CPU Bottleneck....

[EdzAviator]

When my friends and I bought 3 rigs...

Mine was C2D E4300, my friend had AMD X2 4000+ & the other one had E6320..
Both intel rig use Gigabyte 965P-S3 and the AMD used Gigabyte nforce 570...

through out the testing...we found out that AMD X2 tend to respond with quick and snappy when loading programs...we thought it was due to the integrated memory controller...

But now when we OC the E4300 to the same clock as the X2..its also snappier than at stock speed..loading programs, browsing from folder to folder..but X2 is still snappier overall...

Maybe, its a CPU bottleneck that a stock E4300 @ 1.8 feels lousy in responsiveness compare to a stock X2 @ 2.2...but when heavy programs are loaded in minutes, C2D tend to finish 1st maybe because of its bigger L2 Cache...

But for me..a snappier X2 wud be my choice than a lousy C2D...I dont rilly giv a damn whether X2 finihes 20 seconds late than C2D as long as X2 is running snappy all the tym..unlike C2D w/c is only fast at finishing heavy encoding faster than X2 but responsiveness it incomparable to X2..

MOD EDIT: Three threads combined. There is no need to make multiple threads on the same subject.

 

[AVP]

I didn't understand half of what you "typed" however, X2's are generally "snappier" at windows tasks than C2Ds at the same clock speed, and your X2 is 400mhz higher. That said, in cpu intensive programs, encoding, games etc. the Core 2 Duo blows it away, which is what you may/may not be trying to say at the end there.

 

[badnewcastle]

Don't know, my C2D is way faster/snappier at loading games/photoshop and other programs then anything I've used before.

 

[error8]

I've seen this post somewhere else before but I can't remember where. Someone is trying to put AMD in a position that has been lost for some time.

 

[Denithor]

Yep, I remembered that other post also and tracked it down.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...123568&highlight_key=y

He's been complaining about the same thing for like six months:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...044372&highlight_key=y

Perhaps he is just grumbling because he ignored the advice of people to go with X2 if he did not plan to OC?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...044373&highlight_key=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...019518&highlight_key=y

Just push that e4300 to ~3GHz and it will be a bit more snappy. Also remember that in any case that really uses your cpu (DVD copying, games, etc) the e4300 @ 3GHz will finish quite a bit faster than the X2.

But if you're that unhappy with your rig quit complaining here and just sell the cpu/motherboard and buy a higher end X2 replacement.

 

[Zenoth]

The snappiness comes from the Hard Disk Drives, mainly, not the CPU (a CPU plays a small role, it just has to receive and send commands that you want to open a file or a program, but the HDD itself will open it, not the CPU). If a Disk Drive (especially IDE) is old it will obviously take a longer period (some times in seconds) of time to open up anything.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
The snappiness comes from the Hard Disk Drives, mainly, not the CPU (a CPU plays a small role, it just has to receive and send commands that you want to open a file or a program, but the HDD itself will open it, not the CPU).

Where are you buying HDD's with CPU's in them? The CPU is what "opens" an app, the HDD only supplies the data it stores to the CPU, so the CPU can start the app.

 

[Denithor]

I think what Zenoth was getting at is that a slow HDD can make even the fastest system feel sluggish.

 

[EdzAviator]

As I've posted here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2129884&enterthread=y

I've stated that my xperience with X2 is snappier than my Core 2 even if I OC my C2D to the same speed as my friend's X2..

I'm not a fanboy of any side...I've used K6-II 500Mhz, P3 1Ghz, P4 2.4C, Athlon XP 3000+, P4 3.0Ghz (LGA775), Athlon 64 3000+, Pentium D 805 before and Athlon X2 4000+ and Core 2 Duo E4300 as my current rig...

Some say C2D is snappier than X2...some say the opposite...From my expreience, X2 4000 feels snappier than C2D E4300...

At 1st I thought maybe because of Speed bottleneck...4300 is 1.8 ang X2 4000 is 2.2...
But as I OC the C2D to 2.2 @ d same speed as the X2....
X2 still feels snappier..loading programs, document, browsing the net, loading games....although C2D always finished 1st when doing audio and video encoding...

So to my conclusion, maybe due to X2's IMC that is feels snappier than C2D's FSB..
Maybe when Nehalem comes, Intel will feel snappier or equal to AMD X2 or Phenom..

Any comments, suggestions...??
If I'm wrong then correct me...Pls....

 

[Tempered81]

oc it to 3.2ghz and it will be snappier

 

[Nathelion]

My 5c is that "snappyness" is a fairly subjective quantity, and besides, when you're changing the proc you're also changing the mobo, so it may have to do with whatever particular mobo you're using as well.

 

[j0j081]

I've seen this discussed on a few message boards. Overall it seems most people do feel the X2s are "snappier" than the faster benchmarking Intels. I've seen this attributed to the way the processor handles memory and/or the AMD motherboards being more mature and performing better in general. Some have also said it's a placebo effect but it doesn't make any sense as to why there would be one. I don't know enough about processors to give a technical answer but perhaps someone else on this board does.

 

[myocardia]

Athlon 64's are much slower than Core 2 Duo's at just about everything it's possible to do with a processor. They just feel snappier, to use your word. I know, I've got one of each (more than one, but that's beside the point). So please, stop making these threads. You're seriously starting to look like a shill (someone who's paid to start threads like this). BTW, the reason Athlon 64's feel snappier is twofold: 1) they have an IMC and 2) they have twice as much L1 cache than the C2D's have.

 

[Borealis7]

its a completely subjective assessment which could also be influenced by external factos such as the number of background applications running on your computer, page file usage, hard-drive speed and BUS and so on and so forth...

compare FPS in games, then you'll know the difference.
there is an article on XbitLabs, which i am too lazy to dig up right now, which compares X2s and C2Ds at same clock speeds and it clearly shows C2Ds perform better even though AMD and Intel were completely equal in terms of Price/Performence ratio at the time.

 

[j0j081]

I hope Intels are just as snappy because I think I've been finally convinced to go for the e6750.

Edit. I thought this was a legit question and I guess it still is but it's kinda weird he's asked it like 10 times already. I think he must just want someone to tell him X2s are in fact snappier.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: j0j081
Some have also said it's a placebo effect but it doesn't make any sense as to why there would be one.

Sure it makes sense. In the back of their minds people know that C2D chips outperform A64 chips, sometimes significantly. To their suprise though, when actually sitting down and using an A64 system it works just about as fast as the C2D system. Their mind adds 2+2 together subconsciously and gets 5, because they are prepared or expect the A64 to actually feel slower. When it doesn't, "OMG it feels snappy!"

Of course it is all a sham because last I checked, benchmarking software were not considered productivity software. In real day-to-day usage patterns, most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between, say, an A64 x2 5200+ and a Q6600. Heck, they probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in most games either. It's all in their minds. Sure, you can measure a difference, and sometimes a great one at that, but drop the benchmarks and get rid of the FPS counter in the corner, and can someone really tell the difference or is it just in their minds?

Here's a neat trick to pull on someone. Change their desktop color depth to 16 bit when they aren't around. Let them use it for a while and then strike up a conversation about how awesome their wallpaper looks...

Alternately, set someone's overclocked system back to defaults when they're not paying attention, then compliment them on their uber-fast overclocked system (after they use it for a while)...

Seriously, most people wouldn't know the difference off-hand, and get really suprised when you point out that their systems aren't running overclocked, or in 32 bit color mode.

DISCLAIMER: I'm posting this on an overclocked E6750 with a 24" monitor set to 32 bit color. And yes, I just checked those out before making this disclaimer.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Here's a neat trick to pull on someone. Change their desktop color depth to 16 bit when they aren't around. Let them use it for a while and then strike up a conversation about how awesome their wallpaper looks...

I've done this a few times. Changed graphics quality from High to Medium while my friend took a bathroom break from FEAR/BF2. He never said anything to the effect, "Wait, something looks weird..."

 

[j0j081]

I wonder if for productivity applications anyone would even notice the difference between a q6600 and a a64 3400+. probably not most of the time.

 

[jones377]

I really doubt it has anything to do with the IMC, that just doesn't make any sense. The IMC deals in nanoseconds while "shappiness" is measured in tens or hundreds of milliseconds at best. The explanation is probably due to the chipset I/O or it might also be due to EIST/Speedstep. Maybe AMD's version of it reacts to user input much faster when the CPU is pegged to 100% load for short durations of time.

Not discounting the imaginary aspect either...

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: Zap

Alternately, set someone's overclocked system back to defaults when they're not paying attention, then compliment them on their uber-fast overclocked system (after they use it for a while)...

Seriously, most people wouldn't know the difference off-hand, and get really suprised when you point out that their systems aren't running overclocked, or in 32 bit color mode.

DISCLAIMER: I'm posting this on an overclocked E6750 with a 24" monitor set to 32 bit color. And yes, I just checked those out before making this disclaimer.

That didnt work for my computer

I brought my 1800+ from 2.0ghz down to 1.53 and it was unbearable in CS:S @ 1920x1080.. The difference was barely acceptable @ overclocked to slideshow at stock

worse yet when i brought my Radeon 9800pro from XT back to stock.

 

[badnewcastle]

I think I have a solution to your problem, weather or not you can REALLY see a difference or not do this:

When doing anything intensive (i.e. games, rendering, whatever, etc...) use your C2D...

While your waiting for your C2D to perform/load apps, play games, etc, USE YOUR X2 TO OPEN AND CLOSE FILE FOLDERS ON YOUR DESKTOP, WATCH HOW SNAPPY IT IS AND YOU WON'T NOTICE HOW LESS SNAPPY THE C2D IS.

 

[TuxDave]

So... instead of replying to your numerous threads about snappiness, you just create more threads with your responses?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: EdzAviator

As I've posted here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2129884&enterthread=y

I've stated that my xperience with X2 is snappier than my Core 2 even if I OC my C2D to the same speed as my friend's X2..

I'm not a fanboy of any side...I've used K6-II 500Mhz, P3 1Ghz, P4 2.4C, Athlon XP 3000+, P4 3.0Ghz (LGA775), Athlon 64 3000+, Pentium D 805 before and Athlon X2 4000+ and Core 2 Duo E4300 as my current rig...

Some say C2D is snappier than X2...some say the opposite...From my expreience, X2 4000 feels snappier than C2D E4300...

At 1st I thought maybe because of Speed bottleneck...4300 is 1.8 ang X2 4000 is 2.2...
But as I OC the C2D to 2.2 @ d same speed as the X2....
X2 still feels snappier..loading programs, document, browsing the net, loading games....although C2D always finished 1st when doing audio and video encoding...

So to my conclusion, maybe due to X2's IMC that is feels snappier than C2D's FSB..
Maybe when Nehalem comes, Intel will feel snappier or equal to AMD X2 or Phenom..

Any comments, suggestions...??
If I'm wrong then correct me...Pls....

LOL if this isn't someone in AMD's marketing department dicking around with the AT forum to see just how ridiculous the "enthusiasts" response is to such nonsense (repeated and repeated nonsense) then I will gleefully admit I don't know one viral marketeer from another.

 

[Amaroque]

My X2 4800+ feels "snappier" than my C2Q 6600. Why? The X2 has a Raptor 74 in it, and the C2Q doesn't (I'm waiting to get the 150).

Bottom line: The system with the fastest HDD will feel the "snappiest", that has nothing to do with raw CPU power though...

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
My X2 4800+ feels "snappier" than my C2Q 6600. Why? The X2 has a Raptor 74 in it, and the C2Q doesn't (I'm waiting to get the 150).

Bottom line: The system with the fastest HDD will feel the "snappiest", that has nothing to do with raw CPU power though...

Your observations support my strategy. That's why I built a RAID5 array with a hardware controller in PCI-E x8. Moving up the storage-pyramid, that's also why I always look for good memory with tight timings -- or potential for them.