Test System And Benchmarks
Here is our test system:
|Processor #1||AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2 GHz, FSB-200, 2000 MHz HT link, 6 MB Cache.|
|Processor #2||AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition o/c to 3.2 GHz, FSB-200, 2000 MHz HT link, 6 MB Cache.|
|Platform||Asus M4A78T-E rev. 1.xx790GX chipset, SB750 southbridge, BIOS rev. 1001|
|RAM||G.Skill F3-10666CL7-2GBPK (2 x 2 GB)DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1338 CAS 9-9-9-24-33-1T|
|Hard Drive||Western Digital Caviar Black 640 GB 7,200 RPM, 32 MB Cache SATA 3.0 Gb/s|
|Networking||Onboard Gigabit Ethernet|
|Graphics Cards||Gigabyte GV-N250ZL-1GI 1 GB DDR3 PCIe|
|Power Supply||Ultra HE1000X, ATX 2.2, 1000W|
|Software and Drivers|
|Operating System||Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit 6.0.6001, SP1|
|DirectX Version||DirectX 10|
|Graphics Driver||Forceware 186.18|
|Benchmarks and Settings|
|Crysis||Quality settings set to lowest, Object Detail to High, Physics to Very High, version 1.2.1, 1024x768, Benchmark tool, 3-run average|
|Left 4 Dead||Quality settings set to lowest, 1024x768, version 220.127.116.11, timed demo.|
|World in Conflict||Quality settings set to lowest, 1024x768, Patch 1.009, Built-in benchmark.|
|iTunes||Version: 18.104.22.168, Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min., Default format AAC|
|Lame MP3||Version: 3.98 (64-bit), Audio CD ""Terminator II" SE, 53 min, wave to MP3, 160 Kb/s|
|TMPEG 4.6||Version: 22.214.171.1248, Import File: "Terminator II" SE DVD (5 Minutes), Resolution: 720x576 (PAL) 16:9|
|DivX 6.8.5||Encoding mode: Insane Quality, Enhanced Multi-Threading, Enabled using SSE4, Quarter-pixel search|
|XviD 1.2.1||Display encoding status=off|
|MainConcept Reference 1.6.1||MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264), MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2), Audio: MPEG2 (44.1 KHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Mode: PAL (25 FPS), Profile: Tom’s Hardware Settings for Qct-Core|
|Autodesk 3D Studio Max 2009 (64-bit)||Version: 2009, Rendering Dragon Image at 1920x1080 (HDTV)|
|Grisoft AVG Antivirus 8||Version: 8.0.134, Virus base : 270.4.5/1533, Benchmark: Scan 334 MB Folder of ZIP/RAR compressed files|
|WinRAR 3.80||Version 3.80, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB)|
|WinZip 12||Version 12, Compression=Best, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB)|
|Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings|
|3DMark Vantage||Version: 1.02, GPU and CPU scores|
|PCMark Vantage||Version: 1.00, System, Memory, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks, Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646|
|SiSoftware Sandra 2009 SP3||CPU Test=CPU Arithmetic/MultiMedia, Memory Test=Bandwidth Benchmark|
Current page: Test System And BenchmarksPrev Page Test Methodology: How Do You Make It A Fairer Fight? Next Page Synthetic Benchmarks: 3DMark And PCMark Vantage
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Very intresting article,now I'm even happyery I bought a Phenom II 720 for my gaming rig!Reply
"In any case, there are two lessons to be learned here: first, try to avoid a virus scan during your gaming sessions."Reply
what kind of PC gamer does virus scanning while running a game?
Why no power consumption testing? I was a little curious what disabling cores in the OS would do to power consumption under load. A little let down, but otherwise good article. It's good to see a scaling article at least yearly since people refer to the dual/quad debate so often and often the tests that were run within article that are referenced are out of date and irrelavent.Reply
Good article, and very interesting.Reply
Now I really hope I can unlock the 4th core when my 720BE arrives (hopefully later this afternoon), but I won't sweat it.
Did you happen to test if it made a difference what scan priority was set in AVG? I'd really like to see those numbers.
So, how did you manage to get an Nvidia-based graphics card (Gigabyte GV-N250ZL-1GI 1 GB DDR3 PCIe) up and running with the ATI Catalyst 9.6 drivers?! ;-)Reply
Besides that bit of confusion, thanks for the benchmarks!
very happy with my 720 BE. I constantly check with the activity on the cores, and many many apps use all three cores, or multi- tasking uses all the 3 cores. some activities like defrag uses only 2 cores. image editing software, and general applications like browsers, office apps use all three cores, especially when multi tasking.Reply
i'm very happy with the AMD 720BE.
KyleSTLWhy no power consumption testing? I was a little curious what disabling cores in the OS would do to power consumption under load. A little let down, but otherwise good article. It's good to see a scaling article at least yearly since people refer to the dual/quad debate so often and often the tests that were run within article that are referenced are out of date and irrelavent.Reply
I liked the article well, but I was too finding myself asking "What was more power efficient? the PII x2 550 BE or the PII x2 955 BE?
Would love to know, even if it was just that you guys just happened to glance at a P3 Kill-a-watt or some other meter you had inline during testing or something.
Thanks for great work, guys :)
It's true that an application like iTunes does not benefit from multiple cores, when run without any other apps. However, it also doesn't compete for more than one core when multiple apps are running, so single threaded apps also benefit from multiple cores when users are multi-tasking.Reply
What one really needs to know with iTunes and it's competing applications is: Which one competes most efficiently in a multi-processing environment? In other words, which uses the least resources while performing essential tasks, leaving the most resources for the other tasks being performed? To say it in perhaps the clearest way, what applications play well with other types while multi-tasking, and which hog resources, making it more difficult to multi-task?
That's not really the point of this test, but it may lead to some interesting future evaluations.
^Yes, that's why it would be interesting to see if (and how much) the impact varied if AVG was set to slow, normal, or fast for its scan priority.Reply
You shouldn't test the games at 1024x786 at low details. These benchmarks are supposed to simulate actual usage. No one will actually run games at that resolution and detail unless their computer is a dinosaur. If you want to remove bottlenecks, use a better GPU like a 4890.Reply
How do I know if multiple core will actually help me? I run games at 1920x1200 with med-high details.