Test results
Memory speed
The maximum throughput and the memory write speed of the Athlon XP 3200+
looks equal to those of the other 3200+ processor - Athlon 64. It looks
pretty good taking into account that the Athlon XP is a previous generation.
On the other hand, the K7 and K8 dies are very close. The memory read speed
(this operation is more widespread than writing) and latency do not look
so good. However, we should remember that the die is older, the controller
is external etc. At the same time, it's nice that the new Athlon 64, even
with its lower clock speed (in spite of the same model index) performs
better than its predecessor.
3ds max 5.1
In the 3ds max the Athlon XP 3200+ outscores the Athlon 64 3200+ whose
scores are closer to the Athlon 64 FX-51. Add two to two, account for the
same clock speeds in spite of different dies and you will see that the
Brazil Rendering System (used for rendering scenes in 3ds max) doesn't
differentiate the K7 and K8 dies. It's not that good as new processors
must be faster than older ones...
Lightwave 7.5
The Athlon XP 3200+ finally loses in spite of its clock speed. I think
it's because all other processors (including AMD) support the SSE2 x86
SIMD instructions. Even Newtek didn't keep back that the Lightwave 7.x
was released to help the Socket 478 platform the CPUs for which were the
only that supported that extension set. Earlier it looked unfair - regarding
AMD - to use such testes, but this time everything is fair - just the Athlon
XP remains overboard. Well, in the single-thread rendering the AMD64 goes
on a par with the Pentium 4, probably at the expense of the SSE2... if the
K8 supported the Hyper-Threading-like technology the new AMD CPUs could
have caught up with Intel's one in the multi-thread mode as well... :)
Adobe Photoshop 7.0
If the Athlon 64 [FX] is a good choice for those who use the Photoshop
a lot, the Athlon XP is not. It's hard to say what the reason is - the
performance here depends on many factors including the memory linear read
speed, latency, extended instructions support. But whatever the reason,
the Athlon XP is not the best choice for those who need the Photoshop to
be speedy.
7-Zip
The situation looks similar to the previous one, but we already mentioned
that this test suite will be reconsidered for the further tests - with
a new version we will probably get a more extended set of files, new options
etc. These data are given as is, because the parental review had it the
same.
WinRAR
The WinRAR version is new (3.20), the parameters are good - 4MB dictionary,
the maximum compression degree. But the Athlon XP 3200+ has poor scores
anyway. I suppose that both negative factors we noticed in the memory read
speed tests have an effect here: a relatively low read speed and a relatively
high latency.
Bzip2
This archiver is critical to the CPU cache size. Its dictionary is small
enough to have a chance to get fully recorded into the cache of some processors.
From this point of view it's better to compare the Athlon XP 3200+ with
the Pentium 4: both have 512 KB L2. The scores are comparable, though the
Pentium 4 is faster anyway. Memory? Fast FSB? That's quite possible...
Lame 3.93
Some time ago we tested various architectures in this applications, and these
scores do not contradict to the conclusion we made.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
The Athlon XP 3200+ traditionally loses to the Pentium 4, plus it yields
to all K8 based CPUs. Its price/performance ratio looks good but if you
need exceptional performance you should choose between the new Intel platform
and new AMD one.
Serious Sam: The Second Encounter, Unreal Tournament 2003
The architectural preferences of the Serious Sam engine let the Athlon
XP 3200+ go on a par with the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz (it was its main competitor
some time ago), but the same preferences make AMD an evident leader as
they are usually faster than the Athlon XP. This fact proves once again
that the K8 is preferable compared to the K7 (if the price is not a determining
factor for you).
Conclusion
First have a look at two summary diagrams comparing two pairs: Athlon XP 3200+
vs Pentium 4 3.2 GHz (an "aged" comparison) and Athlon XP
3200+ vs Athlon 64 3200+ (it looks more interesting).
The main conclusion of this additional test is that applications tend
to prefer different CPU architectures. But the reality is that a lot of
applications are optimized for the Pentium 4, and it's not going to stop.
This time the Athlon XP played by others' rules, and the scores prove it.
Bit it's not a secret. Look how good the new AMD processors play by
the others' rules field compared to the older solution! It's nice because
it's not Athlon XP, but it will be them to compete against future top Pentium
4.
Write a comment below. No registration needed!
|
|
