For a while ive stuck with intel. Every 6 months or so i seem to do upgrades. All im really doing is making backup copies of my dvd here and there, web surfing, some video gaming and some video encoding with tmpg, pinnacle and video lab. With the dual cores coming out is it really necessary to stay with intel as the seem to be getting hotter (literaly) if im encoding video and the difference between an intel and amd finish time is only say eight seconds should that really matter. Just trying to figure if i really need a dual core Intel/Amd when they come what how is it really going to benefit me?
Intel vs Amd Dual core
- Thread starter phillyman36
- Start date
They're not *that* hot. The Pentium D @ 3.2GHz dual-cored chip only puts out 180W at maximum. 
I was discussing with my associates that we should set up a heatpipe system, no fans and cook off of one.
For multi-threaded applications, dual-cored procs will give you a 70-80% increase in speed on average.
And of course, future games based on the Unreal 3 engine will love it.
(Go AMD dual-core, unless you're living in a cold place. Then go Intel.)
I was discussing with my associates that we should set up a heatpipe system, no fans and cook off of one.
For multi-threaded applications, dual-cored procs will give you a 70-80% increase in speed on average.
And of course, future games based on the Unreal 3 engine will love it.
(Go AMD dual-core, unless you're living in a cold place. Then go Intel.)
Originally posted by: Kensai
They're not *that* hot. The Pentium D @ 3.2GHz dual-cored chip only puts out 180W at maximum.
I was discussing with my associates that we should set up a heatpipe system, no fans and cook off of one.
For multi-threaded applications, dual-cored procs will give you a 70-80% increase in speed on average.
And of course, future games based on the Unreal 3 engine will love it.
(Go AMD dual-core, unless you're living in a cold place. Then go Intel.)
However, Intel's first offering will be neithet the cooler running Pentium D or have HT.....It will be two hot prescott cores...I say a big thumbs down. Without HT Intel can lose anywhere from 10-20% over when it is now if it was not HT. The dual core will be two slower (10-20%) cores running together. In multithreaded apps which would have supported HT already wil be where gains will be seen in dual core cpus. I think AMD is flat out going to lay a smack down. Based on where they are positioned now, versus P4's with HT on now, and based on projected thermals...
In the apps the OP listed you will see tremendous gains...most all video encoding and DVD trnascoders are multithreaded now and hence you have been gaining an advaantage with a p4 and HT now....
Intel may be to the door faster on the dual core and that may be their only advanatge. I wouldn't jump on their offer until I see how well they will be cooled. Also most ppl in this forum are gamers and may see little to no gains initially as most games are not programmed to take advanatge of multi-processers.
so will their be any performance increase for AMD in video and audio encoding?
will it be better than P4 dual core?
will it be better than P4 dual core?
Yes...and...Yes I think so.....
P4 will lose the HT crutch for these first p4 dual cores...rumor has it there will be a EE edition dual core that will have HT....So would act like 4 virtual cores though performance wise will still be 2 physical cores plus the bonus we see today in single core P4s with HT....
With the emergence of SSE3, dual core, and non shared l2 cache I think AMD is poised to not only cut the shrinking gap Intel has enjoyed in this field, but to surpass it. With the lack of HT AMD will leap over and should be ahead in those apps....
ofcourse this is speculation based on what we think may be the first speed offerings for both parties.
AMD has stated it wont start that high and wont surpass the FX has its gaming leader...Maybe dual core 2.2-2.4ghz cpus....INtel will likely arrive at 3.2-3.4ghz range. If that is the case you will see happen what I stated.
Tha fact is the A64 was designed from dual core from th beginning so unlike Intel I think they will have the advantage of having the technology refined. look at their thought of individual cache, crossbar technoilogy, etc....ONly if it didn't share a memory controller that would be great, but it appears now the A64 has far more bandwidth then it needs now.
Long story short: Intel's first-gen dual core is lackluster, to say the least. Wait for the second gen or go AMD.
*If you really want to know why, look in Highly Technical. I posted about this, and specifically the terrible caching scheme the current dual-core P4 is using.
*If you really want to know why, look in Highly Technical. I posted about this, and specifically the terrible caching scheme the current dual-core P4 is using.
I think dual-core is not really needed at the moment. If anything, a dual core GPU seems better fitted since most non-business people that need that kind of power are gamers. You can just look a dual processors and a game that supports it like Quake III. Not worth the price.
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
Also remember that those two Prescott cores will be fighting for memory bandwidth. Halve a P4's memory bandwidth right now and you'll see a significant drop in performance. You're gonna be looking at the same thing if you have two processes running 100% with a dual core Prescott... each core being starved for memory bandwidth.
The difference between dual channel memory and single channel memory with the Athlon-64 isn't very significant... only a few percent with equal clock speeds and L2 cache sizes.
The difference between dual channel memory and single channel memory with the Athlon-64 isn't very significant... only a few percent with equal clock speeds and L2 cache sizes.
I totally agree.
I also think Intel's early dualcore offerings won't even be attractive beside 600 series ht P4s.
Maybe just very marginally faster on 2 threads, but left in the dust on singlethread performance.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 26,794
- 15,804
- 136
DDR2 won't help Intel. The Hypertransport idea and on-board memory controller of the A64 will wipe the floor with Intel. And dual dual-core machines will benefit even more This has been proven today with 4 and 8 way Opteron systems, the more cpu's the more they pull ahead of the Intel counterpart.
Independant FSBs on intel boards will correct this problem for enterprise. As for consumer level, im glad you know exactly how both are going to perform :roll:
Won't the OS matter? or does HT work without dual CPU support, say through OSes such as XP Home (support for only 1 CPU)...as far as I know XP Pro only supports 2 cpus, HT resulting in a 2nd logical processor. With 2 physical and 2 logical processors, wouldn't you need support for 4 processors? I guess I'm not quite exactly sure how HT works.
No Intel wants people to spend 1-2k on the EE Dual Core.
Microsoft already said that 1 Dual Core CPU is considered to them as 1 CPU. So i bet when Dual Cores are release there will be a Windows Update that does what needs to be done.
Microsoft already said that 1 Dual Core CPU is considered to them as 1 CPU. So i bet when Dual Cores are release there will be a Windows Update that does what needs to be done.
No, I seriously doubt that dual cores will not be recognized as two phisical cores, because that's what they are. Future versions of windows, say XP-x64 or more likely Longhorn will probably have "Home" versions that support up to two cores/CPUs, and "Pro" versions that support 4+. With multicore the way to go that's what makes sense.
I don't think XP would be confused, it just wouldn't be able to see or use the logical cores unless I don't understand HT (and I'm not saying I do). Therefore the P-D EE chip with 2 physical and 2 logical cores would only be able to show its true muscle on an OS such as Win2k3 or some other OS that supports more than 2 CPUs making it all the more impractical.
I don't think XP would be confused, it just wouldn't be able to see or use the logical cores unless I don't understand HT (and I'm not saying I do). Therefore the P-D EE chip with 2 physical and 2 logical cores would only be able to show its true muscle on an OS such as Win2k3 or some other OS that supports more than 2 CPUs making it all the more impractical.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050330-4753.html
IBM recently released a similar chipset as well for the Xeon MP, codename Hurricane. The Xeon MP is now the x86 champion in TPC-C.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 26,794
- 15,804
- 136
I don;t care if they are GOING to have a dual FSB, and for servers only, but right NOW the opterons can do this, and blow Intel away (xeon) in 4 and 8 way due to hypertransport. And the a64 core is identical, except not all the HTT links are "coherent" I think is the term. So that means that the TODAY used HTT will give home users the saem power as my dual Opterons, and I can get dual-cores for mine, and have 4 cores....
Reality is a hard pill to swallow...
Yes reality can be hard for AMD fans, especially since it's available now. And there are no 8 way Opteron systems at all nor are there any Opteron chipsets that can match the reliability, availability and serviceabilty capabilities of the new Intel or IBM chipset.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter