AMD Athlon 64 & Athlon 64 FX - It's Judgment Day
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 23, 2003 1:25 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Development Workstation Performance
One test we've always been asked to run is a Visual Studio/Visual C compile test, however we never had a project large enough to compile. Sitting around talking about Athlon 64 testing one day we came up with the idea of using the publicly available Quake 3 source code as a compile test for CPUs, and thus for this next test we timed how long it took for the Quake 3 source code to compile.
This compile test should be a relatively good indicator of overall compile performance, which will be very useful for those of you that have very large projects that can take countless minutes to well over an hour to compile.
These results shouldn't be too surprising as compilers are very branch-happy applications, which definitely penalize long pipelines like the Pentium 4's. There will be more optimized compilers available for the Pentium 4 in the future that may exploit multithreaded compiling with the generation of helper threads to show performance improvements courtesy of Hyper Threading, but for now if you want a good development workstation - AMD is the way to go.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
122 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#38, Huh how heck are we forgetting something NO ONE KNOWS? Has Intel ever really givin an absolute upper limit to the Prescott clocks throughout the year? Last time I heard Tejas would takeover after 4.2Ghz.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
LOL, you all who think that intel is the winner here, just continue to believe so, but don't tell anyone.If Prescott was so great we should have seen "leaked" benchmarks by now. I saw benchmarks of the Clawhammer more than a year ago.
AMD can not outperform intel because they'll get problems with their supply. That's one of the main reasons AMD don't want to release a cpu that will beat all intel offerings. Imagine what will happen if everyone wants an AMD.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#35, Dude just frigging be quiet as I seriously hope you aren't saying crap like that in public.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
You guys are forgetting Prescott is capable of 4.6 GHz, and it'll have the price advantage.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
So what's the difference between 32bit with 64bit extensions, and 64bit with 32bit compatible mode.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#29, Didn't Intel reps at IDF make comments to the tune of a 3.2Ghz P4EE offering up better overall performance than a 3.2Ghz Prescott? How heck is Prescott going to change things when it's debutting at 3.4Ghz and going to be up against an FX51 and A64 3400+ (possibly even FX55)?!!?? What part of that shows Intel sailing through 2004 when Prescott is expected to max out at around 4Ghz and A64 hasn't even gone through a die shrink and is already performance competitive with it from the initial 130nm A64 releases??!?Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
Athlon64 isnt running in 32bit compatibility mode. It's still a 32-bit processor with 64-bit extensions, not the other way around. Pure 64-bit processors will trounce it in 64-bit apps.Just keeping up with Intel isn't enough, they needed to take the performance crown without any doubt to really gain back marketshare, right now this is just good enough to tread water, especially considering their pricing. How the next year plays out will be interesting though.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#32Wait till next year when the bugs of 64-bit drivers/software come onto your system. It will be Windows 95 all over again. AMD64 is an expensive disappointment.
THE END
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
amiga owns you.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
For everyone saying that the Athlon64 was NOT the so-called AMD Killer, I just have one question:How can you say a 64-bit processor running in 32-bit compatibility mode that keeps up with the best Intel processor, the P4EE, disappointing? Me, I'm waiting for some more 64-bit programs to judge the strength of the Athlon 64. The fact that the Athlon 64 can keep up and sometime pass Intel in 32 bits is awesome.
BTW, I'm not an AMD fanboy. I have both AMD and Intel processors. But I find the Intel zealots are trying to discredit this processor by insisting on only looking at half the picture. Just my opinion.