test 14 procesoare

8/13/2019 Test 14 Procesoare

1/29

Massive Attack: Performance Tests of 14Processors Priced at $200+

We tested 14 processors priced starting at $200 and up. In our huge test session took part the following solutions:AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 3200+, 3000+; AMD Athlon 64 FX-51; AMD Athlon XP 3200+, 3000+; Intel Pentium 4 3.4,3.2, 3.0 (Northwood core); Intel Pentium 4 3.4E, 3.2E, 3.0E (Prescott core); Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4, 3.2.You cant miss this!

by Ilya Gavrichenkov02/01/2004 | 12:02 PM

The todays announcement of many new Intel processors made a few corrections to the current situation in the CPUmarket. Intel really launched 7 new CPUs targeted for the mainstream and high-end market segments. Among thenewcomers there are faster Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, the top CPU on Northwood core, and the entire family ofnew Pentium 4 processors with the new Prescott core. Since the changes in the market promise to be really drastic,we decided to carry out a massive test session of all the new processor models, where they could compete with theirpredecessors and rivals from AMD.

Within this test session and performance analysis we will compare the speed of 14 different newest processors

positioned as solutions for the mainstream and high-end market. The list of testing participants includes therepresentatives of the following processor families available in the todays CPU market and priced at $200 and more:Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood), Intel Pentium 4 (Prescott), AMD Athlon 64 FX,AMD Athlon 64 and AMD Athlon XP.

Testing Participants

According to the selection criteria we set for this test session, the following processors were selected to participate:

AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 3200+, 3000+;AMD Athlon 64 FX-51;AMD Athlon XP 3200+, 3000+;

Intel Pentium 4 3.4, 3.2, 3.0 (Northwood core);Intel Pentium 4 3.4E, 3.2E, 3.0E (Prescott core);Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4, 3.2.

We have already reviewed many of the above mentioned processor models, so if you would like to get more details

it labs - Print version http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/prescott-tests.html

29 28/06/2012 13:33


2/29

about any of them, please check our CPU section. As for the newcomers announced today, we have devoted thewhole new article to the peculiarities of the freshly launched Prescott core. It is called Intel Prescott: One MoreWillamette-Like Slow Processor or a Worthy Piece?As for Pentium 4 (Northwood) 3.4GHz and Pentium 4 ExtremeEdition 3.4GHz, they are the overclocked versions of the previous models of these processor families. These twoCPUs are based on 0.13micron cores, and are evidently the last CPU models on these cores (Northwood andGallatin, respectively). Yes, as we have already mentioned in the previous article, Pentium4 processor family willcontinue into this world on the new Prescott core manufactured with 90nm technology process, while Pentium 4Extreme Edition with the working frequencies exceeding 3.4GHz is not on the roadmap at all yet.

From left to right:

Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood), Intel Pentium 4 (Prescott),

AMD Athlon 64 FX, AMD Athlon 64, AMD Athlon XP

The comparative table below contains the major specifications of the tested CPUs for your information:

Intel Pentium4 3.4E, 3.2E,

3.0E

IntelPentium 4

3.4, 3.2, 3.0

Intel Pentium4 ExtremeEdition 3.4,

3.2

AMD Athlon 643400+, 3200+,

3000+.

AMD Athlon 64FX-51

AMD AthlonXP 3200+,

3000+

Processorcore

Prescott Northwood Gallatin ClawHammer SledgeHammer Barton

Socket Socket 478 Socket 478 Socket 478 Socket 754 Socket 940 Socket A

Frequencies 3.4, 3.2,3.0GHz

3.4, 3.2,3.0GHz

3.4, 3.2GHz 2.2, 2.0GHz 2.2GHz 2.2, 2.0GHz

Productiontechnology

0.09micron,strained

silicon0.13micron 0.13micron 0.13micron, SOI 0.13micron, SOI 0.13micron


29 28/06/2012 13:33


3/29

Number oftransistors

125mln. 55mln. 178mln. 105.9mln. 105.9mln. 54.3mln.

Die size 112sq.mm 131sq.mm 237sq.mm 193sq.mm 193sq.mm 101sq.mm

L1 data cache 16KB 8KB 8KB 64KB 64KB 64KB

L1instructionscache

12000 uops 12000 uops 12000 uops 64KB 64KB 64KB

L2 cache 1024KB 512KB 512KB 1024KB, 512KBby 3000+ model 1024KB 512KB

L3 cache - - 2MB - - -

SIMDinstructions

SSE3/ SSE2/SSE

SSE2/ SSE SSE2/ SSESSE2/ SSE/

3DNow!SSE2/ SSE/

3DNow!SSE/ 3DNow!

x86-64support

- - - + + -

Integratedmemorycontroller

- - -Single-channel,DDR SDRAM

Dual-channel,registered DDR

SDRAM-

Pricing

And important aspect, which matters a lot not only when you are making a buying decision, but also when you aretrying to evaluate the future potential of the CPU is the price. The processors we tested are officially priced from$200 to $1000 that is why I suggest that you check their price before we pass over to the benchmarks results. Thiswill also help us to understand the positioning of Intel and AMD processors relative to each other.

Despite the fact that Pentium 4 Extreme Edition and Athlon 64 FX are similarly positioned by both companies assolutions for extreme gamers and hardware enthusiasts, who care most of all about performance, the pricingstrategies applied to these processor families by both companies are completely different. Intel prices its ExtremeEdition solutions around $1000, while AMD makes its Athlon 64 FX-51 only twice as expensive as the top Athlon 64CPU. As a result, we simply cannot compare the prices of Pentium 4 Extreme Edition and Athlon 64 FX: Intels


29 28/06/2012 13:33


4/29

extreme processors are about $200-$250 more expensive.

As for the mainstream processor families, AMD and Intel appeared surprisingly unanimous: Athlon 64 3400+ coststhe same as Pentium 4 3.4GHz. The same correspondence can be observed for 3200+ and 3000+ models as well. Iwould also like to draw your attention to one more very interesting fact: Pentium 4 processors on Northwood andPrescott cores working at the same clock frequencies cost the same amount of money, even though theirarchitectures and features are very different.

As for AMD Athlon XP processor family, it goes right below the youngest Athlon 64. Although AMD promises to

continue supporting Socket A processors for quite a long time, this processor family has evidently started movingtowards low-end.

Testbed and Methods

We used the following equipment for our test systems:

CPUs:AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 (2.2GHz);AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (2.2GHz);AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0GHz);

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz);AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz);AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.0GHz);Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz (Northwood);Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz (Northwood);Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz (Northwood);Intel Pentium 4 3.2E GHz (Prescott);Intel Pentium 4 3.0E GHz (Prescott);Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz.Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.2GHz.

Mainboards:ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe (Socket 478, i875P);

ASUS SK8V (Socket 940, VIA K8T800);ABIT KV8-MAX3 (Socket 754, VIA K8T800);ASUS A7N8X 2.0 (Socket A, NVIDIA nForce2 Ultra 400).

Memory:1024MB DDR400 SDRAM (Corsair CMX512-3200LLPRO, 2 x 512MB, 2-3-2-6);1024MB Registered DDR400 SDRAM (Mushkin High Performance ECC Registered 2 x 512MB,2-3-2-6).

Graphics card: ASUS RADEON 9800XT (Catalyst 4.10).Disk subsystem: 2 x Western Digital Raptor WD360GD in RAID 0 array.

Notes:

Since Intel is now experiencing some problems with the supplies of the new Prescott based processors with3.4GHz core clock, we didnt manage to get this processor for our test session. That is why we used Pentium 4(Prescott) 3.2E GHz overclocked to 3.4GHz by increasing the bus frequency to 212MHz in order to obtain theperformance numbers for the analysis. This way, all the results for Pentium 4 3.4E on the diagramscorrespond to 16x212 work mode. The memory in this case worked at 424MHz, however, the timings werereduced to 2.5-3-3-7.In all other cases the memory (unbuffered and registered) worked in the same mode with the timings set to2-3-2-6.We ran all tests in Windows XP SP1 with the installed DirectX 9.0b package.

Performance in Gaming Applications

The performance in gaming applications is a pretty important factor for many users. Moreover, extreme processormodels such as Pentium 4 Extreme Edition and Athlon 64 FX are positioned by the manufacturers as gaming CPUs.That is why the results of gaming benchmarks open our todays test session.


29 28/06/2012 13:33


5/29

As you remember, AMD processors have always been the leaders in 3DMark 2001, however, now the faster Pentium4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz processor changed the situation. This particular CPU from Intel is the fastest according to3DMark 2001.

I would also like to point out that Pentium 4 processors on the new Prescott core are a little faster than theirpredecessors on Northwood core (working at the same clock frequency), according to this benchmark. However, I

cannot state that the new core boasts a significant performance advantage: the performance difference is only 1%. Itis definitely too little to outpace the competitors from AMD: according to 3DMark 2001 Athlon 64 defeats Pentium 4in all weight categories.


29 28/06/2012 13:33


6/29

Faster model of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition with a 2MB L3 caches and 3.4GHz clock frequency is an indisputableleader according to CPU Score results of 3DMark03, too. As for the new Prescott core, it again doesnt manage tospeed up Pentium 4 processor, so that they could run any faster than those on Northwood core.

The similar picture can be observed in the 3DMark03 Total Score test. The L3 cache added to the Northwood coremakes Pentium 4 Extreme Edition the fastest processors according to this test. As for Prescott, it manages to win justa little bit from Northwood, even though it also boasts larger cache-memory.


29 28/06/2012 13:33


7/29

Aquamark3 benchmark built on a real gaming engine is remarkable for its support of Hyper-Threading technology.So far there are not so many games that can boast this unique feature, although this situation is very likely to changein the nearest future, because many software developers have already announced their intention to implement Hyper-

Threading support in their upcoming gaming engines. The results obtained in this benchmark show that Intelprocessors supporting Hyper-Threading technology are definitely faster in Aquamark3 than their rivals from AMD,such as Athlon 64 and Athlon XP, which have no Hyper-Threading support.

I would also like to point out that it is the first time we come across a situation when the new processors on the


29 28/06/2012 13:33


8/29

freshly launched Prescott core yield in performance to those based on Northwood. This is probably the directconsequence of the fact that all improvements made to the core cannot make up for the negative influence imposedby longer execution pipeline of the new 90nm core.

It looked as if Athlon 64 could change the situation in Quake3 in its favor and outperform the eternal leaders fromIntel there. However, the launching of Pentium 4 Extreme Edition didnt give AMD CPUs any chance to do so.

Moreover, the performance of the new Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz looks simply unattainable for thecompetitors.

By the way, we have to state once again that the old Pentium 4 processors on Northwood core outperform Pentium 4on the new Prescott, working at the same core clock frequency. Moreover, in this case Prescott lags 2% behind.


29 28/06/2012 13:33


9/29

In the well-known Comanche 4 game Prescott gets into an even worse situation. The performance differencebetween the new Pentium 4 core and Northwood working at the same clock frequency is simply catastrophic:Prescott is 14% slower! But luckily Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is also based on Northwood core. Therefore,Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz again managed to assert Intels honor in this test.


29 28/06/2012 13:33


10/29


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


11/29

However, there is quite a bit of games where even the performance of Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz is notenough for successful competition with AMD CPUs. The four diagrams above are all examples illustrating this point:Unreal Tournament 2003, Gun Metal, X2 The Threat and Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness. Moreover, in threeof these four games we see that Pentium 4 processors on the new Prescott core perform slower than Pentium 4processors based on the older Northwood core. The only exception is Tomb Raider, where Prescott core manages toshow its best.

As a result, we have to admit that Northwood core performs better in contemporary games than the new Prescott. Inother words, now that the maximum working frequencies of Pentium 4 processors on Northwood and Prescott arethe same, it makes more sense for gamers to decide the older Northwood, which stood successfully the test of time.Even though the new core boasts larger cache-memory and a number of other improvements, it performs slower inmost cases because of the too long execution pipeline. However, if we also consider the offerings from AMD, itbecomes absolutely clear that Athlon 64 processors will win the gamers hearts, because their price-to-performanceratio in 3D games is considerably more attractive today.

As for the new Pentium 4 extreme Edition 3.4GHz, it proves really worth the money you pay for it in a number ofgames. But at the same time, there is another group of games, where Athlon 64 3400+ and Athlon FX-51 defeat thenew extreme processor completely. And I should say that this second group is not any smaller than the first one.

Besides, if we take into account the price of this CPU, we will have no more doubts that Pentium 4 Extreme Edition3.4GHz positioned by Intel as a hardcore gaming solution, will hardly become a good choice even for thisuser-group.

Performance in Office and Digital Content Creation Applications

As usual, here we are going to share the results obtained in Winstone test packages. Now we are using newerversions of these benchmarks released in the end of 2003. They are Business Winstone 2004 and Multimedia ContentCreation Winstone 2004.

Business Winstone 2004 is a benchmark, which shows the average performance of the tested platforms during workin regular office applications. The test imitates the everyday work of an average user in a bunch of widely spreadprograms and displays the result basing on the time it took the programs to complete the tasks. The list of

applications used in this benchmark for proper performance analysis is pretty long and includes Microsoft Access2002 SP-2, Microsoft Excel 2002 SP-2, Microsoft FrontPage 2002 SP-2, Microsoft Outlook 2002 SP-2, MicrosoftPowerPoint 2002 SP-2, Microsoft Project 2002, Microsoft Word 2002 SP-2, WinZip 8.1 SR-1 and Norton AntiVirus


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


12/29

Professional Edition 2003.

Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 is very similar to Business Winstone 2004, however, it uses absolutelydifferent applications. All of them are intended for creation and processing of images, audio and video streams. Thecomplete list of applications includes a number of popular and widely spread professional tools, such as AdobePhotoshop 7.0.1, Adobe Premiere 6.50, Macromedia Director MX 9.0, Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 6.1, MicrosoftWindows Media Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980, NewTek LightWave 3D 7.5b and Steinberg WaveLab 4.0f.


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


13/29

Even higher working frequency of the new Pentium 4 XE didnt allow this processor to catch up with AMD Athlon64, which works much faster in digital content creation applications and common office programs due to its shorterpipeline.

But Prescott based processors performed very well in Business Winstone 2004 and Multimedia Content CreationWinstone 2004. They managed to slightly outperform their Northwood based predecessors working at the same coreclock rate.

This test is also based on real algorithms. During this test the system performs: ZIP archiving, spell-checking withthe help of Link Grammar Parsing Library, web-sites rendering in Internet Explorer 6.0, image conversion into JPEGformat, mp3 files decoding with the help of Ogg Vorbis library, video decoding with Windows Media encoder 9 andDivX 5.0.5, 2D graphics primitives processing, work in 3D via Microsoft DirectX 9 with Havok Physics engine 2.1physical modeling system, anti-virus checking with F-Secure Anti-Virus, info encoding and decoding with BlowfishAlgorithm. However, since PCMark04 is evidently optimized for CPUs with Hyper-Threading technology, the upperpart of the diagram is occupied by Intel processors. Among the most interesting observations I would like tomention the fact that Pentium 4 processor on Prescott core is a little bit faster than Pentium 4 on Northwood coreaccording to PCMark04.

Performance in Multi-Threaded Tasks

The new Business Winstone 2004 test package allows evaluating the performance of the tested systems under multi-threaded workload, which is created by a few simultaneously running applications. Since the CPUs we testedsupport Hyper-Threading technology, which speeds them up when they process multiple threads at a time, wecouldnt help taking a closer look at their performance in this type of benchmarks.


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


14/29

In this test we use the regular file copying as a background process. At the same time, we measure the systemsperformance in Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer applications. As we can see, this combination ofapplications Is no serious workload for AMD processors, which do not support Hyper-Threading. However, theresults obtained in this test are quite funny, I should say. Pentium 4 processors on the good old Northwood coredemonstrate the highest performance of all. They outperform not only the new Prescott, but also the Pentium 4Extreme Edition!

Now lets find out what happens under a serious multi-threaded workload.


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


15/29

In this case the background process is a more serious task: the working WinZIP archiving utility. At the same timewe have Word and Excel running. It looks as if this is the best chance for Hyper-Threading technology to show whatit is really worth. However, all the upper part of the diagram belongs to AMD processors. As for the competitionbetween Northwood and Prescott, the latter copes with the task a bit faster than its predecessor.

This is actually the hardest test, as we have Norton AntiVirus software running in the background and the whole

bunch of office applications, such as Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Access, Microsoft PowerPoint,Microsoft FrontPage and WinZip. And only in this case Intel processors supporting Hyper-Threading manage todefeat AMD competitors and become indisputable winners. This way, it is evident that AMD Athlon 64 processorscan easily cope with simple multi-threaded tasks. However, when it comes to more serious workloads, Hyper-Threading technology proves highly efficient.

I would also like to note that here Prescott is again faster than Northwood. No wonder actually. First, it boastsimproved Hyper-Threading technology compared with that in Northwood. And second, larger cache-memory helpsa lot for simultaneous processing of several tasks, because the processor resources are split for all tasks in progress.

Performance in Archiving Utilities


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


16/29

The results obtained in WinRAR are pretty interesting. Among Intel processors the fastest ones in this type of tasksappeared Prescott based CPUs. The 90nm solutions owe this victory to enhanced data prefetcher, which is exactlywhat they need here. Prescott core outperforms not only Pentium 4 on the older Northwood, but also the CPUs fromthe Pentium 4 Extreme Edition family, which is a pure nonsense especially considering the price of the latter.

However, despite all these progressive data algorithms implemented in the new Prescott, Athlon 64 processors win in

this test, because they boast the lowest latency during memory addressing.


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


17/29

The situation in another archiving utility, 7-zip is slightly different. It can be explained by the fact that the latestversions of 7-zip support multi-threading really efficiently. As a result, processors with Pentium 4 architecturecompress the data much faster in 7-zip. Also I should again mention good performance of Prescott based CPUs,which proved 5-6% faster than the Northwood based ones working at the same clock frequencies.

When the data is extracted from archives in 7-zip, the situation with processors ranking appears absolutely different.

All AMD processors outperform Intels solutions, and Prescott cant boast the performance as high as in the twoprevious tests any more.

Performance in Audio and Video Content Encoding Applications


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


18/29


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


19/29

Since NetBurst architecture is very efficient for streaming data processing, Pentium 4 processors feel at home inaudio and video content encoding applications. However, Prescott puzzled us here: Pentium 4 processors on the newcore somehow fall far behind their predecessors on Northwood core everywhere except data encoding with DivX

codec. So, I believe that the new SSE3 instructions, which should soon appear in video and audio codecs, will onlyhelp Prescott to catch up with their Northwood based fellows, but will hardly provide them with any advantage inthis type of tasks.

Performance in Scientific Applications


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


20/29

To test the CPUs in scientific applications we used a new beta-version of the ScienceMark 2.0 test package, whichmeasures how fast the tested platforms can solve real math1ematic modeling tasks.


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


21/29


22/29

Performance in 3ds max and Cinema4D

To test the CPUs performance during final rendering we used a new sixth version of 3ds max. Besides the renderingspeed for a single frame, we also measured the animation rendering speed with simultaneous recording of the resultsinto an avi-file.

We have already mentioned that Pentium 4 processors are winning the single frame final rendering tests (mostly dueto Hyper-Threading technology), while CPUs with AMD64 architecture are ahead during movie rendering. There is


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


23/29

another interesting thing: Prescott is again lagging behind Northwood, with the gap being the biggest exactly duringsingle-frame rendering.

During final rendering tests in CINEMA 4D Pentium 4 on Prescott core again demonstrated very poor performance.


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


24/29

As for the performance of the new Intel core in OpenGL mode, there is nothing to complain about here. Pentium 4(Prescott) is considerably faster than Pentium 4 (Northwood). Moreover, this advantage is so huge that in some casesPentium 4 3.4E turns out even faster than Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz with a 2MB L3 cache.

Performance in Photoshop

Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0 is a very popular graphics application used mostly for 2D graphics editing that is why wepaid special attention to the performance of our todays testing participants in this application. We used PSBench7


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


25/29

benchmark with a 100MB image to be processed.

The results demonstrated by Prescott in Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0 are not encouraging at al: we have to state that it isagain lagging behind Northwood.

Here are more detailed results illustrating how fast various Photoshop CS 8.0 filters are performed on different

systems. The table below shows time in seconds:

Click to enlarge

Performance during Software Development

Besides the already familiar benchmarks we have also included one new test in our todays test session. Namely, wechecked how fast our testing participants would compile the projects in Visual C++ .NET, which is a very popularsoftware development interface. For our measurements we used the source code of the Emule clientwith the addedsource code for a few libraries necessary at the compilation stage: crypto51, CxImage, zlibstat. We measured the timein two compilation modes: Debug the version with the debugging info included into the final code, andRelease creation of the final product with processing speed and code size.


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


26/29

First of all, I would like to say that Athlon 64 perform software compilation notably faster. Even Intels fastestPentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz cannot compete with the leaders from AMD in this test. If we compare theperformance of Pentium 4 processors on different cores, we will see that the leadership in this case belongs to

Prescott, as it compilers faster.

Performance Summary

In order to sum up all the benchmark results in a more illustrative and easy to analyze way, we decided to split them


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


27/29

according to the application type and calculate the average CPU performance coefficient for each type of tasks. Thisway, we will be able to show you what tasks this or that processor is best suited for.

The gigantic diagram below is the result of our attempt to make it easier :) Note that since the results in all tests aretoo different, we calculated the geometrical mean of the CPUs performance and then normalized the values takingthe performance of Pentium 4 (Northwood) 3.2GHz as a reference point equal to 1. on the diagram below the higheris the value the better is the result.


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


28/29


f 29 28/06/2012 13:33


29/29

I dont think I need to comment on that.

Conclusion

Actually we have already shown everything regarding the performance of our testing participants in different typesof applications. Now I would like to express some ideas about the prospects and value of the existing processor

families.

Intel Pentium 4 (Prescott).At present this processor family from Intel based on the new 90nm core doesntdemonstrate any worthy advantages over the predecessors. Although, we didnt expect much today, to tell the truth.Prescott core was first of all developed to allow Intel increase the core clock frequency potential of its Pentium 4processor family. The current models, however, cannot boast high working frequencies compared with Northwood.Therefore, Prescott based processors are often even slower than those on a 130nm Northwood core. In fact, thereare only two types of tasks where improved NetBurst architecture of the Prescott core shows its advantages. Theyare data compression and compilation. In all other cases, Northwood based CPUs run as fast as Prescott based ones,or even faster.

Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood).Northwood family also acquired a new model working at 3.4GHz. Therefore, theclock frequencies of the todays top Prescott and Northwood CPUs are equal. Their prices are also equal. Taking intoaccount this fact we have to admit that Northwood should become a better buy today. And it is not only about

performance, although the 130nm core provides a tangible advantage in games, audio and video encodingapplications, image editing and final rendering, and is quite fast in scientific calculations. Northwood based CPUsdissipate considerably less heat, and their overclocking potential is not that much worse than that of the Prescottbased processors.

Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.However, those users who care about high performance in the first place, couldtake a look at another processor family from Intel Pentium 4 XE. Based on Northwood core equipped with a 2MBL3 cache, Pentium 4 XE is much faster than Northwood based processors, and definitely Prescott based ones.However, when you pay around $1000 for a CPU, you want to get not just good, but simply matchless performance.However, we cannot use this word to describe the performance of Intel Pentium 4 XE: the competing solutions fromAMD sometimes outpace even the top model with 3.4GHz core clock.

AMD Athlon XP.This processor family is little by little leaving the stage. These processors can no longer offercompetitive performance level, although the prices of the top models remain quite high.

AMD Athlon 64.The major solution AMD offers for the mainstream market today appears pretty attractive. Athlon64 is very fast in many applications outperforming Pentium 4 and even Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in some of them.Moreover, these CPUs have a very strong hidden trump: they support 64bit mode, which might become very usefulas soon as corresponding software comes out. However, there are two types of tasks where Athlon 64 is no rival toIntels solutions: audio/video encoding and Photoshop. If it were not for these tasks, we would have every right tocall Athlon 64 the best CPU in the todays market.

AMD Athlon 64 FX.High-End processor family from AMD is targeted for the same user-group as Intel Pentium 4XE, but is priced somewhat lower than the competitor. As for the performance, Athlon 64 FX-51 is sometimes even

faster than Pentium 4 XE 3.4GHz. So, I would call Athlon 64 FX a better offer than Intels Pentium 4 XE from theprice-to-performance point of view. However, you shouldnt forget that Athlon 64 FX-51 has the same weak spots asthe regular Athlon 64: it is pretty slow during media encoding and in Photoshop. Moreover, Athlon 64 3400+ istwice as inexpensive as the FX model, however, it performs really close to the high-end CPU from AMD.


test 14 procesoare

Documents