Standard Gaming Performance

We tested with our recently revised group of game tests, which includes Call of Duty 2, Serious Sam 2, Half Life 2: Lost Coast, F.E.A.R, Far Cry, and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. All boards were tested with the ATI X1900 XT with Catalyst 6.4 drivers and the NVIDIA 7900 GTX to allow direct comparison to other motherboard gaming results.

Gaming Performance - Call of Duty II


Gaming Performance - Far Cry


Gaming Performance - F.E.A.R.


Gaming Performance - Half Life 2


Gaming Performance - Serious Sam II


Gaming Performance - Splinter Cell Chaos Theory


X1900 XT standard results are in gold, while NVIDIA 7900 GTX results on the ATI CrossFire Xpress 3200 AM2 are in red. Top performance was generally split among the games between the ATI board running X1900 XT and the Foxconn 590 running NVIDIA 7900 GTX. There was no knockout winner in standard gaming performance.

General Performance & 3D Graphics CrossFire Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

71 Comments

View All Comments

  • Saist - Friday, June 2, 2006 - link

    to quote

    "short life for AM2 dominance before the launch of Conroe"

    Um. Anandtech, if you actually do believe that Conroe's performance numbers are going to hold up in multithreaded applications that exceed 4megabytes of cache data, I think you need to redo you're calculations. After intel's showing of Conroe behind closed doors during E3, I think you should also be aware that the performance numbers are not adding up. Intel might finally be competitive, but even when Intel chips have been competitive in the past, AMD chips have won on price. AM2 may not be the only game in town come this fall, but to say it has a short life? Makes me wonder if you actually bothered even asking the game developers what they are getting out of the processors.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, June 2, 2006 - link

    ...multithreaded applications that exceed 4megabytes of cache data..."

    We believe in real world testing. I'm sure there will be applicaitons where AMD still comes out ahead, but synthetic scenarios don't really count. If http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x...">Intel wins in encoding tests, 3D rendering, gaming, office... and loses in a few specific benchmarks that require lots of memory and low latency RAM access, does it really mean AMD is competitive? I mean, there are still a few specific scenarios where P4 can beat A64, but you don't see us trumpeting those as being representative.

    What it comes down to is what most people will get out of each platform, and so far it's looking like a pretty clean sweep for Core Duo 2. Woodcrest vs. Opteron in HPC applications might be a different story (I doubt it), but that's really only relevant if you're running server workloads. As far as pricing, http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/1556_large_conr...">last I saw the $300+ prices of dual core AMD chips are going to have a difficult time competing with $185-$225 Intel chips. Overclocks are also looking promising as well, so a $185 chip running 2.8 GHz will be a force to be reconned with.
  • R3MF - Friday, June 2, 2006 - link

    can you tell me the what and the when of this amzing revelation?
  • Slaimus - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    quote:

    In the end, if you want ATI CrossFire video you must choose ATI AM2 and if you want NVIDIA SLI you must choose NVIDIA nForce5.


    You can run CrossFire on 975X as well. It should be a competitive platform once the new CPUs come out.
  • Axbattler - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    Umm, the article made no mention of the Sil3132 performance on the A8R32-MVP, which I believe is bugged.
  • Trisped - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2767&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2767&am...
    First chart, #1 is the Silicon Image 3132 SATA2 (ATI) performance rating.
  • Axbattler - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    I saw that. But if you look at the second graph, the performance of the Sil 3132 in the MSI board is considerably worse than in the ATI reference board.

    That is still quite usable, but the one from the Asus A8R32-MVP is basically unusable (slower than what modern drives are capable).
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    We retested Sil3132 on the ATI and some other controllers for this review, and the other 3132 data should have been deleted. Now corrected. We are not aware of the 3132 issue with the A8R32-MVP. The Sil3132 is one of the best SATA2 controllers on the market, and it is a much better performer than the Sil3114.
  • Axbattler - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    The result does shown in the review does suggest a solid performance from the Sil3132 controller. However, this is what I have been experiencing:
    - http://img267.imageshack.us/my.php?image=burst4dh....">http://img267.imageshack.us/my.php?image=burst4dh.... (Sil controller)
    - http://img71.imageshack.us/my.php?image=burst27ja....">http://img71.imageshack.us/my.php?image=burst27ja.... (ULi controller)

    Two motherboard bioses were tested (0311, 0404), as well as all the drivers from 1.0.9.0 (bundled with the motherboard installation CD, to the latest 1.0.16.0

    The poor HDTach performance is reflected in real world application too, gaming loading, file copying are all slowed down to horrendous level.

    I believe that Gary was able to replicate this issue (not sure if he eventually found a way around it), although I suppose that based on the result of the other board, it is an issue specific Asus board (perhaps the A8R32-MVP). Is there any chance you could run a test to confirm this?
    Very few people in forums that I've visited use the Sil controller, perhaps due to the positioning of the SATA socket (which is actually optimal to where my Raptor is installed: on a 5.25" drive bay).
  • Trisped - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    ATI AM2.jpg is a bit blurry when blown up. You might want to set the camera on the highest quality setting so that doesn’t happen.

    quote:

    CPU Clock Multiplier 4x-25x in 0X increments
    0X looks like a typo

    Why did the Audio Performance charts not have any NVIDIA solutions?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now