AMD AM2 4200+ Vs. AMD 939 4200+ CPU'sBosco - October 21, 2006
The test machines do vary a bit, as the CPU, Motherboard, and Ram, differ between these two machines due to different technologies. When initially building this machine, I attempted to use a Gigabyte motherboard. After fighting with it for a three days, I could not get the computer stable at all. When I switched to the Asrock motherboard, I was able to achieve 100% stability. So it would seem that there are still some bugs to work out of this new architecture, but most likely I would say it is a BIOS issue. Specs of the two test machines are as follows:
When I decided to do this review, I knew that I was not going to overload the review with benchmark after benchmark. So I choose to go with a total of 12 in order to give you, the reader, a general idea of performance without boring you to death.
For testing this new socket type, we chose to run it through the standard OCC CPU benchmarks, as well as add a couple of more exotic, and specialized, pieces of software. Results are as follows:
To kickoff the testing we chose to run Apophysis, which is a unique piece of rendering software. Mostly used to create abstract fractal renders, we created our own template .flame file, and will be rendering it on each machine. At the end of rendering an image, Apophysis gives a time; we will be using that time as a score for this test. Remember, lower is better in this case.
As we can see from the graph the AM2 4200+ does lose by exactly two mins.
For the next test we chose to run Sciencemark, which is mostly CPU intensive.
From these graphs, we can see that the AM2 does win, though this time only by a handful of points; however, this is still a win.
Third on our list of tests is Cinebench, which is a hybrid of Cinema4D, another fractal rendering program similar to Maya. Cinebench has a built in testing feature with predefined variables. The program having two CPU tests, we ran both and the results can be found below.