Originally posted by: Markfw900
again, the world is bigger than the room around you. that you use something in a particular is fine, but that doesn't mean everyone else uses their pc the same way as you do.
OK, I think the reason he and I and others are following the thread so close, is YES, the P4 is a little better at multitasking, only to make up for its sub-standard performance otherwise compared to the Athlon64, but the thread says POOR performance for the Athlon64, there is a big difference, and its just not true.
[/quote]
perhaps you should read the thread title then? it doesn't say poor performance, it says, "
poor multitasking", which has been the subject at hand.
as far as "sub-standard" performance of the p4, that's not really accurate, although i guess that would depend on what one's "standards" are. i'm not playing favorites here, just trying to be accurate.. some points i've made earlier:
- gaming benchmarks have shown 5-10% performance advantage in favor of my amd64.
- while intel does encode most things at a faster rate, there are some things the amd does just as well.
- most applications seem to perform slightly better on the amd vs a similarly rated intel.
those are all postivies in amd's favor.
- multitasking performance is noticeably lower in the amd when using performing than 1 cpu intensive task simultaneously.
which seems to be the only weakness regarding the a64. while i've shown/observed some thing impacted more negatively than others, taking 3x as long to encode a 60 second clip in the background shows a substantial drop off in performance. imagine if it was a 2 hour video... granted, not everyone encodes videos, per se, but other applications are affected as well, tho perhaps not as significantly.
i've also stated this may not be as pronounced on s939 (tho again, it's my opinion dual channel mem simply doesn't have the impact on a64's) or on chips featuring 1mb l2 cache. i'd certainly like to compare them, and i may, tho i'm not sure it's worth the risk of spending even more money on the a64 platform (already bought 2 motherboards and another 1gb mem just to eliminate that possibility).
i'd certainly be happy if the amd's "substandard" multitasking performance was as slight as the p4's "substandard" single tasking performance, but the differences are far greater, and while it may not impact everyone to the degree it does me, it's certainly a valid observation, as i've both shown in actual application and references from online reviews, as well as a logical conclusion as to why this is the case.
it essentially boils down to this: while the p4 can process multiple threads simultaneously, the shorter a64 pipeline forces it to rely much more on windows thread tasking, and i have not heard a single explanation or theory which refutes this. your statement,
"And the facts are they are fine at multitasking....." certainly doesn't.
Originally posted by: SimsFreak
maybe it's becasue windows 64bit is still beta?
well, it's certainly possible that, relying more on the OS for task switching, this situation may be improved by 64b windows. unfortunately, as you stay it's still beta, and the lack of 64-bit drivers at this point in certainly doesn't help.
it's my feeling that dual core a64s will eliminate what i percieve as amd's last weakness, at which time it will be really interesting to see how intel responds. will also be interesting as to where the pricepoints will be. amd needs to stay agressive as it's clear they are making a sizeable dent into intel's marketshare dominance. this is perhaps their best opportunity yet.
Originally posted by: Lithan
Yes. I'd say his testimonial is more valid than reviews which have been discredited and someone who continues to reference them still.
Anyhow. I got my hands on a copy of winxp corporate, so next time I get my hands on a p4 (c) proc (Next really good 400sc deal probably). I'll be able to give performance numbers in typical desktop situations. Of course, I'm not a retarded fanboy, so "typical desktop conditions" won't include encoding while I try to play doom3 then bragging about my awesome 15 fps vs someone elses 6fps.
lol.. yes, you've already proven how relevant your comments have been... you've ignored multiple sources and multiple logical explanations with nothing more credible than your own obviously biased opinion. i was gonna say, "sure, spoken as one fanboy to another", but that wouldn't exactly be fair to
Markfw900.
and the extremetech article was never discredited (which was one test within a single review, not "reviews" as you claim), other than one person saying that - and even then it was only stated regarding the fs2004 "test", not to other tests within the same article which showed similar behavior, but that's also not the only article i've "continued to reference", as other reviews have made similar observations.
Facebook
Twitter