Author Topic: Got my AMD X2! (Read 996 times)

Kev367th · « **Reply #15 on:** June 12, 2005, 04:15:49 PM »

Lol,
Think I'll just struggle on with my 6800GT

Although it may be time to pick up that extra gig of memory now that I will be able to run at full DDR400 with all 4 banks full with an X2.

Minimum OS Support -
All X2s - Win 2K Pro, Win XP Home, Linux
P4 dual core no hyperthreading - As above
P4 dual core with hyperthreading - Win 2K Server, Win XP Pro, Unsure about Linux.

Overlag · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2005, 07:45:08 PM »

its just a balancing act really im GPU limited everywhere (apart from AH?!?!) getting the X800XL will make me CPU limited giving me a reason to go dual core

lol

Mini D · « **Reply #17 on:** June 13, 2005, 11:10:52 AM »

Tom has always rushed into things in an attempt to be first without taking the time necessary to get it right since I can remember. I'm a bit suprised to see him called an "Intel Fanboi". Seems to me he used to have the exact opposite label. I wonder why that changed.

Addressing a couple of points from above:

1) I believe I read at Anandtech that the initial EE chips (840 is not a xeon) would have HT enabled until they released the single chip dual core version. They are not comparing a server chip to a non-server chip.

2) Is there ever going to be a time when someone (namely those who've already posted in this thread) acknowledge that hyperthreading is actually has some advantages. Seriously. I can't believe someone is *****ing about bias because Tom is running 4 apps instead of 2 as if it were unfair. Stop and think about that for just one minute.

3) I'll stick with a dual processor system over a multi-core any day. Too many people are getting caught up in the hype and completley overlooking the disadvantages.

4) Eagl, dual core will help a bit with Virus Scan in the background, but HD access will be your primary killer there. Dual processors do nothing to resolve that. Just saying.

Kev367th · « **Reply #18 on:** June 13, 2005, 12:08:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Tom has always rushed into things in an attempt to be first without taking the time necessary to get it right since I can remember. I'm a bit suprised to see him called an "Intel Fanboi". Seems to me he used to have the exact opposite label. I wonder why that changed.

Addressing a couple of points from above:

1) I believe I read at Anandtech that the initial EE chips (840 is not a xeon) would have HT enabled until they released the single chip dual core version. They are not comparing a server chip to a non-server chip.

2) Is there ever going to be a time when someone (namely those who've already posted in this thread) acknowledge that hyperthreading is actually has some advantages. Seriously. I can't believe someone is *****ing about bias because Tom is running 4 apps instead of 2 as if it were unfair. Stop and think about that for just one minute.

3) I'll stick with a dual processor system over a multi-core any day. Too many people are getting caught up in the hype and completley overlooking the disadvantages.

4) Eagl, dual core will help a bit with Virus Scan in the background, but HD access will be your primary killer there. Dual processors do nothing to resolve that. Just saying.

1) I didn't say that, so won't comment on it.
2) Hyperhtreading is useful if only to overcome the woeful Windows task scheduler. It just never really seen widespread use by software. Hopefully will change now that Intel and AMD have dual cores available. Not a question of unfair, if they had actually changed the priority of the encoding app it would have been more meaningful.
3) Of course there's disadvantages, but most people aren't willing to pay the cost of setting up a true dually board.
4) Agreed

Overall the stresstest has become meaningless because of the idiots at Tomshardware.

All in all considering its a P840 with 2 physical cores each with hyperthreading @ 3.2 Ghz up against a dual core X2 at 2.4 GHz I think the X2 is giving a fair showing.
But as I said earlier if I was to spend $1000+ on a CPU the P840 looks like the better deal, once you can get it stable.

Think AMD shot themselves in the foot with the pricing of the 4800, it needed to be a lot cheaper that the P840 to be a worthwhile buy.

Kev367th · « **Reply #19 on:** June 13, 2005, 12:21:54 PM »

MiniD - Hopefully you can clear something up.

Tomshardware is saying the the encoding app is doing so badly because of the AMD system/CPU.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/stresstest-02.html

Now to me their explanation sounds like a load a BS.
The OS decides on which core gets which app, not the CPU, so to say they want the CPU to take over load balancing from the OS sounds ridiculous.

I was always under the impression that in this type of case it's actually the Windows scheduler at fault.
I.E. the encoding app has a default priority of low so Windows only 'gives' it CPU time when cycles are free. Obviously running 4 apps on 2 cores very little CPU time will be free therefore the low score in the encoding.
Wouldn't setting the encoding app to 'normal' priority fix this?

From what I can understand this is the main reason they are supposed to be disabling hyperthreading on the P840. Just to see if it exhibits the same symptoms.

Although in truth I have long since given up on getting any reliable or honest reviews from Tomshardware, and to think a long time ago it was THE site to go to. How things have changed.

Mini D · « **Reply #20 on:** June 13, 2005, 12:33:21 PM »

I have no idea. But, I have a tendancy to think that there's more to it than setting the priority. I don't believe that given different systems, setting everything to the same priority would mean they are prioritized the same.

Kev367th · « **Reply #21 on:** June 13, 2005, 12:49:48 PM »

Not sure either.

To be fair AMD let themselves in for this though, the cost of each of the CPUs is within around $100 of each other.
So a direct comparison was inevitable, and bang for buck a stable P840 appears to be the better deal, despite needing a new mobo.

Rather than disabling hyperthreading on the P840 I would rather see them select 5 or 6 apps that run at the same priority and then test them.

Still pinning encoding problems on the Windows scheduler which is woefully inadequate.

Mini D · « **Reply #22 on:** June 13, 2005, 01:13:28 PM »

P.S. : I'd rather build a Dual Nocona (AMD fans insert your fav AMD processor here) system at 3ghz (or 3.2) for $200 less than the price of that processor alone and see a minor hit in gaming "extreme" performance. You have the option to replace components in case of disaster vs having to drop another $1100-$1200 for the processor alone.

eagl · « **Reply #23 on:** June 13, 2005, 01:17:35 PM »

Regarding disk access being the holdup with multiprocessing...

When I'm running something in the background and type into a text window in the foreground... And the cursor freezes for 10 seconds and then the text suddenly catches ahead, I'm not sure it's the disk access holding me back. I agree 100% that in the specific case of a virus scanner, the disk access will be an issue however a virus scanner will also take nearly 100% of the cpu so even when the virus scanner is scanning a disk you're not even accessing, it will still dramatically slow system response time.

Even flipping from foreground to background web browser windows in a system with a gig of ram is delayed when there is a high cpu load, even when that cpu load is not associated with high disk access.

Basic system responsiveness will go up, period. That's the gain I'm looking for, and it's quite often cpu limited in my experience doing the things I do with my computer. I'm sure it'll be different with different people, but I personally find myself cpu limited more than I find myself disk or memory limited. That is why I only have 1 gig of ram and did not bother setting up a RAID 0 array in my current rig. It's because when I find myself waiting for my computer to respond, it's not thrashing the hard drive by swapping or simply waiting for drive accesses and transfers. Rather, it's the cpu pegged at 100% load and running to catch up.

Kev367th · « **Reply #24 on:** June 13, 2005, 01:28:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
P.S. : I'd rather build a Dual Nocona (AMD fans insert your fav AMD processor here) system at 3ghz (or 3.2) for $200 less than the price of that processor alone and see a minor hit in gaming "extreme" performance. You have the option to replace components in case of disaster vs having to drop another $1100-$1200 for the processor alone.

I'd NEVER buy a $1000+ processor!!!!
Thats = to a few nights out at the local watering hole

Mini D · « **Reply #25 on:** June 13, 2005, 01:29:55 PM »

I think that has more to do with disk access than you are giving it credit for eagl. The one thing I've noticed about Windows since I've switched to LINUX is the incredible inefficiency of disk accessing. I've been doing alot of file transfering lately for various reasons and have been moving directories with thousands of files. I find that I cannot even play winmines or solitare while one of the larger file transfers is occuring. The mouse movement is jumpy and spuratic. This is on a hyperthreading system. The frequent disk access is killing it, not the crunching.

Kev367th · « **Reply #26 on:** June 13, 2005, 01:34:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I think that has more to do with disk access than you are giving it credit for eagl. The one thing I've noticed about Windows since I've switched to LINUX is the incredible inefficiency of disk accessing. I've been doing alot of file transfering lately for various reasons and have been moving directories with thousands of files. I find that I cannot even play winmines or solitare while one of the larger file transfers is occuring. The mouse movement is jumpy and spuratic. This is on a hyperthreading system. The frequent disk access is killing it, not the crunching.

Hoping that as my OS is on SATA RAID 0 and everything else is on a SCSI U160 RAID 5, disk thrashing is kept to a minimum.
Maybe time to start splitting up my apps onto another disk on my spare SCSI channel.

Kev367th · « **Reply #27 on:** June 14, 2005, 07:09:06 PM »

MiniD -
It was the Windows task scheduler.
They have restarted yet again this time with HT disbaled on the P840.
Load tests are showing the same on both CPU's now, neither are getting much in the way of CPU cycles for the DivX app.

THG Intel biased - Well the latest system they are using (yup another new motherboard) was setup by Intel engineers. I guess loads of 'enthusiast/review' sites have both AMD and Intel engineers beating down their doors to setup test systems.

Still got to admit though, in the $1000+ dual core bracket, a P840 looks the best overall deal, as long as you don't want to run SLI.

If AMD had priced the X2 4800 say $200-$300 cheaper (plus you need a new mobo for the P840, so add another $200+ difference) the X2 4800 might look more interesting.
Bad pricing by AMD, great pricing by Intel as it stands.

Mini D · « **Reply #28 on:** June 14, 2005, 10:56:54 PM »

Hehehe... disabled HT and they're running close to the same. Hehehe.

Kev367th · « **Reply #29 on:** June 15, 2005, 05:47:52 AM »

Well I'm now sure that something weird is going on.
Latest 'scores' are nothing like what I would expect to see -

Lame encoder
Intel 70 CDs
AMD 85 CDs

Winrar
Intel 444 archives
AMD 589 archives

Farcry
Intel 36 fps at 342 runs
AMD 35 fps at 298 runs

DivX
Intel 20 mins
AMD 50 mins

Even though it means the X2 is winning 3 out of 4, I think something is wrong.