AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core
by Derek Wilson on June 27, 2005 11:47 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Multitasking Content Creation
MCC Winstone 2004Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:
. Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0.1
. Adobe® Premiere® 6.50
. Macromedia® Director MX 9.0
. Macromedia® Dreamweaver MX 6.1
. Microsoft® Windows MediaTM Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980
. NewTek's LightWave® 3D 7.5b
. SteinbergTM WaveLabTM 4.0f
As you can see above, Lightwave is part of the MCC Winstone 2004 benchmark suite. As an individual application, Lightwave does manage to get a healthy performance benefit with multithreaded rendering enabled, especially when paired with Hyperthreading enabled CPUs like the Pentium 4s here today. All chips were tested with Lightwave set to spawn 4 threads.
ICC SYSMark 2004
The first category that we will deal with is 3D Content Creation. The tests that make up this benchmark are described below:
"The user renders a 3D model to a bitmap using 3ds max 5.1, while preparing web pages in Dreamweaver MX. Then the user renders a 3D animation in a vector graphics format."
Next, we have 2D Content Creation performance:
"The user uses Premiere 6.5 to create a movie from several raw input movie cuts and sound cuts and starts exporting it. While waiting on this operation, the user imports the rendered image into Photoshop 7.01, modifies it and saves the results. Once the movie is assembled, the user edits it and creates special effects using After Effects 5.5."
The Internet Content Creation suite is rounded up with a Web Publishing performance test:
"The user extracts content from an archive using WinZip 8.1. Meanwhile, he uses Flash MX to open the exported 3D vector graphics file. He modifies it by including other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The final movie with the special effects is then compressed using Windows Media Encoder 9 series in a format that can be broadcast over broadband Internet. The web site is given the final touches in Dreamweaver MX and the system is scanned by VirusScan 7.0."
Mozilla + Media Encoder
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
cryptonomicon - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
what a beastsaratoga - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
The 533 vs. 400 would make an interesting benchmark. Given the availability of relatively low latency 533 (or at least 500), it might be worthwhile for people who must have the best performance (most FX buyers I'd guess).dougSF30 - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
> Who is being realistic here?Hello? As you said *in your own post*, anyone splashing out $1000 for an FX-57 can afford to buy top-end memory for it.
Otherwise, what's the point? DDR-333 is really cheap these days, maybe they should test with that?
Viditor - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
I have a feeling that the mobo AT used was a poor choice...I have checked all of the other reviews I could find, and every one of them that overclocked was able to be stable at 3.0 GHz on air...
Goi - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
I would've liked a bit more analysis rather than just describing the tests and displaying the results. I notice that this has become more or less an AT template in reviews, with little analysis and a lot of data. I think a bit more analysis on interesting points would be helpful. For example, the 200MHz bump from the FX-55 to the FX-57 causes disproportionate performance increases in certain benchmarks. An detailed analysis on why(going from the 130nm hammer core to the 90nm Venice core with improved memory controller for example) would be helpful I think. There's just too much numbers and not enough analysis IMHO.Viditor - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
blckgrffn - I understand your point, but this is a Dream Machine chip anyway, so we should definately see it at it's best (latest mobo, DDR533 LL, etc...).JMHO
miketheidiot - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
this new memory controller has me thinking ddr2....blckgrffn - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
For those of you who want DDR500 etc included, I don't think that you understand how/why these articles are written. I can appreciate that you want the whole platform to be about the best performance, but then we would lose all sense of just how much better this CPU is compared to the old ones.So, LL DDR500 performs awesome. Great. I suppose if you are buying a $1000 processor you will probably drop $250 on a gig of ram. Super. But for the rest of us, getting ram that runs 2-2-2-10 is hard enough, let alone trying for that super duper ram that runs in how many mobos due to voltage requirements? One or two? Who is being realistic here?
suryad - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Looks like if AMD had some sort of HT scheme like Intel did...there would be no benchmark where the Intel would be ahead...but I am most impressed that AMD has now taken over the domain of multimedia and encoding and so on from Intel...cant wait for 3 ghz multicore FX procs!dougSF30 - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Dear Lord! Low latency DDR-500 or DDR-533 will peform better than low latency DDR-400!