Core I3 @ 4.8Ghz Vs X4 965 @ 3.8Ghz

[cbn]

With Speedstep enabled it's pretty good.

How do these temps compare to your previous Megahalems?

 

[Hey Zeus]

How do these temps compare to your previous Megahalems?

Air performed a bit better. 3-5C better

 

[Mech0z]

On ln2/dice are these better than c2d for stuff like 3dmark 01?

 

[Hey Zeus]

On ln2/dice are these better than c2d for stuff like 3dmark 01?

The Clarkdale is better then every C2D except the E8xxx lineup

 

[Mech0z]

The Clarkdale is better then every C2D except the E8xxx lineup

So core2duo is still better :/

wtb 32nm c2d

 

[soccerballtux]

Hey Zeus, could you benchmark GTA4 on this thing?

Anand may have stopped where he did at 4Ghz in the bench so as to avoid having to say "this dual core sometimes beats AMD's best quad core".

 

[schneiderguy]

Anand may have stopped where he did at 4Ghz in the bench so as to avoid having to say "this dual core sometimes beats AMD's best quad core".

Wouldn't be the first time that happened D:

Although to be fair at 4ghz it probably beats intel's best quad too in an app that only uses 1 or 2 threads. Once an application uses more than that you'd have to get it to 4.8ghz or whatever Zeus has his at to even start competing with the AMD quads.

 

[Jovec]

Wouldn't be the first time that happened D:

Although to be fair at 4ghz it probably beats intel's best quad too in an app that only uses 1 or 2 threads. Once an application uses more than that you'd have to get it to 4.8ghz or whatever Zeus has his at to even start competing with the AMD quads.

Intel has the higher IPC, no doubt. They are also banking on the difficulty (time, money, actual programming difficulty) of true multi-threading and also on the business realities of having to target the lowest common denominator of dual cores for mainstream apps.

AMD quads would beat the i3 if a game had true multi-threaded rendering, ran physics on a core with 100% utilization, ran AI on another core with 100% utilization, etc. Obviously, for various reasons, game programmers aren't going to do this. They will continue to target a CPU heavy rendering thread and 10-20 small threads that can run on another core(s).

AMD's biggest worry is probably that HT is going to make for lazy programming. Why bother to fully optimize for a true quad when an app runs about the same on a 2c/4t or on a 4c/4t chip?

 

[zsdersw]

Why would I tell someone "buy AMD, you'll spend more and get less performance"?

Because you're an AMD advocate, even if they aren't the better choice in a given situation.

 

[Munky]

Intel has the higher IPC, no doubt. They are also banking on the difficulty (time, money, actual programming difficulty) of true multi-threading and also on the business realities of having to target the lowest common denominator of dual cores for mainstream apps.

AMD quads would beat the i3 if a game had true multi-threaded rendering, ran physics on a core with 100% utilization, ran AI on another core with 100% utilization, etc. Obviously, for various reasons, game programmers aren't going to do this. They will continue to target a CPU heavy rendering thread and 10-20 small threads that can run on another core(s).

AMD's biggest worry is probably that HT is going to make for lazy programming. Why bother to fully optimize for a true quad when an app runs about the same on a 2c/4t or on a 4c/4t chip?

What you're describing (dedicating each core to a certain task) is far from the optimal usage of multi-cores. Not every task requires equal amount of cpu cycles, and you'd just be interferring with the OS, which schedules threads dynamically as needed across multiple cores.

In fact, the ideal way to code a multithreaded game is to run several threads in parallel, WITHOUT setting affinity to a certain core. In that aspect, real cores are actually better than HT, since one thread will not interfere with the other running on a "virtual" core.

 

[Jovec]

What you're describing (dedicating each core to a certain task) is far from the optimal usage of multi-cores. Not every task requires equal amount of cpu cycles, and you'd just be interferring with the OS, which schedules threads dynamically as needed across multiple cores.

In fact, the ideal way to code a multithreaded game is to run several threads in parallel, WITHOUT setting affinity to a certain core. In that aspect, real cores are actually better than HT, since one thread will not interfere with the other running on a "virtual" core.

That's the point though. As a (game) programmer, you have to take into account the mass market, and that's 2c/2t dual cores. That means you can have one CPU heavy rendering thread while the rest of the game has to run acceptably on what's left of the available CPU. Yes, more cores means better multi-tasking. It also means, as you point out, a slightly higher throughput because threads can spawn on the least used core (or move there as needed). But just like PhysX, extra cores cannot be used for anything game altering until they become standard.

AMD (and Intel) quads are still effectively dual cores for most games, making the extra 2 cores (and HT) mostly irrelevant. Yes, some games will do multi-threaded rendering, and some games will try to make use of extra cores (real or virtual), but ultimately dual cores has to be the baseline for reasonable performance if you want your game to sell.

Note the gaming benchmarks. Not much difference in the extra cores, and there is certainly a lot of CPU horsepower being left on the table in the x3 and x4 chips. In cases the CPU with the higher cores loses - probably because of the reduced L2 per core.
4 cores versus 3 @2.9GHz
4 cores vs 2 @2.8GHz

You can bet that AMD wishes those Athlon II x4s were really 2c/4t chips to bring their production costs down. The age of mainstream quads is coming, but Intel still sets the standards with their legacy dual cores and Core i3 2c/4t.

I guess my point is that at the low end Intel's higher IPC and clock speed is still better than AMD's more (real) cores for gaming. Athlon x4 635 vs Intel Core i3 530 - both near 2.9GHz. The x4 wins anything that lends itself to parallel processing, i3 wins the gaming.

 

[soccerballtux]

That's the point though. As a (game) programmer, you have to take into account the mass market, and that's 2c/2t dual cores. That means you can have one CPU heavy rendering thread while the rest of the game has to run acceptably on what's left of the available CPU. Yes, more cores means better multi-tasking. It also means, as you point out, a slightly higher throughput because threads can spawn on the least used core (or move there as needed). But just like PhysX, extra cores cannot be used for anything game altering until they become standard.

AMD (and Intel) quads are still effectively dual cores for most games, making the extra 2 cores (and HT) mostly irrelevant. Yes, some games will do multi-threaded rendering, and some games will try to make use of extra cores (real or virtual), but ultimately dual cores has to be the baseline for reasonable performance if you want your game to sell.

Note the gaming benchmarks. Not much difference in the extra cores, and there is certainly a lot of CPU horsepower being left on the table in the x3 and x4 chips. In cases the CPU with the higher cores loses - probably because of the reduced L2 per core.
4 cores versus 3 @2.9GHz
4 cores vs 2 @2.8GHz

You can bet that AMD wishes those Athlon II x4s were really 2c/4t chips to bring their production costs down. The age of mainstream quads is coming, but Intel still sets the standards with their legacy dual cores and Core i3 2c/4t.

I guess my point is that at the low end Intel's higher IPC and clock speed is still better than AMD's more (real) cores for gaming. Athlon x4 635 vs Intel Core i3 530 - both near 2.9GHz. The x4 wins anything that lends itself to parallel processing, i3 wins the gaming.

Yes-- but this is why I recommend that people get a quad core. Games now are just fully utilizing 2 cores/threads. That higher IPC of the Intel chips is great, but the AMDs are fast enough to keep basically all games running above 60fps (FarCry2 being the exception there-- but then again I would recommend a 720BE and unlocking over one of the cheaper x4's without L3 cache-- the L3 makes a big difference in games).
So, my theory is that as games start being truly multi-threaded, my quad core is going to pull ahead of the i3's as it does in things like encoding-- things which fully utilize the core. The i3's may be faster in games now but I think the potential for improvement in performance is somewhat more limited than a true quad.

 

[Munky]

Quads are already pulling ahead in games, the problem is few sites review cpu game performance correctly. Setting the game to "medium settings" not only lowers the gpu load, but the cpu load as well, for things like physics, drawing distance and special effects detail.

Looking at these game benches, which were done at low rez but keeping the detail settings high, quads definitely come out ahead of higher clocked dualies, and an i3 is more often than not on par with a similarly-priced Athlon X4.

 

[toyota]

Quads are already pulling ahead in games, the problem is few sites review cpu game performance correctly. Setting the game to "medium settings" not only lowers the gpu load, but the cpu load as well, for things like physics, drawing distance and special effects detail.

Looking at these game benches, which were done at low rez but keeping the detail settings high, quads definitely come out ahead of higher clocked dualies, and an i3 is more often than not on par with a similarly-priced Athlon X4.

you bring up a good point. I didnt realize until about a year ago that many settings start putting huge stress on the cpu and not just the graphics. a lot of time when I pointing out that a cpu might be too slow I get the typical "well you can turn up the settings if the cpu is the bottleneck". thats turning out to be a load of crap because turning up the settings effects the whole computer and not just the graphics card. really a very fast dual core is the minimum for todays games and something like an i5/i7 quad is needed if you are going to get the most out of your games especially with very high end gpu setups.

 

[andy5174]

Hope that my i5-750 don't get beaten up badly by i3 in games....

 

[andy5174]

Well guys first off i hope you realize he's benching a dual core vs a quad core.

Second off, the best way to analyze this is by counting total GHZ.

So this X4 is at 4 cores @ 3.8, so thats roughly 15.2ghz total.

The i3 is at 4.8 x 2 = 9.6ghz, and each HT thread is about 50% slower then a real working thread, so 2.4 x 2 = 4.8

9.6 + 4.8 = 14.4

And according to his benchmarks, that shows about right.

So a dual core almost keeping up with the highest end AMD X4 is quite a accomplishment.

The HT will definitely not give you 50% boost according the performance difference between i5 and i7 in multithreading applications.

I think that their performance are similar is due to i3 having higher clock, better OC potential(4.8GHz, amazing!) and Intel's higher IPC.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes-- but this is why I recommend that people get a quad core. Games now are just fully utilizing 2 cores/threads. That higher IPC of the Intel chips is great, but the AMDs are fast enough to keep basically all games running above 60fps (FarCry2 being the exception there-- but then again I would recommend a 720BE and unlocking over one of the cheaper x4's without L3 cache-- the L3 makes a big difference in games).
So, my theory is that as games start being truly multi-threaded, my quad core is going to pull ahead of the i3's as it does in things like encoding-- things which fully utilize the core. The i3's may be faster in games now but I think the potential for improvement in performance is somewhat more limited than a true quad.

Gaming is hardly the only thing people use computers for.

And you still haven't recommended an Intel chip for anything.. which is telling.

 

[andy5174]

Air performed a bit better. 3-5C better

Did you use 2 fans for your Megahalems? I will switch to H50 as well if you did.

 

[Hey Zeus]

Did you use 2 fans for your Megahalems?

Yes

 

[andy5174]

One more question. Did you use 1800rpm+ fan?

 

[Hey Zeus]

One more question. Did you use 1800rpm+ fan?

Yes

 

[soccerballtux]

Gaming is hardly the only thing people use computers for.

And you still haven't recommended an Intel chip for anything.. which is telling.

Nobody needs anything faster for anything else. Gaming is the only reason to upgrade your processor.

I tend to recommend Intel more when it's a laptop. Process superiority == lower power requirements. I just recommended someone buy this hardware:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834115672

when they were wondering what to buy for a laptop.
I do recommend AMD exclusively if it's as fast as Intel's offerings at the same pricepoint, and I have no problem with that. We need AMD around.

 

[zsdersw]

Nobody needs anything faster for anything else. Gaming is the only reason to upgrade your processor.

Oh yes, server workloads and applications mean nothing.

I tend to recommend Intel more when it's a laptop. Process superiority == lower power requirements. I just recommended someone buy this hardware:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834115672

when they were wondering what to buy for a laptop.

Was that on these forums? If so, where?

I do recommend AMD exclusively if it's as fast as Intel's offerings at the same pricepoint, and I have no problem with that. We need AMD around.

I've never seen you recommend an Intel chip on here when it's superior.

 

[soccerballtux]

Oh yes, server workloads and applications mean nothing.



Was that on these forums? If so, where?



I've never seen you recommend an Intel chip on here when it's superior.

Lol, nobody here posting has asked about server workloads.
No it was not on these forums. If AMD is price competitive for performance for what the user needs, it doesn't matter what I recommend.

 

[zsdersw]

Lol, nobody here posting has asked about server workloads.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, or that enthusiasts don't use their computers for those applications.

If AMD is price competitive for performance for what the user needs, it doesn't matter what I recommend.

Well it doesn't really matter what you recommend anyway, I just want to see if you have ever recommended an Intel chip when AMD was not competitive on price/performance.