Overall System Performance using SYSMark 2004

Office Productivity SYSMark 2004

SYSMark's Office Productivity suite consists of three tests, the first of which is the Communication test. The Communication test consists of the following:
"The user receives an email in Outlook 2002 that contains a collection of documents in a zip file. The user reviews his email and updates his calendar while VirusScan 7.0 scans the system. The corporate web site is viewed in Internet Explorer 6.0. Finally, Internet Explorer is used to look at samples of the web pages and documents created during the scenario."
The next test is Document Creation performance:
"The user edits the document using Word 2002. He transcribes an audio file into a document using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 6. Once the document has all the necessary pieces in place, the user changes it into a portable format for easy and secure distribution using Acrobat 5.0.5. The user creates a marketing presentation in PowerPoint 2002 and adds elements to a slide show template."
The final test in our Office Productivity suite is Data Analysis, which BAPCo describes as:
"The user opens a database using Access 2002 and runs some queries. A collection of documents are archived using WinZip 8.1. The queries' results are imported into a spreadsheet using Excel 2002 and are used to generate graphical charts."

Overall Office Productivity SYSMark 2004

The overall Office Productivity SYSMark 2004 suite shows something pretty important (and obvious) here. Despite the higher latency cache, the Core Duo is able to deliver performance that is greater than the Pentium M once you toss in some multithreaded applications. 

Compared to the Athlon 64 X2, the Core Duo T2500 manages to slightly outperform the X2 3800+, but moving to a larger cache helps the X2 narrow that already small gap.  Even though the Core Duo has a one-point lead, given the percentage, we'd call this one a tie. 

The breakdown of the Office Productivity SYSMark 2004 score is listed below, higher numbers mean better performance:

OP SYSMark 2004 Score Breakdown AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+  AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+  AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.0GHz/1MB  Intel Core Duo T2500  Intel Pentium M 760
Communication 148 144 146 146 140
Document Creation 219 204 211 215 203
Data Analysis 145 136 138 138 117


ICC SYSMark 2004

The first category that we will deal with is 3D Content Creation. The tests that make up this benchmark are described below:
"The user renders a 3D model to a bitmap using 3ds max 5.1, while preparing web pages in Dreamweaver MX. Then the user renders a 3D animation in a vector graphics format."
Next, we have 2D Content Creation performance:
"The user uses Premiere 6.5 to create a movie from several raw input movie cuts and sound cuts and starts exporting it. While waiting on this operation, the user imports the rendered image into Photoshop 7.01, modifies it and saves the results. Once the movie is assembled, the user edits it and creates special effects using After Effects 5.5."
The Internet Content Creation suite is rounded up with a Web Publishing performance test:
"The user extracts content from an archive using WinZip 8.1. Meanwhile, he uses Flash MX to open the exported 3D vector graphics file. He modifies it by including other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The final movie with the special effects is then compressed using Windows Media Encoder 9 series in a format that can be broadcast over broadband Internet. The web site is given the final touches in Dreamweaver MX and the system is scanned by VirusScan 7.0."

Overall Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2004

The Core Duo's performance in the Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2004 suite is very similar to what we saw in the Office Productivity tests.  As you can guess, this suite ends up being much more dual-core friendly, which is why we see such a huge performance advantage over the Pentium M 760.  But compared to the Athlon 64 X2, we once again see that performance is basically identical, even with identical L2 cache sizes. 

The breakdown of the ICC SYSMark 2004 score is listed below, higher numbers mean better performance:

ICC SYSMark 2004 Score Breakdown AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+  AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+  AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.0GHz/1MB  Intel Core Duo T2500  Intel Pentium M 760
3D Content Creation 271 248 251 264 181
2D Content Creation 340 312 314 323 238
Web Publication 274 254 257 236 162

SYSMark 2004 Overall

The overall SYSMark 2004 scores pretty much echo what we've been saying thus far. Performance is noticeably better than the Pentium M, but virtually indistinguishable from the Athlon 64 X2. 

Overall System Performance with Winstone 2004 Overall System Performance using WorldBench 5
Comments Locked

103 Comments

View All Comments

  • ozzimark - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    they've got some headroom with clocks to play with, as the recent opterons are showing ;)
  • Beenthere - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    ...and I'm sure some gillible sheep will buy into it.

    Since the "review" tested apples to oranges AGAIN, it's not of much value for anyone looking to purchase a notebook PC because you used a desktop X2 for comparison to Intel's YAWNER -- a dual core laptop chippie.

    To quote this story:

    "Intel’s Core Duo launches in January at CES, so if you’ve been thinking about buying a new laptop, we’d suggest waiting at least another month or so. You won’t be disappointed. "

    -- Now if that ain't fanboy, what is???

    Obviously with Turion stealing a lot of sales from Centrino, it's no surprise Intel is stroking the media to gain as much positive hype on uncompetitive products as it can since it knows it will be at least '07 if not later before it can compete with AMD in any market segment based on performance, value and power consumption. That however won't stop the Intel shilling.

  • stateofbeasley - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    AnandTech is one of the most fair review sites on the net and has been one of the biggest champions of AMD products for years. Your "comments" are little more than pathetic insults against Anand, who is and always will be more credible than you.
  • Furen - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    I think that he is right to some extent, though. I was hoping for a power consumption comparison between Dothan and Yonah to see which one is better for battery life but it never materialized. I would not say that AMD has a Turion that can compete with Yonah but testing Yonah in a desktop setting and then concluding that it's a heck of a laptop chip without comparing it to other laptop chips leaves a bit to be desired. Also, the tone of this review seemed a quite a bit more Intel-appeasing, if you please, as there was nothing in this review that we didn't see before except for flowery praise about how Yonah does very well without an on-die mem controller.

    That said I must say that all the asking for a 2GHz 1MB L2/core A64 was pretty retarded. There is no 2GHz 1MB/core SKU so including a fake one just for comparison does not really help since there's no way to get something even similar (the 4400+ is the lowest-clocked 1MB L2 X2). It would have been nice to see an X2 4600+ (the second-best A64 SKU) compared to this Yonah (the second-best one) but I guess the 4200+ is more inline with its price.
  • SpinJaunt - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    quote:

    That said I must say that all the asking for a 2GHz 1MB L2/core A64 was pretty retarded. There is no 2GHz 1MB/core SKU so including a fake one just for comparison does not really help since there's no way to get something even similar (the 4400+ is the lowest-clocked 1MB L2 X2). It would have been nice to see an X2 4600+ (the second-best A64 SKU) compared to this Yonah (the second-best one) but I guess the 4200+ is more inline with its price


    An overclocked Opteron 165 or underclocked Opteron 175 might have been an idea? forget about prices.

    I think AMD still has some tricks up there sleeves regardless of what there roadmaps might say.
  • Anemone - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Eliminating clockspeed and using the best cache available sets the baseline for comparison, by keeping as few items of difference between the chips as possible. I fully agree with the choice, and, moreover, am quite positive there will be something out in the Turion line that will be quite similar to the 2ghz, dual channel, 1m/core cache that was used for testing.

    I think it's kind of funny to see us finally returning to tests where comparing close to exactly the same clockspeed produces even mildly comparable results. I say that because years ago that's what we used to do all the time, and finally things have come nearly full circle.

    :)
  • Furen - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Ah, but we still don't know how DDR2 will affect K8 (or K9, as AMD likes to call the dual-cores) performance. Maybe AMD will increase the L2 cache data width from 128bits to 256bits (the Pentium M has a 256bit interface) to make up for the additional latency, though I doubt it.
  • vijay333 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    "Now if that ain't fanboy, what is???"

    It's called giving good advice. Not an Intel owner myself, but even I would appreciate this info as AT obviously has more info on this. Would you rather buy a laptop now and then regret the purchase when something much better comes along in just a month from now? AT is not telling you to buy an Intel based machine, just to wait a month to get a better idea of what your options are. If you have read AT for a while, you should know that they are definitely not biased towards Intel...
  • tfranzese - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Something new and better will always be out "a month from now". Get use to it.
  • bob661 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Looks like just a P-M with two cores to me. Whoop-de-doo.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now