Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

[ehume]

In this review, they compare Athlon II X4 640 vs. Core i3 530 - four real cores vs 2 real and two virtual. The results are interesting.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

In this review, they compare Athlon II X4 640 vs. Core i3 530 - four real cores vs 2 real and two virtual. The results are interesting.

So, in a nutshell, the Athlons are quite a bit faster in actual intensive scenarios? Looks like that's all folks

 

[aigomorla]

Here is my white flag...

I think everyone should wave one too.

Lets be civil guys... when your blood pressure raises because you read something from someone you never met in person your entire life,
you need to take a chill pill.

And lets start showing links when you make a definite statement from now on.

But from what im seeing, this thread is turning a bit more hostile each day.

 

[taltamir]

So, in a nutshell, the Athlons are quite a bit faster in actual intensive scenarios? Looks like that's all folks

the Athlon II X4 640 crushed the Core i3-530 in 3D rendering (36% faster on Cinebench) and provided a pretty decent advantage on DivX conversion (14% faster on VirtualDub using DivX codec).

36% faster on canned benchmark and 14% faster is actual encoding.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=46472
http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=976&page=2

and it seems that the CPU die of the i3 (it is an MCM package containing 1 CPU and 1 GPU+IMC) is 32nm, 81mm^2, and 382 million transistors.
While the Athlon II x4 640 is 45nm, 169mm^2, and "~300 million" transistors. (for CPU+IMC)
the intel's also have twice the cache.

mmm, interesting disparity in transistor counts; the intel actually uses more; and AMDs include the IMC (which is on the 45nm GPU die in the intel). seems like lower cache for extra execution resources (in the cores) works well for tasks such as encoding. While cache is much less beneficial than extra execution resources.

Then again, that is well known. GPUs slaughter any GPU on the market when it comes to video encoding.

 

[Markfw]

Here is my white flag...

I think everyone should wave one too.

Lets be civil guys... when your blood pressure raises because you read something from someone you never met in person your entire life,
you need to take a chill pill.

And lets start showing links when you make a definite statement from now on.

But from what im seeing, this thread is turning a bit more hostile each day.

aigo, I have not intervened, since there are no real personal attacks, no four letter words, etc...But it is hostile.

Guys, please calm down a little.

 

[evolucion8]

No, I think most on here have realized that it is pointless to discuss anything with you.

That's why I stopped discussing anything with him, never backed up with evidence any of his claims.

 

[3DVagabond]

See, there you go again (see my edit, I clarified a bit)...
You're arguing like a boxer, trying to push me into a corner and keep pounding on and on. Even now... I decide to drop the discussion because it's getting nowhere, and you continue, getting personal too.
Forget it, I'm not interested. I'd also like to point out that you're the only one having a go at me pretty much. From that I assume that other people are perfectly happy with my arguments, and frankly I don't care what you think.

Well, you are claiming silence means agreement? No. What Intel has done was illegal and they got found guilty of it.

 

[Scali]

No. What Intel has done was illegal and they got found guilty of it.

Hello?
I never claimed otherwise!
Wow. Read what aigomorla said... (which is what I said to Gaiahunter a while ago aswell)...
Apparently you guys are getting so worked-up that you're not even thinking straight.
I get accused of tons of things that I NEVER said.
I have NEVER claimed that Intel was not guilty, or that their actions weren't illegal. I think moderators should step in here. Page after page I am being accused of things that I never said, and people are forcing me to 'provide links' for things I never said in the first place (yes that one goes for you too, aigomorla).
I have no problem backing up my statements, but I stopped discussing when I had to defend things I never said. I suggest everyone reads the entire thread again, after a cool-down period.

 

[Nemesis 1]

So, in a nutshell, the Athlons are quite a bit faster in actual intensive scenarios? Looks like that's all folks

Thats not what I read. Their very close and the Intel system runs cooler and uses less energy Thats what General public will KNOW .

Us enthusiast its differant . The Intel is clearly superior. O/C both systems to highest stable O/C and Intel wins almost all those test easily.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Hello?
I never claimed otherwise!
Wow. Read what aigomorla said... (which is what I said to Gaiahunter a while ago aswell)...
Apparently you guys are getting so worked-up that you're not even thinking straight.
I get accused of tons of things that I NEVER said.
I have NEVER claimed that Intel was not guilty, or that their actions weren't illegal.[/b I think moderators should step in here. Page after page I am being accused of things that I never said, and people are forcing me to 'provide links' for things I never said in the first place (yes that one goes for you too, aigomorla).
I have no problem backing up my statements, but I stopped discussing when I had to defend things I never said. I suggest everyone reads the entire thread again, after a cool-down period.

Can you please stop with the victimization?

Look at what 3DVagabond wrote.

Well, you are claiming silence means agreement? No. What Intel has done was illegal and they got found guilty of it.

He says that silence doesn't mean agreement - nothing accusing you of anything, except that you might have been claiming that silence means agreement

See, there you go again (see my edit, I clarified a bit)...
You're arguing like a boxer, trying to push me into a corner and keep pounding on and on. Even now... I decide to drop the discussion because it's getting nowhere, and you continue, getting personal too.
Forget it, I'm not interested. I'd also like to point out that you're the only one having a go at me pretty much. From that I assume that other people are perfectly happy with my arguments, and frankly I don't care what you think.

and maybe he got that impression from your words (bold sentence).

Then he says he believes that Intel didn't played fair - where does that constitute an attack on you?

Unless you mean disagreement with your opinions is a personal attack on you, and if you don't disagree with 3DVagabond about Intel actions, that might not be very obvious since

Yes, that's what I thought aswell.
AMD's lawsuits eventually resulted in a billion+ fine. Intel will probably think twice before they sell their CPUs at low prices again.
So in an ironic twist of fate, AMD has killed competition.

I never denied that (so there's no need for you to reiterate it again, we all know what happened), but I don't think you understood my point.
The problem here is, anytime Intel gives discount, they again risk a lawsuit, which they probably will lose again (justice has little to do with it, they've been convicted before, and I'm sure AMD's legal team can spin it to make them look guilty again).
Why would Intel take that risk?

Intel has never sold CPUs at a loss. As I have explained many times before, Intel's production costs are lower than AMD's for various reasons (more efficient architecture, smaller dies for the same performance level, economy-of-scale advantages, 32 nm technology etc). So Intel can completely crush AMD on price if they wanted, and still not sell at a loss.
But do you think AMD won't sue? I don't. I think they'll just try to paint Intel as a criminal again, to try and cover up for the fact that AMD is failing to deliver proper technology to the end users, and is losing the competition on a fair basis.

No, I don't think AMD will sue Intel if Intel sells their processors cheaper. And if they are fool enough to do it, I think the courts will simply deny AMD pretensions.

So I think this opinion that AMD killed competitiveness of prices by Intel has no merits and is basically FUD (intentional or simply a opinion founded in arguments with no value, I've no clue and never said or implied otherwise).

This has nothing to do with what I said though. As I said: we know what happened (or at least, what they were convicted for).
Let me put that in less subtle words: I am interested in technology, and I don't really want to have legal discussions. Especially since they are not related to the point that I was making. I wish people would just stop bringing it up over and over again. I have no interest in discussing it whatsoever.

I never said that they were sued BECAUSE they lowered prices for consumers... I said that BECAUSE they were sued by AMD many times before (basically AMD just threw all the shit they could find at the wall, and was hoping that some of it would stick), Intel is careful with competitive pricing.

These ones could be grouped above, but it they give clear clues to every readers about how you perceive the merits of AMD lawsuit.

Interestingly you don't want to have legal discussions, which is fair enough, but you didn't pass the opportunity to use a legal argument to make considerations about AMD.

So is this all personal attacks?

In my point of view it is just an attempt to inform whatever members/visitors of these forums that things weren't exactly as you described them.

You did indeed some clarifications afterwards, but would have you done them if I or someone else wouldn't have have said "hold on! that isn't so!".

I doubt it, most likely it would have stayed as AMD killed the competition with a lawsuit, depriving the consumers of cheaper Intel processors.

 

[grimpr]

I never denied that (so there's no need for you to reiterate it again, we all know what happened), but I don't think you understood my point.
The problem here is, anytime Intel gives discount, they again risk a lawsuit, which they probably will lose again (justice has little to do with it, they've been convicted before, and I'm sure AMD's legal team can spin it to make them look guilty again).
Why would Intel take that risk?

And what makes you think or believe Intel wants to go after AMD starting a price war? They are perfectly happy with the current situation as it is, the Intel brand became synonymous to Coke in recognition a long time ago, they reap the profits of high margins, they rule almost every segment of the market, they have the media and the overclocking knights in diamond armor in bed with them, Intel is such a brutally efficient and well runned machine that it doesnt need a deus ex machina or messiah figurehead to run it, a salesman does the job of CEO just fine.

If you step down from your tall horse and shining armor for a few minutes, you'll come to realise that there are no dragons to be slayed around the threads, these forums are alive from pc enthusiasts on a budget, with a long history and a passion for x86 chips and tech, the simple truth is that a majority of them want the underdog around, each for his own reasons and thats one of the reasons that makes this place tick around, myself for example and countless others will always buy Intel but we have 1 or 2 systems for AMD when and only if they compete decently. In the end, Intel doesnt really need any of us experts/enthusiasts arguing or evangelizing their superior tech and abilities, they are in a mindset and trajectory of world domination that will manifest itself 5 to 10 years from now.

 

[Scali]

And what makes you think or believe Intel wants to go after AMD starting a price war?

I never said that Intel wants to do this.
I was talking about fair competition. Clearly everyone will agree that when there is fair competition, both companies will try their best to make their products as competitive as possible.
I then said that Intel has products that are technically cheaper to make, so given equal profit margins (which would be fair competition), Intel would automatically win the price war. But this is apparently not what Intel does, so there is no fair competition.

Hey look, and I did all that without useless rhetoric and personal insults too!
As for the underdog... I think that's silly. I want fair competition. I don't want an underdog that doesn't have competitive products. I don't see why anyone would. Now try to explain that.

 

[ViRGE]

Why on Earth are you guys arguing about Intel antitrust lawsuits in a thread about physical/virtual cores? Take it to PMs if you must keep bickering, otherwise shut up and let the other posters here discuss the actual topic.

The next crappy post in this thread is going to earn someone a vacation.

-ViRGE

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well I got to thinking about it. I have never ran my P4c internet PC without HT. So today I been doing also sorts of things. Gaming music dowloads up loads and videos . What a peace of crap this thing is without HT. For my normal usage Its at least 30% slower . I am defragong right now and this thing is a dog without HT . 1 thread sucks ass bigtime even in single threaded apps .

 

[Nemesis 1]

On the review thing I won't relink but the link was posted 3 weeks ago here . It test all the new stuff from AMD/Intel . The 2 core 4 thread is alot better than AT and others make it out to be . At 4ghz which is nothing for these Cpus . They kick ass. It competes with Intels 4 cores and beats them in many multi threaded apps. It really clobbers the AMD stuff in the Majority of multi thread Apps .

 

[extra]

On the review thing I won't relink but the link was posted 3 weeks ago here . It test all the new stuff from AMD/Intel . The 2 core 4 thread is alot better than AT and others make it out to be . At 4ghz which is nothing for these Cpus . They kick ass. It competes with Intels 4 cores and beats them in many multi threaded apps. It really clobbers the AMD stuff in the Majority of multi thread Apps .

Without regards to AMD vs Intel or anything like that ( i like both ) I can say one thing for sure: hyperthreading on the dual core chips sure is friggin nice. The system is VASTLY more responsive with it on. Experimenting with an i3 530 at work...the end user experience is much much better with HT on. I don't really notice a diff with it off or on on my quad tho.

 

[evolucion8]

On the review thing I won't relink but the link was posted 3 weeks ago here . It test all the new stuff from AMD/Intel . The 2 core 4 thread is alot better than AT and others make it out to be . At 4ghz which is nothing for these Cpus . They kick ass. It competes with Intels 4 cores and beats them in many multi threaded apps. It really clobbers the AMD stuff in the Majority of multi thread Apps .

I don't know in which fantasy land that happens. But surely a Dual Core with Hyper Threading can't beat a real Quad Core, specially in multi threaded scenarios. No matter how much you overclock an i3, it will never be a match for a Core 2 Quad series, even at the same clock speed, considering that AMD's Quad Cores can match Intel's previous generation of Quads, I don't know how it will be slower than i3, specially in multi threaded applications, just look at this link....

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2921/6

"If you need a fast dual-core processor, the Core i3 530 is right for you. If you need affordable threaded performance, the Athlon II X4 is a better option. Intel attempts to sweeten the deal with TrueHD/DTS-HD MA bitstreaming support, but ultimately what we have here is a chip that is truly competitive. The i5s continue to be priced far too high, but that’s where they should be. Intel has a much larger sales and marketing budget than AMD, so put those sales folks to work. AMD (and Intel) offer better value than the entire dual-core i5 line, so it’s up to Intel's marketing to sell those more expensive chips. To those in the know, you'll ignore them almost entirely.

The i3 is the sensible solution. It’s not too perfect. You’re still better off with an Athlon II X4 if you are doing a lot of video encoding or offline 3D rendering, but it’s great for the rest of the market. You lose turbo mode but honestly, with only two cores, you don’t really need it. Instead, just be happy with the fact that you can push nearly 4GHz with minimal effort and without even swapping out the stock heatsink/fan. The lack of AES-NI support keeps the i3 from being the otherwise perfect chip for corporate use, a clever but unfortunate move by Intel. AMD technically has the best product at one of the most important price points - $150. Maybe I’m reading too much into this but the competition here just seems...clean. There you have it. If you want a dual-core processor at around $130, the Core i3 530 is as good as it gets. Competition without killing AMD. I like it."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/16

"With the i3s you get a great dual-core chip that is competitive with AMD's Athlon II X4 line in many multi-threaded applications. AMD sacrificed its L3 cache in order to bring four cores down to reasonable price points. Intel's Core i3s start with two cores, a complete cache hierarchy, and give you Hyper Threading to improve performance in those multi-threaded scenarios. If you're doing a lot of video encoding or 3D rendering AMD's cheap quad-cores are going to be a better option, but for nearly everything else (gaming included) you'll be better off with the Core i3."

In my opinion, thanks to an improved architecture and Turbo, the i3 is faster in single and light threads, but in multi threaded scenarios, the i3 can't simply touch an Quad Core, regardless if its from AMD or Intel, specially from Intel itself.

 

[mv2devnull]

Experimenting with an i3 530 at work...the end user experience is much much better with HT on. I don't really notice a diff with it off or on on my quad tho.

It is quite probable that the number of frequently active threads is more than two, but not much more.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I don't know in which fantasy land that happens. But surely a Dual Core with Hyper Threading can't beat a real Quad Core, specially in multi threaded scenarios. No matter how much you overclock an i3, it will never be a match for a Core 2 Quad series, even at the same clock speed, considering that AMD's Quad Cores can match Intel's previous generation of Quads, I don't know how it will be slower than i3, specially in multi threaded applications, just look at this link....

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2921/6

"If you need a fast dual-core processor, the Core i3 530 is right for you. If you need affordable threaded performance, the Athlon II X4 is a better option. Intel attempts to sweeten the deal with TrueHD/DTS-HD MA bitstreaming support, but ultimately what we have here is a chip that is truly competitive. The i5s continue to be priced far too high, but that’s where they should be. Intel has a much larger sales and marketing budget than AMD, so put those sales folks to work. AMD (and Intel) offer better value than the entire dual-core i5 line, so it’s up to Intel's marketing to sell those more expensive chips. To those in the know, you'll ignore them almost entirely.

The i3 is the sensible solution. It’s not too perfect. You’re still better off with an Athlon II X4 if you are doing a lot of video encoding or offline 3D rendering, but it’s great for the rest of the market. You lose turbo mode but honestly, with only two cores, you don’t really need it. Instead, just be happy with the fact that you can push nearly 4GHz with minimal effort and without even swapping out the stock heatsink/fan. The lack of AES-NI support keeps the i3 from being the otherwise perfect chip for corporate use, a clever but unfortunate move by Intel. AMD technically has the best product at one of the most important price points - $150. Maybe I’m reading too much into this but the competition here just seems...clean. There you have it. If you want a dual-core processor at around $130, the Core i3 530 is as good as it gets. Competition without killing AMD. I like it."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/16

"With the i3s you get a great dual-core chip that is competitive with AMD's Athlon II X4 line in many multi-threaded applications. AMD sacrificed its L3 cache in order to bring four cores down to reasonable price points. Intel's Core i3s start with two cores, a complete cache hierarchy, and give you Hyper Threading to improve performance in those multi-threaded scenarios. If you're doing a lot of video encoding or 3D rendering AMD's cheap quad-cores are going to be a better option, but for nearly everything else (gaming included) you'll be better off with the Core i3."

In my opinion, thanks to an improved architecture and Turbo, the i3 is faster in single and light threads, but in multi threaded scenarios, the i3 can't simply touch an Quad Core, regardless if its from AMD or Intel, specially from Intel itself.

Well I guess I didn't write it clearly . I said A 2 core @4 ghz gives intels best 4 core a run for its money If the 4 core isn't overclocked. It competes well . Against AMDs 4 core its Wins al;most everthing . As long as AMDs isn't O/C . If you push both to highest o/c than 2 core still beats AMD in majority of apps including mult threaded. Clear enough.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Why is it that its OK to test AMD 6 core against Intels 4 cores . Yet its not alright to test Intels 2 core 4 thread O/C against AMDs 4 cores Stock or Max stable of both . Its clear why ? But its not right. Thats a fact.

 

[evolucion8]

Why is it that its OK to test AMD 6 core against Intels 4 cores . Yet its not alright to test Intels 2 core 4 thread O/C against AMDs 4 cores Stock or Max stable of both . Its clear why ? But its not right. Thats a fact.

Why is wrong? Intel implemented a SMT technology so it can ramp up more threads per core, AMD doesn't have any technology similar to it, so it brings more cores to improve multi threaded performance.

An i5 750 which doesn't have Hyper Threading (4C with 4T) is a nice match for a Phenom II X4 965 (4C with 4T), adding Hyper Threading to it will convert the Intel CPU to an i7 (4C with 8T) which will outperform the Phenom II X4, so AMD adds two more cores and can be competitive again (6C with 6T), I don't see anything wrong about it, Intel's approach is considerably cheaper to implement, specially at the transistor/die space level.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Why is it that its OK to test AMD 6 core against Intels 4 cores . Yet its not alright to test Intels 2 core 4 thread O/C against AMDs 4 cores Stock or Max stable of both . Its clear why ? But its not right. Thats a fact.

Price - of both CPU and motherboard.

For general use is the i3 that superior to an Athlon II X4? Either with both at stock or both OC, what can an i3 do that an Athlon II/Phenom II X4 won't do?

So if they are for all purposes equal, what should be the major point of decision?

For me it would be price. I guess some would pay a bit more for turbo mod and better power.

In the Phenom II X6 case - well not many people will exactly need it. But some like Markfw900 that folds has said that Thuban is somewhat superior to same price class i7 for his specific use.

That doesn't mean iCore isn't the superior architecture - it only means that even the inferior architecture can accomplish all that a user might need. If it doesn't he should choose whatever accomplishes it based on his demands.

 

[Scali]

it only means that even the inferior architecture can accomplish all that a user might need.

Yes, but that is not something an enthusiast would care about.

 

[extra]

Why is it that its OK to test AMD 6 core against Intels 4 cores . Yet its not alright to test Intels 2 core 4 thread O/C against AMDs 4 cores Stock or Max stable of both . Its clear why ? But its not right. Thats a fact.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that it wasn't okay to compare an i3 (for example) to an athlon II x4. . . As far as I'm concerned it's okay to compare any cpu with any other cpu...but for the comparison to actually be valid concerning purchases, we need to compare similar platform costs.... Ie the i5 750 vs x6 1055 is a comparison that makes sense, i3 530 vs athlon II x4 is a comparison that makes sense, i3 530 vs i7 980x...doesn't make any sense...Shrug.

Anyway...so as far as threads go. I wonder if AMD has any plans to introduce hyperthreading type features? I know that bulldozer supposedly has a lot of components shared between the INT cores, but not to the HT level, there are still two execution units. AMD has smart engineers and I'm sure they'd used it if it enabled a huge performance boost...so wonder why they don't?

Also curious about other architectures. What about ARM, for example? Isn't HT a very power efficient way to increase performance (on Intel stuff anyway)? Do you guys think that it will spill over (SMT, not hyperthreading specifically) to ARM and such? Or maybe ARM already has something like it?

Then I kind of wonder about taking it one step further:
1. Some workflows don't benefit from HT, and in fact may be hurt by it...
2. Would it be possible for the processor to look at the thread that is executing and somehow "check" the execution units and enable or disable HT as needed?
3. What about if it was something the processor detected might benefit from more than one more thread? Could we turn on maybe 3 or 4 threads per core if needed, and disable them automatically if not? *shrug*.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Yes, but that is not something an enthusiast would care about.

Well you can be enthusiast of several things at the same time and some could conflict - like being enthusiast of spending the less possible to achieve what you need and enthusiast of science advance, particularly of performance advance of processors.

Otherwise to be an enthusiast a person would have to own an i7-980.

Or we can simply be an enthusiast of all different architectures, regardless of which one is faster/more efficient/smaller/etc and wish to understand why one is faster than the other, why does the slow one is sometimes the same speed or even faster in some occasions, how can you improve different architectures, etc.

Enthusiast just have different meanings - I guess liking absolute performance is one, but not the single one.