AMD X2 & Core 2...

[EdzAviator]

My friends and I built a rig with exactly the same setup except the processor
and mobo (for AMD)....

My rig is E4300 @ stock and my friend ahs E6320 @ 2.2Ghz...
Both Intel setup used Gigabyte 965P-S3 mobo, 160gb Seagate HDD, 2gb Geil DDR800 and Geforce 8600GTS....

My 2nd friend built an AMD X2 4000+ @ stock..
MSI K9N Neo-F mobo....
the same ram, hdd, and video with my intel...

From what we've noticed, the intel rig is fast when you've got the cpu to load at peak like video or media encoding....But when office and basic apps like document, browsing the net or even browsing from folder to folder in windows the AMD X2 seems very snappy....

It can't be the HDD bcoz we've used the same HDD, memory & video, the same Dual OS also (XP & Vista 32)....

Does the integrated memory controller of the AMD that causes the AMD system to respond snappier in browsing folders, opening documents and opening programs....????

Maybe the only reason why intel is faster at peak load is becoz of the L2 cache w/c is bigger than AMD.....

Any comments guyz....
Do you experience this also when comparing AMD X2 & Core 2 in terms of responsiveness...?????

 

[heyheybooboo]

Alright . . . . I'll bite ...

With the quality of hardware today I think once you get above 1.8-2GHz and 2gb of RAM you see generally equal performance on typical 'puter stuff in 92.5% of instances. Software on the desktop as we currently use it is not highly parallel in multiple threads in OS & apps so multiple cores don't do a whole lot to increase performance.

I think WinV is a little better than WinXP in balancing loads across both cores. I think the minor differences you see could be a number of things - from the OS installation (I swear Windoze never installs the same way twice!), to the apps installed and who knows? Maybe the AMD IMC helps a little in some instances.

I think responsiveness is a direct result of clock spped which is mitigated by loaded threads and amount of RAM/speed. An extra core doesn't do a great deal when your cpu utilization seldom rises above 7%. Even minor tweaks in the BIOS (not an OC) can effect load times and responsiveness.

The difference you perceive could even be the result of the Intel 965 chipset versus the MSI nForce4.

Now that I've said all this, the 'snappiest' WinXP 'puter I ever built was a Gigabyte 965 with 2gb ram, a 3GHz single core Cedar Mill Celly and a 6 series nVidia card.

Of course it was running at nearly 3.8GHz at the time . . . .

 

[Denithor]

I actually saw the opposite happen years back when I upgraded from P4C 2.4 Northwood to an A64-3000+ (motherboard and chip were only changes). The AMD system just felt more sluggish than the old HT P4 in general use. When I started doing anything intensive the A64 was much more powerful and completed tasks faster, but in day-to-day use it just didn't feel the same.

Now I have moved on to C2D system and it is much faster than the old A64 rig in everything.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Denithor
I actually saw the opposite happen years back when I upgraded from P4C 2.4 Northwood to an A64-3000+ (motherboard and chip were only changes). The AMD system just felt more sluggish than the old HT P4 in general use. When I started doing anything intensive the A64 was much more powerful and completed tasks faster, but in day-to-day use it just didn't feel the same.

Now I have moved on to C2D system and it is much faster than the old A64 rig in everything.

I'd have to concur with this one. Although just today, I was using Xnews (downloading in background), with many Firefox windows open, and using QuickPAR, and the system seemed fairly snappy, as snappy as it could be with 1.6GB of VM allocated with only 1GB of physical memory. This on an A64 3800+ system, integrated video, non-overclocked.

 

[myocardia]

Well, my Skt 939 4000 is considerably snappier than my Q6600, even with the 4000 running @ 2.4 Ghz (stock), and the Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz. Now, even before I overclocked the Q6600, it still blew the doors off the 4000, whenever processor speed counted. But in day to day use, the Athlon64 feels faster/snappier.

 

[Regalk]

""Originally posted by: Denithor
I actually saw the opposite happen years back when I upgraded from P4C 2.4 Northwood to an A64-3000+ (motherboard and chip were only changes). The AMD system just felt more sluggish than the old HT P4 in general use. When I started doing anything intensive the A64 was much more powerful and completed tasks faster, but in day-to-day use it just didn't feel the same.""

I just retired the P4 NW 2.4C at 3200/P4P800 and swapped out for my old AMD Opty 144 OC to 2933 on a DFI Skt 939. The Northwood felt like a dinosaur. So I dissent with the above comment (maybe since the NW used AGP and ran RAM slower!)
Comparing my 2 AMD X2s to my 2 C2D Intel systems. (in sig) - the C2D 6300 at 475FSB is the snappiest followed by the AMDs with the E2160 being the slowest.

Remember is what you have running in the background as well...

 

[skillyho]

Same thing happened to me on my old 939 x2 (@2.7GHz) vs my current main rig (e6600@3.4). Everything was installed from scratch, same anti-virus, apps, etc. on each machine but the X2 was still faster during day to day tasks. Seems like I could have a dozen tabs open in FireFox, WMP playing, a few torrents going and the X2 just breezed through them all with no problems. The Core2 had hiccups along the way with the occasional 1-3 second wait doing something mundane. I reformat every 3-4 months so that rules that out as well.

A friend of mine had a AM2 Brisbane (2.5GHz) and he concluded the same thing even though he currently has a e6750. Who knows?