Navigate: Advice Beginners BIOS Guide CPUs Links Mainboards Memory Network Storage Video/Sound Cards Contact Forum SiteMap Sponsors WebNews Home	.	.
Prices: Mainboards ABIT ASUS Chaintech Shuttle Soyo Tyan CPU Intel P4 2.4C-800 P4 2.6C-800 P4 2.8C-800 P4 3.0-800 P4 3.2-800 AMD AthlonXP XP 1700+ XP 2000+ XP 2400+ XP 2500+ XP 2700+ XP 3000+ XP 3200+ Athlon64 Athlon64 3200+ Athlon64 FX-51 Opteron Opteron 240 Opteron 242 Opteron 244 Opteron 246 Memory Corsair Crucial Kingston Mushkin OCZ Search Prices:

3D Gaming is the major force behind innovations in the PC business and several of the benchmarks we are looking at are used as the main selling arguments by both major CPU manufacturers. Let's not forget, though, that the graphics cards still remain the primary bottlenecks for overall scores.

CodeCreatures 1024 x 768 x 32 bpp

Codecreatures stresses mostly the GPU and requires huge differences in CPU performance to increase performance beyond a certain level.

Frame rates per second, higher is better: 2.8, 3.1 GHz, it really doesn't matter anymore, the bottleneck appears to be the graphics card.

3DMark 2001SE 1024 x 768 x 32 bpp

The probably most comprehensive graphics benchmark out there right now. If we were looking at a graphics card, we'd give you the details, for the purpose of this review, the overall score has to suffice.

3DMark scores, higher is better: The bottleneck is still there in 3DMark2001SE but CPU power matters as well, at least at the standard resolution of 1024 x 768 x 32 bpp.

Novalogic Comanche4

Somewhat a controversial benchmark, Novalogic's Comanche4 appears to favor clock speed as well as (to a lesser degree) memory bandwidth.

Frames per second, higher is better: With increased memory bandwidth, fps increase but overall it appears as if raw CPU power is what counts here.

next page:    => Benchmark Results: Quake3 Arena =>