[UT2004 Demo測試]Athlon64 3000+狂電P4 3.66G
 

在UT2003 Athlon64贏過P4是眾所皆知的事實，想當然爾，到了UT2004 Demo，Athlon64的表現應該也是輕鬆獲勝，以下來看看這兩種平台在顯示卡同樣是FX5900時的效能差異

測試平台
<AMD Athlon64>
Athlon64 3000+ @ 2.0GHz (200x10)
MSI K8T NEO FIS2R
ADATA DDR400 256Mb*2
Albatron FX5900 @ 5950U (Core/RAM @ 533/975)
WinXP SP1
Direct9.0b
nVIDIA ForceWare 53.03

<Intel Pentium 4>
P4 3.2ES @ 3.66GHz (282x13)
P4C800 Deluxe
ADATA DDR400 256MB*2
....其他和Athlon64一樣
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
測試數據
(1) 800x600 32bit NOAA NOAF (遊戲其他Option選單皆採用預設值)
<AThlon64 3000+>→
dm-rankin
7.206257 / 68.550385 / 228.879135 fps
Score = 100.945160
as-convoy
23.834654 / 70.218414 / 157.944839 fps
Score = 70.307655
ons-torlan
2.261892 / 70.291328 / 157.790359 fps
Score = 95.406448
br-colossus
27.494020 / 123.869064 / 281.873169 fps
Score = 123.989990
ctf-bridgeoffate
35.466721 / 142.521103 / 325.014984 fps
Score = 142.758820
<P4 3.66GHz>→
dm-rankin
26.593576 / 83.415245 / 200.079315 fps
Score = 83.551041
as-convoy
19.808407 / 57.972263 / 112.606903 fps
Score = 58.065319
ons-torlan
13.399896 / 83.257904 / 133.372192 fps
Score = 83.411919
br-colossus
16.454519 / 100.205086 / 220.182312 fps
Score = 100.310532
ctf-bridgeoffate
26.331959 / 119.910545 / 256.953888 fps
Score = 120.106407
以上數據用圖來表示會更清楚，在800x600的低解析度下，CPU的能力扮演重要角色，結果證實Athlon64以2.0GHz的時脈就能輕鬆勝過P4高達3.66G時脈，而且P4外頻還是高達282，如果是P4不超頻那和Athlon64的差距會更大。

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) 1024x768 32bit NOAA NOAF (遊戲其他Option選單皆採用預設值)
<AThlon64 3000+>→
dm-rankin
0.468512 / 73.418983 / 226.651428 fps
Score = 92.547615
as-convoy
19.927637 / 69.033821 / 137.048431 fps
Score = 69.088882
ons-torlan
0.659418 / 61.937714 / 157.299850 fps
Score = 87.251877
br-colossus
27.394091 / 123.622612 / 285.485870 fps
Score = 123.721725
ctf-bridgeoffate
0.612792 / 74.867126 / 324.947968 fps
Score = 129.160690
<P4 3.66GHz>→
dm-rankin
29.401545 / 83.530228 / 188.188873 fps
Score = 83.662148
as-convoy
11.934125 / 57.511284 / 115.152191 fps
Score = 57.603554
ons-torlan
13.732747 / 82.766548 / 130.808319 fps
Score = 82.917427
br-colossus
17.412930 / 99.386772 / 220.144989 fps
Score = 99.493103
ctf-bridgeoffate
26.629295 / 119.860596 / 256.678192 fps
Score = 120.065331
由下圖可以看出解析度到了1024x768時，CPU的能力仍然位居要角，此時Athlon64 3000+仍然全面勝過P4 3.66GHz。

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) 1280x1024 32bit NOAA NOAF (遊戲其他Option選單皆採用預設值)
<AThlon64 3000+>→
dm-rankin
50.932533 / 105.611305 / 338.935150 fps
Score = 105.747581
as-convoy
19.183462 / 65.887711 / 129.449905 fps
Score = 65.981949
ons-torlan
0.603463 / 54.671257 / 167.197449 fps
Score = 73.495110
br-colossus
2.191971 / 84.943108 / 274.044586 fps
Score = 140.936798
ctf-bridgeoffate
3.399570 / 77.702591 / 288.150238 fps
Score = 122.106972
<P4 3.66GHz>→
dm-rankin
34.476212 / 90.185608 / 295.440002 fps
Score = 90.302422
as-convoy
12.601316 / 51.685425 / 101.410057 fps
Score = 51.757305
ons-torlan
13.502970 / 80.232208 / 144.089920 fps
Score = 80.341431
br-colossus
25.760317 / 121.270134 / 215.217560 fps
Score = 121.447845
ctf-bridgeoffate
26.532654 / 115.921524 / 221.931808 fps
Score = 116.082878
接著把解析度拉高到1280x1024，此時仍然是Athlon64略勝一籌！

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
以上測試說明了，Athlon64肯定是UT2004的最佳拍檔！

來吧!!K8的user來團購Athlon 64 3400+好了:D

我要破產了:p

不知道什麼時候要辦啊:D

笨笨的問一下........
那假如開AA跟AF的話 顯示卡是不是扮演比較重的角色:confused:

A64果然火力強盛~

推，非常令人驚訝的結果

感謝大大測試
看來A64的遊戲效能依舊強悍
補一篇相同cpu之下不同顯示卡測試
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vi...y/ut2004_4.html

我也推~
不過還是繼續等Socket939的K8 :D

除非你是好野人,否則面向高端的 939規格一出肯定敗不下去!!....等降價,又要一兩個月......等939是種迷思啊....(先自問,我目前有需求到939的CPU的效能嗎? 如果有,好好存錢吧,沒的話,買 754 才是最有CP值的決定....不要為了一個雙通道的爽度多花錢)明明目前的 754規格也會成為一般等級的K8,又不是939一出就要廢除了!:think: