Which is better for multi tasking?

[Silversierra]

As the title says, which is better at multi tasking? I seem to find that since intel has ht tech, it is better at multi tasking? Is this true? One guy is trying to convince me that the Athlon 64 is the best at multitasking, but I can't find much evidence to support this. Which is better?

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

I have both worlds and the intel is better at multitasking.
But the AMD wipes the floor when playing games.

 

[clarkey01]

6xx

And this is from someone who thinks very highly of AMD.

 

[Silversierra]

Yeah, I'm an amd fan(a64 939 3000+), use it for games, but it seems like everyone says intel is better for multitasking, except this one guy on another forum that will not back down about the a64 being a better multitasker. He keeps saying about p4's being "broken" by ht. ??? He basically says people who say intel is better are "fools" and can't understand the simple facts. ??? Huh?

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

this question has a lot of room for subjective* opinion, I wouldn't ask, I'd find a person who owns each and try their setups for an hour.

 

[brazzmunk]

a64 is a pretty good multitasker( running prime, BitComet and watching Divx without lag)
but i have never tried P4 so i can't say anything regarding that.

 

[Silversierra]

Can I believe what reviews on tech websites say when they benchmark cpus etc.
I would think the people doing the reviews would know what they're talking about.
Or does money/incentive influence the results?

 

[Leper Messiah]

I've been called an AMD fanboi many a time, but I will admit that a P4 6xx is a better multitasker than an a64. HT allow for the wasted clock cycles of a P4 to be put forth to a new thread.

 

[JonB]

I'd have to ask what you mean by multi-tasking? If you mean, can it run two or three background processes and a foreground process and coordinate the CPU time so all process get completed efficiently, then it may be equal. If you want to know if it can do all that and then distribute the load across multiple cores, then only the hyperthreaded P4 can do it because the normal A64 is single core. Pre-emptive multi-tasking is handled by the OS (Windows or Linux, etc...) and the CPU and the mobo chipset.

My A64 has no problem multi-tasking, so it must be the best, right?

You will find many P4 HT owners who disable hyper-threading for some games because it can slow them down. That's not the processor's fault but the coding of the game related to threading. It would need a re-write and re-compile and all should be good.

Some programs will naturally and efficiently spread their threads across a Dual or Quad processor system. Some don't. That is a software and/or motherboard chipset problem, not the CPU.

When it comes right down to it, your question probably doesn't have a solid answer.

If you want to really see multi-tasking at work, put together a Web Server and then use some benchmaking program on some connected computers to simulate normal web activity. Try to get the server to about 50% CPU load, then fire up a game or Photoshop or Quicken or "something" on that server and see if it can efficiently use the remaining 50% CPU time without slowing down the webserver in the background.

 

[sandorski]

Yup, it depends on how you define "mutlitasking".

 

[Capt Caveman]

I agree with the two above. I was going to go A64 but the more I thought about what I actually run on my pc, I decided that an Intel 640 was best for me. And I've always been an AMD guy, this will be my first Intel.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: JonB
I'd have to ask what you mean by multi-tasking? If you mean, can it run two or three background processes and a foreground process and coordinate the CPU time so all process get completed efficiently, then it may be equal. If you want to know if it can do all that and then distribute the load across multiple cores, then only the hyperthreaded P4 can do it because the normal A64 is single core. Pre-emptive multi-tasking is handled by the OS (Windows or Linux, etc...) and the CPU and the mobo chipset.

My A64 has no problem multi-tasking, so it must be the best, right?

You will find many P4 HT owners who disable hyper-threading for some games because it can slow them down. That's not the processor's fault but the coding of the game related to threading. It would need a re-write and re-compile and all should be good.

Some programs will naturally and efficiently spread their threads across a Dual or Quad processor system. Some don't. That is a software and/or motherboard chipset problem, not the CPU.

When it comes right down to it, your question probably doesn't have a solid answer.

If you want to really see multi-tasking at work, put together a Web Server and then use some benchmaking program on some connected computers to simulate normal web activity. Try to get the server to about 50% CPU load, then fire up a game or Photoshop or Quicken or "something" on that server and see if it can efficiently use the remaining 50% CPU time without slowing down the webserver in the background.

basically try 2 cpu intensive apps (100% cpu usage by themselves) and then see how much work gets done on both systems...The P4 will win and by margins of nearly 20%+.....

1) FH 24/7 and any other app....FH units will get work done on p4 system in the background while the work on the foreground app still gets donw quickly.....The AMD system will supply all focus to the cpu intensive foreground app and FH will virtually get nothing donedsince there are no spare cycles....

That is one example that was a constant variable on my system for nearly a half a year.....I had 1 insatnce (FH) going all the time and need major encoding (Divx to DVD) and anything other (CAD work rendering files and animations)....


Example right now.....

I am running Procoder2 by Canopus....I am converting an Xvid Avi to NTSC Master quality DVD (Vob files ready to burn).....I am averaging with 2 pass 8000VBR Max about .34x realtime.....While this program is running even when minimized I cannot play any video...I was trying to watch another XVID file stored on spearate drive (I have 3 on diff channels). It normally on its own take (edit) 15% (I checked average with task manager) due to the Xvid codec...

I fixed that ofcourse by going into task manager and in the procoder2.exe changing the process tree to below normal..... Now I play the files while encoding....I dropped to .29x realtime.....(almost immediately)(quick numbers but about a 85-80% drop, equal to video playing usage)

On the P4 system I wouldn't have had to thread prioritize on my own. Would have done the playing video on its own and I would have had virtually no loss in encoding time...Would have been more like .32x realtime....In the end it adds up....

Look at my old HT multitasking review for numbers

 

[gobucks]

it definitely depends on what you are referring to as "multitasking." If you want to check email, work on a word document, surf the internet, and listen to music at the same time, then it's irrelevant. Both will serve you well in this regard. If, on the other hand, you want to encode DivX while running CAD software, then the HT of the P4 will come in handy. Then again, if you overclock, A64s generally overclock better, so you might end up with better performance on the A64 anyway. And if gaming is one of the things you want to multitask, then A64 is your choice, regardless. It's lead is pretty rediculous in gaming. My recommendation? Grab a 3000+ for $150, then sell it in a year and upgrade to a dual core - you can even keep your motherboard, something not possible with the Intel chipsets - smithfield will require new 945/955 mobos. That way you can get some REAL multitasking.

That all being said, the 6xx series is the first desktop Intel product I have been able to approve of since the PIII, so that's saying something. I still think the A64 is the better value ($150 entry cost versus $250) but at least the 6xx has a good feature set, decent performance, and a decent thermal envelope.

 

[Jeff7181]

This isn't the review I was looking for, but it does show some multi-threaded benchmarks. As you can see... only in certain situations is the P4 a better multi-tasker.

Link

 

[kini62]

My 2 cents. I'm not a power user by any means. The most I do is work on DV with Premiere Elements or photos with PS Elements, use DVD Shrink, iTunes and other simple things. I had both processors. What I noticed was that using multiple apps like web browsers, office, burning a DVD with Nero, there was not much difference. Where I really noticed a difference was when using DVD Shirink and even more so when encoding or rendering video with Premiere. With my 3500+ the user interface (GUI) was mostly non-responsive. The mouse would lag very badly, programs would sometimes take minutes to open. With the P4 the the GUI is as if nothing else is running. It acts normal. Programs may take a little longer to open, but it's still acceptable.

So when you're talking about multi-tasking, are you talking about things like the responsiveness of the GUI, being able to open and close other programs while one or two CPU intensive apps are running? Then yes the P4 is better.

Plus with the P4 HT multi-processor aware apps such as te newest versions of Premeire (even Elements) or PS, see the P4 as dual processors. Don't know how much it actually helps. But it does recognize it.

Also with the latest E0 stepping (I think) of the 5XX P4s they had similar or the same thermal management as the new 6XX P4s. So if you don't think you'll be needing 64bit support save some money and get a 560 or 570. Anyway good luck with your choice/system.

 

[Silversierra]

I already built my system, I'm not trying to decide what to get, I just wanted to know about multi threading,(running two tasks simultaneously that otherwise would be using ~100% cpu by themselves). I built a amd 64 3000+, vnf4 ultra, 6600gt, etc. I wanted a gaming system, I don't care much about multi threading for what I do, I wouldn't really use it. People frequently post "amd or intel" or whatever, and I wanted to know if intel really is better at multi threading.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Silversierra
I already built my system, I'm not trying to decide what to get, I just wanted to know about multi threading,(running two tasks simultaneously that otherwise would be using ~100% cpu by themselves). I built a amd 64 3000+, vnf4 ultra, 6600gt, etc. I wanted a gaming system, I don't care much about multi threading for what I do, I wouldn't really use it. People frequently post "amd or intel" or whatever, and I wanted to know if intel really is better at multi threading.

Well obviously the P4 with Hyper-Threading would get more done with two CPU intensive tasks. Why would you even ask that question?

But as far as day to day multi-tasking where none of the programs needs a lot of CPU time, there's really no difference.

 

[Silversierra]

"Why would you even ask that question?" Because someone is trying to convince me otherwise in another forum.(i.e. Amd is better at doing 2 cpu intensive tasks at once.)

 

[Markfw]

Well, my answer is get two athlon64's (or more) and a KVM. You can get two for the price of the 6xx series !!! And then I know they win in mutitasking ! Other than than Duvie has one good anser if you are talking about 2 very cpu intensive tasks. Other than that scenario, I have had up to 20 different windows at the same time, and many doing something, but not at 100% (except F@H, but it gives up cycles easily.) on my a64 box, the dual opteron is another story, haven;t benn able to slow that one down yet!

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Silversierra
"Why would you even ask that question?" Because someone is trying to convince me otherwise in another forum.(i.e. Amd is better at doing 2 cpu intensive tasks at once.)

It would depend on the CPU intensive apps involved. For AMD, each CPU intensive app would run at ~50% of the performance when running by itself, so your total throughput remains at 100%. For the P4 with HT, the typical throughput gain is 15-30%, sometimes less, sometimes more (SuperPI gets a >50% increase in throughput). Therefore each CPU intensive app will probably run at 60-63% of the performance when running by itself, giving a typical throughput of 120-125%. In most cases, this increase from HT is enough to allow the P4 to surpass the A64 with two CPU intensive apps, but there are some apps where the A64's advantage is too large and still outperforms the P4.