We believe it's high time to benchmark some more AMD processors with our new test method. At that we decided not to remove the previous test results from the charts, but to add two more CPUs: AMD Athlon X2 4400+ and 5000+. If you look at AMD's current processor series, you'll see why we have chosen exactly these two products: one of them is positioned 4 steps above the most junior A64 X2, and the other - 4 steps below the top. Thus we are again to determine the upper and lower performance boundaries - this time of AMD's mid-end series. It would be logical to assume that all other mid-end products of this vendor will get between the aforementioned two.

Hardware and software

Testbed configuration

• 2 x 1024 MB RAM
• Samsung SP1614C (SATA) HDD
• Boxed coolers
• Chieftec GPS-550AB A PSU

* - "2 x ..." means per core
** - for AMD processors this is memory controller bus clock rate
*** - measured differently for Intel and AMD processors; impossible to compare directly.

Software

1. Windows XP Professional x64 edition SP1
2. 3ds max 9 x64 edition
3. Maya 8.5 x64 edition
4. Lightwave 3D 9 x64 edition
5. MATLAB R2006a (7.2.0.32) x64 edition
6. Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 2.0
7. SolidWorks 2005
8. Photoshop CS2 (9.0)
9. Visual Studio 2005 Professional
10. Apache HTTP Server 2.2.4
11. CPU RightMark 2005 Lite (1.3) x64 edition
12. WinRAR 3.62
13. 7-Zip 4.42 x64 edition
14. FineReader 8.0 Professional
15. LAME 3.97
16. Monkey Audio 4.01
17. OGG Encoder 2.83
18. Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 edition
19. Canopus ProCoder 2.01.30
20. DivX 6.4
21. Windows Media Video VCM 9
22. x264 v.604
23. XviD 1.1.2
24. F.E.A.R. 1.08
25. Half-Life 2 1.0
26. Quake 4 1.3
27. Call of Duty 2 1.2
28. Serious Sam 2 2.07
29. Supreme Commander 1.0.3220

Benchmarking

Essential foreword to charts

Our test method has two peculiarities of data representation: (1) all data types are reduced to one - integer relative score (performance of a given processor relative to that of Intel Core 2 Duo E4300, given its performance is 100 points), and (2) detailed results are published in this Microsoft Excel table, while the article contains only summary charts by benchmark classes. We will nevertheless focus your attention on detailed results, when needed.

3D Modelling

This is not good for AMD. Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 has caught up with Athlon 64 X2 5000+, but we can't call it "mid-end" for sure. Though recently AMD has been focusing on pricing instead of performance... And the chart naturally shows why :)

CAD/CAE

Ah, this is much more cheerful. Not only the top-end Athlon 64 X2 is the leader, but even the 5000+ has caught up with Intel's quad-core. But it's simple: no benchmarks of this group are able to use even the second core (not speaking of the third and the fourth).

Digital image processing

And again AMD's upper mid-end - A64 X2 5000+ - turns out to be just 6% better than Core 2 Duo E4400. If you look at the price instead of market positioning though, the picture will change at once. Given these processors have similar price (at the date of publication), AMD wins in price/performance ratio. But we know that prices are so unpredictable these days...

Compiling

There's even no sense in commenting that. You can clearly see which Intel's processor completely corresponds to which AMD product. :)

Web server

Core 2 Duo E4400, which has performed so good in the previous article on the background of other Intel's products, continues to please us on the background of competing solutions as well.

Synthetic tests

CPU RightMark, as always, considers clock rate the most critical.

Archiving

The picture is about the same as in compiling, but Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 and E6300 have interchanged, while AMD has remained as usual. We have already mentioned why E6300, generally lagging behind E4400, outperforms it in archiving - the faster bus has its effect.

OCR

In this test AMD processors not just lose score, but, as one could say, are knocked out.

Audio encoding

An "olde" test group which nearly lost its importance today due to high result predictability.

Video encoding

While Athlon 64 X2 4400+ performed rather weakly, the 5000+ did as usual - slightly better than Core 2 Duo E4400.

Games

As you remember, at the moment Athlon 64 X2 5000+ is priced similarly to Core 2 Duo E4400 (the former is slightly more expensive.) So here we again see that, while losing in "positioning", the 5000+ shows rather satisfactory price/performance ratio. The 4400+, from the angle of test scores per investment, also looks good, but to win just a single point from the most junior Core 2 Duo... It's just not right.

Total score

Strangely enough, both AMD processors look best (as far as it's generally applicable) on the Professional score chart that considers test results in serious resource-intensive applications. But home score is not that bright, as you can see. In general, we just have to repeat the catchword that AMD and its followers are not tired to declare: "Just look at the prices!" No doubt, pricing is nice (at the moment). But performance is worse. And since we are into benchmarking here, not market analytics, our conclusion is brief: while Athlon 64 X2 might be pleasing from some consumer point of view, it is not pleasing technically. On the background of Core 2 Duo we can clearly see it's bygone.

Supposed power consumption

Thanks God, idle power consumption of Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and 5000+ is rather adequate. (Though we are still puzzled about the 6000+ - measurements conducted with another motherboard provided similar results.) But at 100% load we can see that AMD processors lose the competition significantly.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!