JUST IN: As end of Q2 nears, IBM employees fret 'resource actions'

Topic: Hardware

Processor benchmarks: Intel versus AMD

Summary: Processors are now called upon to handle everything from simple text and graphics, through 3D games, to serious tasks like video rendering. We put Intel and AMD's desktop CPUs through the labs to see how they cope.

Kai Schmerer

By Kai Schmerer |


Workstation benchmarks: 3D Studio Max 6

3D-rendering is not necessarily a suitable job for a desktop PC -- most users of such applications will work on dual-processor workstations. As a result, the performance results presented here are not 100 per cent representative. However, if you're thinking of buying a single-CPU workstation (which numerous PC manufacturers offer), these results are perfectly relevant. Although the Pentium 4 is usually behind the Athlon 64 in the 3D gaming tests, the Intel chip puts up a better showing with 3D Studio Max. The software is not only SSE2-optimised, but also supports Intel's HyperThreading technology. The results speak for themselves: although the Athlon 64 keeps up with the Pentium 4 with less complex scenes such as 3dsmax, the Intel processors are up to 31 per cent quicker in the other tests.


Topics: Hardware, Reviews

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

48 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Folks:

    The slide and the text don't match on all of the charts. In at least 2 cases, the text indicates Intel is the winner while the charts show that AMD is clearly superior. Which is correct?
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Great review! I appreciate the input as do others I'm sure. I'm about to build a pc and have had a hard time deciding Intel or AMD.Your article will be a definetly be a factor!
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Good review, although I'd like to see a Visual C++ compilation benchmark or something. I spend a lot of time compiling software and I want to be able to point to a benchmark which compiles several different types of code (heavily templated code, STL, MFC, the effect of compiling with optimisations etc)
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Strange how you hide the benchmarks from view unless you click on the link. Could this be because if you check them out, they don't match the conclusion? From what I could see AMD won the MAJORITY of the tests, while Intel won a few. Unless you are doing the few things that the Intel chip is better at, the AMD chip is the best choice by far.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Whose computers are not needing to multitask all the time? Email, web, antivirus and applicatiions software, not to mention database software are usually running on machines concurrently. Software using threading would also have an impact on requiring multitasking.

    Tests that remove multitasking do not seem very valid in today's world.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Why do the Charts not match the review. I see AMD out performing Intel in almost all of the test and the review says the reverse. For someone to get a true review, you should at least make the chart match the text in the review.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Multi-tasking means USING multiple programs at the same time (i.e. using outlook while encoding an MP3), not just having multiple programs open. HT is over-hyped! The value is limited for the majority of users. (Think about it, how often do you actually actively use 2 programs at the same time??)
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • FX53 is the fastest AMD workstation cpu.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Text and Graphics do match, you need to look at the scale indicator, as it reads more is better in some cases and more is worse is others.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • This review is clearly flawed. Chips that are clocked higher of the same brand and design underperform their lower clocked cousins on many tests. This is not possible.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Just to confirm: some of the test metrics are 'bigger is better' (e.g. frames per second); others are 'smaller is better' (e.g. seconds). This should explain any confusion over text/chart correspondence.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Hi, I have a AMD Athlon 2400 (2.0)ghz XP processor with 512MB of RAM ; I use it everyday and playgames. I bought it for $2200 CN in 2003 and now if i sell it i don't even get $1500 CN. Thats the difference you get after buying a AMD processor. So what i think is that you should but a Pentium4 processor :D
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Although windows is not 64 bit, you can run 64bit linux right now.

    Why are you so focused on windows. Athlon64 is an excellent processor for running 64bit linux. Nvidia has fixed 64bit drivers for their gfx cards also.

    Suse, Gentoo, Mandrake, Fedora and probably many more all have AMD X86_64 distros ready.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • If you overclock a cpu, you may create imbalance in the delicate cache and instruction hierarchy, this may result in a timing problem and cache miss having to wait for next cycle.

    That's why often celerons with little cache are the best to overclock.

    If you try overclocking an itanium2 it wont even work.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • how do those compare with the Apple G5?
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • AMD's Athlon 64 CPUs clearly outperform Intel's Pentium 4 even though they are clocked 1.2 GHz less, use DDR and not DDR2 SDRAM, they don't don't have Hyper Threading and have half the cache of Prescotts. This shows that AMD's theory of performance based on Work done per clock cycle multiplied by clock speed stands correct. Also look at the massive power consumption and heat generation of the Prescotts. Their fans make so much noise!!! Wake up guys... Prescott sucks.... absolutely, AMD64 is gr8.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • NOTHING! depreciates faster than a computer. If you can get 66% of your original price on a year old computer you're doing really well. The only difference here between a P4 and an AMD is the P4 would have cost more originally, so you'd lose even more on depreciation. Sounds to me like you don't know very much about computers, or computer pricing.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • The article says the Prescott wins on apps that are optimised for SSE2, however I was sure the Hammer was ment to support SSE2? Is this not true?
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • This benchmark clearly shows that a chips Core Speed is NOT everything. with a chip that clocks slower than another AMD can still compete Equally if not better at some of the Benchmarks.
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
  • Hi Folks: Just an observation here which is, that many people are reading this review and not understanding what is being said. Yes, some of the charts are marked incorrectly, but the comments by the reviewer set that straight. Yes you lose money when you try to sell a computer a year after you buy it. That's why it would be classed as "Used", and why people will not pay the "new" price, because it's "used", and so is worth less than "new". As for who is the better chip maker, well the reviewer said it well. It depends on your particular situation. Gaming, AMD wins. Video editing, Intel wins. power consumption, AMD wins. Multitasking, Intel wins, and so on and so on. In technology, it's more important to keep an open mind, than it is to be "brand loyal", which is a 'consumer' perspective which can lead to heartache and financial ruin (I exagerate....lol). The people who are technical (engineers, technicians, etceteras) try to be as objective as possible, because they want the best product for the job (I fall into this category). It's also important to understand what you read about a product, or if you don't, then to seek the advice of someone who does, and then listen to what they tell you, and act on it.
    cheers
    anonymous
    Reply Vote
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close