DUAL CORE REVIEWS

[dbentley1267]

I have always been curious as to why certain comparisons are run.

Let us look at CPU's.

Now before we talk numbers what are the average speed of CPU's in use out here?????

I know from all of the PC's and servers i see in use down here in florida they are not the 3.6 and 3.8 GHz machines. Except for the big gamers around here most people and business's i have seen are using 2.0 - 2.8 GHz systems for PC's and servers.

Do not get me wrong it is always nice to see what the latest and greatest can do. That is not my point. But what i am interested in and many users i know, (How fast is fast for the dollar of upgrading?)

Now i still use a 2.4 P4 so for me I am not interested in the 3.8 P4 nor the 4800.

But I have been waiting for the dual cores to come out. And now that they have I read many reviews putting them against the fastest single core processors. But is this even reasonable??

For most of us out here that I know it is almost cheaper to build a lower speed dual xeon or opteron than the fastest single core.

So apples and apples should be looked at.

here is the way i see it from Intels side.

P4 2.8 GHz (400 FSB)
P4 2.8 GHz (533 FSB)
P4 2.8 GHz (800 FSB)
P4 2.8 GHz (800 FSB) HT
P4 2.8 GHz (800 FSB) Prescott ?? did they make this? I do not remember

Xeon 2.8 GHz (400 FSB)
Xeon 2.8 GHz (533 FSB)
Xeon 2.8 GHz (533 FSB) HT
Xeon 2.8 GHz (800 FSB)
Xeon 2.8 GHz (800 FSB) HT

PD 820

P4 3.0 GHz (533 FSB)
P4 3.0 GHz (800 FSB)
P4 3.0 GHz (800 FSB) HT
P4 3.0 GHz (800 FSB) Prescott ?? did they make this? I do not remember

Xeon 3.0 GHz (400 FSB)
Xeon 3.0 GHz (533 FSB)
Xeon 3.0 GHz (533 FSB) HT
Xeon 3.0 GHz (800 FSB)
Xeon 3.0 GHz (800 FSB) HT

PD 830

P4 3.2 GHz (800 FSB)
P4 3.2 GHz (800 FSB) HT
P4 3.2 GHz (800 FSB) Prescott ?? did they make this? I do not remember

Xeon 3.2 GHz (533 FSB)
Xeon 3.2 GHz (533 FSB) HT
Xeon 3.2 GHz (800 FSB)
Xeon 3.2 GHz (800 FSB) HT

PD 840

Now something like this would be a better comparison of what the value of these new processors would be. I could see if a dual xeon 2.8 is a better build than a PD 820 etc...

I mean these are after all dual processor systems but if I had a 3.73 or a 3.8 GHz system already I would have no interest at all in a PD.

But this would also show if the new PD's really shine or not compared against other dual processor systems. Of course the same goes for the Athlon X2 it should go up against dual opterons and Athlons of equal speed.

Just a thought though, but it would be nice to see apples to apples.

Duane

 

[imported_Kensai]

There is no point in comparing dual cores to single cores though most reviewers have done it. They are meant for different purposes. Reviews are generally AMD vs. Intel dual cores.

To my knowledge, there aren't any dual core Xeons out yet.

 

[dbentley1267]

I was looking more at the thought of single chip dual core vs. dual xeons not dual dual core xeons etc...

The reason is this, back in the days i ran a dual P3 Xeon 550 MHz with 2 MB L2 cache with 512 MB SDRAM and a Quadro 2 64 MB

Now this system would run circles around my dual P3 800 and dual P3 Xeon 800 (133 FSB) with RAMBUS in many tasks especially number crunching.

So what is the real world performance of the Dual Core P4 2.8, 3.0 and 3.2 vs othe Dual CPU (single core) Xeons of 2.8, 3.0 and 3.2 GHz???

This is the real comparison, and if the dual (single core) Xeons out performed the new Pentium D and were only a couple hundred dollars more than we have a true winner.

The same comparison goes with Athlon X2 vs. Dual (single core) Opterons of equal speed.

the comparison with same speed single core just gives value add of say a

Pentium D 2.8 vs. P4 2.8 vs a Dual Xeon 2.8 a pound for pound dollar for dollar comparison.

D

 

[Bona Fide]

I see what you mean...

Pentium D 830 vs. 2x Xeon 3GHz
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ vs. 2x Opteron 2.2GHz

A dual-core vs. 2 separate cores...

 

[dbentley1267]

You got it here is example i just made up from pricewatch

P4 D 2.8 233
D955XBKLKR 258
1 GB DDR2 2 X 512 MB 80
GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB PCI Express 490
Total 1061

P4 2.8 800 163
D875PBZLK 159
1 GB PC 3200 2 X 512 MB 82
GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB 405
Total 809


Xeon 2.8 800 388
Asus PC-DL Deluxe 178
1 GB PC 3200 2 X 512 MB 82
GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB 405
Total 1053


Now for example I know Anand has all of this hardware because they have reviewed it.

And as you can see building a Dual Xeon 2.8 vs the new Dual Core P4 the Xeon is cheaper by a few dollars. But yet not much more expensive than the single P4 2.8.

Now when i see numbers like this but surely do not have access to such to run benchmarks before buying. It leaves big holes in the decision process.

But if the Xeons were pound for pound better, than I would buy this setup and when prices came down in the future I would buy faster Xeons.

When I gave my example the second I was used to having Dual systems around and wanted nothing else. Because when i saw the value of true multi-tasking they were worth the money.

But with the advent of the P4, Xeon and Opteron Dual CPU system were things for the wealthy. The same goes today for having the cutting edge on your desk. People who have money to throw away on the drop of a dime. But this obviously is not the majority of most of us out here in the real world.

Just food for thought

D

 

[TuxDave]

I never understood why people compared processors with HT turned off. If a processor has that feature and the program will benefit from it, then that's the benchmark. Why benchmark a processor without all of its features.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dbentley1267
When I gave my example the second I was used to having Dual systems around and wanted nothing else. Because when i saw the value of true multi-tasking they were worth the money.

But with the advent of the P4, Xeon and Opteron Dual CPU system were things for the wealthy. The same goes today for having the cutting edge on your desk. People who have money to throw away on the drop of a dime. But this obviously is not the majority of most of us out here in the real world.

Just food for thought

D

Some good points D...!
In answer, some things to keep in mind are:

1. One of the advantages that AMD currently have is that you can upgrade just the CPU down the track. The Xeons don't have this, so buying a 2P SC system today won't let you upgrade to a 2P DC next year (you'll have to get a whole new system).

2. The only reason that the DC Opterons are faster than their 2P SC brethren is the internal crossbar. IIRC, this gives them a ~5% performance advantage which should be additive (i.e. a 2P DC should be ~10% faster than a 4P SC system). Of course the Xeons won't have this until the Merom/Conroe (supposedly) are released, so DC won't have much of a performance change over 2P on Xeons until the end of 2006 at the earliest.

3. Demand for Xeons has dropped significantly, so I would imagine that we will see some excellent bargains soon on Xeon systems and chips...

 

[stevty2889]

If you were to use this motherboard with your pentium-D system, you just knocked $128 off the price, so now your total price is $933..$120 cheper than your xeon system..

 

[imported_marklar]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
If you were to use this motherboard with your pentium-D system, you just knocked $128 off the price, so now your total price is $933..$120 cheper than your xeon system..

And using comparably priced video cards will bring the cost to $200 less. I mean, who uses a 6800 Ultra with a 2.8GHz Pentium D?

 

[imported_marklar]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: dbentley1267
When I gave my example the second I was used to having Dual systems around and wanted nothing else. Because when i saw the value of true multi-tasking they were worth the money.

But with the advent of the P4, Xeon and Opteron Dual CPU system were things for the wealthy. The same goes today for having the cutting edge on your desk. People who have money to throw away on the drop of a dime. But this obviously is not the majority of most of us out here in the real world.

Just food for thought

D

Some good points D...!
In answer, some things to keep in mind are:

1. One of the advantages that AMD currently have is that you can upgrade just the CPU down the track. The Xeons don't have this, so buying a 2P SC system today won't let you upgrade to a 2P DC next year (you'll have to get a whole new system).

Don't forget that AMD will start using new sockets some time next year, so your window for upgrades is still limited.

2. The only reason that the DC Opterons are faster than their 2P SC brethren is the internal crossbar. IIRC, this gives them a ~5% performance advantage which should be additive (i.e. a 2P DC should be ~10% faster than a 4P SC system). Of course the Xeons won't have this until the Merom/Conroe (supposedly) are released, so DC won't have much of a performance change over 2P on Xeons until the end of 2006 at the earliest.

Do dual-core Opterons really outperform dual-socket systems? With Opteron, each socket has its own dual-channel memory, so a dual-socket system has twice the main memory bandwith of a single-socket, dual-core system. While the integrated crossbar gives better cache-resident performance, the extra bandwidth to main memory should also come into play.

 

[Zebo]

It's been done already all over the net.. start with techreport reviews of X2's and dual core opteron and PentiumD's

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: marklar

Don't forget that AMD will start using new sockets some time next year, so your window for upgrades is still limited.

Do dual-core Opterons really outperform dual-socket systems? With Opteron, each socket has its own dual-channel memory, so a dual-socket system has twice the main memory bandwith of a single-socket, dual-core system. While the integrated crossbar gives better cache-resident performance, the extra bandwidth to main memory should also come into play.

1. While AMD will be using new sockets, they won't be discontinuing the old ones for some time...so the upgrade window (while admittedly limited) is much longer than it seems...

2. Opterons aren't bandwidth constrained at all, so the extra memory controllers won't add anything tangible. It's latency that is the key to increasing AMD's performance...that's why the crossbar is much more of a factor.

 

[stockriderman]

So far I've had my dual core 4200 for a month. Some dumb people here were bashing me for the choice,telling me to go with 4400(extra $100cdn). Same now happening with 3800.The same idiots are now recommending to wait for the x2 4000. Little they know,there's only about 1.1.5% increase in speed in SOME applications. All the reviews show the same results Is it worth extra money? Will you ever notice it? NO NO and NO.

Few of my friends have 4400(they listened to the rumors) and in some cases my cpu(stock) is faster than theirs. I actually did not see any performance gains there at all.


So,stop listening what some have to say(in most cases they don't even own the cpu!!!)

 

[dbentley1267]

Ok we seem to have gotten a little lost

but that is all and well

i read not too long ago that intel may in fact be making their new dual core xeon's compatible with their latest current chipset and socket offering. As this still remains to be seen it is a hopeful choice that intel should make. Even though they are very well accustomed to making users and oem's change everything for new pc's and servers.

One would think this alone would help isolate them from the mainstream market and boost amd much higher.

now for me i have always been an intel advocate for many reasons, one of them was always stability. And of course we remember when the k7 first came out, what a fiasco that was.

But now back to my original query:

many of us out here are still using older systems, my current system is a gigabyte skt 478 running a P4 2400 HT 1 GB PC2700 and a geforce ti 4200 128 mb

now this system has ran well for a long time i have played doom 3 ut 2004 etc now issues, so i have not had a reason to do a massive upgrade.

the draw back to this system is that it is a single core single processor system. One thing i really hated intel for was taking the dual capability from their desktop processor.

before this system i ran many dual cpu systems:

dual pentium pro 200 256 mb
dual p2 400/450/800 512 mb sdram (IBM m pro)
dual p3 500/800 100fsb 512 mb sdram (IBM z pro)
dual p3 800 133fsb 512 mb rambus (IBM m pro)
dual p3 800 133fsb 512 mb sdram

dual p3 xeon 550 2mb cache 100fsb 512 mb ecc
dual p3 xeon 866 133fsb 1.5 gb rambus (IBM z pro)
dual p3 xeon 866 133fsb 512 mb rambus (SGI)

so as you can see i have been a long advocate of dual processor systems. Single processor are pure junk unless it is a laptop. unfortunantly because of life i can npt afford the toys i used to run so i have had to run this p4

it runs ok until i bog it down then have to wait for things to free up and sometimes the wait is agonizing

but be it as it may be that is life.

but now i am ready at least to start putting together a newer system finally

so as to my question or statement earlier

for the so so many of us buying the absolute top of the line just is not feasible nor makes much sense

so in the immeadiate i was looking at this

say a 3.0 ghz system which in raw speed is more than plenty to do most tasks

but what is better???? or what is the most bang for buck

the dual xeon at 3 ghz which 2 physical processors is very nice to have or the 3 ghz dual core????

there is yet to be done a head to head, pound for pound, dollar for dollar comparison of apples and apples

running the same benchmarks, the same as much as possible hardware across the board

it would be my feeling that the true dual cpu would be the winner in most,

this is true for a dual core athlon vs 2 single core opterons and a dual core p4 vs 2 single core xeons

but is this correct??????

all of the big test sites have the hardware, so why not give a ghz for ghz comparison

why not give us information we really need,

we always read how this card is best and that motherboard rocks

but if everything always caters to the rich elite then no service is done for the average joe out there

if i went full tilt into a new system the cost is just staggering but if i could just say spend 1200.00 and give new life into the most important components then that 1200.00 is best well spent

so all i am asking anand is give us some real meat and potatoes story

give us a real world kick but comparison

you have the hardware, right??

where is our money best spent??

D

abnderby@yahoo.com

 

[Zebo]

I told you where to look why are you wasting your time with that boring long speculative post? Like to hear yourself talk?