Pentium 4 3.46 Extreme Edition and 925XE: 1066MHz FSB Support is Here
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 31, 2004 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Cheap - High End: Athlon 64 3800+ vs. Pentium 4 560
This entire review has been focused on comparing processors that retail either close to or over $1000 since they are flagship chips, but what about the next price class down? There's a very interesting situation here with the most expensive non-EE Pentium 4 being significantly cheaper than the highest end non-FX Athlon 64 processors.
Using our RealTime Pricing Engine we pitted the bargain high end Pentium 4 560, going for $440, against the more expensive Athlon 64 3800+ which is still selling for just over $600. So which CPU is the better choice if you want performance almost as good as the high end chips, but at a much more reasonable price? Let's find out.
First we've got the business/general use application tests; with AMD taking five of the benchmarks and Intel taking three, the score card is pretty close between the two, however AMD does win by higher margins so the nod goes to AMD here. However, once you take into account the price difference between the two CPUs, AMD's margin of victory is cut into. Despite the price argument, we'll still give the crown here to AMD.
Business/General Use | |||
Intel
Pentium 4 560
|
AMD
Athlon 64 3800+
|
Winner
|
|
Business Winstone 2004 | 21.4
|
23.6
|
AMD
(10.2%)
|
SYSMark 2004 - Communication | 144
|
139
|
Intel
(3.6%)
|
SYSMark 2004 - Document Creation | 201
|
194
|
Intel
(3.6%)
|
SYSMark 2004 - Data Analysis | 184
|
145
|
Intel
(27%)
|
Microsoft Office XP with SP-2 | 522
|
520
|
Tie
|
Mozilla 1.4 | 459
|
316
|
AMD
(31.2%)
|
ACD Systems ACDSee PowerPack 5.0 | 547
|
490
|
AMD
(10.4%)
|
Ahead Software Nero Express 6.0.0.3 | 540
|
491
|
AMD
(9%)
|
WinZip Computing WinZip 8.1 | 412
|
409
|
Tie
|
WinRAR | 479
|
617
|
AMD
(28.8%)
|
Winner | AMD
|
Under our Multitasking Content Creation tests Intel comes away with three wins, and AMD with two. One of AMD's victories is in a test with a fairly high margin of error reducing the real world performance advantage; factor in the lower CPU cost and Intel wins this one.
Multitasking Content Creation | |||
Intel
Pentium 4 560
|
AMD
Athlon 64 3800+
|
Winner
|
|
Content Creation Winstone 2004 | 32.7
|
35.3
|
AMD
(8%)
|
SYSMark 2004 - 3D Creation | 231
|
205
|
Intel
(12.7%)
|
SYSMark 2004 - 2D Creation | 288
|
265
|
Intel
(8.7%)
|
SYSMark 2004 - Web Publication | 206
|
188
|
Intel
(9.6%)
|
Multitasking: Mozilla and Windows Media Encoder | 676
|
590
|
AMD
(12.7%)
|
Winner | Intel
|
AMD wins two, Intel wins one, factor in variance between tests and AMD still comes out ahead by a reasonable margin. AMD wins the performance crown here, but its debatable whether or not the performance advantage is worth the price.
Video Creation/Photo Editing | ||||
Intel
Pentium 4 560
|
AMD
Athlon 64 3800+
|
Winner
|
||
Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1 | 342
|
315
|
AMD
(7.9%)
|
|
Adobe Premiere 6.5 | 461
|
371
|
AMD
(19.5%)
|
|
Roxio VideoWave Movie Creator 1.5 | 287
|
310
|
Intel
(7.4%)
|
|
Winner | AMD
|
Intel wins the A/V encoding tests hands down, barely losing one of the tests.
Audio/Video Encoding | ||||
Intel
Pentium 4 560
|
AMD
Athlon 64 3800+
|
Winner
|
||
MusicMatch Jukebox 7.10 | 484
|
458
|
AMD
(5.4%)
|
|
DivX Encoding | 55.3
|
47.9
|
Intel
(15.4%)
|
|
XV Encoding | 33.9
|
32.6
|
Intel
(4%)
|
|
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9.0 | 2.57
|
2.21
|
Intel
(16.3%)
|
|
Winner | Intel
|
There's no argument here, the 3800+ is clearly the faster gaming processor.
Gaming | |||
Intel
Pentium 4 560
|
AMD
Athlon 64 3800+
|
Winner
|
|
Doom 3 | 84.6
|
97.3
|
AMD
(15%)
|
Sims 2 | 47.3
|
55.4
|
AMD
(17.1%)
|
CS: Source | 142.8
|
171.6
|
AMD
(20.2%)
|
Halo | 87.5
|
95
|
AMD
(8.6%)
|
Far Cry | 130.3
|
151.4
|
AMD
(16.2%)
|
Star Wars Battlefront | 140
|
144
|
AMD
(2.9%)
|
Battlefield Vietnam | 236
|
240
|
AMD
(1.7%)
|
UT2004 | 59.3
|
67.6
|
AMD
(14%)
|
Wolf: ET | 97.2
|
107.1
|
AMD
(10%)
|
Warcraft III | 60
|
62
|
AMD
(3.3%)
|
Winner | AMD
|
AMD wins two benchmarks by less than 5%, while Intel wins one benchmark by less than 7%. We'll call this one a toss up between the two in performance, but factor in price and Intel wins.
3D Rendering | |||
Intel
Pentium 4 560
|
AMD
Athlon 64 3800+
|
Winner
|
|
Discreet 3ds max 5.1 (DirectX) | 267
|
254
|
AMD
(4.9%)
|
Discreet 3ds max 5.1 (OpenGL) | 327
|
312
|
AMD
(4.6%)
|
SPECapc 3dsmax 6 | 1.64
|
1.54
|
Intel
(6.5%)
|
Winner | Tie
|
For 3D Professional applications AMD takes the clear lead, not to mention a significant advantage in compiler performance as well. The added cost of the Athlon 64 is well worth it in some of the tests, but is more questionable in others.
Professional Apps | |||
Intel
Pentium 4 560
|
AMD
Athlon 64 3800+
|
Winner
|
|
SPECviewperf 8 - 3dsmax-03 | 17.04
|
16.75
|
Intel
(1.7%)
|
SPECviewperf 8 - catia-01 | 13.87
|
14.03
|
AMD
(1.2%)
|
SPECviewperf 8 - light-07 | 14.3
|
14.3
|
Tie
|
SPECviewperf 8 - maya-01 | 13.12
|
18.58
|
AMD
(41.6%)
|
SPECviewperf 8 - proe-03 | 16.7
|
17.19
|
AMD
(2.9%)
|
SPECviewperf 8 - sw-01 | 13.09
|
13.72
|
AMD
(4.8%)
|
SPECviewperf 8 - ugs-04 | 15.31
|
16
|
AMD
(4.5%)
|
Visual Studio 6 | 16.8
|
13.1
|
AMD
(22.0%)
|
Winner | AMD
|
So in the end, who takes the crown? AMD or Intel? The 3800+ took four category wins, while the Pentium 4 560 only took two, however with the exception of the gaming and professional apps category, AMD's victories were not overwhelming - especially once you take into account the fact that the 3800+ is priced much higher than the Pentium 4 560. Now that you can purchase at least a couple of 915 based motherboards for less than $130 the total cost of ownership for the Intel platform doesn't eat into the CPU price advantage. For the most part we'd say the 3800+ is faster than the Pentium 4 560 but not always worth the added cost. It's unusual but in many cases, the Pentium 4 560 is actually the bargain high-end chip of the two.
63 Comments
View All Comments
IceWindius - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Considering that Dell of all companies is playing the "Well, were starting to have second thoughts" game, I think its just a matter of time MAME.After all, it wasn't long ago that people thought AMD was going bankrupt and being bought by Intel now was it?
nlhowell - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
The ACDSee info is from the A64 FX-55 and 4000+ review, I believe.The 1ghz FSB seems delightfully useless. Maybe this was an attempt to get more people using the 925X chipset?
MAME - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
while AMD looks quite attractive in comparison, Intel does not have to worry about AMD for a long long time. AMD is unknown to almost the entire "average joe" market. Even if AMD had finally broke through to Dell and large businesses effectively, they simply can't produce enough chips for Intel to be effectedIceWindius - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Ahhhhh AMD just keeps looking better and better. :)I WILL have a nForce 4 and AMD .90nm purring in my machine before Christmas. Half Life 2 will be pure utter buttery smoothness baby.
Steg55 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
At this rate Intel are really going to lose favour in the eyes of....well everyone. If AMD can capitalise on this - get some aggressive marketing out they might finally be able to remove the underdog tag from there name.Just educate the masses AMD - MAKE AMD THE HOUSEHOLD NAME then nothing will stop you.
Steg
LocutusX - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
neo means new in Latin anyways, so no biggie. ;)Hulk - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Jeez, another "so what?" release from Intel.I hope these guys can get it together enough to continue to remain competitive with AMD.
GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Neo = New lolGhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
"We can only wonder what Intel is thinking."Yes, canceling Tejas and 1.2 FSB and releasing crappy chipsets. Neo CEO = New Death for a company.
AMD you can take another sigh of relief.
skunkbuster - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
lol