C2D vs AMD

[perdomot]

Wanted some feedback on this issue because I noticed something today. I was modding my vid server case today and after I put everything back in and tested the rig, I noticed how fast the system seemed when opening folders, etc. This system has a X2 3800+ @2Ghz and W2K OS. I can OC this X2 to 2.4 Ghz easily. My main rig is an E4400 @ 3Ghz using XP on a Raptor hdd and should feel faster but doesn't somehow. Sure, tests like encoding tell me its faster simply by shorter times but shouldn't it feel "snappier" somehow? Given all the cheap AMD solutions out there that let you OC their extremely inexpensive cpus, it makes me wonder what to do. Anyone else feel like this sometimes?

 

[Acanthus]

"Snappiness" is generally determined by the Hard drive and operating system when the system isnt "at 100% load" in any other way.

2k always felt snappier than XP for me.

 

[Keysplayr]

For simple day to day use: Web browsing, email, IM, word, etc. Any Pentium III/T-bird/Celerempron would do fine.

 

[perdomot]

I originally bought the Raptor for its speed so it seems odd that a regular sata hdd feels faster. Makes me wonder how an AMD OC'd to say 3 Ghz would feel on W2K. Hope someone with a C2D and W2K chimes in with their views.

 

[Pederv]

I run Win2K on a K6-3-450 system that I have and it's OK. I tried WinXP on the system and I just didn't have the patience.
Win2K uses about 128MB of system memory while WinXP will use 3/4 of the 384MB the system has.

 

[Zenoth]

My XP uses 210MB after reboot, 17 running processes, it's super clean. Not like Vista's 580MB and 34 processes (after tweaks).

 

[perdomot]

I'm not going anywhere near Vista anytime soon. Still, I wonder how much of a difference the cpus make.

 

[SexyK]

Maybe your XP install needs to be freshened up. Wipe that raptor and throw a clean install of XP on there and you'll probably notice the system is a lot snappier than it is now.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: perdomot
I'm not going anywhere near Vista anytime soon. Still, I wonder how much of a difference the cpus make.

None. Your difference is founded on 2 different operating systems with different minimal system requirements. XP, compared to W2K, is a memory hog. Wipe out the E4400 system and install W2K on it. Or even better, if you have an extra HDD, use that.

 

[brxndxn]

I've also noticed that AMD systems.. even slower ones seem to be more responsive for day-to-day tasks. With my new Intel Core 2 E4300 overclocked to 2.7ghz, I seem to get a random hourglass or 'stutter' when I open certain things like Internet Explorer or My Computer.

Ya, that Core 2 runs games way faster.. (also thanks to the Nvidia 8800GTS in the box).. but I swear it makes me wait for stuff (even if it is only a split-second) that used to be instant before when doing normal windows tasks.

 

[Rhoxed]

i have felt similar things with my system compared to a good friends C2D E4300 @ 2.8 (mine being a 3800x2 @ 2.8) same HDD used for the OS and same amount of memory (his being DDR2 over my DDR). We have each used both systems and we both agreed the Athlon seems much more fluid in windows, even though the overall performance and benchmarks say otherwise.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I remember people mentioning this in the past too. The general consensus at the time was that the on die memory controller made the PC feel snappier.

 

[Munky]

It could be a number of factors, such as the drivers, and the different combinations of HW. I know someone with a C2D @3.5ghz, and it boots windows XP much slower than my Opty 165 @2.4.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
For simple day to day use: Web browsing, email, IM, word, etc. Any Pentium III/T-bird/Celerempron would do fine.

Firefox disagrees Considering how awful it runs on my old 1.2Ghz Athlon, that statement doesn't hold true for me.....

IE was always alright, but... it's IE.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
My XP uses 210MB after reboot, 17 running processes, it's super clean. Not like Vista's 580MB and 34 processes (after tweaks).

You expect new features for free?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Zenoth
My XP uses 210MB after reboot, 17 running processes, it's super clean. Not like Vista's 580MB and 34 processes (after tweaks).

You expect new features for free?

Not exactly, but I don't see very much in Vista that I even remotely care about using, as I prefer 3rd-party apps to virtually everything built-in. I can't see why Vista should use 2-4x as much ram as XP does, but I guess it's the price of 'progress'. I bought two copies of Vista, and as yet, boot to them maybe 1 out of 100 boots. I *loathe* the new interface, and where things are located. If I wanted a Mac, I'd buy one. That said, it works okay, and it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. I definitely notice a difference between my tweaked XP install and Vista. It's like going from a Veyron to a Ford Escort, on identical hardware (Vista is actually on a faster HDD than my XP drive on each system).

 

[perdomot]

I was planning on doing a refresh of XP as I made a ghost image of the raw install after I downloaded all the latest security patches at the time(6 months ago). Now I'm considering putting W2K on this rig except for one thing: XP makes things like icons look better(alpha blended). May sound kind of petty but I like things to look nice on my PC. Only some icons look good on W2K. If there were a way to improve W2K visuals, I'd definately try it out.

 

[skillyho]

I completely agree........I'm running XP Pro SP2 on both of my machines and the X2@2.6 feels faster doing everyday things (WMP, FireFox, Windows Explorer, MS Office) than my e6600@3.2. My friend went from a 2.5 Brisbane to a e6750 and noticed the same thing. I reformat my Core2 about once every 4 months or so, so thing are fresh.

 

[Cookie Monster]

So the general consensus is that Athlons run everyday tasks much more "smoother" than core 2 duos?

Think it could be because of the IMC.

We should have a poll.

 

[Markfw]

Well, I have 3 X2's, and 3 C2D's and 4 C2Q's, and I think the X2's may in fact have a snappier response, but the C2D/Q's kill them on things like encoding and F@H.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Zenoth
My XP uses 210MB after reboot, 17 running processes, it's super clean. Not like Vista's 580MB and 34 processes (after tweaks).

You expect new features for free?

Not exactly, but I don't see very much in Vista that I even remotely care about using, as I prefer 3rd-party apps to virtually everything built-in. I can't see why Vista should use 2-4x as much ram as XP does, but I guess it's the price of 'progress'. I bought two copies of Vista, and as yet, boot to them maybe 1 out of 100 boots. I *loathe* the new interface, and where things are located. If I wanted a Mac, I'd buy one. That said, it works okay, and it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. I definitely notice a difference between my tweaked XP install and Vista. It's like going from a Veyron to a Ford Escort, on identical hardware (Vista is actually on a faster HDD than my XP drive on each system).

Disable supercache, then complain about how slow vista is with its equal memory usage.

 

[magreen]

Is this alleged snappiness difference between x2 and c2d quantifiable? Can it be measured? Anand?

 

[Denithor]

Going back a few years I went from a Northwood 2.4 to a Venice 1.8 and noticed the opposite effect: the newer cpu ran programs faster/more fluid but seemed to take longer to process simple clicks and opening browsers, etc.

Went from there to an e6400 (early adopter) and that was the first thing I noticed out of the box, without even an XP refresh: the C2D was way more snappy than the single core Venice. Never used an X2 so can't comment on those.

 

[perdomot]

Encoding has long been a strength of Intel due to higher clocks. Anyone remember who had the advantage on video/photo editing? Can't recall. I'm also wondering how much faster it might feel with a higher clocked X2. My X2 is an older 939 3800+ and I'm currently running it at 2.0 Ghz but I know it can get 2.4 easily. If it feels faster at that speed, what would a newer SKT AM2 cpu going a close to 3Ghz be like. Makes you wonder.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I've also noticed that AMD systems.. even slower ones seem to be more responsive for day-to-day tasks. With my new Intel Core 2 E4300 overclocked to 2.7ghz, I seem to get a random hourglass or 'stutter' when I open certain things like Internet Explorer or My Computer.

Ya, that Core 2 runs games way faster.. (also thanks to the Nvidia 8800GTS in the box).. but I swear it makes me wait for stuff (even if it is only a split-second) that used to be instant before when doing normal windows tasks.

try running memory at 1T. I used to have a little bit of that on my rig but it now "feels" faster with 1T timings. As you can see, I have an e6750 with a raptor. My file server is an opteron 180 at stock but it runs win 2k...