AMD Athlon 64 X2 vs Intel Pentium III Benchmarks, Specs, Performance Comparison and Differences
|
|
|
|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 vs Intel Pentium III
Compare the technical characteristics between the group of processors AMD Athlon 64 X2 and the group of processors Intel Pentium III, but also with the respective performance in the benchmarks.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specification comparison:
| Intel Pentium III 1400 | 2001 Q4 | 130 nm | 1 | 1 | 1. |
1.4 | 0.512 | 4 | 31 | 69 | 262 | 183 | |||||||||||||||||
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 2008 Q3 | 65 nm | 2 | 2 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 1 | 8 | 16 | 65 | 68 | 88 | 164 | 62 | 115 | 881 | 757 | 1243 | 2069 | 217 | 397 | ||||||||
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | 2006 Q2 | 65 nm | 2 | 2 | 2. 5 |
2.5 | 1 | 8 | 16 | 65 | 68 | 86 | 172 | 55 | 115 | 102 | 213 | 868 | 693 | 1138 | 1833 | 238 | 443 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
This comparative table allows us to better appreciate the differences between the various processors. The performance for Geekbench 4 single-core and multi-core are established by default on the Windows operating system, on Linux if there is at least one server processor present in the comparison, on Mac OS X if we make a parallel with at least one Apple branded processor on Linux and Android if a smartphone processor other than Apple is present. Each time, in 64-bit version.
Performance comparison with the benchmarks:
| CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
86 172 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
88 164 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.
| Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
55 115 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
62 115 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene.
The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.
| Cinebench R20 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
102 213 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques.
The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.
| PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
881 757 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
868 693 |
|
Intel Pentium III 1400 |
262 183 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
1.243 2.069 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
1.138 1.833 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
| Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
238 443 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
217 397 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.
See also:
Intel Pentium II
Intel Pentium M 780 vs AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
Comparative analysis of Intel Pentium M 780 and AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Compatibility, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark.
Intel Pentium M 780
Buy on Amazon
vs
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Pentium M 780
- CPU is newer: launch date 1 month(s) later
- 2x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
- 3.9x lower typical power consumption: 27 Watt vs 104 Watt
| Launch date | July 2005 vs June 2005 |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB vs 1024 KB |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 27 Watt vs 104 Watt |
Reasons to consider the AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
- Around 24% higher clock speed: 2.
8 GHz vs 2.26 GHz - 4x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
| Maximum frequency | 2.8 GHz vs 2.26 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB vs 32 KB |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Pentium M 780
CPU 2: AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
| Name | Intel Pentium M 780 | AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 552 | |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 517 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Pentium M 780 | AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture codename | Dothan | San Diego |
| Launch date | July 2005 | June 2005 |
| Place in performance rating | not rated | 2609 |
| Processor Number | 780 | |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor | |
| Status | Discontinued | |
| Vertical segment | Mobile | Desktop |
| 64 bit support | ||
| Base frequency | 2. 26 GHz |
|
| Bus Speed | 533 MHz FSB | |
| Die size | 87 mm2 | 115 mm |
| Front-side bus (FSB) | 533 MHz | |
| L1 cache | 32 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 1024 KB |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 90 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100°C | |
| Maximum frequency | 2. 26 GHz |
2.8 GHz |
| Number of cores | 1 | 1 |
| Number of threads | 1 | |
| Transistor count | 144 million | 114 million |
| VID voltage range | 1.260V-1.404V | |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Package Size | 35mm x 35mm | |
| Sockets supported | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 | 939 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 27 Watt | 104 Watt |
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
| FSB parity | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
| Physical Address Extensions (PAE) | 32-bit | |
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare Intel Pentium M 780 with others
Intel
Pentium M 780
vs
AMD
Turion 64 ML-28
Intel
Pentium M 780
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 FX-57
Intel
Pentium M 780
vs
AMD
Mobile Sempron 3300+
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57, Intel Pentium D 820, Pentium 4 670
This material was prepared for a relatively long time, and more and more new processors were added to it in the process of preparation.
At first it was conceived as a test of the Pentium 4 670, but then the Pentium D 820 came to our laboratory, and more recently, a new single-core flagship from AMD: the Athlon 64 FX-57. However, despite significant differences in positioning and performance, we still tried to combine testing of all the above processors in one article. We hope that this will not affect its informativeness in relation to each specific CPU. And for starters — a little about each of the new products.
Pentium 4 670
It is a logical continuation of the Pentium 4 6xx line, and of its closest representatives of the previously reviewed Pentium 4 660. Accordingly, pardon the pun, is nothing special: the same core architecture (Prescott- 2M) as the Pentium 4 660, the same bus speed (800 MHz in PS frequency equivalent) and L2 cache size (2 megabytes), only the frequency increased by 200 MHz (i.e. up to 3.8 GHz) . Judging by the most recent (available on the Internet) Intel plans, the Pentium 4 670 should be the last processor in this line, since a 4 GHz Prescott-2M-based CPU disappeared from the company’s plans last year.
However, as Stephen King said, «sometimes they come back» …
Pentium D 820
Is the youngest CPU in the line of multi-core desktop «non-extreme» processors from Intel. The main difference between Pentium D and Pentium XE, as we wrote earlier, is that Pentium D, unlike the latter, has two physical cores, but does not support Hyper-Threading technology. The Pentium D 820 also operates at the lowest frequency for the entire family of Prescott-like CPUs: 2.8 GHz. The rest is nothing new: just a Pentium XE, but without Hyper-Threading. The main «feature» of the Pentium D family is more than democratic (especially considering the dual-core) price: according to the manufacturer’s official data, the wholesale prices for the Pentium D 820/830/840 as of the time of this article are $241/316/530, respectively. For comparison: the wholesale price of Pentium 4 670 is $851, Athlon 64 FX-57 is $1031. Thus, the Pentium D 820 may well claim the title of «people’s dual-core» (although, of course, for a rather non-poor «people»).
Athlon 64 FX-57
The glorious successor of the Athlon 64 FX-55, which has got a new 90-nanometer San Diego core (which differs minimally from Venice) with an improved memory controller and support for the SSE3 instruction set. In addition, the frequency has increased by another 200 MHz and is now 2.8 GHz. Recall that this is the first Athlon 64 FX, which is produced on a 90-nanometer process and supports SSE3 .
Indirectly, this indicates that this technical process has already been sufficiently debugged to produce flagship processors with the highest performance on its basis. From the user’s point of view, the new Athlon 64 FX is no different from the previous one: it is installed in the same processor socket as the previous Athlon 64 FX-55 and does not impose any additional requirements on the motherboard. Testing
Testbed Configuration
- Processors
- AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 (1 MB L2, 2.8 GHz core)
- AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (1 MB L2, 2.
6 GHz core) - Intelium Pentreme Core eX Edition
- (2 x 1 MB L2, 800 MHz FSB, 2 x 3.2 GHz core)
- Intel Pentium D 820 (2 x 1 MB L2, 800 MHz FSB, 2 x 2.8 GHz core)
- Intel Pentium 4 670 (2 MB L2 , 800 MHz FSB, 3.8 GHz core)
- Intel Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition 3.73 GHz (2 MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB)
- Intel Pentium 4 540J (1 MB L2, 800 MHz FSB, 3.2 GHz core)
- Intel Pentium 4 520J (1 MB L2, 800 MHz FSB, 2.8 GHz core)
- EPOX EP-9PNA+ Ultra (Chipset NVIDIA NFORCE 4 ULTRA)
- Memory
- 2×512 MB PC5400 (DDR2-533) Dimm 3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3INAS (CRS MB PC3200 (DDR-400) DIMM 2-2-2-5 (Corsair)
- Video card ATI Radeon X800 (256 MB)
- Hard drive Samsung SP1614C (SATA), 7200 rpm, 8 MB cache
- Power supply: FSP 550-60PLN (500-550W)
- Windows XP Professional SP2, DirectX 9.
0c - ATI CATALYST 5.4 (Display Driver 6.14.10.6525)
-
AMD classic: Ryzen 7 7700X drops even more and now costs less than $300
-
The Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 platform in the Galaxy S23 Ultra is very powerful, but the Apple A16 Bionic is often ahead anyway. The first comparative tests have appeared
February 2, 2023
-
How gigantic will these Intel processors be? Comparative photo of LGA7529 sockets appearedand LGA4677
February 2, 2023
- Main page
- >
- Processors
- Comparison
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- > + vs Intel Pentium D 3.
40GHz - Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+
Compare - Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+
The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.
The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.
Speed in office use
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4000+
30 (+7%)
Pentium D 3.40GHz
28.1
The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.
Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.
Speed in heavy applications
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4000+
12.7 (+4%)
Pentium D 3.40GHz
12.2
The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.
At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.
Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values corresponding to the processor.
Speed of numerical operations
Simple household tasks
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4000+
22.6
Pentium D 3.40GHz
23.2 (+3%)
Demanding games and tasks
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4000+
5.1 (+11%)
Pentium D 3.40GHz
4.6
Extreme
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4000+
1 (+11%)
Pentium D 3.
40GHz 0.9
Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.
We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.
Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.
When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use.
For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads. Data obtained from tests of users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.
Benchmarks
Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.
Passmark
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4000+
656
Intel Pentium D 3.40GHZ
736 (+ 12%)
Certains. Main
9039 90505 905 9039 9039 9059 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905ERS Note that a socket is not guaranteed to be compatible.
The manufacturer may not add support to the BIOS.
Manufacturer Firm AMD Intel Performance
Cores The total number of physical cores. 2 2 ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. 2 2 Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores in the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. Missing Missing Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all cores (P-cores in case of corresponding architecture) of the processor at maximum load. 
- Intel
- Desktop
- Desktop boards
- Board (Intel 955x chipset)
The selection of processors for this material (which at first glance may seem strange to some) was nevertheless carried out according to a completely transparent (downright biblical) principle “a pair of each creature”: it was quite logical to compare the Athlon 64 FX-57 with the Athlon 64 FX-55, the “budget dual-core” Pentium D 820 with the top-end dual-core from the same manufacturer Pentium XE 840, each dual-core was paired with a single-core with similar architecture and frequency (Pentium 4 540/520), and in pair with the top desktop Pentium 4 670, Pentium 4 XE 3.73 GHz was requested due to minimal differences in frequency. Therefore, the “hodgepodge”, although it looks somewhat motley at first, is nevertheless quite “systemic”, and meets the main tasks of comparison. Test results
Recall that the diagrams with all the test results (in the amount of 65 pieces) are placed on a separate page without comments, just «as is».
The article shows only summary charts that combine the results of a whole group of tests into a certain average score. This approach allows, on the one hand, to satisfy the curiosity of especially inquisitive readers who object to reducing the number of test results given in the articles, and on the other hand, to make the «basic» material less colorful and saturated with graphics.
SPECapc for 3ds max 6 + 3ds max 7.0
Full set of diagrams victory for AMD processors, which significantly outperform Intel CPUs in the interactive subtest. Those interested can see the full version of the diagrams at the link above.
Maya 6.5
Complete chart set
The situation repeats itself: SPECapc for Maya 6 includes only an interactive component, so AMD processors win again. But our separate rendering test demonstrates a slightly different situation: Intel’s positions are better here. We would advise you to pay attention to two key points. The superiority of AMD’s top single-core processor (Athlon 64 FX-57) over all top Intel single-core processors, and the result of the «budget dual-core» Pentium D 820: in rendering, it managed to bypass all single-core CPUs without exception, despite a modest 2.
8 GHz frequency and a very mediocre test result for Maya by SPEC.
Thus, a trend is beginning to take shape, which (looking ahead) we will often observe further: a dual-core with a relatively modest frequency (and a rather modest price relative to top single-cores) in programs with good SMP optimization sometimes looks more attractive than high-frequency single core CPUs.
Lightwave 8.2, rendering
The results of testing the rendering speed in Lightwave show the same pattern as testing a similar operation in Maya: the Pentium D 820 is almost on par with the top single-core processors from both companies. Among single-core CPUs, AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 won on points (previously, Pentium XE 3.73 GHz won in this test with an equally small margin).
Also looking at all the diagrams, you can see that the difference in performance between Pentium 4 670 and Pentium XE 3.73 GHz is either absent or vanishingly small everywhere. This suggests that the 1066 MHz bus of the latter is in some way «premature»: at such a frequency of the core (and even with a cache size of the second level of as much as 2 megabytes!) the fast bus in many cases turns out to be de facto unclaimed .
SPECapc for SolidWorks 2003
Complete set of diagrams
As we found out earlier (and we can see in this diagram, comparing pairwise Pentium XE 840 with Pentium 4 540 and Pentium D 820 with Pentium 4 520), SolidWorks is practically indifferent to SMP systems, so that’s all decides the performance of a single core. Together with the architectural preferences of the program itself, this leads to a convincing victory for AMD processors: neither the Pentium 4 XE 3.73 GHz nor the Pentium 4 670 could even catch up with the previous flagship AMD Athlon 64 FX-55, not to mention the new FX-57.
Adobe Photoshop CS (8)
A complete set of diagrams
A rather complicated situation: top single-core devices are almost on a par, and the “budget dual-core” Pentium D 820 adjoins the same group (recall that we quote “budget” for a reason the price of this CPU is very high, so it can only be considered cheap in comparison with top processors).
Strange as it may seem, de facto this means that the Pentium D 820 is the most attractive of the options considered here: yes, it is slightly slower than AMD Athlon 64 FX-57, and Pentium 4 670/XE 3.73 but it costs a lot less!
Adobe Acrobat 6.0
Relatively simple and transparent test. All the top single-core processors won a convincing victory, and the results are so close that it hardly makes sense to appoint some kind of formal “winner”.
«Universal» data compression (archiving)
Full set of charts
Geometric mean of 7-Zip and WinRAR results. Considering that the AMD subgroup is showing a good leap forward, especially due to WinRAR, and also that this archiver is more popular (although it does not support SMP), the victory can be safely awarded to Athlon 64 FX (both). We also see for the first time a significant difference between the Pentium 4 670 and Pentium XE 3.73 GHz (in favor of the latter). Unfortunately (again looking ahead), we are seeing it for the first and last time.
..
Lossy multimedia data compression (MP3/MPEG2-4)
Complete set of diagrams
In general, the top Intels look better, but we cannot say that AMD is far behind. The Pentium D 820 looked pretty good: yes, it is by no means the first, but let’s not forget about the price. However, oddly enough, it is the price-performance ratio that looks best in this subtest… a regular Pentium 4 540.
CPU RightMark 2004B
Complete set of diagrams
Once again, we see a situation where the budget dual-core is on a par with the top single-core, and all of them together form a fairly dense group, so it makes no sense to appoint a winner.
Three -dimensional games and visualization of graphics
in professional packages
DOOM 3
Far Cry
Painkiller
Unreal Tournament 2004
005
A complete set of diagrams
The unconditional victory of AMD processors in gaming tests is no news to anyone, and Athlon 64 FX-57 only widened the gap.
The purely nominal superiority of the Pentium 4 XE 3.73 GHz over the Pentium 4 670 is also noticeable, which makes it possible to formally justify the positioning of this processor by the manufacturing company. The dual cores are absolutely «nothing», and this is also natural: the game does not have SMP optimizations, and the only «playable» dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is not involved in this article. Conclusion
Athlon 64 FX-57 has proved its right to be called the fastest single-core desktop CPU at the moment, and it hardly makes sense to argue with this. On the other hand, the concept of a “budget dual-core”, which was represented by an Intel processor in this test, also proved its right to exist: in programs with good SMP optimization, top-end single-cores either lose to the Pentium D 820 or demonstrate approximately the same result (but at much higher price).
From this point of view, it would be very nice to look at the lower Athlon 64 X2 models: unlike the top dual-core sector, where only performance is important, and therefore AMD unconditionally wins, in the sector of inexpensive multi-core CPUs, a serious fight could flare up between Intel and AMD .
.. No, not for superiority in absolute speed values, but for the ratio between price and speed.
The Pentium 4 670 didn’t show anything special, except for the fact that the 1066 MHz bus remains mostly unclaimed. However, given the «non-extreme» status of this CPU, it can be regarded as a very good competitor to the Pentium XE 3.73 GHz (that is, it turns out that Intel, in the sector of its own top-end CPUs, in a sense competes with itself). Thus, the conditional second place in the overall standings among the top single-core processors is now shared by as many as three processors: Athlon 64 FX-55, Pentium 4 670, and Pentium XE 3.73 GHz (although, however, they differ significantly in preferences regarding the scope ).
The results of the Pentium D 820 compared to the single-core Pentium 4 520[J] of the same frequency were deliberately not commented, because they do not show anything interesting. We have already seen approximately the same performance ratio in the comparison of Pentium XE 840 with disabled Hyper-Threading and Pentium 4 540[J]. Which, however, is not surprising, since in fact the Pentium D is the Pentium XE with Hyper-Threading disabled.
June 28, 2005
Stanislav Garmatyuk
News
News section>