AMD's dual core Opteron & Athlon 64 X2 - Server/Desktop Performance Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on April 21, 2005 9:25 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Multitasking Scenario 2: File Compression
For our next test, we simulated what would happen if we performed two disk intensive tasks at the same time: zipping the source code to Firefox while importing a 260MB PST file into Outlook 2003. You'll note that this is a slightly modified version of the test that we originally created. We modified the test by archiving the Firefox source instead of a single smaller file; the reason being that we wanted a more realistic test (from a file size/count perspective) as well as the ability to discern better between contenders.We ran the same Firefox and iTunes tasks from the last test again, and then did the following:
1) Open Outlook.
2) Start importing 260MB PST.
3) Start WinRAR.
4) Archive Firefox source.
WinRAR remained the application in focus during this test.
Here, we looked at two metrics: how long it took WinRAR to compress our test file, and how many emails were imported into Outlook during the time that WinRAR was archiving. Let's have a look at the results:
Update: AnandTech reader manno pointed out that the metric we should be looking at here is emails imported per second while the archive task was running. Looking at these numbers, Intel actually comes out ahead with the Pentium D 840, with AMD in second place. All of the dual core chips outperform the single core Athlon 64 FX-55 by a huge margin, and once again, we see that Hyper Threading isn't always beneficial as the Extreme Edition actually runs slower than the regular Pentium D here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
144 Comments
View All Comments
ceefka - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
So, would an nForce 3 250 board work with an A64 X2?smn198 - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
#4 "I find it strange why AMD did not release <2.2GHz A64 X2s? Maybe due to manufacturing issues?"When you make a dual core CPU, a defect on one of them makes the whole lot worthless. I believe that to try and reduce this, they can increase yield by producing lower clocked parts
L3p3rM355i4h - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
#9 you're dreamin' Theres no way that AMD can sell a 1.8ghz chip for sub-$200 when a frickin' venice is retailing for $179. A 1.8ghz chip would be upper $300 to lower $400s.But, damn the "X2" performs nicely. Just think, with a stable, higher performing motherboard with decent timings how much better it would get.
Shinei - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
Nice, dual-core. AMD's going to be hurt badly by the lack of volume on their X2 units, though, considering that Intel's got the money to post minor losses on each chip sold just to regain their marketshare. I'm surprised AMD hasn't tapped IBM to give them one or two 65nm fabs to prepare for the A64X2 launch later this year...AnnihilatorX - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
hm hope fab36 would increaswe production capacity of AMD and lower the cost down a bitblckgrffn - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
Awesome...I wish we could have seen a 4 socket 8 processor system rocking out with those four way xeons though, that would really illustrates some differences ;)I agree with the previous sentiment on the x2's, I hope they bring out a sub $200 1.8 ghz or so model. I will be sticking this in my desktop box, not my gaming box, so if they can't bring anything out under $200 I will probably have to go with Intel. Boo for that ;)
Nat
Zebo - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
It's a wonderful article Anand, always love yours.. very in-depth But you're forgetting mem timings??? Arr.:)Zebo - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
Slobber:Pblackbrrd - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
#4 AMD probably wants you to buy their single core cpus instead, as they are much cheaper to produce and easier to produce in quantities. AMD would probably have problems delievering a lower cost dual core in quantities .Who doesn't drewl for a A64 X2 after seeing this review??? I certainly do.
The dual core intel wouldn't be so bad either, except for the amount of heat it produces off.
filterxg - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
Nice article. AMD has obviously awoken a sleeping giant, and Intel is fighting back on the pricing front. Hopefully the gamble that AMD single cores can hold their own versus Intel Duallies is true on the mid-low end (at least for the near future). I won't be buying an Intel chip anytime soon (unless I need a laptop).Either way I figure I got 2.5 years before I need a dualcore, and by then who knows. So bravo to both companies for this innovation.