Jimmy 2004
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,458 (0.75/day)
- Location
- England
System Name | Jimmy 2004's PC |
---|---|
Processor | S754 AMD Athlon64 3200+ @ 2640MHz |
Motherboard | ASUS K8N |
Cooling | AC Freezer 64 Pro + Zalman VF1000 + 5x120mm Antec TriCool Case Fans |
Memory | 1GB Kingston PC3200 (2x512MB) |
Video Card(s) | Saphire 256MB X800 GTO @ 450MHz/560MHz (Core/Memory) |
Storage | 500GB Western Digital SATA II + 80GB Maxtor DiamondMax SATA |
Display(s) | Digimate 17" TFT (1280x1024) |
Case | Antec P182 |
Audio Device(s) | Audigy 4 + Creative Inspire T7900 7.1 Speakers |
Power Supply | Corsair HX520W |
Software | Windows XP Home |
techPowerUp! doesn't tend give much news attention to other site's reviews, other than listing them just under the date each day, but this is perhaps more interesting than most. Legit Reviews has posted an quite thorough comparison between the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ and the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 when it comes to gaming - two very similarly priced processors at $184 and $185 respectively. The conclusion by the author is that when running games with AA and AF at normal resolutions, the performance difference it too hard to call, which is somewhat justified. However, when you look deeper into the benchmarks it becomes quite clear that, on two very similar systems, AMD's offering is certainly victorious in the majority of benchmarks, often by quite a noticeable margin (15+ frames per second). In fact, the Core 2 Duo only outperformed the X2 on two tests: it had 0.1 more FPS in Call of Duty 2 with 4 x AA and 16 x AF, and 1 FPS more in Quake 4. Although this test doesn't allow for overclocking potential, it would certainly suggest that AMD may still offer more bang for your buck when it comes to gaming with CPUs costing around $200 at stock speeds.
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
View at TechPowerUp Main Site