Intel Core Duo (Yonah) Performance Preview - Part II
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 19, 2005 12:55 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overall System Performance using SYSMark 2004
Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
SYSMark's Office Productivity suite consists of three tests, the first of which is the Communication test. The Communication test consists of the following:
Compared to the Athlon 64 X2, the Core Duo T2500 manages to slightly outperform the X2 3800+, but moving to a larger cache helps the X2 narrow that already small gap. Even though the Core Duo has a one-point lead, given the percentage, we'd call this one a tie.
The breakdown of the Office Productivity SYSMark 2004 score is listed below, higher numbers mean better performance:
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 breakdown of the ICC SYSMark 2004 score is listed below, higher numbers mean better performance:
Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
SYSMark's Office Productivity suite consists of three tests, the first of which is the Communication test. The Communication test consists of the following:
"The user receives an email in Outlook 2002 that contains a collection of documents in a zip file. The user reviews his email and updates his calendar while VirusScan 7.0 scans the system. The corporate web site is viewed in Internet Explorer 6.0. Finally, Internet Explorer is used to look at samples of the web pages and documents created during the scenario."The next test is Document Creation performance:
"The user edits the document using Word 2002. He transcribes an audio file into a document using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 6. Once the document has all the necessary pieces in place, the user changes it into a portable format for easy and secure distribution using Acrobat 5.0.5. The user creates a marketing presentation in PowerPoint 2002 and adds elements to a slide show template."The final test in our Office Productivity suite is Data Analysis, which BAPCo describes as:
"The user opens a database using Access 2002 and runs some queries. A collection of documents are archived using WinZip 8.1. The queries' results are imported into a spreadsheet using Excel 2002 and are used to generate graphical charts."
Compared to the Athlon 64 X2, the Core Duo T2500 manages to slightly outperform the X2 3800+, but moving to a larger cache helps the X2 narrow that already small gap. Even though the Core Duo has a one-point lead, given the percentage, we'd call this one a tie.
The breakdown of the Office Productivity SYSMark 2004 score is listed below, higher numbers mean better performance:
| OP SYSMark 2004 Score Breakdown | AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.0GHz/1MB | Intel Core Duo T2500 | Intel Pentium M 760 |
| Communication | 148 | 144 | 146 | 146 | 140 |
| Document Creation | 219 | 204 | 211 | 215 | 203 |
| Data Analysis | 145 | 136 | 138 | 138 | 117 |
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."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 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 breakdown of the ICC SYSMark 2004 score is listed below, higher numbers mean better performance:
| ICC SYSMark 2004 Score Breakdown | AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.0GHz/1MB | Intel Core Duo T2500 | Intel Pentium M 760 |
| 3D Content Creation | 271 | 248 | 251 | 264 | 181 |
| 2D Content Creation | 340 | 312 | 314 | 323 | 238 |
| Web Publication | 274 | 254 | 257 | 236 | 162 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
vailr - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Re: Chipset Drivers used in the review:nForce4 6.66
Intel 7.0.0.25
Check here: http://www.fdrsoft.fr.fm/">http://www.fdrsoft.fr.fm/
Intel Version 7.2.2.1006
nForce4 Version 6.70
Marlin1975 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Being that DVD shrink will not be updated anymore and the creator is now part of Nero, and the Recode program. Why not use Recode?PrinceGaz - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link
Personally I wouldn't touch any of the compressed domain transcoders like DVD Shrink as they sacrifice quality for speed. Something like DVD Rebuilder combined with the excellent CCE SP encoder provide the best possible quality and are just as easy to use as DVD Shrink. It's nowhere near as fast as DVD Shrink, but I'll take better picture quality over saving a few minutes any day.mrred - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Anyone else notice that the game benches seem horribly gpu-bound? How about giving us some lower resolutions in testing?Look at FEAR in particular: X2-4200 and X2-3800 getting exactly the same score? HELLO?!?!?!? That's not a cpu-benchmark. Gimme a break.
Anemone - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link
Frankly I appreciate testing that shows resolutions we actually play at. Now if only we'd see 1920x1200 :)blackbrrd - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
The games are benchmarked at 1024x768.Personally I haven't played a game below 1024x768 since I got my GF2mx four or five years ago.
Most games look horrible below 1024x768, except the games ported from consoles ;)
saratoga - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Yeah and above 1024 you're GPU limited. Its almost like this was a CPU review.tfranzese - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
That's not the point. The point is to relieve the GPU so regardless of what GPUs come out a year or two from now that alieviate this bottleneck we'll have known beforehand how the CPU handles things.Further, this is a CPU preview and as such we don't care about system performance or GPU performance; that shouldn't be the focus or included in the article. Instead, every benchmark should serve the articles purpose of comparing the CPUs - GPU bound benchmarks do NOT serve that purpose and should have their resolution lowered to serve that purpose, otherwise they should not be included because what point do they serve except fluff?
tayhimself - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Yeah this review is horrible, just like the first Yonah review.uop - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
I wouldn't call it horrible.There are some weak points, but it does give a good idea about how the Core Duo performs.
Mainly:
- It's not as good as the A64 when it comes to games
- FP is much improved but not there yet
The article does do a good job of reminding us that Yonah is just the dress rehersal for the real deal. Conroe is supposed to be faster, wider, and full of 64-bit goodness. Think about it - with Yonah's die size, it could be the Celeron-M in just 6 months!
If Yonah can compete with the A64, then unless AMD pull a fast one they're probably heading for the underdog position.