PiFast

A good indicator of CPU/Motherboard performance is version 4.2, by Xavier Gourdon. We used a computation of 10000000 digits of Pi, Chudnovsky method, 1024 K FFT, and no disk memory. Note that lower scores are better, and times are in seconds.

	Time in Seconds (lower is better)
P4 560 @ 3.6GHz	45.95
P4 2.4C @ 2.4GHz	51.63
A64 3200+ @ 2GHz	48.13

The P4 560 takes another one, leading the A64 by just over two seconds. The win is somewhat significant, as using a larger number for calculation will widen this gap proportionately.

CDex Audio Conversion Wav to MP3

CDex was used to convert a 414MB Wav file to a 320kbs MP3.

	Time in Minutes:Seconds (lower is better)
P4 560 @ 3.6GHz	1:31
P4 2.4C @ 2.4GHz	1:39
A64 3200+ @ 2GHz	1:34

As with PiFast, the above results may look close, but that isn't really the case. Use a larger WAV files, and seconds will become minutes.

TMPGEnc 2.521

We used an Animatrix file, titled , and a WAV created from VirtualDub. The movie was then converted it into a DVD compliant MPEG-2 file with a bitrate of 5000. Times are in minutes:seconds, and lower is better.

	Time in Minutes:Seconds (lower is better)
P4 560 @ 3.6GHz	2:17
P4 2.4C @ 2.4GHz	6:55
A64 3200+ @ 2GHz	3:58

For video encoding, the end result is not even close. There is just over a minute and a half between the P4 560 and Athlon 64 3200+. The Pentium 4 2.4C is almost five minutes slower than the P4 560 here.

Unreal Tournament 2003: Antalus, Min Detail @ 640

	Frames per Second (Higher is better)
P4 560 @ 3.6GHz	359.72
P4 2.4C @ 2.4GHz	271.04
A64 3200+ @ 2GHz	398.34

Quake 3: Arena, Min Detail @ 640

	Frames per Second (Higher is better)
P4 560 @ 3.6GHz	432.5
P4 2.4C @ 2.4GHz	302.7
A64 3200+ @ 2GHz	472.5

These results are a little tougher to gauge, since the different video card interfaces may have played a role. That being said, when it comes to gaming, it appears that the Athlon 64 does hold the advantage.

Final Words

Based on what we've seen today, it would appear that the Pentium 4 is the application benchmark winner, and the Athlon 64 is the gaming winner. While this is what happened with the benchmarks, it does not always tell the full story. Truth be told, both the P4 560 and Athlon 64 will provide a decent experience no matter what you're doing on your PC.

What isn't clear with what we've seen today is the P4 560's quickness in certain areas that cannot be benchmarked. I can state that Windows XP seems to load up a lot quicker on the P4 560. I didn't time it, since both processors use completely different motherboards (hence, different onboard peripherals that need to initialize at POST), but once we passed the logon screen, all the small memory resident files loaded up almost instantly on the P4 560. On the Athlon 64, there was a noticeable delay, though we're only talking about three to five seconds.

Hyper-Threading is also something that will make a difference in day-to-day use, especially if you have applications that take advantage of it. I work a lot in Photoshop, and usually work with about three other applications simultaneously while editing VL's content, and the transitions from screen to screen does feel smoother on the P4 560 than it did with the Athlon 64. We loaded up SiSoft Sandra 2004's Burn-In test, Folding@Home, and ran a UT2003 benchmark. UT2003's performance naturally dropped, but it still maintained over 265fps at 640x480. The Athlon 64 does have 64-Bit support going for it, and when Windows XP 64-Bit is released publicly, we could see performance change dramatically in AMD's favour.

Although the CPU is going to be one tough nut to crack through physical abuse, the same cannot really be said with current motherboards. Removing the pins from the CPU and putting them on the motherboard is going to require the user to take some care in the installation.

Overclocking went alright for us, though the air cooler we used would not be my first choice. This is a problem right now as the Athlon 64 has a much more extensive lineup when it comes to performance coolers. The P4 560 is not a cool running CPU by any means, and this will cause problems for enthusiasts who are hoping a quick dial on the overclocking knob is going to automatically get them a rock solid 600MHz with the stock cooler.

Some of the new technologies introduced in the 915/925 chipsets are quite interesting, and in terms of the LGA775 platform overall, there are some hits, misses and "we'll just see". Many of the good things of past Intel chipsets are still present, such as the aforementioned Hyper-Threading, and Dual Channel support. There are some new items like HD sound, a new storage technology, and advanced networking. The big items making the most news however is PCI Express and DDR2.

PCI Express is probably the biggest introduction to the mainstream consumer, though as is reported on other reviews, as well as getting a taste here, at the moment, there is no advantage to PCI Express for graphics when compared to AGP. This may change over time, and perhaps sooner than we may think when NVIDIA releases their SLI technology to the masses, which will be a PCI Express only part.

DDR2 is another area with some question marks. Right now, although there are performance modules available, as we mentioned in our Corsair XMS2 review, they are still working out a lot the kinks. The main beef with enthusiasts is the rather high latencies of these parts. Higher clock speeds do make this less of an issue, but the PCBs the modules are built upon is the limiting factor. I don't think DDR2 will turn out to be another Rambus situation, but it will take some time for the technology to really stand out.

Since the initial launch, the pricing has dropped quite significantly. The P4 560 can now be had for , which is no small chunk of change, but it does mark a $200 drop from the launch. While that seems like a lot of coin to drop anyways, keep in mind that the fastest Athlon 64s are also going to be in the same price range, if not more. The LGA775 520 (a 2.8GHz part) is a lot cheaper, and from what we've seen, one heck of an overclocker, so that wouldn't be a bad option if you want to dip your toes into the LGA775 waters and not get bitten.

Pros: Fast, decent overclocker, durable. LGA775 platform offers interesting technology.

Cons: Motherboard pins not so durable. Will take time for LGA775 platform to mature.

Bottom Line: To sum it up, the P4 560, and the compatible chipsets can be viewed as a first step for Intel. Although it was generally the fastest chip in our application benchmarks, it wasn't what I would call revolutionary. The platform as a whole still needs to go through some growing pains, and I think it will take some time before the other complimentary technologies catch up a bit to make the LGA775 platform standout. It will be up to the market to dictate where the industry goes, but after discussions with some OEMs recently, it looks like Intel is walking in the right direction.

If you have any comments, be sure to hit us up in our forums.

HOME