March 18, 2004
Next, we did
some benchmarking with Epic's Unreal Tournament 2003. When
testing with UT 2003, we use special game engine
initialization settings, that ensure all of the systems are
benchmarked with the exact same in-game settings and
graphical options. For these tests, we used a "Low-Quality"
setting that isolates CPU performance.
Unreal Tournament 2003
DirectX Gaming Performance
scored a clear victory in the Unreal Tournament 2003 test.
At 193.07 FPS, the 3.4GHz P4 EE was the fastest of the Intel
powered systems by about 31 FPS, but that wasn't quite fast
enough to catch even the Athlon 64 3400+. The Athlon
64 FX-53 posted an impressive 233.86 FPS, besting Intel's
current flagship desktop CPU by 21.2%
The Threat Rolling Demo
DirectX 9 Gaming Performance
For our last
test, we used X2: The Threat's
version, which can be downloaded from
If you haven't already seen this game, check it out.
It is simply a gorgeous, multi-faceted space simulation.
Like all of the other in-game tests, we ran X2 at a low
resolution, and to further reduce the video card's affect on
performance, we disabled bump-maps as well.
around for the Pentium 4 based systems in the X2 benchmark.
The Athlon 64 FX-53 did manage to outperform all of the
"non-Extreme" P4 systems by a few of frames per second, but
the 3.4GHz P4 Extreme Edition smoked the competition.
With a score of 214.95, the P4 EE jumped ahead of the Athlon
64 FX-53 by 28.72 FPS or roughly 15.4%.
$64,000 64-Bit Question...
As most of you
probably know, the Athlon 64 and FX both have the ability to
execute native 64-bit code. We explained the benefits
of 64-bit computing
in this article, and have some very early benchmarks
posted for you as well, but we will not be covering this
topic in this review. Although there have been some
AMD64 compatible versions of Linux released recently,
Microsoft's 64-Bit version of Windows XP is not quite ready
for prime time. Until it is, and we have some
applications that can provide relative benchmark results,
we'll stick to 32-bit Windows XP for now. Microsoft
has, however, released a beta version of Windows XP 64-Bit
Edition should you want to experiment with it. Head on
to this page, and sign up to download the ISO, then
head here for a list of available 64-bit drivers.
Just keep in mind, this is still a beta release and won't be
absolutely perfect. You can rest assured with Intel
now planning to use AMD's 64-bit extensions in future
products as well, this OS will be retail ready soon.
We're expecting the official release in the second half of
When the Athlon
64 FX-51 was released last September, Intel had a 1GHz clock
speed advantage over AMD's new CPU, and yet the FX-51 still
managed to outperform the standard Pentium 4, and even the
then new 3.2GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, in a majority of
the benchmarks we ran. Back then, that 1GHz difference
(3.2GHz vs. 2.2GHz) gave Intel a 45% advantage in clock
speed. Today, with both Intel and AMD giving their
flagship CPUs a 200MHz boost in clock speed, Intel's still
maintains a 1GHz clock speed advantage, but it has shrunk
slightly to "only" a 41% difference (3.4GHz vs. 2.4GHz).
With AMD's higher IPC, picking up those few percentage
points basically guaranteed AMD would extend their lead in
the benchmarks where they had already held the lead, and
guaranteed they'd close the gap slightly or overtake the P4
in the tests that Intel won or were too close to call.
In this sense, the Athlon 64 FX-53 is a solid victory for
AMD. The FX-53 outperformed every P4 in about 70% of
the benchmarks we ran. Couple this with the facts that
the FX-53 runs significantly cooler than Prescott and costs
significantly less than the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, we
can safely say AMD is executing extremely well with their
plan and the FX-53 is a definitive success.
At launch, AMD
is pricing the new Athlon 64 FX-53 at $733 each in 1KU
quantities. That's not exactly chump change, but when
compared to Intel's competing product, the $999 P4 Extreme
Edition, $733 suddenly becomes a bargain to anyone with the
budget looking to build a top-of-the-line machine. In
an interesting twist, those of you that were waiting for the
first FX speed bump to drive the price of the FX-51 down,
may be a little surprised by what AMD has in store.
Because AMD is positioning the FX as the "premiere" desktop
CPU, they plan to only have 1 FX CPU for sale at any given
time. That means the FX-53 won't be a new addition to
the FX line-up, it is a replacement for the FX-51.
This strategy is a bit out of the ordinary, but with the
Athlon 64 3400+ performing at essentially the same level as
the FX-51, it's probably not a major concern.
About the only
thing preventing us from declaring the Athlon 64 FX-53 a
"perfect win-win" upgrade, is the impending release of a new
socket. In the not so distant future, AMD will be
switching all Athlon 64s to a 939-pin socket.
Production of 940-pin and 939-pin CPUs should overlap for
some time, but the 940-pin package will eventually be
reserved for the Opteron. This scenario will limit the
upgrade path for owners of motherboards with 940-pin
sockets. With the 939-pin packaging, Athlon 64 FXs
should also support unbuffered RAM, which is another big
plus. In the end though, one thing is clear.
Enthusiasts in the market for arguably the fastest platform
available TODAY, with the promise of true 64-bit
computing tomorrow, should look no further than the Athlon
Exercise your gray matter in
PC Hardware Forum!