AMD Athlon 64 4000+ & FX-55: A Thorough Investigation
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 19, 2004 1:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
3D Rendering
3dsmax 5.1
WorldBench includes two 3dsmax benchmarks using version 5.1 of the popular 3D rendering and animation package: a DirectX and an OpenGL benchmark. The performance standings don't change between the two, only the actual numbers themselves, so we'll only talk about the OpenGL numbers while displaying both.
AMD manages to take the lead in WorldBench's test, with the FX-55, 4000+ and 3800+ all outperforming the Pentium 4 560. The 3.4EE doesn't appear to carry its weight too well as it is outperformed by the single channel Athlon 64 3400+. Also pay attention to the margin of victory here though, most of the top performing parts here are actually within a couple of percentage points of one another, nothing too significant.
3dsmax 6
For the next 3dsmax test we used version 6 of the program and ran the SPECapc rendering tests to truly stress these CPUs. We've reported the Rendering Composite score for easy comparison to the benchmarks in SPEC's database as well as for a quick set of numbers to look at and compare, however for those that are interested we have also provided the render times for the four benchmarks that go into the Rendering Composite score.
While AMD took the lead in WorldBench's 3dsmax 5.1 test, in the SPECapc 3dsmax 6 test, Intel's Pentium 4 3.4EE holds on to the lead. AMD actually only makes one appearance in the top four performers, basically tying with the Pentium 4 560.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
RaistlinZ - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
I may have missed it, but does anyone know if the Athlon 64 4000+ will be multiplier unlocked like the FX-53 is? That's the only thing I see that would differentiate the two chips.RaistlinZ - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Illissius - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Re: the necessity of Prescott. You are missing one very important consideration: Prescott has iAMD64 support. (Although it is currently disabled, no doubt because Intel has intentions of selling you the same processor twice). A simple die shrink of Northwood would not.I half suspect one of the reasons for Prescott's problems could be that AMD's 64-bit extensions don't mesh very well with a Netburst architecure, but they had to shoehorn it in anyways, and had to make a lot of unappealing design decisions in the process. (I've never designed a processor, though, so this is just baseless speculation.) I'd be interested in seeing 64-bit enabled chips on a Pentium M architecture...
CrystalBay - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Moores law is dead...:(Runamile - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Awsome read. Great Job. And HOLY COW does Intel get their a$$ handed to them!I would of liked to see some price/performance curves too. That would of summed it up quite nicely.
hertz9753 - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Athlon 64 3700+ 2.4GHz 1MB 64-bitAthlon 64 3400+ 2.4GHz 512KB 64-bit
Athlon 64 3400+ 2.2GHz 1MB 64-bit
araczynski - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
nice, but luckily i still see no reason to upgrade my 2.4@3.3, at least not for a few measly benchmark FPS.hertz9753 - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
AlphaFox - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Id like to see some kind of comparison with an OC XP Mobile. I have one runing at 2.46ghz and not really sure how it stacks up here...PrinceGaz - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
An excellent article, well done.About the only thing missing was a bit of overclocking of the FX-55 to see if the introduction of strained silicon considerably increased the headroom. Obviously it has allowed them to ship parts rated at 2.6GHz which they weren't previously able to do, but how much better is the FX-55 compared to a CG-stepping FX-53? Does the use of strained silicon mean the FX-55 is a new stepping?