Quake 3 Arena 1024x768/32/85hz
frames per second
XP 3000+ = 311.2
P4 3.06 = 348.9
All five time-demo runs of Quake 3 Arena point in the same direction. The Athlon CPUs with Barton cores benefit considerably from the double L2 cache. They still don't perform quite as well as the P4 at 3.06 GHz. How important or big the gap is may be a subjective opinion.
Pentium 1
AthlonXP 0
..............................................
3D Mark 2001 SE / ATI Radeon9700pro / 1024x768/32/85hz
XP 3000+ = 15655
P4 3.06 = 15862
The 3D Mark 2001 determines DirectX 8's Direct3D performance under Windows XP. The AMD Athlon XP 3000+ gives the Intel Pentium 4 3066 a run for its money - the P4 manages to beat it by a mere 207 points!
Pentium 2
AthlonXP 0
.............................................
Unreal Tournament 2003 / ATI Radeon9700pro / 1024x768/32/85hz
XP 3000+ = 215.1
P4 3.06 = 212.5
Another blockbuster game that supports DirectX8 is Unreal Tournament 2003. The Athlon XP 3000+ takes first with 215 frames, ahead of the P4 3066 with its 212.5 frames. However, this is the only benchmark in our portfolio where the Athlon XP has a clear lead over its competitors.
Pentium 2
AthlonXP 1
.............................................
mp3 Makers Platinium 178 meg file
XP 3000+ = 185 sec
P4 3.06 = 73 sec
Pentium 3
AthlonXP 1
.............................................
Pinnacle Studio 8.3.18 mpeg2 rendering
XP 3000+ = 243.8 sec
P4 3.06 = 224.9 sec
With 243.8 seconds, the AMD Athlon XP 3000+ was somewhat slower at creating an MPEG-2 film using Pinnacle Studio 8.3.18 The P4 at 3.06 GHz leads the factory-clocked PCs.
Pentium 4
AthlonXP 1
..............................................
Main Concept 1.3
XP 3000+ = 341.0
P4 3.06 = 293.4
The Athlon XP 3000+ is an average performer in encoding DV video (1.2 GB) to MPEG-2 using the Main Concept Encoder. In other words, the enlarged L2 cache doesn't appear to have any impact at all, while encoding speed depends directly on CPU clock speed. The P4 gets a considerable boost from the HT optimizations.
Pentium 5
AthlonXP 1
...............................................
Multimedia Performance: PC Mark 2002 cpu bench
XP 3000+ = 6646
P4 3.06 = 7575
Pentium 6
AthlonXP 1
...............................................
Multimedia Performance: PC Mark 2002 memory bench
XP 3000+ = 5853
P4 3.06 = 7726
Pentium 7
AthlonXP 1
In both benchmark tests, the Pentium 4 3066 is faster than the AMD Athlon XP 3000+. And, yet again, the Athlon XP 3000+ is clearly slower than the XP 2800+.
................................................
SiSoft Sandra 2003 Benchmarks: CPU
XP 3000+ = 3257 - 8074
P4 3.06 = 5803 - 9342
Pentium 8
AthlonXP 1
SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2003 reveals that the Athlon XP 3000+ is struggling to keep up with the competition. As you know, though, this benchmark does not reflect any realistic performance scores. In CPU Bench, the XP 3000+ has to bow down before the XP 2700+ - the expanded L2 cache doesn't make any difference.
..............................................
Sysmark 2002
XP 3000+ = 251
P4 3.06 = 289
Pentium 9
AthlonXP 1
The Athlon XP 3000+ falls far behind the Pentium 4 3066 in some partial areas. One more thing about all AMD Athlon XP CPUs: compared to Intel's models, the AMD processors lag slightly behind because they lack enhancements. Plus, the integrated HyperThreading functions give the Pentiums a slight advantage.
..............................................
Archiving: Winrar 3.11
XP 3000+ = 69
P4 3.06 = 54
Pentium 10
AthlonXP 1
Archiving is a very practical application. The new Winrar 3.11 archiving software was used under Windows XP to compress a 178 MB WAV file while the clock was running. The Athlon XP 3000+ performed perceptibly better than a model with the same clock speed (XP 2700+) but half the L2 cache. This results in a difference of three seconds.
...............................................
3D Rendering: Newtek Lightwave 7.5
XP 3000+ = 291.8
P4 3.06 = 183.8
Pentium 11
AthlonXP 1
The Lightwave benchmark clearly brought the enhancements of the Pentium 4 processors to light - the Athlon XP 3000+ placed in the center of the pack, trailing the XP 2800+.
...............................................
3D Rendering: Cinema 4D XL 8.001
XP 3000+ = 123
P4 3.06 = 94
Pentium 12
AthlonXP 1
What a scenario - the Athlon XP 3000+ trails the higher-clocked XP 2800+! Their scores differ by six seconds, putting the model rating in a very dubious light. The crème de la crème is the P4 at 3.06 GHz,
...........................................
3D Rendering: 3D Studio Max 5.1
XP 3000+ = 105
P4 3.06 = 94
Pentium 13
AthlonXP 1
The Athlon XP 3000+ is slower than the XP 2800+, while the P4 takes the lead.
........................................
Multitasking: 3D Studio Max 5.1 and Main Concept 1.3
P4 3066 = 126 sec
XP 3000+ = 185 sec
Pentium 14
AthlonXP 1
AMD should revisit its model-numbering system before it loses users' trust.
Toms Hardware
frames per second
XP 3000+ = 311.2
P4 3.06 = 348.9
All five time-demo runs of Quake 3 Arena point in the same direction. The Athlon CPUs with Barton cores benefit considerably from the double L2 cache. They still don't perform quite as well as the P4 at 3.06 GHz. How important or big the gap is may be a subjective opinion.
Pentium 1
AthlonXP 0
..............................................
3D Mark 2001 SE / ATI Radeon9700pro / 1024x768/32/85hz
XP 3000+ = 15655
P4 3.06 = 15862
The 3D Mark 2001 determines DirectX 8's Direct3D performance under Windows XP. The AMD Athlon XP 3000+ gives the Intel Pentium 4 3066 a run for its money - the P4 manages to beat it by a mere 207 points!
Pentium 2
AthlonXP 0
.............................................
Unreal Tournament 2003 / ATI Radeon9700pro / 1024x768/32/85hz
XP 3000+ = 215.1
P4 3.06 = 212.5
Another blockbuster game that supports DirectX8 is Unreal Tournament 2003. The Athlon XP 3000+ takes first with 215 frames, ahead of the P4 3066 with its 212.5 frames. However, this is the only benchmark in our portfolio where the Athlon XP has a clear lead over its competitors.
Pentium 2
AthlonXP 1
.............................................
mp3 Makers Platinium 178 meg file
XP 3000+ = 185 sec
P4 3.06 = 73 sec
Pentium 3
AthlonXP 1
.............................................
Pinnacle Studio 8.3.18 mpeg2 rendering
XP 3000+ = 243.8 sec
P4 3.06 = 224.9 sec
With 243.8 seconds, the AMD Athlon XP 3000+ was somewhat slower at creating an MPEG-2 film using Pinnacle Studio 8.3.18 The P4 at 3.06 GHz leads the factory-clocked PCs.
Pentium 4
AthlonXP 1
..............................................
Main Concept 1.3
XP 3000+ = 341.0
P4 3.06 = 293.4
The Athlon XP 3000+ is an average performer in encoding DV video (1.2 GB) to MPEG-2 using the Main Concept Encoder. In other words, the enlarged L2 cache doesn't appear to have any impact at all, while encoding speed depends directly on CPU clock speed. The P4 gets a considerable boost from the HT optimizations.
Pentium 5
AthlonXP 1
...............................................
Multimedia Performance: PC Mark 2002 cpu bench
XP 3000+ = 6646
P4 3.06 = 7575
Pentium 6
AthlonXP 1
...............................................
Multimedia Performance: PC Mark 2002 memory bench
XP 3000+ = 5853
P4 3.06 = 7726
Pentium 7
AthlonXP 1
In both benchmark tests, the Pentium 4 3066 is faster than the AMD Athlon XP 3000+. And, yet again, the Athlon XP 3000+ is clearly slower than the XP 2800+.
................................................
SiSoft Sandra 2003 Benchmarks: CPU
XP 3000+ = 3257 - 8074
P4 3.06 = 5803 - 9342
Pentium 8
AthlonXP 1
SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2003 reveals that the Athlon XP 3000+ is struggling to keep up with the competition. As you know, though, this benchmark does not reflect any realistic performance scores. In CPU Bench, the XP 3000+ has to bow down before the XP 2700+ - the expanded L2 cache doesn't make any difference.
..............................................
Sysmark 2002
XP 3000+ = 251
P4 3.06 = 289
Pentium 9
AthlonXP 1
The Athlon XP 3000+ falls far behind the Pentium 4 3066 in some partial areas. One more thing about all AMD Athlon XP CPUs: compared to Intel's models, the AMD processors lag slightly behind because they lack enhancements. Plus, the integrated HyperThreading functions give the Pentiums a slight advantage.
..............................................
Archiving: Winrar 3.11
XP 3000+ = 69
P4 3.06 = 54
Pentium 10
AthlonXP 1
Archiving is a very practical application. The new Winrar 3.11 archiving software was used under Windows XP to compress a 178 MB WAV file while the clock was running. The Athlon XP 3000+ performed perceptibly better than a model with the same clock speed (XP 2700+) but half the L2 cache. This results in a difference of three seconds.
...............................................
3D Rendering: Newtek Lightwave 7.5
XP 3000+ = 291.8
P4 3.06 = 183.8
Pentium 11
AthlonXP 1
The Lightwave benchmark clearly brought the enhancements of the Pentium 4 processors to light - the Athlon XP 3000+ placed in the center of the pack, trailing the XP 2800+.
...............................................
3D Rendering: Cinema 4D XL 8.001
XP 3000+ = 123
P4 3.06 = 94
Pentium 12
AthlonXP 1
What a scenario - the Athlon XP 3000+ trails the higher-clocked XP 2800+! Their scores differ by six seconds, putting the model rating in a very dubious light. The crème de la crème is the P4 at 3.06 GHz,
...........................................
3D Rendering: 3D Studio Max 5.1
XP 3000+ = 105
P4 3.06 = 94
Pentium 13
AthlonXP 1
The Athlon XP 3000+ is slower than the XP 2800+, while the P4 takes the lead.
........................................
Multitasking: 3D Studio Max 5.1 and Main Concept 1.3
P4 3066 = 126 sec
XP 3000+ = 185 sec
Pentium 14
AthlonXP 1
AMD should revisit its model-numbering system before it loses users' trust.
Toms Hardware