Content Creation Performance

We were a bit surprised by the close race in the Multimedia Content Creation Winstone tests, but it does look like the Athlon 64 FX-62 can still be pretty competitive in some areas:

Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004

The Core 2 Extreme X6800 is still faster by 5.7%, but no where near the huge performance increases we saw on the previous page.  Looking at SYSMark's ICC tests however, the picture changes dramatically:

SYSMark 2004 - Overall Internet Content Creation Performance

When AMD introduced the Athlon 64 X2 we saw SYSMark 2004 scores hit new, never before seen, highs. 

SYSMark 2004 - 3D Content Creation Performance

SYSMark 2004 - 2D Content Creation Performance

SYSMark 2004 - Web Publishing Performance

With Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800, our performance expectations are reset once more.  In all of the Content Creation tests, the Core 2 Extreme outpaces the FX-62 by anywhere from 27% to 28%.

Business Application Performance Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

134 Comments

View All Comments

  • saratoga - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    Seriously. Whats with all the noobs in here who can't read a benchmark?
  • toyota - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    whats the big deal? we just want to see what some realistic benchmarks look like in addition to the cpu specific ones.
  • smitty3268 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    What you want is a gpu benchmark. What's the big deal? This is an article about cpus. If you want a gpu benchmark, go to another article because this one isn't for you.

    It's no different than if I were to come in and start complaining about how this article didn't test the performance of external usb hard drives. Sure, this article doesn't have anything to do with that, but I actually have a usb hdd and I don't have a Conroe, so it would be useful to me. Who cares about these stupid cpu tests, I want my usb hdd test!!!
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    quote:

    whats the big deal? we just want to see what some realistic benchmarks look like in addition to the cpu specific ones.


    But the result will be as expected, there will be no difference thanks for CPU limitations are high resolutions.
  • zsdersw - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    quote:

    It looks like with 65mm alone AMD may be able to challenge for the crown


    If the clock speeds of Core 2 Duo at launch are all there is to ever be, maybe.. but that's probably about as likely as the US government paying off its debts and balancing the budget.
  • Miggle - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    I can't believe that most loggers here just does not understand the concept of isolation in tests. We are testing CPU speed here and as much as possible, we want to keep the GPU from affecting the results. Sure the difference would be smaller once we apply AA/AF but thats not because the X2 starts running faster but because the GPU is beginning to limit the fps. 20% is a huge difference for CPUs in the same price range... AMD may have FX64 by the time core2 is released but its not going to chop down that 20% performance lead down to 15% even. I'm an AMD fan but I got to hand the crown to intel for Core2. I'm particularly looking at the $183 core2.... should be faster than the X2 3800+ and cooler too
  • classy - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    I don't think you understand. Years ago the cpu was the most important part of the system. That is far from the truth today. Truth is people play games with AA/AF and people do things at higher resolutions. That is just a fact of life. If you want to run pure cpu tests then run things at 640x480 then. That will show some facts, but escape the truth. Truth is the cpu is limited by the rest of the system components and who in the hell would pay $1000 for a cpu and put it in a system with to play games with no aa/af or run the desktop at 640x480. I think you fit in with that group of loggers you mentioned.
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link


    Then let's GPU limit the FX 62 and Pentium EE 965 and bench them together and show there is no difference between them at high resolutions like 1920x1200. :D

    This argument works in Intel's favour as well you know.
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I don't think you understand. Years ago the cpu was the most important part of the system. That is far from the truth today. Truth is people play games with AA/AF and people do things at higher resolutions. That is just a fact of life. If you want to run pure cpu tests then run things at 640x480 then. That will show some facts, but escape the truth. Truth is the cpu is limited by the rest of the system components and who in the hell would pay $1000 for a cpu and put it in a system with to play games with no aa/af or run the desktop at 640x480. I think you fit in with that group of loggers you mentioned.


    Except the gamers like my friend where he plays somewhat competitively and complains that he gets lag spikes playing DoD: Source with Pentium M 2.0GHz laptop(a Dell XPS M170) with Geforce 7800GTX Go, at 1024x768 resolution. He also runs at 1024x768 for BF2 because of the same reason, and he still notices lag.

    There's another guy which notices lag with A64 3000+ Radeon 9800 running Counter-Strike based on the FIRST HL engine.

    The ones who play competitively wouldn't notice. But the "normal" people will also notice no difference running the same system with Sempron or Celeron D.
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link

    quote:

    The ones who play competitively wouldn't notice. But the "normal" people will also notice no difference running the same system with Sempron or Celeron D.


    The ones who doesn't play competitively wouldn't notice.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now