Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part II: A Deeper Look
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 6, 2005 12:23 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Business Application Performance
Business Winstone 2004
Business Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:
- Microsoft Access 2002
- Microsoft Excel 2002
- Microsoft FrontPage 2002
- Microsoft Outlook 2002
- Microsoft PowerPoint 2002
- Microsoft Project 2002
- Microsoft Word 2002
- Norton AntiVirus Professional Edition 2003
- WinZip 8.1
The Pentium 4 and Pentium D perform quite similarly here, but the Athlon 64 3500+ is obviously the strongest performer out of the three when it comes to single threaded business applications.
Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
SYSMark's Office Productivity suite consists of three tests, the first of which is the Communication test. The Communication test consists of the following:
"The user receives an email in Outlook 2002 that contains a collection of documents in a zip file. The user reviews his email and updates his calendar while VirusScan 7.0 scans the system. The corporate web site is viewed in Internet Explorer 6.0. Finally, Internet Explorer is used to look at samples of the web pages and documents created during the scenario."
The next test is Document Creation performance:
"The user edits the document using Word 2002. He transcribes an audio file into a document using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 6. Once the document has all the necessary pieces in place, the user changes it into a portable format for easy and secure distribution using Acrobat 5.0.5. The user creates a marketing presentation in PowerPoint 2002 and adds elements to a slide show template."
The final test in our Office Productivity suite is Data Analysis, which BAPCo describes as:
"The user opens a database using Access 2002 and runs some queries. A collection of documents are archived using WinZip 8.1. The queries' results are imported into a spreadsheet using Excel 2002 and are used to generate graphical charts."
SYSMark paints a much more evenly matched picture between AMD and Intel in the Office Productivity suite. What's interesting is that even AMD recommends SYSMark 2004 as the best overall system performance test for multi-core desktop CPUs.
Business Winstone 2004 includes a multitasking test as a part of its suite, which does the following:
"This test uses the same applications as the Business Winstone test, but runs some of them in the background. The test has three segments: in the first, files copy in the background while the script runs Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer in the foreground. The script waits for both foreground and background tasks to complete before starting the second segment. In that segment, Excel and Word operations run in the foreground while WinZip archives in the background. The script waits for both foreground and background tasks to complete before starting the third segment. In that segment, Norton AntiVirus runs a virus check in the background while Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Access, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft FrontPage, and WinZip operations run in the foreground."
The multitasking tests show the Pentium D 2.8GHz and the Athlon 64 3500+ as equal competitors, with AMD winning the first two tests and Intel winning the last. This just goes to show you that not all multitasking will be immediately faster on a dual core chip.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
106 Comments
View All Comments
mlittl3 - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Hey Anand,A really cool multitasking scenario for gaming would be running a game with something like Skype in the background. Everyone saying that a respectable gamer (whatever that means) would not run multi applications in the background is not thinking about VoIP.
I am in Louisiana and I like to game with my friend in Georgia. We talk to each other using Skype will playing Halo on the same server. I know the overhead necessary for VoIP must slow things down some.
Won't dual core help in this case?
Aikouka - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
I know I personally have a lot of things open when gaming, especially if I'm playing World of Warcraft. I'll typically alt-tab out of the game to check IRC or Firefox (with a bunch of tabs open) to look something up or if I'm bored, just browse the net a little bit.The only problem I ever have with slowdowns is if the game is highly CPU-bound and uses up 100% of my CPU, which WoW does almost all the time.
Rand - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
#10- I'm inclined to agree, but people did request it so presumably some people ar interested in doing so for whatever reason."I don´t close AVG and MS Antispyware and MSN and outlook and IExplorer everytime i open warcraft or half life 2, so...WHO MADE ME BELIEVE AMD WAS FASTER?"
Merely running applications in the background isn't going to do much to benefit DualCore/SMP unless those applications are actually utilizing the processor. Odds are MSN/Outlook/Spyware/Anti-virus probably aren't doing a thing but sitting idle when your gaming.
marcusgarcia - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
#10: There surely is.I play warcraft III online, which is a RTS game.
Being so, not all actions are dependant on my reflex (in fact i can many times minimize the game for around 20 seconds which is the time my char takes to walk to a certain place on a given map).
That being said, i am ALWAYS with a few instances of internet explorer open, MSN open, outlook express open and of course AVG and MS Anti spyware loaded on memory with real time protection.
Add the fact that sometimes i am viewing and being viewed on MSN webcam.
I'm sure MANY more people do that.
Remember not all players are FPS gamers...in fact, FPS is far behind MMORPG in sales, which doesn't require near as much attention and reflex.
marcusgarcia - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
OK.Something is very wrong here.
I mean, WHY DIDN'T ALL SITES DO THESE TESTS WHEN HT WAS LAUNCHED?
It clearly shows here what is MUCH better when it comes under regular usage.
A Pentium 4 3.0 ghz is beating AMD's trash on 3500+....i mean, WTF?
Almost noone (does anyone at all?) goes closing all applications before gaming or doing any other activity and HT is clearly giving AMD a serious beating on the multi-tasking scenario (read: EVERYONE's usage).
I don´t close AVG and MS Antispyware and MSN and outlook and IExplorer everytime i open warcraft or half life 2, so...WHO MADE ME BELIEVE AMD WAS FASTER?
I mean...dude...are we talking about servers here to compare single threaded performance?
Are we still on Windows 3.11?
By the way, how in the hell aren't they including Half Life's 2 performance?
Surely the physics engine plays quite a bit on processing and even more surely it is done on separate threads, which would show the dual core being strong even on a single application, let alone on a multi-tasking one.
I'm quite repented for having an Athlon 64 3000+ as my CPU right now when the Pentium 4 3.0 HT would be clearly outspacing the Athlon in every respect as long as i was multi-tasking/opening/closing/minimizing things (e.g.: ALWAYS).
Damn at all these sites.
boban10 - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
i think that this real-world multitasking testing done by Anandtech is 1000 times better than one syntetic benchmark, that is most time optimized for one or another cpu....someone agree ?
ronaldo
mbhame - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
I'm sorry but I find the premise of Page 11 borderline absurd. I *cannot* fathom there's a respectable amount of gamers that actually do that on a regular basis.Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
WooDaddyMulti-core multitasking is already quite difficult, you have no idea how frustrating last weekend was. The issue is that I can sit with you on a computer and show you all the areas that dual core will improve performance, but quantifying it so I can stick a bunch of bars in a graph is far more difficult. AMD and Intel are actively working with BAPCo on SYSMark 2006 that should be much more multi-core friendly, but until then we're left with a lot of hard work. We're trying to write our own benchmarks as well, it's just that they take quite a bit of time to put together.
Take care,
Anand
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Thanks for pointing out the graph error, the labels just got messed up it looks like; should be fixed now.Remember AMD is talking about a 2H 2005 launch for dual core Athlon 64 on the desktop, don't expect to see reviews of desktop parts anytime soon.
As far as the encoding comment goes, it's tough for me to actually elaborate without stepping into areas I can't get into just yet. Let's just say that the dual core Athlon 64 running at 2.2GHz won't be compared to a dual core Pentium D running at 2.8GHz.
Take care,
Anand
WooDaddy - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Ok Anand, either you're slick or you're slipping. History shows you're slick..You said a dual-core A64 won't help in encoding apps. I know you're not one to say stuff just because you THINK it's true, but because you KNOW so. I'm not at T0M H4rdware..
So.. Since you're alluding to it, WHEN'S THE DUAL CORE A64 TEST COMING OUT!?!?! *pant**pant*
Seriously though, I see that this multicore, multi-tasking benchmarking is going to get quite difficult. How do you know just how fast it really is considering all the combinations of different apps you will have running in the background? It Madonion or those other benchmarking guys going to be coming out with a synthetic benchmarking tool to gauge the max performance of these new multi-core processors?