2003 and 2005 CPU benchmarks, no difference?

[SledgeMakeGood]

I looked in on THG today, who knows why, but they had a piece on the new P4 600 series. It got me thinking about how much longer my system will be up to snuff (turns out: for a long, long time). I found an article on processors from the generation I own that had at least one benchmark in common with the new article, and this is what I came up with. The first images on each page are for Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory at 1024x768, 32-bit.

P4-Northwood series/Althon XP and 64

P4-600 series/Athlon-64

Both benchmarks use the high-end video cards from the same generation as the CPUs, the first uses GF5900's and the second use GF6800's. Pay attention to the framerate numbers.

I'm not knocking THG, there are enough flamers in this world already, but it's either that they aren't doing very accurate benching, or the processors that are just coming out now aren't as good as the processors that came out two years ago. Maybe they turned AA and/or AF on for the newer benches, I don't know, but it would seem like something you'd make a note of if you did.

One more note of importance: don't just look at the numbers, the earlier article included tests from overclocked systems. There is still a strange lack of improvement in framerate.

Either way, if it isn't THG, it's Intel and AMD, but somebody is doing something very wrong.

 

[Phranq]

Hmm interesting find. It might be possible that Wolfenstein is pretty old and that they were hitting a max fps barrier in the newer tests? I'm not sure honestly except that I can guarantee if they were both run in 3dmark03 or 3dmark05 the newer combo would way out perform the older.

 

[Talonz]

You're absolutely right, the benchmark results make no sense. I checked out the details of the test systems and the numbers just dont match up

 

[SledgeMakeGood]

It would be nice to see someone run the new hardware reviews lined up against all the hardware that's still currently in use, say, just back to Athlon XPs. That way everyone out there could see how whatever new technology that comes out compares to their setup and if it's worth upgrading. From what I see, my comparatively already-old system is practically on the level with the hardware in the same model range that's just barely hitting shelves now. That can't be right, but I certainly know from digging through the compensated reviews, ad flak and marketing spin that brand new stuff just isn't as much of an improvement over it's predecessors as the new stuff from a year or two ago was. If it's even an improvement at all.

I guess I'm a little disappointed that I just can't justify buying the latest-and-greatest. If anybody would know what that's like, it's [H]ard members. I like to stay in the upper minority as far as systems go. It's just like a hobby, it makes me happy and it's something I can feel satisfied to have, like a car or a TV that's more than anybody needs.

/rant -warn

Now Intel is so desperate that they've given up making a new chip in favor of literally glueing two Prescotts together. Why can't they just make what we've known is the best solution for years? A high-volume, easy-to-produce, low-performance, low-cost system that can be racked. Everybody knows that it's a lot easier and cheaper to combine ten 100 MHz systems than one 1000 MHz system, and the former will perform better. How about a motherboard with ten cpu sockets? Or cpu-only boards that can be slotted onto a controller board? I'd pay more for the better performance if I could own that kind of robust, efficient computer.

/rant -kill