Continuity27
Senior member
I wasn't exactly referring to the THG task app when calling you a genius, I meant in general. You're doing a good job of keeping this thread nice, sane, and informative despite all the porksters out there.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Socket 939 Sempron found........
Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I wasn't exactly referring to the THG task app when calling you a genius, I meant in general. You're doing a good job of keeping this thread nice, sane, and informative despite all the porksters out there.
imported_Opteron
Member
No, you are just plain uninformed.
StressTest Page
Currently the wattage in the picture 625 and at most times up near 660. The values being displayed is for both systems.
Hmm 625 - (Intel's so called 315) = AMD 310watts.
No who's the fool and troll?
.
Continuity27
Senior member
You're still the fool buddy. AMD 185 watts and Intel 315 watts was taken WITHOUT the video cards accounted for, according to the article. The latest benchmark accounts for ALL components. Therefore, the Intel rig is NOT topping out at 315, with SLI it would have been ~100 watts more, with only one video card ~50 watts more. So 625, if both were at maximum load would be more closely Intel 365 watts AMD 260 watts.
EDIT: Here, to save you the effort of reading the linked article that discussed power usage, here's a direct quote.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
Porkster.... you have been PWNED!
JackBurton
Lifer
So is my uncle, and?
I find PORKSTER's post really funny. I mean assuming that he is right about current total wattage used is 625, he then subtracted the value of 310 from the THG link above which shows intel at load to be 315 so he came up with 625-315 = 310 for AMD!!! sounds logical until you consider...that if he instead subtracted 625 - 185 (for AMD same link BTW) then intel comes up with 440 for intel!!!
that just goes to show you the kind of "twisting of facts" and "illogical" thinking that PORKSTER has been perpetuating.
seriously though i agree with continuity27. the 315w for intel and 185w for AMD are for CPUs only. account for the videocards and the rest of the system and AMD would be around 250w and intel around 375w.
that just goes to show you the kind of "twisting of facts" and "illogical" thinking that PORKSTER has been perpetuating.
seriously though i agree with continuity27. the 315w for intel and 185w for AMD are for CPUs only. account for the videocards and the rest of the system and AMD would be around 250w and intel around 375w.
*The 800+watts figure was when the meter was broken. THG stated the meter was broken and replaced it. But with both systems doing SLI, the overall 800w maybe correct.
*The average wattage now is about 640watts for both systems.
*The average GFX is about 80 watts.
*The AMD was using around to 400watts when in SLI mode and working 100% cpu and about 345 watts when IDLE. The taking away of one GFX card doesn't seem to have made much difference on the AMD when you factor in the Intel and new overal value of 625watts.
.
Continuity27
Senior member
As far as I know, THG only subtracted the video card in that linked article, at least that's all they specifically mentioned. I'm pretty sure the motherboards, memory, etc were still included in the 315 vs 185.
At any rate, the more components you subtract (graphics cards for sure weren't counting in that original article) the worse it would be for Intel based on the "625" total for both systems. I even selected the best case scenario for Porkster, and its still quite a difference. 😉
The fact that was being displayed at the test site was that both Intel and AMD systems were on per for power use, even if the AMD CPU component itself is lower power use than the Intel chip. The motherboards on the AMD must eat more juice.
Any way getting back the the score, the AMD X2 is still failing to do the divx thread. it's getting near to no processing time. Shame on AMD for paying sites to promote their poor multitasking CPU.
.
Any way getting back the the score, the AMD X2 is still failing to do the divx thread. it's getting near to no processing time. Shame on AMD for paying sites to promote their poor multitasking CPU.
.
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
You're and idiot.
Continuity27
Senior member
You're still not looking at this realistically.
Nobody in their right mind would run all this at once, you could get better performance running one or two at a time on TODAY's processors. And you're still ignoring the fact that the Intel system is extremely unstable despite multiple motherboards, memory modules, lack of SLI, different HSFs, all within a week, mostly within a couple days.
The Intel dual core system simply isn't ready yet, if we are to believe that THG at least has some skill at dealing with computers, and yet, they are already shipping! Are we going to see people wasting their precious money on failing motherboards? I sure hope not.
The bottom line is one INTENSIVE task vs one intensive task, two intensive tasks vs two intensive tasks, the AMD wins by a large margin as seen in every other benchmark available to us, DIVX encoding included. At 4, Intel's HT does balance the load better - but this isn't necessarily a good thing. You realize that DIVX is at LOW priority on the Intel system too right? And its still stealing all the FPS from the game (which the user would be playing right now) and cycles from the other tasks launched at NORMAL priority. This seems more like a failure of HT to me. If I absolutely had to encode 3 things while playing a game (which is already unrealistic) what good would playing the game at 20FPS be? Hell I might as well walk away while those three things are encoding then... if I walked away on the AMD in the same scenario, guess who would win... the AMD system. But going even further, I don't need to walk away from my AMD system, because it treats LOW threads as LOW priority. It waits until something else finishes or lessens, in the case of the THG stress test, nothing EVER finishes or lessens, the imaginary user plays games 24/7 and encodes non-stop as if he has a deadline that was yesterday. In that case, a LOW priority thread should NEVER steal much, because the NORMAL priority threads have never been completed.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
You are an idiot.
Motherboards do not "eat power". The components on the motherboards use the power. The power draw from the components on the motherboard (SATA Controllers etc...) is negligible. Stop spreading crap when you have no idea what you are talking about.
-Kevin
Personally I have many programs running in the background.
I wonder how many users on this forum would like to play their games whilst they have eDonkey, Azureus, WMP playing some mp3's,converting file types, networking data to the xbox, all at the same time, for an example?
It's rare anyone uses only one main task these days, and also tasks aren't just a common application, they can also be OS related programs that crew up processing. Then your have business and server use of these CPU's.
The Intel 840EE walks all over the X2 for multitasking, as you can see in the results from the THG tests. It would be amazing to see how much better the Intel 840EE is if they transposed the grunt of the divx sub-test to the others.
No other site has formally tested the multitasking side of the AMD X2, and you know why, and if they do, they hide the results in side pages.
.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
Well if you are doing all that crap either:
a. They are stupid
b. Love to play at sub 20FPS levels
c. Are running 2x Dual Core Systems, or a quad system.
I dont give a crap what you say whether it be the EE or the X2, neither chip can do all that at once.
Horrible example, which further proves that you no 0
-Kevin
Read this and the following pages:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=9
And guess what like many already said we knew Intel is more flexible with HT on multitasking. But that doesen't make X2 a failure at all, and especially a sneeky CPU that runs away from DivX encoding.
People let's try to just ignore troll posts. They seem to do fine ignoring the ones that prove them wrong. So that it means we'll be fine too. 😀
Continuity27
Senior member
Here's a slightly more realistic scenario.
I decide I NEED 3 movies encoded with divx. But there's nothing else to do, so I start playing a game. On the AMD system, 2 of the 3 encoding sessions would be working at near full speed. My game is working at near full speed. As I'm happily playing my game, one of the encoding tasks finish. Now, the third, mostly neglected due to LOW priority, encoding session increases to near full speed because the other one is finished. Meanwhile, my game never stuttered, my other encoding job is still running smoothly. The other two encoding sessions finish, and I'm still playing my game, which is going a little faster now. Jobs done.
For the Intel system: (Assuming its stable) I start the game and 3 encoding sessions. My game is choppy because all 3 encoding sessions are stealing too much from it... They are all pretty much equalized at some middle performance level. Since we know one vs. one the AMD wins in encoding, near full speed encoding on the AMD would probably be double as long if not more on the half utilized Intel system (per session). Now the scenario is my game is basically unplayable, and my 3 encodes are all crawling along... what can I do? Hey I know, I'll stop playing the game because it's unplayable... so much for the "multitasking" oriented machine eh? Now imagine if I did the same on the AMD machine... just stopped playing the game... it would really blow the Intel away then... I just don't see how this LOW priority being equal to normal priority issue being GOOD for Intel systems.
THG's article wouldn't show this happening, of course, because the encoding threads are infinitely long... no finished threads to take over on.
So what would you rather buy? A processor that seems to say "Hey! This tunnel is quite narrow, lets go 3 at a time!" or one that says "Hey! This tunnel is quite narrow, lets all jam ourselves in at once" Obviously the latter will craaaawl along while the former will spit out the threads at near full speed.
This might be an issue with 4 threads only. Maybe at 5 intensive threads, the Intel system then does the same and make the last thread get very little until another is completed. Still, the more you multitask intensive applications, the more you need a stronger processor to handle the load, and AMD's is stronger than Intel's as seen in every other 1 vs 1 head on benchmark.
🙂
I decide I NEED 3 movies encoded with divx. But there's nothing else to do, so I start playing a game. On the AMD system, 2 of the 3 encoding sessions would be working at near full speed. My game is working at near full speed. As I'm happily playing my game, one of the encoding tasks finish. Now, the third, mostly neglected due to LOW priority, encoding session increases to near full speed because the other one is finished. Meanwhile, my game never stuttered, my other encoding job is still running smoothly. The other two encoding sessions finish, and I'm still playing my game, which is going a little faster now. Jobs done.
For the Intel system: (Assuming its stable) I start the game and 3 encoding sessions. My game is choppy because all 3 encoding sessions are stealing too much from it... They are all pretty much equalized at some middle performance level. Since we know one vs. one the AMD wins in encoding, near full speed encoding on the AMD would probably be double as long if not more on the half utilized Intel system (per session). Now the scenario is my game is basically unplayable, and my 3 encodes are all crawling along... what can I do? Hey I know, I'll stop playing the game because it's unplayable... so much for the "multitasking" oriented machine eh? Now imagine if I did the same on the AMD machine... just stopped playing the game... it would really blow the Intel away then... I just don't see how this LOW priority being equal to normal priority issue being GOOD for Intel systems.
THG's article wouldn't show this happening, of course, because the encoding threads are infinitely long... no finished threads to take over on.
So what would you rather buy? A processor that seems to say "Hey! This tunnel is quite narrow, lets go 3 at a time!" or one that says "Hey! This tunnel is quite narrow, lets all jam ourselves in at once" Obviously the latter will craaaawl along while the former will spit out the threads at near full speed.
This might be an issue with 4 threads only. Maybe at 5 intensive threads, the Intel system then does the same and make the last thread get very little until another is completed. Still, the more you multitask intensive applications, the more you need a stronger processor to handle the load, and AMD's is stronger than Intel's as seen in every other 1 vs 1 head on benchmark.
🙂
Continuity27
Senior member
Do you not understand? All those threads you mentioned are NOT intensive... current processors can do all those easy tasks at the same time even now. A multicore processor, or a multiple processor system is meant to do more intensive applications - which HOME users do in moderation. HOME users do not do 4 encoding tasks at once, along with all the minor tasks you mentioned and expect to finish at a reasonable pace. It's much smarter to limit the load yourself and only run 2 or 3 encoding tasks instead of 4 - a million.
The Intel system, like I said, tries to do TOO much at once without the power to back it up, hence anything you'll do in the foreground, will be slow as molasses. Let me clue you in, okay? Encoding takes time. It's time. When you're playing a game, you get a different output depending on how free your processors are. For encoding... you get the same output, just at different amounts of time. Therefore, nobody should want tasks such as encoding stealing their precious gaming speed. If the Intel system was actually powerful enough to run those 4 intensive + hundred non intensive tasks at the same time, it wouldn't be unplayable in some cases for gamers running a game. It's trying to carry too much saying "I can handle it really!" when really instead of tasks that would FLY on their own, instead now they are crawling so slow it ends up taking more time to do them all at once than a couple at a time back to back.
blah, there's no reasoning with some people.
The DivX thread is NOT neglected by the AMD processor at all, as stated like a million times before in this thread, the Os schedules tasks not the CPU. I'll repeat the truth as long as you spew out your FUD, and I really would like some kind of rule against knowingly posting falsehoods. over and over again by the way.
The DivX thread is NOT neglected by the AMD processor at all, as stated like a million times before in this thread, the Os schedules tasks not the CPU. I'll repeat the truth as long as you spew out your FUD, and I really would like some kind of rule against knowingly posting falsehoods. over and over again by the way.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
So, who pissed in your ear today? Why so cold? I asked someone not to use that word and you intentionally used it to knowingly cause me some degree of pain. Why in the hell would another human being do something like this? Maybe your not human. That would explain it. Lemme guess, your the soul=less mass murderer type? You my friend, I would make a road trip for.
And do you understand that an application thread dying in the arse, isn't a good thing for anyone's multitasking needs?
The AMD is at snail pace or stuck on 180 loops of dvd-to-divx conversion, when the Intel is near 3000 (YES 3000 times), mind you the Intel is also beating the AMD X2 on the CD-to-mp3 conversions and and near matching with FPS on Farcry.
I would say 2 out of 4 tests, plus 1 near match on Farcry is declaring the Intel 840EE as the better CPU. Noting the Intel has had ZERO crashes since being constructed properly for the test.
.
I wonder how many people can get WMP to use 100% of CPU while playing mp3's, of Azureus, or eDonkey etc.
Those programs won't suck up 100% for the CPU, hence the load will not be 4x100%, it will be 100% (for the game) + maybe 10% x say 7 programs = 70% load on the second CPU.
You seem to assume that all taks would use 100% CPU.
Trust me, if a single core Athlon (Barton) can run a game, with Bitcomet, mIRC and Winamp playing mp3's all in the background, then a dual core Athlon 64 can do it with a lot more ease. Now STFU and crawl back into your hole.
Athlon X2 > Athlon XP with Barton core.
It pisses over it.
imported_Opteron
Member
If user needs to encode same CD 1000 times, it would much FASTER to encode it ONCE, and then copy it.
I also wonder who is going to play games for weeks non stop ?
Thing is that if you need to encode, decode, pack files, and play games, you are going to finish your tasks at some point..
So HT's advantage does'nt have any meaning in real life.
I also wonder who is going to play games for weeks non stop ?
Thing is that if you need to encode, decode, pack files, and play games, you are going to finish your tasks at some point..
So HT's advantage does'nt have any meaning in real life.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
