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 4: 3D Rendering
We received several requests for a 3D rendering multitasking test, so we put one together. For this test, we ran our SPECapc 3ds max 6 benchmark while we had iTunes, Firefox and Newsleecher all running like we have in previous tests. The application focus remained on Firefox to give it the highest scheduler priority, and the results are below: 
What's also interesting is that the performance of the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is virtually identical with the Athlon 64 FX-55 from our standalone 3ds max test (1.65 vs 1.66). In this benchmark, the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 takes a pretty significant lead, thanks to HT. We see that even with a dual core CPU, there are still some issues to overcome with the OS' scheduler. So, we get an unusually large increase in performance due to HT due to the scheduler being tricked into sending more threads to the CPU rather than attempting to have them preempt one another for CPU time.
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.