Intel Core Duo confusion

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: KingWeaver
Actually yes...I do believe it will handle differently. The 64bit memory extensions should make the over all feel of the machine snappier, just like windows xp64 did when i tried it on my main desktop rig (3700+ sand diego), the only reason i dropped it was because some of my older games didnt run on it.

There is no factual evidence that suggests for desktop uses, a 64bit Windows will perform better than a 32bit version of the same Windows using the same hardware. I've used 32/64 bit RH Linux and Vista. The majority of the times, I would surmise, that people think its faster is because it is a fresh install and begone of all bloatware that has accumulated over the months/years.

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Its just a low voltage X2, whats to know ? duh.... Its exactly the same as when the X2 vs single core came out. Intel is the one with the design problems AT THE MOMENT. I grant you Yonah is a major leap for Intel, but if he want dual-core and 64-bit, I think Turion DC will be out before and Intel DC 64 bit, and there is no chance of it being a problem. IMO

Just like Prescott was a supposedly a low-voltage version of Northwood? And FYI, there is little information regarding the timetables for DC Turion, whereas the Merom launch has been pushed up to June.

 

[KingWeaver]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: KingWeaver
Actually yes...I do believe it will handle differently. The 64bit memory extensions should make the over all feel of the machine snappier, just like windows xp64 did when i tried it on my main desktop rig (3700+ sand diego), the only reason i dropped it was because some of my older games didnt run on it.

There is no factual evidence that suggests for desktop uses, a 64bit Windows will perform better than a 32bit version of the same Windows using the same hardware. I've used 32/64 bit RH Linux and Vista. The majority of the times, I would surmise, that people think its faster is because it is a fresh install and begone of all bloatware that has accumulated over the months/years.

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Its just a low voltage X2, whats to know ? duh.... Its exactly the same as when the X2 vs single core came out. Intel is the one with the design problems AT THE MOMENT. I grant you Yonah is a major leap for Intel, but if he want dual-core and 64-bit, I think Turion DC will be out before and Intel DC 64 bit, and there is no chance of it being a problem. IMO

Just like Prescott was a supposedly a low-voltage version of Northwood? And FYI, there is little information regarding the timetables for DC Turion, whereas the Merom launch has been pushed up to June.

err this is why i hate siging up for new forums people think cuz you only got a few posts that your some kinda n00b. When i say x64 seems faster im taking in to consideration that is was a new install In fact after using x64 for about 2 months then reformatting and switching back to xp pro I immediatley noticed a diffference, programs opened much slower in xp pro vs x64. Now you say theres no evidence but have you actually used x64?

 

[dmens]

What kind of evidence is that? Speaking of meaningless anecdoctal evidence, I noticed SUSE enterprise server on x86-64 on 64GB servers ran slower than SUSE desktop on plain 2GB machines, same install. Probably because my jobs were all less than 2GB, LOL.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: KingWeaver

Originally posted by: dexvx
There is no factual evidence that suggests for desktop uses, a 64bit Windows will perform better than a 32bit version of the same Windows using the same hardware. I've used 32/64 bit RH Linux and Vista. The majority of the times, I would surmise, that people think its faster is because it is a fresh install and begone of all bloatware that has accumulated over the months/years.

err this is why i hate siging up for new forums people think cuz you only got a few posts that your some kinda n00b. When i say x64 seems faster im taking in to consideration that is was a new install In fact after using x64 for about 2 months then reformatting and switching back to xp pro I immediatley noticed a diffference, programs opened much slower in xp pro vs x64. Now you say theres no evidence but have you actually used x64?

Yea I have. I have not seen any of the Microsoft devs/PR state that 64bit Windows will be more responsive than their 32bit counterparts with the same build and same hardware. AFAIK, there are no technically references that say this.

However, if you think that a 64bit OS will run smoother, than more power to you and your buying decision.

 

[Maximilian]

To the OP, unless you have a specific use for 64 bit, then dont bothere with turion, buy the best, buy core due. Not saying turion is bad, its just core duo is better. Also, remember there have been 64 bit cpu's for like two years now. Today in 2006 we have 64-bit farcry and a soon to be replaces 64 bit windows with sucky driver support. Not particularly good progress... but still, a step in the right direction. So basically theres no need for 64 bit is what in getting at.

 

[Furen]

To OP, how about you freaking wait until you're about to buy a computer (you said Q3 2006, right?) before asking this question. 64bit is actually very useful and it does feel faster to me. It may just be me trying to convince myself that it's worth dealing with all the problems (ie. drivers, or the lack thereof). There will certainly be lots of new stuff by then (Meron and maybe the dual-core, dual-DDR2 65nm Turions). Hell, they'll be new video cards out by then so even the decision to get a 7800gtx may be moot.

dmens: I would hardly consider comparing a system using 64GB of ram and a system using only 2GB fair. The system with the most ram will most likely have a greater latency hit just because of the huge amount of ram the memory controller has to deal with. Also, was this on AMD or Intel... current Intel x86-64 is hardly comparable to AMD's, though I'd expect it'll match it with Merom.

 

[KingWeaver]

Originally posted by: Furen
To OP, how about you freaking wait until you're about to buy a computer (you said Q3 2006, right?) before asking this question. 64bit is actually very useful and it does feel faster to me. It may just be me trying to convince myself that it's worth dealing with all the problems (ie. drivers, or the lack thereof). There will certainly be lots of new stuff by then (Meron and maybe the dual-core, dual-DDR2 65nm Turions). Hell, they'll be new video cards out by then so even the decision to get a 7800gtx may be moot.

dmens: I would hardly consider comparing a system using 64GB of ram and a system using only 2GB fair. The system with the most ram will most likely have a greater latency hit just because of the huge amount of ram the memory controller has to deal with. Also, was this on AMD or Intel... current Intel x86-64 is hardly comparable to AMD's, though I'd expect it'll match it with Merom.

ok i did say i was gonna wait till purchasing but the reason i was asking if there is a 64bit core duo planned soon is so i know if i should wait if if i should buy now. I want to part out my current desktop before the components are worthless. Also even though there is poor 64bit support now doesnt mean there will be 2 years from now...

 

[KingWeaver]

Also remember me mentioning that i plan to game with this lappy... now i know this is just farcry but i can assure you that many future games will be available in a 64bit version. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2411&p=3

 

[dmens]

I was just kidding around on the 64GB system. On my jobs, the memory latency doesn't matter much if the prefetcher does its job properly.

As for current intel x86-64 "not comparable" to amd, well, even the much maligned paxville, when paired with IBM hurricane on a 4P setup, it performance is on par to similar opteron setups. It just uses a lot more power and costs more, LOL. It's OK though since I'm not paying the electricity bill.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: KingWeaver

Originally posted by: dexvx
There is no factual evidence that suggests for desktop uses, a 64bit Windows will perform better than a 32bit version of the same Windows using the same hardware. I've used 32/64 bit RH Linux and Vista. The majority of the times, I would surmise, that people think its faster is because it is a fresh install and begone of all bloatware that has accumulated over the months/years.

err this is why i hate siging up for new forums people think cuz you only got a few posts that your some kinda n00b. When i say x64 seems faster im taking in to consideration that is was a new install In fact after using x64 for about 2 months then reformatting and switching back to xp pro I immediatley noticed a diffference, programs opened much slower in xp pro vs x64. Now you say theres no evidence but have you actually used x64?

Yea I have. I have not seen any of the Microsoft devs/PR state that 64bit Windows will be more responsive than their 32bit counterparts with the same build and same hardware. AFAIK, there are no technically references that say this.

However, if you think that a 64bit OS will run smoother, than more power to you and your buying decision.

I don't know about smoothness (though the extra registers should make code a bit cleaner), but there have been benchmarks showing substantial decreases in load times. I'd imagine that's soley due to data decompression begin faster in 64 bit than 32 bit as winrar and similar programs also see a large boost.

BTW, dual core is more worthwhile for future games than 64 bit, unless 64 bit is used in conjunction with amounts of ram greater than 2GB. Intel Core Duo will be available next month, I don't even know if AMD has mobile dual cores planned, let alone a launch date, and they certainly won't be of the low voltage type. AMD's dual cores are optimized for performance, Intel's Core Duos are optimized for power and costs saving. Each core duo core is slightly slower than a single dothan, but the cache is shared and slower while on an amd dual core the cache is duplicated.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Each core duo core is slightly slower than a single dothan...

Slower?? Have you looked at the Anandtech benchmarks? http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=6

How is it slower when Quake 4, which they said they did not put the multi-thread patch, gets 12% increase?? BF2 seems to be also 3% faster on the Core Duo than Dothan. B&W is also faster, slightly. Call of Duty is 1 fps lower on Core Duo, but honestly, with 2 frames difference between slowest and the fastest CPU, who cares? Same with F.E.A.R. Even more true in Splinter Cell, where Dothan is 0.2 fps faster.

If you do go back and see Pentium D and Athlon X2 review, you can see Core Duo gains advantage over the single core where PD and X2 doesn't over their own predecessor.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Each core duo core is slightly slower than a single dothan...

Slower?? Have you looked at the Anandtech benchmarks? http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=6

How is it slower when Quake 4, which they said they did not put the multi-thread patch, gets 12% increase?? BF2 seems to be also 3% faster on the Core Duo than Dothan. B&W is also faster, slightly. Call of Duty is 1 fps lower on Core Duo, but honestly, with 2 frames difference between slowest and the fastest CPU, who cares? Same with F.E.A.R. Even more true in Splinter Cell, where Dothan is 0.2 fps faster.

If you do go back and see Pentium D and Athlon X2 review, you can see Core Duo gains advantage over the single core where PD and X2 doesn't over their own predecessor.

Can you say multi-threaded video drivers? Back when the PD and X2 came out these weren't out. Yonah has slower L2 so it should be slower in Integer code. There does seem to be a bit of benefit from Intel's SSE optimizations but it seems to be close to nothing for the most part.