Tom's P4 Overclocking Review

[imageqst]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
in your example tho none of the background apps require high cpu priority; try running something where 2 requests priority tho, and the tiny lag will turn into a very obvios one.

the specific reason i notices was from running 2 "windowed" games which request 100% cpu simultaneously.

Is that really something you do often? I'd be more concerned if it had an issue compiliing some code and working in photoshop at the same time....

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
"Wow.. some of you AMD guys make me laugh. "


so do some of you Intel guys , unless your not reffering to me, then I take it back.

Guilty concience!

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: imageqst

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
in your example tho none of the background apps require high cpu priority; try running something where 2 requests priority tho, and the tiny lag will turn into a very obvios one.

the specific reason i notices was from running 2 "windowed" games which request 100% cpu simultaneously.

Is that really something you do often? I'd be more concerned if it had an issue compiliing some code and working in photoshop at the same time....

heh.. well, try doing that and yea.. it's an mmog and i use the 2nd client for buffs/assist, but to a much lesser degree it's noticed elsewhere as well (for instance endoding/decoding in background while doing email/web browsing in foreground). nothing "showstopping", but mildly irritating if you're used to it being silky smooth.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
heh.. well, try doing that and yea.. it's an mmog and i use the 2nd client for buffs/assist, but to a much lesser degree it's noticed elsewhere as well (for instance endoding/decoding in background while doing email/web browsing in foreground). nothing "showstopping", but mildly irritating if you're used to it being silky smooth.

Another thing is that with HT, running two CPU intensive apps at the same time will net a performance benefit, as both apps will run at 60% (sometimes less, sometimes more) of the speed it would run if it was running by itself, netting a ~20% increase in throughput. Non-HT processors do not see this kind of throughput increase, two CPU intensive apps will either run at 50% of the original performance, or one will get 99%, the other app getting 1%.

 

[not5150]

I haven't read the article, but let me put in some facts that maybe are not well known.

1. Tom doesn't write anymore.
2. You can send feedback to the editor, just like you can do here.
3. Most of the writers are in Europe
4. The European writers usually write in their native language (French, German, Italian)
5. This is translated into English and posted on the American site (www.tomshardware.com)

So a lot of you focus on the weird wording or grammar, just be advised that anytime you translate a document, weird things happen.

Imagine this... you write a technical article in English. Have it translated into German. Then have the Germans rip into you for word choice/grammar. Doesn't seem right, does it?

 

[clarkey01]

imageqst, yeah I own a 2.8C, so I'm not anti Intel, glad we dont have to flame (lets embrace) lol.

 

[Zebo]

You guys and your HT. AMD owns multitasking too. http://common.ziffdavisinterne...311,i=79665,00.gif...a processor does'nt need to be HT if it's pipe stays full like short ones in the A64, Dothan etc. It's only advantagous for these 40 pipe speed daemons who arn't very effcient.

 

[Accord99]

This link has a better explanation of the Winstone multitasking benchmarks and a breakdown of the three sub-tests:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/review...3397,39157363-5,00.htm
The P4 wins two of the three, including easily winning the third test, the only one that is particularly CPU intensive in multiple threads. And it is running multiple CPU intensive applications in which HT shows its benefits.

 

[Zebo]

If you ask me it's all within the margin of error(5%), which is why it's silly to tout the feature. And I gave a silly reply above. I thought someone might notice when I said "owns"