Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AM2 and Conroe Multitasking Benchmarks ?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 9, 2006 12:03:55 PM

Hi guys
This is my first post here so bare with me plz!

I’ve been watching lately the reviews on AMD’s AM2 CPUs, and I noticed that on most benchmarks that the performance was not greatly improved over the Socket 939 cpus. we all know that these cpus have almost double the memory bandwidth available for the 939 DDR-I versions. As I recall AMD cpus usually take advantage of the extra memory bandwidth when performing multiple tasks and not only single threaded applications, so why haven’t we seen any multitasking benchmarking scenarios (ie WinRAR compressing + Video encoding + Game demo running etc.) comparing the S939 and the AM2 cpus. I think the time for such benchmarks is long over due.

Also since THG now has a Conroe cpu, why not benchmark it head to head with an AM2 X2 cpu in a multitasking scenario? after that we’ll see ho much will the 1066 FSB and the 4MB cache will hold! :twisted:

I now I must seem to be an AMD fan boy! However I’m really not. I only support the company that gives me the most performance + innovativity Buck.

By the way currently I have two (1.5 year old) intel computers.

Cheers
:D 
June 9, 2006 12:50:54 PM

Well here is a media encoding benchmark for an FX-60 @ 2.9GHz vs. a Conroe @ 2.9GHz. It doesn't get any more "real-life" than that.

FX-60 @ 2.9GHz:


Conroe @ 2.9GHz:
<server for this image is down at the moment>

Conroe @ 2.13GHz:


It looks like clock-for-clock Conroe is about 25% faster for media encoding since it takes the FX-60 about 21:09 minutes to encode the file, and it takes Conroe 15:22 minutes. There is also data for that same encoding task for the 2.13GHz Conroe which still beats the FX-60 with a 20:54 completion time.

I don't think I've found any examples where a game demo is running simultaneously. Probably becuase people rarely do this in real life so folk haven't benchmarked it yet. But in this case, I suppose you'd have an extra 5 minutes to run your game uninterrupted in this case with Conroe.

I'd expect as we get closer to release for Conroe, someone will get around to doing these types of benchmarks.
June 9, 2006 12:55:23 PM

There has been only one multitasking benchmark that i have seen, however it compares to a PD EE965,

the PD EE 965 wins some slightly against the core 2 duo but it also is capable of executing 4 threads at a time due to hyperthreading so its not as simple as a Core 2 Duo vs AM2 comparison

Edit: found two multithreaded tests done: PCMARK05

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970191,00.asp

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/06/04/intel_conroe_performance_preview/3.html
June 11, 2006 8:24:10 AM

some really informative stuff here
thanks guys for the posts

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/06/04/intel_conro...

Start quote:
"Core 2 Duo is clearly a very capable processor, but there are some areas where it could be faster. It's not often that we're spoiled by something that completely blows us out of the water, but this could be it - if anything, it leaves us wanting more. However, we have some worries about its multi-tasking performance, which doesn't appear to be quite as good as the chip that Conroe will be replacing later this year.

We found that it was faster than the current flagship Pentium Extreme Edition 965 processor in nearly every single-threaded scenario, but there were times where Conroe fell behind in multi-tasking scenarios. One area that completely blew us out of the water was the sheer prowess when it comes to gaming. This is an area where Intel has been traditionally weak.

This initial preview serves as an indication as to Conroe's performance - but again, we iterate that we will draw our final conclusions as to its performance when we have the complete, shipping hardware in our hands - something that no website or company has yet, save Intel. "

End quote.


i hope to see a similar benchmark agains the AM2 processors


:) 
!