How bad is A64 at multitasking vs. P4 really?

[bgc99]

I'd like to know how much multitasking do you have to be doing for the A64 to show worse performance than an equivalent P4?

Are we talking many or does it bog down if you are say ripping/burning a dvd while trying to browse the net?

I rarely game, would be more likely to be burning dvds so I am torn over which processor to choose. One reason I'm leaning toward A64 is the substantially lower heat generated by the processor but I also don't want to be stuck not being able to do anything else while ripping/burning dvds.

Thanks for any help,
BGC

 

[Green Man]

As long as you have 1GB of RAM, there is no problem ripping/burning while surfing, checking email, using MS office, AIM all at the same time on any A64. I do it all the time and there's no noticable slowdown. On a system with only 512MB there can be huge problems.

As long as you have enough RAM, there is no problem. That kind of activity isn't even really multitasking because there is only one application that is demanding of CPU power, and that's your ripping/burning app. The rest of it could be done on a cyrix processor and wouldn't be noticably slower so it's not like you need a ton of CPU power for it.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Green Man
As long as you have 1GB of RAM, there is no problem ripping/burning while surfing, checking email, using MS office, AIM all at the same time on any A64. I do it all the time and there's no noticable slowdown. On a system with only 512MB there can be huge problems.

------------
Even with 512, those are the MOST basic tasks... You can do MUCH more than that, and still have great performance..

If you are using disk intenseive apps, that's where you notice the slowdown.. Not so much the CPU..

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I've never really seen that big of a slowdown, unless I'm running 3 or more CPU entensive Apps. For instance I tested burning MP3's to CD's in the background while watching a DVD. The DVD playback never missed a beat, the CD burning in the background was about 25% slower 9mins vs 7mins, not a big deal at all in IMO.

One that surprized me, I was testing my sytem stability the other day by running SuperPI 32m while also running Prime95 small files at the same time. I was surprised when SuperPI completed it was only 2mins slower (7-10%) than if I ran SuperPI alone. I really thought that Prime95 (100% CPU utilization) running simultaneously would kill my PI score but it didn't

 

[Jeff7181]

There are some situations where Athlon 64's are faster than Pentium 4's with HyperThreading in multi-tasking. Your situation is likely one of them. However, when you have two applications that both need a lot of CPU power, the Pentium 4 will perform better.

I've seen many multi-tasking tests that show the P4 with HyperThreading getting a lot more work done than an Athlon 64. But as shown in Anand's tests in this article with the new dual core chips, the Windows scheduler wasn't doing a good job at scheduling tasks with a 2.6 GHz FX-55 with 1 MB of cache. Adding a 2nd core to a 2.2 Ghz Athlon 64 with 1 MB of cache outperformed the FX-55 by 260% in one test. With a 2nd core you'd expect close to a 200% increase in performance at the same clock speed... but the dual core processor was running 15% slower, so you might expect something like a 160% increase in performance... instead, you get 260% in that one scenario, which Anand attributed to inefficiencies in the Windows scheduler.

 

[coomar]

Yeah its fine when burning CD's but when burning DVD's i have stuttering watching video at the same time, I can surf the web fine

 

[carlosd]

I have no slowdowns doing such tasks. Burning/Ripping DVDs is a I/O and memory intensive operations and not CPU hungry, DVD drives and the hard disk use DMA , almost not using CPU cycles to transfer data between memory and drives.

 

[Mik3y]

its stupid to say "how bad is amd vs intel and multitasking?" when neither are bad at all. just cuz one's better doesnt make it "bad". oh, so lets say "oo, amd is the better overall performer vs intel. that makes intel really bad."

 

[NokiaDude]

It's not bad. But if you run a distributed computing client which uses all your "idle" CPU time, then you'll notice a huge hit in games. I always make sure to pause my SoB client before I launch games or else I get a huge performance hit even with 1GB of RAM and a Geforce 6800.

 

[Zebo]

FWIW- the reviews show a split in multitasking benchmarks.. half AMD 64 and half P4's....

 

[Aenslead]

In multitasking, as Anand has shown, Intel (P4 with not-so-original-any-more HyperThreading) processors usually have a better performance than AMD (read A64/FX) processors, but that's when using HEAVY (more than 5 apps that use 100% CPU at the same time) multitasking.

 

[imported_Otter]

What I'd like to see is some benchmarks for response to user input while multitasking. I don't really care if it takes another 30 seconds to encode a file, what matters to me is that while the CPU is busy with that I can switch applications, move through menus, type, etc, without having to wait for the machine to catch up with me. Here and there I've seen people claim that AMD CPUs are actually better in this regard because they operate with much lower RAM latencies, but I haven't seen anything to back this up, and those posters may have just been fanboys. I'd love for it to be true myself. There's just something unsettling about the idea of having Intel inside. :Q

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Otter
What I'd like to see is some benchmarks for response to user input while multitasking. I don't really care if it takes another 30 seconds to encode a file, what matters to me is that while the CPU is busy with that I can switch applications, move through menus, type, etc, without having to wait for the machine to catch up with me. Here and there I've seen people claim that AMD CPUs are actually better in this regard because they operate with much lower RAM latencies, but I haven't seen anything to back this up, and those posters may have just been fanboys. I'd love for it to be true myself. There's just something unsettling about the idea of having Intel inside. :Q

Go to BestBuy and screw around with their computers. Or go to an actual computer store and pretend you're interested in buying one and want to see the difference between an AMD and Intel setup.

 

[Red and black]

Anandtech actually covered this quite well. The MSWindows scheduler doesn't do very well at preemptive multitasking, so if you have one single-core non-HT CPU, and a process that is hogging CPU time, you will get poor responsiveness.

Because the P4's HT avoids this scheduler bug, it feels more responsive when multitasking under MSWindows.

The simple solution to this problem, of course, is to buy A64 chips, and run something other than MSWindows.

 

[Acanthus]

You will only notice slowdowns while doing CPU intensive activities on the A64, such as ripping a CD/DVD or encoding a movie file.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Red and black
Anandtech actually covered this quite well. The MSWindows scheduler doesn't do very well at preemptive multitasking, so if you have one single-core non-HT CPU, and a process that is hogging CPU time, you will get poor responsiveness.

Because the P4's HT avoids this scheduler bug, it feels more responsive when multitasking under MSWindows.

The simple solution to this problem, of course, is to buy A64 chips, and run something other than MSWindows.

Thats not an option for most users, windows is all they know.

Ive tried linux, its a huge pain in the ass to configure and youre lucky if theres good drivers for half of your hardware.

 

[Aenslead]

Surfing the net is not cpu intensive, nor is the windows enviroment overall. Should you want to rip/encode/burn while surfing the web, listening to some music, downloading stuff and chating, you will not notice any problems whatsoever.

BUT, if you where encoding, while playing a VERY CPU intensive game, while doing a virus scan, and burning at the same time, and making a backup of all your mails, and ziping a 1Gb file... well, you might just get a little hicup in your responsiveness.

 

[Emultra]

Jeff7181, why would a dual core CPU be three times faster than a single core one?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Emultra
Jeff7181, why would a dual core CPU be three times faster than a single core one?

Anand came to the conclusion that the FX-55's multi-tasking capabilities are handicapped by inefficiencies of the Windows scheduler. I guess the Windows scheduler is more efficient when the hardware is capable of executing more than one thread at a time.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Any idea if Windows 64 resolves this issue? Gotta love Bill Gates.

 

[Emultra]

I see. So will Hyperthread'n () be obsolete when dual cores arrive?

And will Longhorn be the better alternative to WinXP64bit for dual cores?

 

[jrphoenix]

I have noticed one issues where dual core & perhaps hyper threading would help a great deal versus my current AMD 3800+. I use Shareaza for file sharing. Based on how many downloads & searches you are doing resource on the CPU can range from 10% - 45%. I would love to be able to play a modern game without having to shut down Shareaza.... but, I can't without some serious stutters. I haven't really used Intel so I don't know if hyper threading would fix the issue I found?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Surfing the net is not cpu intensive, nor is the windows enviroment overall. Should you want to rip/encode/burn while surfing the web, listening to some music, downloading stuff and chating, you will not notice any problems whatsoever.

BUT, if you where encoding, while playing a VERY CPU intensive game, while doing a virus scan, and burning at the same time, and making a backup of all your mails, and ziping a 1Gb file... well, you might just get a little hicup in your responsiveness.

Youre joking right, an A64 would run like garbage doing that... not a "hiccup".

It only takes 2 cpu intensive apps to cause problems, for me encoding video and gaming.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Emultra
I see. So will Hyperthread'n () be obsolete when dual cores arrive?

And will Longhorn be the better alternative to WinXP64bit for dual cores?

By that do you mean will Intel lose their biggest advantage right now, multitasking performance? Then I'd have to say yes. If by that you're asking if Hyperthreading will be "replaced" by dual cores I'd have to say no. IBM's 3 core PowerPC chip being used in the Xbox 360 is hyperthreaded also, so it can execute 6 threads at once.

Both are forms of "parallelization," (I'm making up words, hehe), which is the direction the industry is moving. Dual cores are just more effective than Hyperthreading because there's actually two physical cores... twice as many execution units that can be used, but that doesn't mean Hyperthreading has no place. It's still a great way to increase the efficiency of certain types of processors.

 

[Lithan]

You are looking for a simple answer to an extremely complex question.

Read a few Hyperthreading reviews. If you say "What the hell? They are really reaching to find scenarios they can use to benchmark this Hyperthreading." Then you don't need it. If you say, "My god! I am ALWAYS playing doom3 while I rip dvd's and compress my hard drive backup in the background, and I consider 25FPS to be a good framerate!" then you need Hyperthreading.

It also helps with several media applications that have been optimized for it.

I'd recommend a Northwood "C" revision P4 overclocked to 3.6-3.8ghz on an 875 chipset platform for you. You say you dont game much and you work with media mostly, so P4 because of that. But you also are concerned over Prescott's heat, so Northwood because of that. You might also look at the new 6x0 prescotts. I've been told they are a bit cooler than the old 5x0's though I haven't looked myself.