3D Workstation Performance
Specviewperf performance was much like that seen in games. The Dual-Core performed about the same as a similar speed single core processor. The 500MHz speed increase provided performance increases in most benchmarks in the SPECviewperf 8.01 test suite. The exceptions are proe-03, sw-01, and ugs-04 which all seemed more tied in performance to the graphics card used for the benchmarking.![3D Workstation Performance](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/dual core oc_062205120617/7638.png)
![3D Workstation Performance](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/dual core oc_062205120617/7639.png)
![3D Workstation Performance](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/dual core oc_062205120617/7640.png)
![3D Workstation Performance](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/dual core oc_062205120617/7642.png)
![3D Workstation Performance](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/dual core oc_062205120617/7643.png)
![3D Workstation Performance](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/dual core oc_062205120617/7644.png)
![3D Workstation Performance](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/dual core oc_062205120617/7645.png)
![3D Workstation Performance](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/dual core oc_062205120617/7646.png)
53 Comments
View All Comments
Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
Correction:This is not an Apples to Apples compairison, This article should have compaired a 90nm Venice 2.2GHz 512k to a Manchester Dual Core 512k 2.2Ghz. Why was the 4000+ used as the compairison in an overclockability aricle? It does not even come from the same die.
Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
This is not an Apples to Apples compairison, This article should have compaired a 90nm Venice 2.2GHz 512k to a Dual Core 512k x2 2.2Ghz. Why was the 4000+ used as the compairison for overclockability aricle?Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
Lets get First POST Cr*P out of the way