Going from p4 3.0ghz to X2 4400+ - not impressed

[Mr Bob]

I just booted up my new computer running the Athlon x2 4400+ CPU, I was expecting something to be a lot faster than my old P4 3.0 ghz cpu.

What kind of difference should I see? Bootup time is better, applications load a few seconds faster, but I was expecting something faster than just by 1-3 seconds. Is this normal? If not, are there any settings I can check to see if there are any issues? Device manager looks fine.

 

[sandorski]

Bootup time and App loading are poor judges of processor capabilities.

 

[Duvie]

try running an application!!!! Nobody said it would boot faster per say and feel faster then a P4 with HT on the desktop....

Run applicatiions....I can tell you since I owned a P4 at 3.5ghz this 4400+ was nearly 2x faster in encoding with TMPGenc, 1.5+x faster in my CAD rendeing, etc.....AM<D are already faster in gaming...archiving using winrar, pretty much all scientific number crunching....

 

[Mr Bob]

Ah ok. I thought one of the key benefits were the fast load times. I'll have to play around in Photoshop to see how much faster it works.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
Ah ok. I thought one of the key benefits were the fast load times. I'll have to play around in Photoshop to see how much faster it works.

load times are largely limited by things other than the processor, though it looks like you have the hdd department covered as well as mechanically possible.... that must be one disgustingly fast rig... though i don't quite see why you would spend almost $900 on wickedly fast storage and not throw in some $$ for a nice video solution or 2gig of ram...

 

[Markbnj]

You sure both cores are working?

 

[Hacp]

Hope you learned your lesson. Don't get an x2 unless you REALLY need it. .

 

[Mr Bob]

"that must be one disgustingly fast rig"
- I would hope so, that's why I just expected a bit more...

"though i don't quite see why you would spend almost $900 on wickedly fast storage and not throw in some $$ for a nice video solution or 2gig of ram..."
- I just can't live without the speed for raptors. I don't do that much gaming at all, so the BFG 6600GT OC with dual dvi should be fine for me. Some said it is just about as agood as the non OC'd 6800GT. Also, I already had some of the drives already from my previous computer, I didn't go out and spend $900 on drives

"You sure both cores are working?"
- Nope, but if you tell me how I can find out, I will let you know. Here is an SS that might help http://s4.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3RFMWZX5MNX950LHZ9TBSWCSVX

"Hope you learned your lesson. Don't get an x2 unless you REALLY need it. . "
- What lesson? What has happened in this thread, that says I don't need it?

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
Ah ok. I thought one of the key benefits were the fast load times. I'll have to play around in Photoshop to see how much faster it works.

Load times are more limited by the hard drive. Even when I had raid-0 raptors it was only a few seconds differance. Photoshop, video encoding, and other apps that are SMP aware, thats where you'll really shine.

 

[eastvillager]

Processor isn't going to do much for loadtimes, not sure why you thought it would. Try some actual multitasking if you want to be impressed.

Did you have any game that went screwy when you alt-tabbed to some other app while on the p4? Try that with the x2.

 

[Mr Bob]

"Did you have any game that went screwy when you alt-tabbed to some other app while on the p4?"
- Yup, Age of Empires: The conquerors. I will have to give that a try. I've only have the computer running for a day, so I haven't done much testing at all, or even done work. I just expected that it was going to be super fast on boot times. I know that the X2 will be a lot faster at stuff like compressing files, and rendering, but I didn't think the P4 would be just a little slower than the 4400+ at some things. I figured I would see something like 5 times the speed with most things, and 10-15 with rendering and cpu intensive programs.

"Load times are more limited by the hard drive"
- That explains why I wasn't impressed with boot times

 

[Markfw]

Mr Bob. Those statements are insane. Even if the X2 single core was 2x a 3.0 P4 (which it isn't) and 2 cores, saying someting like 10-15 times faster at anything is just rediculous. 3x total rendering speed is to be expected, ot at least in the ballpark, but 10-15x is just stupid.

You obviously have more money than brains.

 

[yourdeardaniel]

encoding was 2x as fast like duvie said
i notice faster boot time, no lag when running many apps at once, i don't think winrar was much faster though

 

[AkumaX]

damn i got excited over an X2 4000+ for nuttin...

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
damn i got excited over an X2 4000+ for nuttin...

Heh, I noticed the title too. If they ever did make that chip, though, I'm sure the extra 512kb L2 cache wouldn't be worth the price premium as far as performance gained goes, but I know a lot of you are itching for a cheap 1MB X2.

 

[Mr Bob]

"saying someting like 10-15 times faster at anything is just rediculous"
- That's what I thought, after seening so many benchmarks comparing the AMDs to the P4s, and then seeing the X2s compared to the older single cores that owned the P4s.

"You obviously have more money than brains. "
- Well, you can fi_ick off, but I don't see that happening. For 5k posts that's something pretty stupid to say. Anandtech is filled with so many people that haven't the slighest clue on how to participate in a forum. You are a prime example. I have little patience for people like you on here. If you look at my previous threads with many forum idiots, you will see why my patience is wearing thin.

" damn i got excited over an X2 4000+ for nuttin... "
- I changed the title, I am talking about the 4400+ that I just noticed.

 

[Markbnj]

[- Nope, but if you tell me how I can find out, I will let you know. Here is an SS that might help ]

Nah, that doesn't tell me much. XP just gets the processor description string from the BIOS. When you open task manager, and click on the performance tab, do you see two CPU utilization charts? If so then Windows is using both cores, if not, it isn't.

And don't listen to the guy who said not to get an X2 unless you really need it. A lot of single-core owners are jealous and trying to convince everybody that this new architecture isn't really of much value. Fact is, my X2 4400+ runs _everything_ faster. So if you have a single core, and you think my X2 isn't giving me any benefit, post your Crystalmark scores and beat my 51889 . In fact, take a gander at the Crystalmark thread and you'll see that AMD dual cores dominate the rankings.

 

[Markfw]

. I figured I would see something like 5 times the speed with most things, and 10-15 with rendering and cpu intensive programs.
..........
- That's what I thought, after seening so many benchmarks comparing the AMDs to the P4s, and then seeing the X2s compared to the older single cores that owned the P4s.

You spend over $500 on a processor, which assumes that you did some research first, and read benchmarks (which you did by your own admission), and say that you expected it to be 10-15x times at encoding ? You contradict your own statements and expect unrealistic results. What would you call that ?

And you need to learn how to quote, and I DO know how to participate in forums, intelligent discussion of hardware in this case. Making outrageous statements is NOT how to participate, unless you are in OT.

And you tell people to f#$# off when all they did was state an obvious fact ? (expecting 10-15x performance after having read benchmarks means not using brains, hence the more money than brains comment). This borders on trolling.

 

[phantom404]

I just received my dual core as well and while load up times were not too impressive the multi tasking was awsome here is what all i was running.

Link

As you can see both cores were at 100% but i was still able to open and browse firefox, check my email with outlook and mess with torrents while i was running prime 95...no slowdowns whatsoever.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
... so the BFG 6600GT OC with dual dvi should be fine for me. Some said it is just about as agood as the non OC'd 6800GT....

they lied....harcore....

Text

skim through the next few pages...

 

[formulav8]

It looks like you using 4x 512MB Dimm's. That will make you run 2T timings which hurts performance from 4%-10% in some cases. I would definitely think about getting 2x 1GB sticks instead of the 4x 512MB sticks.



Jason

 

[Mr Bob]

"Nah, that doesn't tell me much. XP just gets the processor description string from the BIOS. When you open task manager, and click on the performance tab, do you see two CPU utilization charts? If so then Windows is using both cores, if not, it isn't."
- It shows two CPU utilization charts, yup.

"And don't listen to the guy who said not to get an X2 unless you really need it."
- Don't worry, I try to laugh at a lot of the stupid comments people make on here. Some people don't even read what your initial question is!

"You spend over $500 on a processor, which assumes that you did some research first, and read benchmarks (which you did by your own admission), and say that you expected it to be 10-15x times at encoding ?"
- 10-15 times greater than the old P4? Yeah, the X2 just dominated so hardcore when comparing it to the single cores, and the single cores raped the P4 as well. I haven't seen a single benchmark comparing the x2s to the P4s, maybe because of how fast the X2 is.

"And you need to learn how to quote, and I DO know how to participate in forums, intelligent discussion of hardware in this case."
- Just because I use quotes instead of the forum code, makes you think I don't know how to quote? Genius!

"And you tell people to f#$# off when all they did was state an obvious fact ? (expecting 10-15x performance after having read benchmarks means not using brains, hence the more money than brains comment)."
- You didn't state a fact, you insulted me. Read your post again, then think of how it comes off. There are a lot "forum newbie tips" that you might want to catchup on.

"they lied....harcore.... "
- Thanks, but it wasn't the 6600gt in general, it was the BFG 6600GT OC. I mainly got it because of its dual dvi, and I don't do a lot of gaming, but I thought that it would be a lot faster than the other 6600gt cards.

"I just received my dual core as well and while load up times were not too impressive the multi tasking was awsome here is what all i was running. "
- That's the initial thing that I saw, and I really thought the loading would be significantly faster, hence why I thought there might be an issue.

"It looks like you using 4x 512MB Dimm's. That will make you run 2T timings which hurts performance from 4%-10% in some cases. I would definitely think about getting 2x 1GB sticks instead of the 4x 512MB sticks"
- I couldn't find any CAS 2.5 1GB sticks for a decent price. Is there anything to do to see if I have this issue?

 

[PKing1977]

"It looks like you using 4x 512MB Dimm's. That will make you run 2T timings which hurts performance from 4%-10% in some cases. I would definitely think about getting 2x 1GB sticks instead of the 4x 512MB sticks"

My ram is rated at 2.5 CAS, but with the AMD memory contorler memory ratings do not impact system performance like you think it will. 1T to 2T will impact performance because it cuts bandwidth.

As far as your disappointment. I think you were just expecting to much. Doing stuff twice as fast is a huge huge jump and you were expecting 10 to 15x. That is just unrealistic. If that was the case Intel could not even compete.

PKing

 

[Mr Bob]

"My ram is rated at 2.5 CAS, but with the AMD memory contorler memory ratings do not impact system performance like you think it will. 1T to 2T will impact performance because it cuts bandwidth."
- Is there a way to figure out if I am affected by this?

"As far as your disappointment. I think you were just expecting to much."
- Yeah, I guess so. I never have seen a benchmark comparing the P4 3.0Ghz to the x2s.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
"My ram is rated at 2.5 CAS, but with the AMD memory contorler memory ratings do not impact system performance like you think it will. 1T to 2T will impact performance because it cuts bandwidth."
- Is there a way to figure out if I am affected by this?

"As far as your disappointment. I think you were just expecting to much."
- Yeah, I guess so. I never have seen a benchmark comparing the P4 3.0Ghz to the x2s.

You might try the host of this forums benchmarks right here.