intel set to release low cost dual core 805

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: dexvx
Skpe
CitiBank (generates CC #'s)
Mcaffee Anti-Virus (with on-access scanning)
Java.exe
.NET / MSDN stuff

Agreed...my point being that dual core won't help this scenario because they are all low priority threads and the scheduler won't improve performance here with a dual core. It's when you have 5 higher priority threads that you'll see some improvement.

I wish there was a difinitive answer on this. If you're running several instances of Word, Excel, Powerpoint, IE and other programs all at once, I would imagine there'd be quite a bit more "responsiveness" to a dual-core setup.

And with the CPU at only $150 CDN and the ASUS P5V800-MX only $60(!!!) you get a dual-core setup for a lousy $210!! Cheaper than the cheapest AMD dual-core setup by HALF! Not, it's not as fast as a 3800+, but it's certainly not as bad as 50% of the speed!

80% of the speed at 50% of the cost!? That's a great deal by any stretch!

 

[Viditor]

I wish there was a difinitive answer on this. If you're running several instances of Word, Excel, Powerpoint, IE and other programs all at once, I would imagine there'd be quite a bit more "responsiveness" to a dual-core setup

I agree...the problem is nobody's done an "Average Joe" multitasking test.
I would like to see a single core vs. DC with 4-5 minor programs running simultaneously. Hopefully Anand can come through as he always has in the past...

 

[Zebo]

IME - They are being silly. Multitasking is not running 4 or even 10 minor apps at once. Hell windows does that when its turned on all the time - runniing a crap load of services apps and apps- notice benchmarks are the same in rewiews at same speed dual core or single core... Minor apps do not use any CPU power except when opening, saving, closing or applying mathmatical filters (e.g. photoshop blur or a huge data set manipulation like 25,000 lines sort in excel) 99,9% of the time they use infinitesmal CPU power which makes no difference if you have a single or dual core with as many apps as memory can hold.. And even with all these apps open, the app you are working with at the time is given all the CPU cycles by scheduler anyhow since the others are idle so it will usually not make any difference even when applying these said filters unless multithreaded app. Dual or single same performance. How I define true multitasking and those who will benefit from dual core are just like the tests show - heavy, non stop computational tasks in background while running another app in foreground which does the same or multithreaded apps.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Zebo
IME - They are being silly. Multitasking is not running 4 or even 10 minor apps at once. Hell windows does that when its turned on all the time - runniing a crap load of services apps and apps- notice benchmarks are the same in rewiews at same speed dual core or single core... Minor apps do not use any CPU power except when opening, saving, closing or applying mathmatical filters (e.g. photoshop blur or a huge data set manipulation like 25,000 lines sort in excel) 99,9% of the time they use infinitesmal CPU power which makes no difference if you have a single or dual core with as many apps as memory can hold.. And even with all these apps open, the app you are working with at the time is given all the CPU cycles by scheduler anyhow since the others are idle so it will usually not make any difference even when applying these said filters unless multithreaded app. Dual or single same performance. How I define true multitasking and those who will benefit from dual core are just like the tests show - heavy, non stop computational tasks in background while running another app in foreground which does the same or multithreaded apps.

See.... now we're getting somewhere. Anyone do any benchmarks to show this?

And am I right that more multithreaded apps are on the way? There sure is a big push to go dual-core these days... the temptation to do it on a budget is awfully high. The same $200 either gets an 805 CPU/mobo deal, or a plain A64 3000+ 939 combo. (Not even a 3200+, I'd have to find a discount 3000+ for the same cash.) The Intel dual-core route looks for future-proof than the AMD route.... at that price.

 

[Zebo]

See.... now we're getting somewhere. Anyone do any benchmarks to show this?
----------------------
Like I said its superferlous since I feel the benchmarks are already done since windows loads about 20+ "minor programs" and drivers on boot you can look at any other benchmark and see the results. Multitasking has become a buzzword forthe ignorant to facilitate dual core and HT sales when almost no one truly multiasks and any CPU multiaskes. Some users will tell you different and talk about feel buts its a false positive of wanting your HW you just invested in to be better.



And am I right that more multithreaded apps are on the way? There sure is a big push to go dual-core these days...
------------
That's a real concern. If games or anything else that heavy CPU bound become MT, , which they probably will, and you actually use those types of applications, then single core will become extremly slow looking. I won't make any predictions but if you're the type to keep comp 3+ years I'd say DC is a better investment.

 

[zephyrprime]

Can anyone recommend some good boards for an 805?

 

[Hard Ball]

Honestly,

who cares, this may be the worst new release of a main stream CPU, relative to the current contemporary CPU performance, that we have seen ever in the semiconductor industry. I can't believe people are actually excited about this type of low bin junk being pumped into the market.

If you care about performance at all, even a smidgit, get an X2 or Opteron, OC a Presler, or wait for the arrival of the Conroe.

 

[Ninjaneer]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball
Honestly,

who cares, this may be the worst new release of a main stream CPU, relative to the current contemporary CPU performance, that we have seen ever in the semiconductor industry. I can't believe people are actually excited about this type of low bin junk being pumped into the market.

If you care about performance at all, even a smidgit, get an X2 or Opteron, OC a Presler, or wait for the arrival of the Conroe.

I think it's a bit unreasonable to be so tough about the 805. I have yet to see any benchmarks which potray this processor as not being a good value.

 

[Conroe]

I'm wondering about this mobo,
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2696
My Tforce6100-939 has alot of overclocking options. I bet this will get a good overclock out of a 805 for less than $100.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Can anyone recommend some good boards for an 805?

Good and 805 don't belong in the same sentence. That said, I got the ECS945p-a, and it is fine, but you can;t OC too much or the pci bus is out of spec, and the video card fails. 224 fsb is all you can get.

The only readon I am at 3.43 is I have a PCI 1 meg card, not a PCI-express card. No games for me, just a F@H box, and a hot (temp) one at that !

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Good and 805 don't belong in the same sentence. That said, I got the ECS945p-a, and it is fine, but you can;t OC too much or the pci bus is out of spec, and the video card fails. 224 fsb is all you can get.

Does it deserve THAT much harshness when it's HALF the cost of the cheapest A64 x2 combo? It's not as fast as a 3800+ but at half the cost you shouldn't expect it to be! In fact, it performs better than the 50% you're paying for. Worth considering for budget multitaskers, eh?

 

[harobikes333]

Originally posted by: n7
Guaranteed this will show up in mass numbers in OEMs like HP, Dell, & Gateway...

QFT

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: harobikes333

Originally posted by: n7
Guaranteed this will show up in mass numbers in OEMs like HP, Dell, & Gateway...

QFT

I agree as well....thay had to get the 800 series smithfield down this low in speed so that it wouldn't be a little heater.....At this speed it probably makes INtels TDPs for the 840 look right....

 

[bluemax]

The good news is that with dual-core really hitting the masses, you'll see more dual-core support and apps in a shorter time.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Good and 805 don't belong in the same sentence. That said, I got the ECS945p-a, and it is fine, but you can;t OC too much or the pci bus is out of spec, and the video card fails. 224 fsb is all you can get.

Does it deserve THAT much harshness when it's HALF the cost of the cheapest A64 x2 combo? It's not as fast as a 3800+ but at half the cost you shouldn't expect it to be! In fact, it performs better than the 50% you're paying for. Worth considering for budget multitaskers, eh?

Once you add in the extra mobo cost and the extra heat, and the power bill, its no value.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Good and 805 don't belong in the same sentence. That said, I got the ECS945p-a, and it is fine, but you can;t OC too much or the pci bus is out of spec, and the video card fails. 224 fsb is all you can get.

Does it deserve THAT much harshness when it's HALF the cost of the cheapest A64 x2 combo? It's not as fast as a 3800+ but at half the cost you shouldn't expect it to be! In fact, it performs better than the 50% you're paying for. Worth considering for budget multitaskers, eh?

Yes sir it does deserve critisism. Why? Because in 99% of things you will be doing it's slower than three year old CPU's ( e.g. Athlon XP's and P 2.4C) can you live with that?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Good and 805 don't belong in the same sentence. That said, I got the ECS945p-a, and it is fine, but you can;t OC too much or the pci bus is out of spec, and the video card fails. 224 fsb is all you can get.

Does it deserve THAT much harshness when it's HALF the cost of the cheapest A64 x2 combo? It's not as fast as a 3800+ but at half the cost you shouldn't expect it to be! In fact, it performs better than the 50% you're paying for. Worth considering for budget multitaskers, eh?

Once you add in the extra mobo cost and the extra heat, and the power bill, its no value.

The cost of the motherboard as in 'a motherboard that will run it'? Even @stock it's going to beat any similarly priced single core combo in multithreaded apps and multitasking.

I'm a big fan of dual core - not for 'perfrmance' but for the effective end of having to wait for one thing to finish before you can do another without slowing things down or screwing something up.

 

[Markfw]

Fine, you ignore everything for one thing... You deal with the heat, and you pay he power bill, buy the bigger HSF just to keep it cool, etc.

And its people like you that contribute to the reason we can't even get enough power to run our Corona data center. Way to be "green"

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Fine, you ignore everything for one thing... You deal with the heat, and you pay he power bill, buy the bigger HSF just to keep it cool, etc.

And its people like you that contribute to the reason we can't even get enough power to run our Corona data center. Way to be "green"

I'm not attacking your religion here!

For someone who uses a computer a couple of hours a day, but wants to copy a disc and play a game at the same time - the 805 is a dream come true.

If processing time= $$ or you have some other reason to want great performance, or you're system runs 24/7 and minimal cost is a key feature, then the X2 lineup is the best choice for today.

For a whole lot of people the 805 is a pretty good deal.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

The cost of the motherboard as in 'a motherboard that will run it'? Even @stock it's going to beat any similarly priced single core combo in multithreaded apps and multitasking.

I'm a big fan of dual core - not for 'perfrmance' but for the effective end of having to wait for one thing to finish before you can do another without slowing things down or screwing something up.

It depends on the type of multitasking you mean...overall, I think you'll find it to be slower but that's JMHO. We have no benches to say for sure one way or another, though I think it would be quite the worthwhile article if Anand is interested...

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Good and 805 don't belong in the same sentence. That said, I got the ECS945p-a, and it is fine, but you can;t OC too much or the pci bus is out of spec, and the video card fails. 224 fsb is all you can get.

Does it deserve THAT much harshness when it's HALF the cost of the cheapest A64 x2 combo? It's not as fast as a 3800+ but at half the cost you shouldn't expect it to be! In fact, it performs better than the 50% you're paying for. Worth considering for budget multitaskers, eh?

Once you add in the extra mobo cost and the extra heat, and the power bill, its no value.

Can't argue about the heat since mine is hitting 57c on water at 3.7ghz..but it overclocks just fine without needing an expensive motherboard. The motherboard my 805 is running on cost less than the motherboard my X2 is running on. The FSB issue limiting overclocks doesn't exist for the 805, since it starts out at 533mhz FSB. I suspect it might be the power supply thats limiting me from getting a higher stable OC. And you are still welcome to try it out on your ECS motherboard if you want..I can give ya about a 90% gurantee it will OC better than your 820.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Once you add in the extra mobo cost and the extra heat, and the power bill, its no value.

Not everyone has a 939 motherboard you know! :Q The price of a fairly-cheap motherboard needs to be factored into both equasions, as I had done.

Its STOCK performance is going to be better than half of the x2 3800+ at only half of the cost. If you're multithreading or multitasking, it's a great deal - if you don't need blistering performance.

Yes, it is hotter. Yes it does use about 50% more power. Yes it's maybe 25% slower. IT'S LESS THAN HALF THE COST! What do you expect??

If you're really going to use power as your main argument, you'd better scrap your A64 and move to mobile-on-desktop technology. Grab a new iMac! The 20" version with Intel core Duo and all the trimmings (and can now run WinXP along with OSX) never consumes more than a lousy 100W!

 

[Ninjaneer]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Good and 805 don't belong in the same sentence. That said, I got the ECS945p-a, and it is fine, but you can;t OC too much or the pci bus is out of spec, and the video card fails. 224 fsb is all you can get.

Does it deserve THAT much harshness when it's HALF the cost of the cheapest A64 x2 combo? It's not as fast as a 3800+ but at half the cost you shouldn't expect it to be! In fact, it performs better than the 50% you're paying for. Worth considering for budget multitaskers, eh?

Yes sir it does deserve critisism. Why? Because in 99% of things you will be doing it's slower than three year old CPU's ( e.g. Athlon XP's and P 2.4C) can you live with that?

I'd be interested in knowing if this is a true statement. I've got an XP 2600+ that I've been considering replacing with this budget-minded chip.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Can anyone recommend some good boards for an 805?

Good and 805 don't belong in the same sentence. That said, I got the ECS945p-a, and it is fine, but you can;t OC too much or the pci bus is out of spec, and the video card fails. 224 fsb is all you can get.

And 224mhz FSB would put an 805 @4.48ghz..so the FSB problem isn't for this chip..

 

[AkumaX]

what do you think the presler 925 part's gonna be?