Performance Test Configuration
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD Opteron Socket 940 at 2.0GHz (9x222) 444FSB AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz, 400MHz FSB) Intel Dual Xeon 3.06 (1 Mb Cache)* 533FSB Intel Pentium 4 at 3.0GHz (800FSB) |
| RAM: | 4 x 512MB Legacy ECC at 2.5-3-4-5 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II 2 x 256MB Corsair PC3200 TwinX LL (v1.1 or 1.2) Modules (SPD rated) |
| Hard Drive(s): | Maxtor 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer) Western Digital 120GB 7200 RPM Special Edition (8MB Buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | NVIDIA nForce version 2.45 (7/29/2003) NVIDIA nForce version 2.03 (1/30/03) VIA 4in1 Hyperion 4.47 (May 20, 2003) |
| Video Card(s): | ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (AGP 8X) |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 3.6 |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | nVidia Reference nForce3 @ 222.0 MHz FSB DFI NFII Ultra LANParty (nForce2 Ultra 400) @ 201.35 MHz FSB Gigabyte 7NNXP (nForce2 Ultra 400) @ 202.77MHz FSB Soltek KT600-R (KT600)@200.01 FSB Asus PC-DL Dual 3.06 Xeon* @200.0 MHz Asus P4C800-E @200.5 MHz ABIT IS7-G (865PE) ABIT IC7-G (875P) Gigabyte 8KNXP (875P) |
| *IMPORTANT: While the Dual Xeon 3.06 Asus PC-DL was included for comparison, please keep in mind that our standard benchmarks are not multi-threading enabled. Results should not be considered a comparison of multi-threading to a single processor. Since the Dual 875 is being targeted at the Gaming and Enthusiast markets, we believe it is fair to include the Dual Xeon 875 in comparisons to other solutions that also target the gaming and enthusiast market. | |
Recent performance tests on Intel 875/865 boards used 2x512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II Double-bank memory. Previous tests of Intel motherboards used 2x256MB Corsair 3200LL Ver. 1.1.
All performance tests run on nForce2 Ultra 400 motherboards utilized two 256MB Corsair TwinX LL PC3200 (v1.1 or 1.2) modules set to SPD timings in Dual-Channel DDR400 mode.
All performance tests that ran on the KT600-based motherboard used two 256MB Corsair TwinX LL PC3200 (v1.1 or 1.2) Corsair modules in DDR400 mode. 4-bank interleave and the highest available timing option (Turbo or Ultra) was used.
All performance tests were run with the ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32.
Additions to Performance Tests
We have standardized on ZD Labs Internet Content Creation Winstone 2003 and ZD Labs Business Winstone 2002 for system benchmarking.Game Benchmarks
We have added Gun Metal DirectX Benchmark 2 from Yeti Labs as a standard game benchmark. We are also evaluating the new X2 Benchmark, which includes Transform and Lighting effects as part of the standard benchmark. Results are reported here for reference.Jedi Knight II has been dropped form our standard Benchmark Suite. We were forced to use different patches for operation on Athlon and Intel Pentium 4, which made cross-platform comparison difficult, if not impossible. In addition, Opteron/Athlon64 requires a third patching variation for benchmarking. JK2 uses a Quake engine, and we are continuing Quake3 as a standard benchmark for the time being.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Sunday, September 7, 2003 - link
There are TPC benchmarks out with the new Opteron ship running 64-bit Linux and has gotten very good performance indeed.http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results....
IBMs xSeries 325 is sporting an Opteron.
Wesley Fink - Sunday, September 7, 2003 - link
#66 -The Opteron and nForce3 require Registered ECC or Registered non-ECC dimms which are not the same as the unbuffered dimms we normally use for testing. It is very hard right now to find Registered dimms, let alone registered DDR400 dimms (the fastest ECC chips in current production are apparently designed for DDR333). The ONLY memory we had available that would work on the nForce3 were 512MB Registered ECC DDR400 modules. Dula-Channel makes that a megabyte. The theory goes that ECC and Registered slow down memory performance a bit compared to unbuffered, which should certainly offset any advantage.
Our benchmark tests are cumulative, as we certainly can't keep rigs up for every board we test. With a new setup like this and cross-platform data, we sometimes have to compare what we can get to what we already have.
Socket 754 will be single-channel and able to use regular unbuffered memory, while Socket 940 is dual-channel and requires Registered memory. The rumored Socket 939, scheduled for year-end, will allow use of standard unbuffered memory.
Locutus4657 - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
#27 Markets don't lie?? I remember when Rambuses stock was selling at $300/share and was rated BUY BUY BUY. If you're buying your tech prices based on stock values you are in some very seriouse trouble. And just so you know, I've built many an AMD system my self, and only the old "Super 7" systems had any real quirks. The newer Athlons have been problem free for me.Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
#58 - hey i hadn't noticed that before. wesley, what's up with 1gb on the Athlon64/Opteron adn only 512mb on the P4???Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
Some of you guys are so remarkably shortsighted it's not even funny. Posts like "haha, AMD still makes the crappier chip, they'll be out of business by this time next year" are foolish.If you like Intel, good for you, a strong AMD keeps intel's prices down and keeps the innovation coming. No AMD means we'll probably be paying $1200 for the 3.6 Ghz prescott this time next year, because they won't have to release as often or as cheaply.
Kudos to AMD, and I wish them nothing but the best.
Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
low voltage Itaniums may be lower in performance to their big Madison sisters, but they blow everything else out of the water on some industry standard SPEC scores!Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
Could it be that Registered DDR400 ECC Modules are as rare as the Athlon XP 2800+ that was paper launched at 2.25 GHz actual and then jumped quickly to a Barton 2800+ at 2.08 GHz? Or could it be that this is the same misleading stuff that AMD tried to do with their PriceWaterHouseCoopers benchmarks when they used the top of the line nForce platform against a mainstream Intel 845G platform and disabled Hyperthreading saying that it made the P4 slower - on top of that they used software patches that "aren't available for public download" to run their benchmarks on 3-year old benchmark software that was not optimized for the P4. If you look at what AMD has been saying for the past 5 years, they typically overpromise and underdeliver (a.k.a. Athlon FX - remarked Opteron now that Athlon64 will not be able to compete in it's original single-channel design) whereas Intel usually just stays pretty quiet, conservatively underpromises and overdelivers.Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
hey all you guys clamoring for linux benchmarks, speak up and mention some good ones for them to run...Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
I don't know why people are getting so emotional about intel vs amd. Let there be competition so we the consumers win. If Athlon xp hadn't been so powerful we wouldd not have 3.2 ghz, ht pentium 4 right now. On the other hand if we didn't have a 3.2 ghz p4 there would not be an upcoming athlon 64 fx. The chips with dual channel memory were all supposed to be in the server/workstation market. AMD has realised that the socket 754 chip will not be competitive enough with upcoming prescott and as such has created a new socket 939. I suspect that the socket 754 will go the way of the duron as a celeron competitor while socket 939 will be the flagship chip.Regarding the article the reviewer should have made it clear that this was an athlon 64-fx preview not athlon 64.
Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
The low voltage itaniums are also low performance.