We finally resume our series of articles about processors for common people. This time the heroes of our review are AMD processors. However, each platform requires individual approach. Hunting after the standardization will lead only to sheer formalism in our case, so we decided to change our criteria for selecting contenders. Indeed, first of all, fortunately, AMD allows to compare all the platforms nearly on identical hardware: even if the chipsets are different (however, a chipset makes almost no difference to AMD64 in terms of performance), but at least both Socket A and Socket 754/939 have AGP! That's why all the platforms can be compared almost correctly.
Secondly, AMD has a mysterious Sempron, which has identical (let's say "in spelling"...) model designations with Athlon XP and Athlon 64, but that's all they have in common. Moreover: one and the same Sempron model (for example, Sempron 3000+) may be found for Socket A as well as for Socket 754, but these are absolutely different processors!
In view of such situation, it was decided to sacrifice profundity to breadth in the third part of our article. The range of AMD model numbers under review is rather narrow: from 2800+ to 3200+. But on the other hand, all their existing modifications take part in our tests: Sempron for Socket A, "old" Athlon XP, Sempron for Socket 754, and Athlon 64 for Socket 754. Thus, we shall review "decent" (in terms of their model numbers) CPUs for a modern high-performance system (2800+ — 3200+). And on the other hand we shall preserve the general orientation to inexpensive solutions "for common people".
Of course, this approach covers well the middle part, while the edges "hang poised in mid-air", but... There were two articles about Intel processors, after all; so it's quite logical to devote the same number of articles to CPUs from AMD. That was why we decided to review the "tops" and "bottoms" of the popular AMD line in the fourth part. The third part will focus on the most interesting offers among inexpensive models: the golden mean.
AMD offers the richest model numbering pastures to be analyzed. We can...
Remember that diagrams with all test results (61 items!) are published on a separate page — without comments, just as is. The article provides only summary diagrams that calculate the results of entire test groups into average scores. This approach appeases curiosity of the most inquisitive readers, who are against cutting down the number of test results published in our articles, and still makes the article less motley and graphics-intense. What concerns our comments, real professionals (who are interested in details) are expected to need none of them.
SPECapc for 3ds max 6 (3ds max 7.0)
Performance of processors for Socket A grows continuously, according to the model number and positioning: Sempron 2800+/3000+ processors bring up the rear, Athlon XP 3000+ and 3200+ processors are above them. However, the difference between these CPUs is not large — even if we compare Sempron 2800+ and Athlon XP 3200+. These are the results of just one test, mind it...
Athlon 64 3000+/3200+ processors, on the contrary, shoot forward... leaving Sempron 3000+ for Socket 754 (the same platform) far behind. Moreover: Sempron 3000+ / Socket 754 is outperformed even by Athlon XP 3200+! Yep, the reduced cache makes itself felt... However, all Semprons look excellent versus their direct competitor, Intel Celeron D. Even Sempron 2800+ for Socket A outperforms this processor. But Pentium 4 2.8 GHz easily outperforms all processors for Socket A, even the top Athlon XP 3200+.
SPECapc for Maya 6 (Maya 6.5)
On the whole, the situation is similar to the previous test in many aspects: continuous performance growth in CPUs for Socket A, not very impressive results of the Sempron 3000+ / Socket 754; both Athlon 64 processors demonstrate a good breakaway. But Celeron D shows a smaller gap from the group. Pentium 4 still confines itself to a small victory over the old AMD platform.
Lightwave 8.2, rendering
The first case, when the progressive architecture bested the frequency: Sempron 3000+ / Socket 754 outperforms all processors for Socket A, even though its clock is just 1.8 GHz (Athlon XP 3200+ — 2.2 GHz). Even the small cache was not a problem... However, renderers usually adjust themselves to the cache size on their own. Interestingly, Pentium 4 2.8E is approximately on a par with Athlon 64 3000+. Most likely due to the Hyper-Threading support: Lightwave render engine can generate more than one thread.
SPECapc for SolidWorks 2003
The situation is practically the same as in case of 3ds max, so there is no point in describing it in detail for the second time.
Adobe Photoshop CS (8)
That's what we call the Socket A defeat. To all appearances, Socket 754 processors have won thanks to their built-in memory controller. However, Adobe Photoshop has always been behindhand in loving Athlon XP... But in this case the dislike looks too deliberate: we can understand the defeat of the top Athlon XP 3200+ to the processors of the same class (the old core, the old platform...), but we are in stupor over the comparison results with Celeron D...
Adobe Acrobat 6.0
There is nothing interesting here: the worst results are demonstrated by Celeron D (well, it's supposed to, considering its rank) and Sempron 3000+ for Socket 754. Well, sometimes the frequency matters...
All-purpose data compression (archiving)
It's a triumph of Socket 754 again. Even if Celeron D does not outperform Athlon XP 3200+, they are again nearly on a par. Funny: that's the second such situation already.
Multimedia lossy compression (MP3/MPEG2-4)
As always, Intel processors look generally up to the mark as far as encoding media is concerned. However, have a look at the detailed results: if you always read our articles, you already know "the secret": all AMD processors without exception score very low in LAME with the highest encoding quality.
CPU RightMark 2004B
And again there is nothing surprising about it: Pentium 4 wins due to Hyper-Threading, everything else is up to the frequency.
3D games and graphics visualization
With high quality graphics settings, nearly all processors were limited by the video card. Quite a natural result.
...Which recurred in the next game...
But Painkiller depends much on a processor. It demonstrates phenomenal dislike of "everything non AMD K8". However, it dislikes Intel platform more: even Sempron 2800+ for Socket A catches up with Pentium 4 2.8E.
Strange as it may seem, this situation is similar to the previous one. It seems we haven't tested processors for Socket A for a long time. How many interesting things can be revealed with relatively new software! Well, interesting they are, but not very consoling for this platform: even the 1.8 GHz Sempron 3000+ for Socket 754 (with a tiny L2!) easily outperforms Athlon XP 3200+.
To keep it brief: the games obviously prefer the new AMD platform.
SPEC viewperf agrees with the games, but with one amendment: Intel Pentium 4 looks much better in professional OpenGL than in games. Driver optimizations? Perhaps... But the strange thing is why it is not felt in games.
It would be logical to resort to the run-down system in our conclusions: brief points — what new things we have learnt from the diagrams?
In the fourth part of the article we shall try to demonstrate the performance difference between "the AMD golden mean", reviewed today, and the low end (Sempron 2200+ and maybe even Duron — if we find them in stores ;).
Write a comment below. No registration needed!
|blog comments powered by Disqus|
|Most Popular Reviews||More RSS|
Comparing old, cheap solutions from AMD with new, budget offerings from Intel.
February 1, 2013 · Processor Roundups
A couple of mid-range adapters with original cooling systems.
January 30, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs
An external X-Fi solution in tests.
September 9, 2008 · Sound Cards
The first worthwhile Piledriver CPU.
September 11, 2012 · Processors: AMD
Trying out the new method.
September 18, 2012 · Processors: Intel
|Latest Reviews||More RSS|
May 21, 2013 · 3Digests
16-phase design, low noise, and great performance.
Apr 26, 2013 · Video cards: AMD GPUs
Added the test results of AMD Radeon HD 7850 1024MB, AMD Radeon HD 7790 (standard and overclocked), ASUS Ares II (Radeon 7970 GHz CrossFire), ASUS Ares II CrossFire, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, GeForce GTX Titan. Replaced the 3DMark11 and Formula 1 (
Apr 16, 2013 · 3Digests
The 22-nanometer breakthrough.
Apr 03, 2013 · Processors: Intel
NVIDIA's top single-GPU adapter.
Apr 01, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs
|Latest News||More RSS|
|Useful Links||Get listed|