AMD Barton XP3000+ (400) vs Intel Pentium 4 3.0G (800)

	<![if lt IE 4]> <SCRIPT SRC="http://imgserv.adbutler.com/adserve/;ID=131075;size=468x60;setID=61435;type=js" LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <a href="http://imgserv.adbutler.com/go2/;ID=131075;size=468x60;setID=61435"> <img src="http://imgserv.adbutler.com/adserve.ibs/;ID=131075;size=468x60;setID=61435;type=img" border="0" height="60" width="468"></a> </NOSCRIPT><![endif]>
中文版 \| News \| Archives \| Reviews \| Forum \| $ Deals \| Links \| History \| Contact \| Privacy

AMD Barton XP3000+ (400) vs Intel Pentium 4 3.0G (800) Part 7
Bluetooth 29 Apr 2003

Benchmarking

In Windows Movie Maker ver 2, we imported the sample file that comes with the program into it and encode it using a 1.5Mbps video WMV. Here are the timings recorded using a stop watch. From the timings, we can see Barton 400 isn't that much slower compared to the P4 3.0G HT. We would expect the difference to be much wider as AXPs are never good in handling multimedia applications esp encoding.

In terms of rendering, lightwave 3.0 is used. We used the benchmark file Radioreflective things and rendered one frame. Here are the timings recorded in seconds (the faster the better). As we can see, the AXP3000+ took much longer to complete this test. The P4 3.0G is comparatively more optimised for such operations.