Dual-core desktop duel: AMD vs. Intel
Round 2: Gaming
He who frags fastest, frags best.
3D gaming opens up a can of worms for performance testing because it's so commonly associated with 3D graphics cards. The processor does affect 3D performance, however. In order to test our CPUs' 3D capability, we created a so-called CPU-limited Half-Life 2 benchmark, which turns off all of the advanced graphics features, as to minimise the calls to the onboard graphics chip. This lets the CPU do most of the 3D heavy lifting.
CPU limited custom Half-Life 2 demo (in fps) (Longer bars indicate better performance)
|
Half-Life 2 1,024x768, no AA no AF | |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
140.6
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
131.9
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
130.4
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
123.4
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
115.2
Intel Pentium D 840
106.3
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840
104.4
Intel Pentium D 830
101.6
Intel should be embarrassed with its showing in round 2. At every turn, AMD beat it to the punch. Even the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, the lowest end of AMD's dual-core CPUs, is better suited to 3D gaming than Intel's highest-end Extreme Edition 840 CPU, which lost by a full 10 percent.
That said, we should point out that games aren't really designed to take advantage of CPUs with multiple processing threads yet. We expect to see multithreaded games that will take advantage of dual-core CPUs sometime next year, at which point the 3D gaming results will need revisiting (there will likely be new chips available by then, as well). But for now, if you are a gamer in need of a dual-core rig, the only choice you need to make is deciding which Athlon X2 chip to pick up.
Winner: AMD
This is THE best article I have seen showing that AMD processors are dominant across the board - no ifs ands or butts. Its amazing to me this data isnt more well known and more importantly why a Dell doesnt take notice and ship AMD processors.