from your overclocking gaming machines.
>go buy a Dell, you silly ignorant little fool.
i hope you feel big and smart, not like those idiots making ten times more moneys then you.
t - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
Val: What i am trying to tell you, that AMD is only manufacturing what somebody else designs, they dont care and dont support products and developers, dont care for chipsets quality, certificates, nothing. This leads to that overall quality of AMD platform is far from what you can get with similar price based on Intel.umm....who designs them then? oh thats right...the k7/k8 were largely designed by the alpha engineers that AMD hired after hp killed off the alpha. Intel also have a large body of ex-alpha guys, mainly working on the itanium iirc.
oh...AMD also have a fab tech agreement with IBM.
unless u mean that AMD only makes intel compatible chips? In that case, yes, yes they did, until the K8 when AMD extended the x86 ISA. Making compatible, ie. x86 processors is also what transmeta/via do. And anyway, intel and AMD have a cross patent agreement, meaning that they CAN copy each other if they so wish.
As to verification... seeing as sun/ibm/hp offer k8 based servers, they HAVE to be verified, you know tier1 oem..that kinda thing.
also...amd do make their own chipsets, always have....just that sis/via/nvidia chipsets are more targetted at the mainstream.
sorry for the huge post.
Gnoad - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
Thats a good pic. I wonder if Intel actually tried testing to see how prescott performed at 4ghz before they released it. I know I would have, but it seems they just kinda let it loose then realized, "Oh crap, we screwed up."