CPU Prices

RAM Prices

Compare Prices

Sharky Extreme : CPU Reviews & Articles June 13, 2009

Be a Marketplace Partner

 Advertising Info

About the Double-Underlined Links

 - Most Active Threads
 - Technical Support
 - CPUs & Overclocking

Latest News

- 2631
- 2631
- SanDisk Upgrades its USB Memory Card Readers
- Maingear Introduces the GeForce 3D Vision-powered Prelude 2
- Nintendo Will Introduce the DSi Handheld on April 5
News Archives


- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Microsoft's Dan Odell
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review

Buyer's Guides

- February High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- November Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide


  • CPUs

  • Motherboards

    - Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 Motherboard Review
    - Intel DX48BT2 (X48) Motherboard Review
    - AMD 790GX Chipset Review
    - Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DS5 Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards

    Be a Commerce Partner

    Internet News
    Small Business
    Personal Technology

    Search internet.com
    Corporate Info
    Tech Jobs
    E-mail Offers


    Athlon 64 FX-62 & Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Processor Review
    By Vince Freeman :  May 23, 2006

    Quake 3 Arena Performance

    Quake 3: Arena may be getting a little old when it comes to gaming benchmarks, but its old school design not only rewards pure horsepower, but also shows some of the advantages of the AMD and Intel processors. Quake 3 is floating-point intensive and has support for SIMD optimizations (MMX, 3DNow! and SSE), which makes it a great fit for processor testing. It also happens to scale nicely to faster CPUs, video cards and motherboards, and Quake 3 performance continues to be the basis for many CPU and 3D video card purchases.

    Quake 3 testing is performed starting with High Quality settings, then racking in-game detail settings to maximum, and a 1024x768 resolution, using release 1.30, along with the standard "demo Four".

    The Quake 3 framerates are definitely high across the board, but like all benchmark tests, it's not the score that counts, but the relative placing. The Athlon 64 FX-62 is the obvious winner here, and we see the impact of the larger 2x1-MB core of the various Athlon 64 FX and X2 models. There is virtually no performance difference between the AMD DDR2 and DDR platforms, while the various Intel processors simply can't compete with the top-end AMD models.

    Unreal Tournament 2003 Flyby Performance

    Unreal Tournament 2003 includes a benchmark program that automatically tests in two separate modes. The one we're going to be looking at is Flyby, which takes a canned tour of the UT game world, then offers up a framerate score and really hammers both the CPU and video card. The Botmatch results are no longer shown, instead leaving that for the improved Unreal Tournament 2004 to supply.

    The Unreal Tournament 2003 performance scores follow along as expected, at least for the most part, and we have the Athlon 64 FX-62 posting the top score and Intel failing to make a dent in the AMD armor. The usual platform comparison is strange, as the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ comparison is mostly a wash, while the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ demonstrates a larger gap between the DDR2 and DDR platforms. Also, note the proximity of the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ and 4800+ scores, as this is likely to be a concern in the gaming arena.

    Unreal Tournament 2004 Performance

    Unreal Tournament 2004 is an upgraded version of the popular UT series, and includes support for Botmatch demos. This is the next evolution for Unreal Tournament graphics and performance, and is yet another serious test for current PC hardware. Botmatch performance is also more reflective of CPU power than Flyby, giving UT 2004 special significance in processor testing. For this benchmark, we've used the UMark GUI interface with the following options and settings: 3 Botmatch maps, 12 players and maximum detail graphics.

    Unreal Tournament 2004 is the first game to show a definite advantage towards the older Socket 939 architecture, and here the Athlon 64 FX-60 remains the performance champion, and the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ outperforms the Athlon 64 X2 5000+.

    Page 1 The Athlon 64 FX-62 and Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Processors
    Page 2 Test Setup and Benchmark Software
    Page 3 PCMark05 Pro Performance
    Page 4 SANDRA 2007, ScienceMark 2 & CINEBENCH 9.5 Performance
    Page 5 Everest 2006 Ultimate Edition Performance
    Page 6 MPEG-1/2, DivX 6.1 and WME Encoding Performance
  • Page 7 Quake 3, UT 2003 & UT 2004 Performance
    Page 8 DOOM 3, FarCry and Half-Life 2 Performance
    Page 9 3DMark 2006, Halo and Painkiller Performance
    Page 10 Quake 4, CoR and F.E.A.R. Performance
    Page 11 Benchmark Analysis and Power Consumption
    Page 12 Value and Conclusion

    Copyright(c) 2009 Jupitermedia Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Legal Notices | Licensing , Reprints , & Permissions | Privacy Policy



    WebMediaBrands Corporate Info

    Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints, Permissions, Privacy Policy.
    Advertise | Newsletters | Shopping | E-mail Offers | Freelance Jobs