Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: eagl on June 10, 2005, 03:18:32 PM
-
In my dreams... Heh made you look.
Seriously, is anyone planning on getting one of these? If so, which one?
I'm looking at the A64 X2 4400 (2.2 ghz, 1 meg cache each) but not until after the price drops down to more reasonable levels. I don't expect an increase in gaming performance but I find it irritating to have to try to schedule virus scans and stuff like that when I'm not at my computer. I know subsystems are still shared but in my experience, I'm rarely waiting for the hard drive to thrash or the screen to update. Whenever I'm annoyed at my computer for being slow when doing multiple tasks, it's almost always due to cpu load.
So any reports will be appreciated :)
-
check out thread: A8V owners below
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152200
-
Agreed and yes I am going to be upgrading/building a bigger and newer system for just me.
To hell with printers, embroidery digitizing, Photoshop, Flash and all that other craptastic software that just clutters up the hard drives of what is meant to be "daddy's toy". Also once I do that I can permanently place joystick, rudder and chair back in front of the system 24/7.
-
will be getting one... But i doubt the UK will have any stock before september.
-
I haven't checked for a new bios but in any case I'll wait until I actually need the bios upgrade 'cause my system is stable as it is now. I'm running a stable 12% overclock with no stability issues whatsoever, and in the current AH map my framerates are pegged at 75 above about 3000 ft, and I ran nearly 3 hours continuously without a crash, so I think I'll just not fuss with the settings until necessary.
-
Just read an article where they got the 4800 to 3.0Ghz on air coolong, so as I am gonna pick up a 4400 hoping for a good overclock on that also.
The 4400 looks the best bang for buck.
Want a giggle check out Tomshardware for a stress test - X2 vs P840
So far the X2 system has ran from the start (100+ hours) without a crash, the P840 is now onto mobo #3, and memory sticks #2, with 6-8 crashes. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html
They have just 'reconfigured' both systems,rebooted and set the counters back to 0 lol.
Shame on ya Tom.
As for power usage, X2 under full load uses almost the same as P840 on idle!!!!
Live feed from stress test
http://www.tomshardware.com/stresstest/index.html
-
too see how clever Tomshardware is (mr pro intel) he was running his dual core P4 at 90c......
now thats normal it will probably crash less, however it took him SOOOOO long to notice its just sad.
the motherboard damage was probably due to temp, and i would think that core is pretty well shot too.
-
Yup, if you include the results prior to the counters reset -
X2 is 196Hrs 0 crashes, 1 reboot after reconfig. Reconfig was to remove 2nd VGA card and disable SLI as the P840 setup couldn't run in this config.
P840 coudn't keep running for more than 10hrs, now up to a total of 9 to 11 crashes, including prior totals (before reconfig of both machines) from counters.
Sad thing is Tom has really screwed up bad on the stress test, and the figures are becoming more and more meaningless the longer it goes.
There is a suspicion that he has also lowered the vcore on the P840 as it is now consuming nowhere the power it was.
So what could have been an interesting and informative test has now become a huge farce.
-
to be fair to Intel though, he should have used a Intel chipset board.
Sure, Nforce4 is good for AMD but the Intel version needs memory controlers and uses totaly different FSB system vs HT of the AMD system, so Nvidia are "newbies" and therefor the Nforce 4 Intel is rather poor and immature.
im sure if he had used a intel chipset from the start, and the right CPU cooler it would be 100% stable like the 100% stable AMD.
Isnt it funny how the first thing a Intel user says is that AMD are unstable crap........
-
Actually they did try 2 Intel boards with an Intel 955X chipset, it crashed twice and they changed it.
So far the scores have been reset twice after the P840 got to a point where it was showing too many crashes.
The test actually started on the 3rd, and the X2 based system has run SINCE the 3rd without a crash, the current uptimes are after the 3rd score reset.
As I said, it's a shame it has made what should have been an informative test nothing but a farce.
In reality this is test number 3, tests 1 and 2 already won by the AMD system.
It actually says "Both systems have been running without any problems so far, AMD since June 7, 8 pm", what it should say is that the X2 system has in fact been running without problems since June 3rd.
All they have managed to do is take what little credibility Tomshardware had left and flushed it.
Two interesting trends were revelaed PRIOR to the current single graphics card setup-
1) The X2 without SLI was as fast as the P840 with SLI
2) The X2 on full load uses the same power as the P840 on idle.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Actually they did try a board with an Intel 955X chipset, it crashed twice and they changed it.
yeah i just did a ctrl f5 there and got the new page and noticed that.
Originally posted by Kev367th
So far the scores have been reset twice after the P840 got to a point where it was showing too many crashes.
The test actually started on the 3rd, and the X2 based system has run SINCE the 3rd without a crash, the current uptimes are after the 3rd score reset.
As I said, it's a shame it has made what should have been an informative test nothing but a farce.
In reality this is test number 3, tests 1 and 2 already won by the AMD system.
It actually says "Both systems have been running without any problems so far, AMD since June 7, 8 pm", what it should say is that the X2 system has in fact been running without problems since June 3rd.
All they have managed to do is take what little credibility Tomshardware had left and flushed it.
yup its laughable, reset the tests so intel look better, i mean AMD was in the lead on *ALL* tests because the intel system was down so much. I mean the intel is REALLY fast at that encoding task, but was down so much AMD was beating it at one point. Whats the point of being fast at something, if your down more often? lol.
However it was "user error" (stevie wonder should have noticed those errors) so maybe alittle unfair to blame Intel? i really dont know.
But then whenever its user error on a AMD system its AMD's fault.....
all i know from this, is if a server builder was looking at it... well theres only one choice....
-
The encoding thing- all it needs is the priority on the encoding app to be set to normal.
Look at it this way-
The P840 has two physical cores each with hyperthreading, in effect 4 cores. Therefore each of the 4 apps runs on seperate core, isn't it a surprise Tomshardware chose 4 apps lol.
The X2 has two physical cores and the encoding app by default has a low priority, so it only gets cpu cycles when they are available. By setting the priority to 'normal' it would then get equal time. Its a Windows scheduler problem.
Latest news - Tomshardware have said they are going to disable hyperthreading on the P840, if so watch for the encoding to drop on it due to the same problems with the Windows scheduler the X2 is having.
Personally IF I was going to spend $1000+ on a CPU I'd go for the P840, I don't think the X2 4800 is worth it.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
The encoding thing- all it needs is the priority on the encoding app to be set to normal.
Look at it this way-
The P840 has two physical cores each with hyperthreading, in effect 4 cores. Therefore each of the 4 apps runs on seperate core, isn't it a surprise Tomshardware chose 4 apps lol.
The X2 has two physical cores and the encoding app by default has a low priority, so it only gets cpu cycles when they are available. By setting the priority to 'normal' it would then get equal time. Its a Windows scheduler problem.
Latest news - Tomshardware have said they are going to disable hyperthreading on the P840, if so watch for the encoding to drop on it due to the same problems with the Windows scheduler the X2 is having.
thats true, i thought the "standard" Desktop Dual core P4 has HT disabled? so hes testing inte server vs amd desktop models???? :confused:
-
Maybe so, but to be fair they are both almost exactly the same price.
Thats why I said if I was to spend $1000+ on a CPU it would be the P840, the X2 4800 isn't worth it.
Anyway just ordered my X2 4400, should be here next week :)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Maybe so, but to be fair they are both almost exactly the same price.
Thats why I said if I was to spend $1000+ on a CPU it would be the P840, the X2 4800 isn't worth it.
Anyway just ordered my X2 4400, should be here next week :)
yeah although the heat of that thing is a problem it is a much better "offer".
ive put off ordering my X2 4400 (stock due about 29th june in uk). i really need to get a PCIx16 board and a gfx card first. my 9700pro is the oldest thing in my pc! lol
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hehehe... disabled HT and they're running close to the same. Hehehe.
-
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.
-
AMD is winning some tasks its not supposed to be good at yet loosing the Game benchmark? LOL what the hell have they done now :eek:
-
Originally posted by Overlag
AMD is winning some tasks its not supposed to be good at yet loosing the Game benchmark? LOL what the hell have they done now :eek:
Who knows.
This time though they can't blame it on the hardware. Latest system they are now using was setup by Intel engineers.