better bang for the buck Intel vs Intel vs AMD woohoo

[k00giez]

hi I am contemplating on buying an Intel dual core system. The cpu cost for the dual core 840 chips with no hyperthreading is about $500 while with HT is about ~$1000. Ive looked at the stress test review from www.tomshardware.com that benchmarked DualCore intel and amd and there seems a reason to buy intel dual core.

is it better to get the hyperthreading feature than the one without hyper threading.

 

[CheesePoofs]

First off, hyperthreading and hypertransport are completely different things and do not relate at all.

That said, the only reason to go Intel for the dual core CPUs is if you really, really need a cheap CPU. Fi you can stretch your budget enough to get an Athlon 64 X2 3800+, it'll beat any Intel dual core chip that is currently available.

If you still decide to go Intel, you will have to look for benchmarks for whatever programs you use the most, because on some programs HT helps and on others it hurts performance.

 

[Furen]

I dont believe there's any reason at all to buy Intel over AMD unless you're going for the 820. Intel dual-cores run very hot (and pull more than twice the power compared to AMD dual-cores--something like 160-180w compared to the 70-90w an X2 would pull), they perform quite a bit worse than comparable X2s (hell, the X2 3800+ might not beat the 840 across the board, but it does beat it at most things). If you still want to go Intel then pay special attention to the CPU's cooling, or you'll end up throttling left and right. Hyperthreading is useless unless you run 3 or more CPU intensive apps at the same time, and even then the gains are questionable (by CPU intensive I mean you run apps that load a single-core to 100% by themselves).

 

[k00giez]

i think ill be working with 3d apps. the one im using uses 100% of cpu, will hyperthreading help let say i do so mp3 encoding at the same time?

 

[CheesePoofs]

It would be more worth your money to just get an X2 then to spend the $500 more to get the Intel PD 840EE.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: k00giez
i think ill be working with 3d apps. the one im using uses 100% of cpu, will hyperthreading help let say i do so mp3 encoding at the same time?

The AMD X2 will defeat the Intel dualcore almost everytime including the situation you describe above. If you are willing to spend a thousand dollars on a cpu you might want to consider a professional workstation board and purchasing a 275 or 280, if your budget will allow, AMD Opteron dualcore so you can add another dualcore chip later.

 

[Pabster]

This one is a no-brainer. AMD X2.

 

[n7]

X2 3800+ FTW! 😀

 

[akugami]

Hands down at this time, X2 3800+ is great bang for the buck. From current roadmaps, Intel won't have anything out to truely combat AMD's claim on the best all around performance until Conroe in 2007. The Ceder Mill chips out next year are basically die shrinks of Prescott (the current 90nm P4 design) and most enthusiast here, except fanboys, will steer you away from that space heater masquerading as a CPU. So unless you plan to wait till 2007, the consensus is AMD X2 dual core CPU's for now.


Hyperthreading does help the single core P4's in responsiveness, but not necessarily overall speed and power. Think of it as having two workers. The skinny guy (hyperthreading) is going to jump at all tasks you assign him so he looks the fastest and seems to get to tasks a tad earlier. The fat guy may not get there as fast but once he starts a task he does it efficiently and quickly and finishes them just as fast if not faster than the skinny guy. That's about as good as I can describe hyperthreading in laymans terms and comparing how the two CPU's from AMD and Intel relate to each other.

 

[anandtechrocks]

I agree, at this point the X2 3800+ is the best price/ performance processor available. Personally even if the PD 840 EE (or whatever it's called) and the X2 3800+ were the same price I'd still go with the X2 anyday. I absolutely hate how hot Intel's chips are (WTF is with idling at 50C and load at 65C?!?) while AMD is able to idle in the high 30's and load in the mid 40's.

Akugami, where did you read that Intel's non-Netburst chips would be launched in 2007? I though it was mid-late 2006... Although I really like my A64 I'm tired of the lack of competition in the processor arena. Intel needs something new really badly.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: k00giez
Ive looked at the stress test review from www.tomshardware.com that benchmarked DualCore intel and amd and there seems a reason to buy intel dual core.

1. Tom's is one of the most extremely Intel-biased sites going at the moment (not to mention the fact that they're fairly incompetent).
2. If you read the stress test closely (not just the spin-conclusion), you'll note that the Intel platform crashed consistently (even after changing motherboards a few times) while the AMD platform had zero crashes
3. THG changed the parameters 3 times in the middle of the "live" test when Intel was performing EXTREMELY poorly.
4. The only test where Intel performed better was when they used exactly 4 (not 3, not 2, and not 5) high priority threads simultaneously.

 

[akugami]

Hrm, was up all night, looked at the roadmap and I could have sworn I read it as Q1'07. Looked at the same roadmaps today (from two sites) and it reads as 2H'06. There's egg on my face that's for sure.

Still, it probably won't be out till late 2006 and likely in limited quantities. We've seen this before from both AMD and Intel with new architectural changes to CPU's. For me, I'll probably upgrade to a dual core sometime in 06 with my current Socket 939 mobo and maybe in 07 we'll see how things shake out before I get a decide if it's worth upgrading and to what CPU.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Yeah, if you can afford it, definitely go with the 3800+ X2. The Pentium D's run very hot and have really low OC ceilings. You should only consider getting one if you're on a pretty tight budget.