amd X2 or intel dual core

[morphine596]

i want to buy a processor which would enable me to render in Maya and Combustion as quickly as possible.

these applications are multi threaded, meaning, they make use of all the available processors.

i dont know which one to buy :

amd x2
intel dual core

in x2 the cache latency and overall architechture is better but with Intel Dual Core it uses HT which gives it 4 pseudo cores which are much better i guess.

i read the stress test on Toms Hardware Group but i think they are all biased towards AMD. they did say in multi threaded application intel dual core wins hands down.

Please advice me which one to buy and to be specific also give me the speed of the processor.

thanks a lot !

 

[RichUK]

HT (Hyper Threading) doesn't mean a thing anymore in comparison.

and AMD just plainly pawns Intel dual cores no contest

 

[Griffinhart]

The only Intel Dual Core with HT is the top end model, the rest don't. But, Every Benchmark I have seen have shown that HT on Dual Cores do not show benefit over AMD until you are running over 3 intensive applications, and that could just because of the windows scheduler.

Here are some reviews:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=8

Since you specifically mention Maya, take a look at the sections on 3d rendering. Even the "low end" AMD X2's beat the top end Intel Dual Core with HT.

Intel's current batch of Dual Cores were a hastey response to the X2's and Intel has even admitted this. IMHO, until Intel releases their Dual Cores based on their next platform, AMD is the only real way to go.

 

[exar333]

I would get the X2...less heat, more stable and available on more mature platforms (nf4) vs. the 955x...

less heat + better performance = good buying choice

(i would get 3800X2 if you plan to OC, if no OC, get a 4200 or 4400 X2)

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: morphine596
i want to buy a processor which would enable me to render in Maya and Combustion as quickly as possible.

these applications are multi threaded, meaning, they make use of all the available processors.

i dont know which one to buy :

amd x2
intel dual core

in x2 the cache latency and overall architechture is better but with Intel Dual Core it uses HT which gives it 4 pseudo cores which are much better i guess.

i read the stress test on Toms Hardware Group but i think they are all biased towards AMD. they did say in multi threaded application intel dual core wins hands down.

Please advice me which one to buy and to be specific also give me the speed of the processor.

thanks a lot !

first of all you screwed up understanding the Toms article...He didn't say Intel wins in multithreaded apps he stated that with the XE 840 which is the near 1000 dollar cpu it handled 4 thread multitasking better (4 cpu intensive apps). That is your first mistake. secondly....If you look at his own results it is inconclusive. Inconclusive for 2 reasons...1) the INtel wouldn't stay running. It crashed at least 5 imes with heat and mobo issues until they got it fully going. 2) AMD won 2 out of the 4 benches with 1 tie and the one INtel won was the Divx thread which was ran as a low prioirity setting. Had he ran an app that didn't set low priority on default (like most of them) or changed the priority the 2 cores of the AMD chip would have allocated more work to that task. AMD basically didn't do the 4 the task because of that priority setting. So really it is a question of will you run 4 apps simultaneously?? Will all of these apps be single threaded or multithreaded???

Remember this....

The cheaper line of the P-D 820, 830 and 840 DO NOT HAVE HT!!!!! Only the high end epensive 840 EE or XE (extreme edition)....So you only get 2 cores with the those models, and you took away the crutch INtel has been using since the P4C's..

Also the AMD line of chips at all price points beat the comparable INtel chip in benchmarks....

The HT of the XE 840 in some test actually hurt the performance and the much cheaper same speed P-D 840 actually beat the XE in some of the test..This is going to be app specific but some apps though multithreaded stop being effetive after 2 cores...So really they are dual threaded.....

You have listed 2 applications. Are both of them multithreaded by themselves?? This could make a difference. I belive AMD has the advanage in Maya even when they were single core A64's competing against HT enabled P4c's so I think AMD will be the best performer even against the HT enabled XE line. I also think at all price points it is better per the performance as well...

One mans opinion...

i would look at the 1mb l2 cache per core model of the 4400+...GOOD PRICE POINT FOR THE PERFORMANCE.



Tomshardware bias towards AMD...That is a new one...quite laughable!!!!

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: morphine596
i want to buy a processor which would enable me to render in Maya and Combustion as quickly as possible.

these applications are multi threaded, meaning, they make use of all the available processors.

i dont know which one to buy :

amd x2
intel dual core

in x2 the cache latency and overall architechture is better but with Intel Dual Core it uses HT which gives it 4 pseudo cores which are much better i guess.

i read the stress test on Toms Hardware Group but i think they are all biased towards AMD. they did say in multi threaded application intel dual core wins hands down.

Please advice me which one to buy and to be specific also give me the speed of the processor.

thanks a lot !

They made their stress test 4 CPU intenisve program for a reason. That is the Magic number for the 840EE. In that senario alone the 840EE was able to do more, in one application the the 4800+. If toms had chosen 3 or 5+ then the favor would have gone to the 4800+. I honestly think he did some early tests and really thought that the PD was going to do better in just about everything, but he flubbed that test so bad he inadvertantly made AMD look good. In fact he eventually in his finishing arguement ignores the Intel trouble and passes it of as an Nvidia chipset problem, and then talks about how the 4800+ didn't want to shut down (after being on for a week and a half non-stop getting trashed) like it was a major issue and shouldn't be ignored. Then he awards the 840EE the winner because it is a better multitasker becuase while it lost in 2 and barely tied in one it destroyed the 4800+ in one benchmark.

 

[stevty2889]

Definatly go with the X2, no comparison. The non-EE Pentium-D's don't even come close to competing, and the EE has scheduling issues with windows. In cases where it should be using the 2 cores, it uses 1 core and a virtual core, so the hyperthreading actualy is a disadvantage in a lot of cases, because it prevents the second core from actualy being utilized. Not to mention the X2 runs a lot cooler, and the Pentium-D's are two of the 5xx series prescotts that had the throttling issues by themselves...

 

[PKing1977]

That is the first time I have ever heard someone say that THG is bias twoard AMD!!!!!! The current Intel dual core chips are just slapped together, even intel admits that. Thus AMD is a much better choice at this stage of the game. That may change with future generations of intel dual cores but right now AMD is the only way to go.

PKing

 

[morphine596]

ok i agree that the overall winner is AMD but i dont care for Divx encoding result or of audio conversion format.

in Maya there is an option where it enables the user to make use of all available processors, and after reading the TMG article i got an impression that if the application was multi threaded (since it uses all available processors for rendering) Intel is better.

RENDERING = 3 intensive applications or 4 thread multitasking, on 2 processors of X2 or on 4 (with HT) of 840ee, All will be utilised.

I dont know why they kept turning off the HT feature in 840ee to test results with X2, may be to bring it at par with the number of processors in action.. This is the only reason why i felt that it was biased towards AMD. If 840ee IS with HT then leave it as it is. On THG i read the articles on and off and i really dont know their attitude towards companies.
Thats all ! Probably i was wrong when i said its biased.

i agree with Topweasel. But also AMD is low on power consumption and less expensive, thats value addition !!

so keeping in mind that i dont need the computer for anything more than Rendering my scenes in Maya.. Should i go with your all's decision of buying an AMD X2 ?
any model in particular ?

 

[morphine596]

oh and when rendering scenes the cpu utilization is 100 %

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: morphine596
ok i agree that the overall winner is AMD but i dont care for Divx encoding result or of audio conversion format.

in Maya there is an option where it enables the user to make use of all available processors, and after reading the TMG article i got an impression that if the application was multi threaded (since it uses all available processors for rendering) Intel is better.

RENDERING = 3 intensive applications or 4 thread multitasking, on 2 processors of X2 or on 4 (with HT) of 840ee, All will be utilised.

I dont know why they kept turning off the HT feature in 840ee to test results with X2, may be to bring it at par with the number of processors in action.. This is the only reason why i felt that it was biased towards AMD. If 840ee IS with HT then leave it as it is. On THG i read the articles on and off and i really dont know their attitude towards companies.
Thats all ! Probably i was wrong when i said its biased.

i agree with Topweasel. But also AMD is low on power consumption and less expensive, thats value addition !!

so keeping in mind that i dont need the computer for anything more than Rendering my scenes in Maya.. Should i go with your all's decision of buying an AMD X2 ?
any model in particular ?

You got the wrong impression. I can and will site many sites benches of such rendering apps like maya that will use as many cores as you have....The XE 840 still did not win those test. Stop thinking of it as a separate core...It is seen that way by the thread scheduler but it may only have 10-20% performance improvement versus turned off...clearly not double or quadrupled and does not scale the same as actually having real physical cores...


AMD64 single cores were already as good if not better then P4's with HT in CAD rendering type of aps...so it is not much of a stretch to believe AMD 2 64 cores will still beat 2 slapped together 5xx series prescotts....

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=6

Is this thread you can see how much more the POV-Ray picks up form the 2 virtual cores....Notice how the single core FX57 was not that far behind..Also notice how the 350 doolar 3800+ beat the XE840...Also pay attention to where the much chepaer and slower speed A64 single core chips are...

FINALLY pay attention to the cpu usage chart...it show 4 cores of the XE fully maxed...so this is a good example that contradicts your assumptions based on THG article. By the way the guys own conclusion dont match his numbers...how can anyone respect a site like that???

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=7

Once again 4 cores maxed and the AMD is faster....This is pretty much the basis of most CAD rendering....

I will find many more....

Update #1:

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/athlon64-fx55/index.x?pg=8

this shows how single core A64's were already faster then the 2 virtual cores of the P4s greatest.

Update #2

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=8

Why 3dsmax 5.1 doesn't appear to benefit from multithreading version 6 does and the AMD is the winner on all...Notice how the 4200+ at near half the cost is nipping at the XE's toes...I can verify 3dsm,ax 6 and 7 for me pegg cpu load at 100% the whole time for rendering though performance increase is like 150% of single core speed...


Update #3

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=8

here you see what a REAL 4 core system does...It also shows the X2 once again wiping the floor with the XE...The default scanline renders shows it uses pretty much all of the 4 core but not perfect. In the mental ray they discuss licensing holds it back to 2 cores max....Also see how little HT does once again versus the vanilla 840....

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-840_16.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/200508011/athlon_64_x2_3800-10.html#applications

another one...

still looking for maya specific benches....doesn't appear to be popular...no trial version??? Probably why reviewers dont use it.

 

[Duvie]

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1845&page=5

This one pretty much some it up...2 Ht virtual cores is not going to make up that lead...Not when dual cores one helped the pentium 53% and the AMD 64% with still a 42% lead.....

Look like the champ would be the AMD chip....I think a nice 4400+ or even a cheaper 3800+ would still win here.....

NO XE but one can interpolate and use commonsense..

 

[Aenslead]

Yeah... you tell him, Duvie.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: morphine596
i read the stress test on Toms Hardware Group but i think they are all biased towards AMD. they did say in multi threaded application intel dual core wins hands down.

Please advice me which one to buy and to be specific also give me the speed of the processor.

thanks a lot !

Actually, THG is consistently biased towards Intel. In fact, the present "head hauncho" (Omid Rahmat) has stated as much publicly...remember also that THG is located about 3 blocks from Intel's headquarters.

As to your question about 3D rendering, all I can say is that all of the production houses I do work for (that's about 70 worldwide) are overwhelmingly going with the X2 or the Opteron systems today...

 

[imported_Kensai]

Dual, dual-core Opterons. Dual 260s, 265s or 275s. FTW.

 

[Fallengod]

This is basically what it comes down to in my opinion. If you are willing to spend the price difference, which is basically $100(between the amd x2 3800 and intel 820,830), then go with amd DC. You can get that intel 820(dualcore) for like $240, which is significantly less than amds. And ive seen them sold here on forums for $190-$200. So, whatever youre willing to spend.

A benchmark below with some data to look at. Make sure you do get at least amd dual-core if you go amd, because intel is faster encoding than amds single cores. Just look at the mpeg2 benchmark below, the single core 650 gets the job done in 5 mins quicker than the $400 amd 64 4000+. The 820($240 dual core), is basically half the time. The amd x2 3800+ and intel 820 are pretty much indentical.

Example: 3 Sharkyextreme encoding related Benchs


So, depending how much you are willing to spend for the cpu, I think it comes down to price. In my mind, the really only affordable amd x2 is the 3800 so... So I think it would be between the Amd x2 3800 and intel 820,830+. Intel run a bit hotter, although I hear the amd x2's run pretty damn hot as well. Amd x2 has overclocking potential of course as well, and also save a little on electric bill. If youre willing to spend the extra $100 on the amd x2 3800, Id probably get that. Thats my 2 cents.

 

[sonoran]

This seems to be the kind of info you're looking for, but they don't have any dual-core systems listed yet:

http://www.spec.org/gpc/apc.data/apc_maya60_summary.html

General info about Alias's SPECapc benchmark:

http://www.spec.org/gpc/apc.static/maya6info.html

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: modempower
This is basically what it comes down to in my opinion. If you are willing to spend the price difference, which is basically $100(between the amd x2 3800 and intel 820,830), then go with amd DC. You can get that intel 820(dualcore) for like $240, which is significantly less than amds. And ive seen them sold here on forums for $190-$200. So, whatever youre willing to spend.

A benchmark below with some data to look at. Make sure you do get at least amd dual-core if you go amd, because intel is faster encoding than amds single cores. Just look at the mpeg2 benchmark below, the single core 650 gets the job done in 5 mins quicker than the $400 amd 64 4000+. The 820($240 dual core), is basically half the time. The amd x2 3800+ and intel 820 are pretty much indentical.

Example: 3 Sharkyextreme encoding related Benchs


So, depending how much you are willing to spend for the cpu, I think it comes down to price. In my mind, the really only affordable amd x2 is the 3800 so... So I think it would be between the Amd x2 3800 and intel 820,830+. Intel run a bit hotter, although I hear the amd x2's run pretty damn hot as well. Amd x2 has overclocking potential of course as well, and also save a little on electric bill. If youre willing to spend the extra $100 on the amd x2 3800, Id probably get that. Thats my 2 cents.

The reason the P-D 820 is sooo low, is demand is soo low for the cpu....AMD demand is so high retailers can ask what they want....

YOur crapping link to sharky does not seem to jive with the other more thorough and credible forums...like AT....

Sharky says the 830 beats the 3800+ X2 in Divx and WMV9...AT does not come close to that in WMV9 ...His Xmpeg is not acting multityheaded though Techreport shows it is....So sounds like he has an old version..What a moron!!


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=9
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=9

even THG

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/200508011/athlon_64_x2_3800-09.html


the 830 is always behind the 3800+....

 

[videogames101]

Face the truth =) amd beats intel hands down.

 

[exar333]

MB's usually cost a lot more for the P-D tho, plus the added cost of good cooling too...and possibly having to get new DDR2 instead of DDR...id go with X2...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: morphine596
ok i agree that the overall winner is AMD but i dont care for Divx encoding result or of audio conversion format.

in Maya there is an option where it enables the user to make use of all available processors, and after reading the TMG article i got an impression that if the application was multi threaded (since it uses all available processors for rendering) Intel is better.

RENDERING = 3 intensive applications or 4 thread multitasking, on 2 processors of X2 or on 4 (with HT) of 840ee, All will be utilised.

I dont know why they kept turning off the HT feature in 840ee to test results with X2, may be to bring it at par with the number of processors in action.. This is the only reason why i felt that it was biased towards AMD. If 840ee IS with HT then leave it as it is. On THG i read the articles on and off and i really dont know their attitude towards companies.
Thats all ! Probably i was wrong when i said its biased.

i agree with Topweasel. But also AMD is low on power consumption and less expensive, thats value addition !!

so keeping in mind that i dont need the computer for anything more than Rendering my scenes in Maya.. Should i go with your all's decision of buying an AMD X2 ?
any model in particular ?

The answer is that if you have EXACTLY 4 high priority threads running (not 3 and not 5), then the 840EE is slightly faster. The reason for this is that HT is more efficient than the Windows scheduler.
However, in Maya, the program will actually run faster with 2 optimized threads running simultaneously on an X2 than it will with 4 threads on an 840EE...

Remember that though HT lets you START 4 threads simultaneously, you can only process 2 of them...
You can think of HT as a sort of hardwired Windows scheduler...there are times when HT slows you down (as the scheduler does)...

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Remember that though HT lets you START 4 threads simultaneously, you can only process 2 of them...

No, you actually process data from all four threads. HT basically makes it possible to issue instructions from two threads (per core) in parallell through the execution units in the CPU pipeline. At any given clock pulse you can start and end processing of instructions from two different threads.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I must say that, if you're serious about rendering, you'd best be lookin at Opterons. Dual Opteron 275s would be most excellent.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
I must say that, if you're serious about rendering, you'd best be lookin at Opterons. Dual Opteron 275s would be most excellent.

The only real advantage would be the extra cores. A dual dualcore Opteron would of course be better, but for the budget minded an A64 X2 offers dual Opteron performance for cheap money (since the CPU cores used in A64s are more or less identical to Opterons).

Basically,

A64 X2 4400+ >= dual Opteron 248
A64 X2 4800+ >= dual Opteron 250

The A64 X2 systems are probably mostly faster than these Opterons too.

 

[morphine596]

ok guys, so here it is

i m gonna look for the AMD X2 4800 or the 4400

i hope this puts an end to my rendering blues !!

thanks a lot to all you pros out there ! you guys just helped me make some good 3d movies faster !