Multi-Threaded CPU Performance

As we are covering multi-core processors, a more in-depth look at multi-threaded processor performance is certainly warranted, and without the limitations of single-threaded applications or component-specific benchmarks. In this set of benchmarks, we are offering up four different multi-threaded tests, including CINEBENCH 9.5, WinRAR, and SANDRA XI ALU and FPU arithmetic scores.

CINEBENCH 9.5 Performance

CINEBENCH 9.5 is the latest update to this performance suite, which utilizes CINEMA 4D for both CPU and video-based testing. We're concentrating on the multi-threaded CPU benchmark, processes a large, detailed image file on-screen, times the overall performance, and displays the results. CINEBENCH 2003 was multi-threaded as well, but it simply split the task into equal portions (per logical or physical cores) and let it run. CINEBENCH 9.5 upgrades this considerably, and dynamically shifts processing on the fly. Therefore, if one core is finished its job, the program automatically segments the remainder, thereby speeding up processing times considerably. Another factor of this change is that it rewards true physical cores, while lowering performance on Hyper-Threaded systems.

The CINEBENCH 9.5 benchmark scores show the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ competing very well against the dual core Core 2 models, posting a score right between the Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 processors. This is an excellent result for a dual core CPU, but the Intel quad core models are simply on a different plane when it comes to enhanced multi-threaded programs like CINEBENCH 9.5. The speed that a Core 2 Quad can complete this test in is incredible, and AMD will have to release its own quad core model to give Intel any real competition in this area.

SiSoft SANDRA XI CPU Performance

Along with a range of system and memory bandwidth tests, SANDRA XI also includes several processor benchmarks that cover different areas of CPU performance. For this review, we have chosen the Processor Arithmetic tests, which are fully multi-threaded, include SSE2/SSE3 and other CPU optimization support, and produce both ALU and FPU benchmark scores.

The SANDRA XI benchmarks take up right where CINEBENCH 9.5 left off, and the following chart shows virtually the same patterns and overall ranking. The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ again manages to give the Core 2 Duo a good run, but is stampeded by the outright multi-threaded performance of a quad core processor.

The FPU benchmarking section doesn't show the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ gaining much against the Core 2 Quad, but it does manage to outperform all of the dual core models.

WinRAR 3.62 Performance

WinRAR is one of the most popular compression programs, and it even includes an internal benchmark program that measures the performance of the RAR compression and decompression algorithm using a demanding worst-case data set. This multi-threaded test offers a data throughput rating, and while it does not relate specifically to cache or memory transfers, we have found that the overall throughput numbers do adhere closely to the overall architecture. A faster processor speed certainly helps, but the score also ties in closely with memory, cache and CPU performance.

WinRAR is another benchmark test that helps show off the real-world improvements of a multi-core processor. The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ again posts a very respectable overall score, but can't match the Core 2 performance, and falls well back of the Intel Core 2 Quad. WinRAR seems to be very memory-dependant, as is clear from the performance discrepancy between the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Athlon 64 FX-62.