Intel 3.40E GHz and 3.40GHz Page 2

Back to Page 1

 

Benchmarks

Synthetic

  • SiSoft Sandra 2004 SP1
  • SysMark 2004
  • MadOnion’s 3DMark2003
  • PC Mark 2004
  • MainConcept 1.3
  • WebMark 2004

Games

  • Falcon 4.0
  • Ghost Recon
  • Comanche 4
  • Flight Simulator 2002
  • F1 Challenge
  • IL2: Forgotten Battles
  • LOMAC
Athlon 64 3400+
3.40E GHz Prescott
3.40 GHz Northwood
SiSoft Sandra 2004 SP1

System

CPU

MMX

Memory

Cache

Combined

System

CPU

MMX

Memory

Cache

Combined

System

CPU

MMX

Memory

Cache

Combined


SysMark 2004

3DMark2003 (1024 x 768)

3DMark2003 (1600 x 1200)

PC Mark 2004

MainConcept 1.3

WebMark 2004

 

1024 x 768 x 32
Athlon 64 3400+
3.40E GHz Prescott
3.40 GHz Northwood
Falcon 4.0
42
43
43
Ghost Recon
211
224
215
Flight Simulator 2002
38
36
38
F1 Challenge
89
111
108
IL2: Forgotten Battles
85
89
88
Comanche 4

 

1600 x 1200 x 32
Athlon 64 3400+
3.40E GHz Prescott
3.40 GHz Northwood
Falcon 4.0
39
39
39
Ghost Recon
134
136
136
Flight Simulator 2002
38
36
38
F1 Challenge
89
104
91
IL2: Forgotten Battles
85
66
67
Comanche 4

 

LOMAC
Athlon 64 3400+
3.40E GHz Prescott
Low
87
85
Medium
73
68
High
45
43
Max
19
20

Be sure when you are looking at 3DMark03 that you are focusing on the CPU portion of the test. How interesting that AMD takes the 3DMark03 CPU scores. 3DMark03 has long been an Intel stronghold. Take a good look at MainConcept encoding. Intel holds a big advantage here as that application recognizes and makes use of Hyper-Threading.

Intel continues to dominate SysMark04, Webmark04 and all the Sandra scores.

You can see that the game scores are all very close overall. I did find it interesting that the “Prescott” really took over Ghost Recon at 1024 x 768 x 32 but could not hold its lead when shifting to 1600 x 1200 x 32. IL2 scores are very close for all CPUs. The FX-53 scores from Thursday really demonstrated how important that increased 128-bit memory controller and MHz mean to this simulation. FS2002 was essentially a wash all the way around and so was Falcon 4.0 with SuperPAK4.

One score that took me by compete shock is the Comanche 4 score for the 3.40E “Prescott”. I’m not sure why they are so low but I ran that benchmark three (3) times and each time I came within .1 of the same score. Also, F1 racing was decidedly Intel with all scores over 100 FPS for 1024 x 768 x 32 and with the 3.40E even scoring over 100FPS at 1600 x 1200 x 32. If your into this simulation, Intel is your friend.

Finally, LOMAC. The scores are almost a wash but with AMD controlling the low-end scores versus the 3.40E. The Medium settings are especially pro-AMD where there is a 5 FPS lead. As the options go up, the scores start to dive with both CPUs being even at “high” settings.

Conclusion

We know that it is a great time to be a hardware guru. CPUs are very powerful, they are cheap for the most part and with major changes to PCs coming soon, there are going to be some killer prices going on soon. If your looking into buying a new PC for the future, don’t bother. Sockets are changing, memory standards are changing, Intel is trying to introduce a new “BTX” form factor. In addition, PCI-Express is going to change all the PCI (including AGP) connectors on motherboards.

So if you are looking for a new PC that is upgrade-able, you will have to wait until these new standards come out later this year. If you are someone looking for a very good computer at low cost for your kids, wife or yourself, there will be some great deals coming soon.

As for Intel’s new CPUs, it is evident that “Prescott” is the future. “Northwood” shares the same MHz rating but at lower resolutions where CPU speed can have a great impact, “Prescott” does seem to hold an advantage. When comparing these two CPUs to the Athlon 64 3400+, I would suggest the scores are a wash. Intel does seem to win more benchmarks but the differences are very slim. LOMAC is the big simulation right now and AMD won those scores until CPU speed became nullified at the highest video quality settings. At a $417 price point, these two 3.40GHz brothers are really a bargain when compared to the $999 3.40GHz Extreme Edition.

We expect that Intel will actually have some of these CPUs on the shelves soon. We don’t want to see another paper launch situation occur. We don’t have information that would indicate either way but after the long delay last time, be sure to check around before you make definite plans. We know that AMD has the Athlon 64 3400+ on shelves now so if you looking to move along, go with AMD and don’t look back.

If you are in the market right now for a new PC, I would recommend either the 3.40GHz “Northwood” or the 3.40E “Prescott” assuming you can find them. Truthfully, if you are not sure if you want AMD or Intel at this price point, the decision is not easy. You’re in a win-win any way you go. Intel did “win” the majority of our benchmarks when you tally the scores. Intel came close to dominating the “synthetic” scores but no one dominated over anyone else in the game scores. For the mid-range, given everything equal, Intel wins this round. In the end, we all win because for CPUs, it’s a target rich environment on the market right now.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes