- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Basically in June of 2003, I upgraded from AXP1600+ (bought in 2001) to P4 2.6C w/HT. I overclocked my CPU to 3.2ghz. The CPU originally cost me $220, retail box. So I figured now that I am graduating from university soon, I might as well upgrade to something better. So what can I buy today, 2.5 years later for around $200? A64 3500+ Venice...Then I thought hmmm...how much of a performance am I going to get? Also I thought to make the comparison fair, I have to assume I'll overclock that CPU just like I overclocked the P4 2.6 when I got it. A fair target is about 2600-2700mhz. So then I decided to include FX55 2.6ghz Sandiego 1mb cache core (even faster than what 3500+ overclocked would give me due to higher cache). I also threw in AXP3200+ to see if the dominance of A64 over P4 is really overexagerrated or not. Found these benches and here is what I saw:
Test Setup: - Source
Athlon 64 FX-55 San Diego (2600 MHz 64+64/1024 kB) S939 (NF4 U)
Athlon 64 3500+ Venice (2200 MHz 64+64/512 kB) S939 (NF4 U)
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz Northwood (3200 MHz 12KµOps+8/512 kB) S478 (i875)
Athlon XP 3200+ Barton (2200 MHz 64+64/512 kB) S462 (NF2 U)
6800GT graphics card
GAMES
Wolfenstein 3D - Enemy Territory 1280x1024 - High Quality
FX55 - 208.2fps (+24.7%)
3500+ - 183.3fps (+9.8%)
3.2ghz - 167.0fps (100%)
XP3200+ - 140.4fps (-18.9%)
Quake 3 - 1280x1024 - High
FX55 - 280.7fps (+18.1%)
3500+ - 245.1fps (+3.2%)
3.2ghz - 237.6fps (100%)
XP3200+ - 193.3 (-22.9%)
Doom 3 - 1280x1024 - High
FX55 - 83.4fps (+8.5%)
3500+ - 82.0fps (+6.6%)
3.2ghz - 76.9 (100%)
XP3200+ - 72.3 (-6.4%)
Doom 3 (another level) - 1280x1024 - High
FX55 - 108.0fps (+19.2%)
3500+ - 102.6fps (+13.2%)
3.2ghz - 90.6 (100%)
XP3200+ - 81.6 (-11.0%)
UT2k4 - 1280x1024
FX55 - 178.8fps (+8.5%)
3500+ - 152.3fps (+6.6%)
3.2ghz - 90.6 (100%)
XP3200+ - 81.6 (-11.0%)
Far Cry - 1280x1024
FX55 - 207.1fps (+29.7%)
3500+ - 186.2fps (+16.6%)
3.2ghz - 159.7 (100%)
XP3200+ - 134.3 (-18.9%)
VIDEO
Xvid - converting from VOB to XVID (182mb)
FX55 - 317 seconds (+6.0%)
3500+ - 366 seconds (-8.9%)
3.2ghz - 336 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 423 seconds (-25.9%)
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder - Encoding AVI to WMV (450mb)
FX55 - 148 seconds (+5.4%)
3500+ - 175 seconds (-12.2%)
3.2ghz - 156 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 207 seconds (-32.7%)
Mainconcept Encoder - Encoding DV to MPEG2 (1.2gb)
FX55 - 147 seconds (+16.3%)
3500+ - 171 seconds (0.0%)
3.2ghz - 171 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 203 seconds (-18.7%)
DivX - Converting from VOB to MPEG4 (182mb)
FX55 - 387 seconds (+10.9%)
3500+ - 454 seconds (-5.8%)
3.2ghz - 429 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 552 seconds (-28.7%)
Pinnacle Studio 9 Plus - Encoding and Transition Rendering from DV to MPEG2
FX55 - 110 seconds (+4.5%)
3500+ - 128 seconds (-11.3%)
3.2ghz - 115 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 144 seconds (-25.2%)
AUDIO
Ogg-Vorbis - Audio CD Terminator 2 SE, 74 min, Quality =5
FX55 - 184 seconds (+20.7%)
3500+ - 217 seconds (+2.3%)
3.2ghz - 222 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 233 seconds (-5.0%)
Lame - Audio CD Terminator 2 SE, 160kBit/s 74 min
FX55 - 203 seconds (+24.1%)
3500+ - 240 seconds (+5.0%)
3.2ghz - 252 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 261 seconds (-3.6%)
APPLICATION
WinRAR - 283mb, 246 files, compression 'best'
FX55 - 90 seconds (+23.3%)
3500+ - 105 seconds (+5.7%)
3.2ghz - 111 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 144 seconds (-29.7%)
CloneDVD - Transcoding DVD9 to 4.7 Terminator 2 SE (9gb)
FX55 - 559 seconds (+16.8%)
3500+ - 649 seconds (+0.6%)
3.2ghz - 653 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 727 seconds (-11.3%)
Multithread Benchmark (4 Threads) - WinRAR, Ogg-Vorbis, Windows Media Encoder, Lame Encoder
FX55 - 478 seconds (+29.7%)
3500+ - 596 seconds (+4.0%)
3.2ghz - 620 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 936 seconds (-51.0%)
Multithread Benchmark (2 Threads) - WinRAR, Ogg-Vorbis
FX55 - 162 seconds (+3.8%)
3500+ - 191 seconds (+22.4%)
3.2ghz - 156 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 259 seconds (-66.0%)
3D-Studio Max 7 - 1280x1024 - Rendering
FX55 - 132 seconds (+18.2%)
3500+ - 156 seconds (+0.0%)
3.2ghz - 156 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 176 seconds (-12.8%)
So what conclusions can I make?
- Before I start, i want to stress i am not saying A64 is bad or P4 is good or anything of that nature...just simply referring to progress.
When I upgraded from 2001 to 2003 from XP1600+ to 2.6@3.2ghz I saw 65-90% increases in performance for $220. This is also illustrated by the same website that did the benches I just listed P4 3.06 vs. AXP1600+
There was NO benchmark in which AXP1600+ beat the P4.
Now lets look at today:
1) A64 3500 + for $200 not only provides 0 incentive to switch over from my P4 3.2ghz since its performance on average is less than 10% greater, but it even looses across a variety of benchmarks not related to gaming. Yes I do want a processor for gaming, but I dont want it to be slower anywhere else 2.5 years after I upgrade! That is simply unacceptable.
2) To be fair, I would have had to compare 2.6 to xp1600+. So I'll compare if I upgraded from 3.2 to FX55 since I'll overclock 3500+ 2.2ghz to 2.6ghz or 2.7ghz (cache of 1mb makes up for 2700mhz 3500+ making it a fair comparison). At most, the FX55 will provide 30% increase. Again after 2.5 years this is DISSAPOINTING for anyone who wants to throw away the old AGP platform.
3) AXP3200+ was often slower to a much greater extent compared to P4 3.2ghz in contrast to P4 3.2 compared to FX55. 2 Years ago I would have never recommended anyone upgrade from xp3200+ to P4 3.2ghz since it simply was not worth it. Therefore, FX55 barely has a serious incentive to upgrade to. Again I am utterly dissappointed in CPU progress in general, be it AMD or Intel, when graphics cards double their speed practically every 12-15 months. Are engineers there much more creative? Essentially putting more pipelines is multitasking if you ask me! (Not exactly) but CPU companies should have long promoted dual- and mulit-core environments and prioritized more efficiency per clock cycle....alas...yet these CEOs get paid Millions to set corporate vision and set industry trends.
4) "Oh well, you are missing the point, you can buy dual core today." I have a problem with this statement. Again X2 processors won almost every single benchmark in the benches I've shown. Still to me there is little support for dual-core at the moment - and even they will not make a 65-90% performance boost upgrade for today's environment. Again, I am also dissatisfied knowing that 2x A64 3200+ cost less than A64 x2 3800+ if purchased separately. This highlights that dual core processors are still overpriced today.
5) To make matters worse, there is almost 0 incentive from a cpu perspective to step up from a modern cpu. Yet neither Nvidia nor ATI offer AGP based top of the line cards. So here we have thousands of AGP users like me who would not want to buy a new mobo + new cpu for MAX 30% PERFORMANCE increase just to plug in a new PCIe graphics card. 2.5 years ago if someone told you that in the next 2.5 years cpu performance would only increase by 30%, you probably would have written hate letters to both AMD and Intel for not being on the cutting edge and slacking off.
Sidetracking
6) wouldnt it then make sense for ATI or Nvidia to release AGP based high end cards given hardly any evolution in cpu performance (always unjustifiably blamed for bottlenecking)?
"The recent Diamond X1800 AGP PR fiasco actually shows a clear opportunity for ATI - with so many AGP-based systems around, high-end ones included (who won't change the whole system overnight just to fix in a PCI-E graphics card), it would be quite an opportunity to address this real and existing market.
Even the current X1800XT and X1800XL with an added Rialto PCIE-AGP bridge to fit into an AGP slot, would probably take in all the current AGP-based high-end GPU demand, as there is NO competition from Nvidia there. If you want to play H.264 HD video on an AGP system, this would be the only solution, full stop. So, while fighting the high-end battle, ATI (or any of the specialist ATI card vendors like HIS or Sapphire) could take this market."
Yet neither ATI nor Nvidia see this as an opportunity. Then why did they spend all this money trying to get PCIe chips to work with AGP based boards last generation. I bet at least 30-40% of users who buy high end cards still own what today is still considered a high end system (ie. P4 3.0/AXP3000+/S754 A64 or faster).
Basically I am simply dissapointed with CPU progress as of late and its not looking like its improving in the next 12-month period either. I am also disappointed with the graphics card companies not realizing lost opportunities.
What do you guys think?
Test Setup: - Source
Athlon 64 FX-55 San Diego (2600 MHz 64+64/1024 kB) S939 (NF4 U)
Athlon 64 3500+ Venice (2200 MHz 64+64/512 kB) S939 (NF4 U)
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz Northwood (3200 MHz 12KµOps+8/512 kB) S478 (i875)
Athlon XP 3200+ Barton (2200 MHz 64+64/512 kB) S462 (NF2 U)
6800GT graphics card
GAMES
Wolfenstein 3D - Enemy Territory 1280x1024 - High Quality
FX55 - 208.2fps (+24.7%)
3500+ - 183.3fps (+9.8%)
3.2ghz - 167.0fps (100%)
XP3200+ - 140.4fps (-18.9%)
Quake 3 - 1280x1024 - High
FX55 - 280.7fps (+18.1%)
3500+ - 245.1fps (+3.2%)
3.2ghz - 237.6fps (100%)
XP3200+ - 193.3 (-22.9%)
Doom 3 - 1280x1024 - High
FX55 - 83.4fps (+8.5%)
3500+ - 82.0fps (+6.6%)
3.2ghz - 76.9 (100%)
XP3200+ - 72.3 (-6.4%)
Doom 3 (another level) - 1280x1024 - High
FX55 - 108.0fps (+19.2%)
3500+ - 102.6fps (+13.2%)
3.2ghz - 90.6 (100%)
XP3200+ - 81.6 (-11.0%)
UT2k4 - 1280x1024
FX55 - 178.8fps (+8.5%)
3500+ - 152.3fps (+6.6%)
3.2ghz - 90.6 (100%)
XP3200+ - 81.6 (-11.0%)
Far Cry - 1280x1024
FX55 - 207.1fps (+29.7%)
3500+ - 186.2fps (+16.6%)
3.2ghz - 159.7 (100%)
XP3200+ - 134.3 (-18.9%)
VIDEO
Xvid - converting from VOB to XVID (182mb)
FX55 - 317 seconds (+6.0%)
3500+ - 366 seconds (-8.9%)
3.2ghz - 336 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 423 seconds (-25.9%)
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder - Encoding AVI to WMV (450mb)
FX55 - 148 seconds (+5.4%)
3500+ - 175 seconds (-12.2%)
3.2ghz - 156 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 207 seconds (-32.7%)
Mainconcept Encoder - Encoding DV to MPEG2 (1.2gb)
FX55 - 147 seconds (+16.3%)
3500+ - 171 seconds (0.0%)
3.2ghz - 171 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 203 seconds (-18.7%)
DivX - Converting from VOB to MPEG4 (182mb)
FX55 - 387 seconds (+10.9%)
3500+ - 454 seconds (-5.8%)
3.2ghz - 429 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 552 seconds (-28.7%)
Pinnacle Studio 9 Plus - Encoding and Transition Rendering from DV to MPEG2
FX55 - 110 seconds (+4.5%)
3500+ - 128 seconds (-11.3%)
3.2ghz - 115 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 144 seconds (-25.2%)
AUDIO
Ogg-Vorbis - Audio CD Terminator 2 SE, 74 min, Quality =5
FX55 - 184 seconds (+20.7%)
3500+ - 217 seconds (+2.3%)
3.2ghz - 222 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 233 seconds (-5.0%)
Lame - Audio CD Terminator 2 SE, 160kBit/s 74 min
FX55 - 203 seconds (+24.1%)
3500+ - 240 seconds (+5.0%)
3.2ghz - 252 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 261 seconds (-3.6%)
APPLICATION
WinRAR - 283mb, 246 files, compression 'best'
FX55 - 90 seconds (+23.3%)
3500+ - 105 seconds (+5.7%)
3.2ghz - 111 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 144 seconds (-29.7%)
CloneDVD - Transcoding DVD9 to 4.7 Terminator 2 SE (9gb)
FX55 - 559 seconds (+16.8%)
3500+ - 649 seconds (+0.6%)
3.2ghz - 653 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 727 seconds (-11.3%)
Multithread Benchmark (4 Threads) - WinRAR, Ogg-Vorbis, Windows Media Encoder, Lame Encoder
FX55 - 478 seconds (+29.7%)
3500+ - 596 seconds (+4.0%)
3.2ghz - 620 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 936 seconds (-51.0%)
Multithread Benchmark (2 Threads) - WinRAR, Ogg-Vorbis
FX55 - 162 seconds (+3.8%)
3500+ - 191 seconds (+22.4%)
3.2ghz - 156 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 259 seconds (-66.0%)
3D-Studio Max 7 - 1280x1024 - Rendering
FX55 - 132 seconds (+18.2%)
3500+ - 156 seconds (+0.0%)
3.2ghz - 156 seconds (100%)
XP3200+ - 176 seconds (-12.8%)
So what conclusions can I make?
- Before I start, i want to stress i am not saying A64 is bad or P4 is good or anything of that nature...just simply referring to progress.
When I upgraded from 2001 to 2003 from XP1600+ to 2.6@3.2ghz I saw 65-90% increases in performance for $220. This is also illustrated by the same website that did the benches I just listed P4 3.06 vs. AXP1600+
There was NO benchmark in which AXP1600+ beat the P4.
Now lets look at today:
1) A64 3500 + for $200 not only provides 0 incentive to switch over from my P4 3.2ghz since its performance on average is less than 10% greater, but it even looses across a variety of benchmarks not related to gaming. Yes I do want a processor for gaming, but I dont want it to be slower anywhere else 2.5 years after I upgrade! That is simply unacceptable.
2) To be fair, I would have had to compare 2.6 to xp1600+. So I'll compare if I upgraded from 3.2 to FX55 since I'll overclock 3500+ 2.2ghz to 2.6ghz or 2.7ghz (cache of 1mb makes up for 2700mhz 3500+ making it a fair comparison). At most, the FX55 will provide 30% increase. Again after 2.5 years this is DISSAPOINTING for anyone who wants to throw away the old AGP platform.
3) AXP3200+ was often slower to a much greater extent compared to P4 3.2ghz in contrast to P4 3.2 compared to FX55. 2 Years ago I would have never recommended anyone upgrade from xp3200+ to P4 3.2ghz since it simply was not worth it. Therefore, FX55 barely has a serious incentive to upgrade to. Again I am utterly dissappointed in CPU progress in general, be it AMD or Intel, when graphics cards double their speed practically every 12-15 months. Are engineers there much more creative? Essentially putting more pipelines is multitasking if you ask me! (Not exactly) but CPU companies should have long promoted dual- and mulit-core environments and prioritized more efficiency per clock cycle....alas...yet these CEOs get paid Millions to set corporate vision and set industry trends.
4) "Oh well, you are missing the point, you can buy dual core today." I have a problem with this statement. Again X2 processors won almost every single benchmark in the benches I've shown. Still to me there is little support for dual-core at the moment - and even they will not make a 65-90% performance boost upgrade for today's environment. Again, I am also dissatisfied knowing that 2x A64 3200+ cost less than A64 x2 3800+ if purchased separately. This highlights that dual core processors are still overpriced today.
5) To make matters worse, there is almost 0 incentive from a cpu perspective to step up from a modern cpu. Yet neither Nvidia nor ATI offer AGP based top of the line cards. So here we have thousands of AGP users like me who would not want to buy a new mobo + new cpu for MAX 30% PERFORMANCE increase just to plug in a new PCIe graphics card. 2.5 years ago if someone told you that in the next 2.5 years cpu performance would only increase by 30%, you probably would have written hate letters to both AMD and Intel for not being on the cutting edge and slacking off.
Sidetracking
6) wouldnt it then make sense for ATI or Nvidia to release AGP based high end cards given hardly any evolution in cpu performance (always unjustifiably blamed for bottlenecking)?
"The recent Diamond X1800 AGP PR fiasco actually shows a clear opportunity for ATI - with so many AGP-based systems around, high-end ones included (who won't change the whole system overnight just to fix in a PCI-E graphics card), it would be quite an opportunity to address this real and existing market.
Even the current X1800XT and X1800XL with an added Rialto PCIE-AGP bridge to fit into an AGP slot, would probably take in all the current AGP-based high-end GPU demand, as there is NO competition from Nvidia there. If you want to play H.264 HD video on an AGP system, this would be the only solution, full stop. So, while fighting the high-end battle, ATI (or any of the specialist ATI card vendors like HIS or Sapphire) could take this market."
Yet neither ATI nor Nvidia see this as an opportunity. Then why did they spend all this money trying to get PCIe chips to work with AGP based boards last generation. I bet at least 30-40% of users who buy high end cards still own what today is still considered a high end system (ie. P4 3.0/AXP3000+/S754 A64 or faster).
Basically I am simply dissapointed with CPU progress as of late and its not looking like its improving in the next 12-month period either. I am also disappointed with the graphics card companies not realizing lost opportunities.
What do you guys think?