Dual-Core Duel: AMD Beats Intel
Posted by jerry on 31 May 2005 - 11:51 · 53 comments & 4008 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: jerry
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: jerry
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by .:YodaGP:. on 31 May 2005 - 12:00
- Well done AMD. Let the flaming commence.
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by theprotege on 31 May 2005 - 12:06
- wow, being as the tests were out near 3 weeks ago ... gg on the release here ...
-
#2.1 Posted by |Maxim| on 31 May 2005 - 12:26
- late new trolls are annoying. yes pc world did do tests on dual core p4's vs single core amd's last month, but this article (dated yesterday) is about the X2's against intels dual chips
-
#2.2 Posted by AethylFilth on 31 May 2005 - 13:12
- lolz protege noob
-
#3 Posted by jasondefaoite on 31 May 2005 - 12:21
- Need the AMD prices to drop a bit though
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by neufuse on 31 May 2005 - 12:37
- eh so what, when you look at the slight differences in performance between the AMD and Intel dual core then look at the prices with the large difference, you can kind of balance out them and offset performance for cost since it will be very hard to noticably see a difference in gameing and speed between the two dual core chips... and where AMD does good in one Intel seems to do good in another (gameing vs digital imaging and video editing)
-
#5 Posted by kirk26 on 31 May 2005 - 12:39
- Fanboys unite!
-
#6 Posted by ynohtna on 31 May 2005 - 13:02
- Regardless of the numbers, it's still a slap on Intels face.
-
#7 Posted by jpcahn on 31 May 2005 - 13:11
- Looking at how much AMD domainates I'd call them Reality Boys not fanboys. When the prices come down this fall I am finally going to switch from 754 to 939.
-
#8 Posted by mundox on 31 May 2005 - 13:31
- woo amd 64 x2 4400+ to me! xD
-
#9 Posted by Kenny McCormick on 31 May 2005 - 13:52
- I'm going to build a new computer soon with a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
-
(8 replies)
#10 Posted by nezermundy on 31 May 2005 - 14:01
- Just a quick question, do these processors ahve 64bit as well?
If not what is faster a 64bit or a dual core? -
#10.1 Posted by jerry on 31 May 2005 - 14:03
QUOTE ou now have a choice of dual-core processors; and based on PC World tests, the winner is clearly AMD's new Athlon 64 X2
It is 64 bit but its not the 64bit that makes it faster.
-
#10.2 Posted by nezermundy on 31 May 2005 - 14:05
- Thanks, did not see that.
I think i might build a computer. -
#10.3 Posted by bucko on 31 May 2005 - 14:49
- If you don't know 64bit allows 4GB+ Ram
and I run it on my laptop with 512MB DDR ram and I can say it loads up faster and loads programs well fast compared to 32Bit. Dual Boot though some games don't work right in 64Bit. And you trolls Windows XP x64 is final if you don't know. -
#10.4 Posted by neufuse on 31 May 2005 - 14:50
- it's called the plecebo effect
you just think its faster -
#10.5 Posted by ynohtna on 31 May 2005 - 17:43
- lol, just how I insist my raptors in raid 0 are soooo much faster.
-
#10.7 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 31 May 2005 - 22:44
QUOTE If you don't know 64bit allows 4GB+ Ram
and did you know that running it on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition allows support for 1Tb of Ram?
-
#11 Posted by Shadow Dragon on 31 May 2005 - 14:57
- Hehe, I've been a rock solid Intel guy for as long as I can remember, but I must admit, I'm gonna invest in a top AMD core next time I buy a PC. Intel have been pwned.
-
(4 replies)
#12 Posted by sloppycode on 31 May 2005 - 14:58
- not sure how throwing a dual core 64bit is a fair comparison when the intel is 32bit. Even if 64 bit floating point numbers aren't used, the bandwidth throughput is greater with 64bit (this is why graphics cards perform better with 64bit processors)
-
#12.1 Posted by macrosslover on 31 May 2005 - 15:27
- eh? i thought all Intel dual core chips are now 64-bit and their most recently released single-core chips are 64-bit as well. just seems like a plain old smacking to me.
-
#12.2 Posted by Phemo on 31 May 2005 - 17:02
- Uh, 64-bit has nothing to do with it. If you hadn't noticed, the Athlon 64s perform really well in games even running 32-bit Windows and 32-bit games. As already mentioned, all dual-core Intel processors have 64-bit anyway, so your point is 100% incorrect.
So in short, no, bandwidth is not why graphics cards perform better with 64-bit processors. In fact, bandwidth is nothing to do with it
It could be attributed to the A64's on-die memory controller or simply the architecture but it has nothing to do with 64-bit in any way. -
#12.3 Posted by Jstphish on 31 May 2005 - 18:49
QUOTE In fact, bandwidth is nothing to do with it It could be attributed to the A64's on-die memory controller or simply the architecture but it has nothing to do with 64-bit in any way.
Bandwidth has a lot to do with it. But I understand what you are saying, bandwidth is just part of the chain and isn't everything.
-
(7 replies)
#13 Posted by mr_demilord on 31 May 2005 - 15:25
- 64bit dual core is the future
-
#13.2 Posted by Steven on 31 May 2005 - 16:44
- No the future is flying cars. They said so! So it has to be true..
-
#13.3 Posted by 2xSilverKnight on 31 May 2005 - 16:51
- it's not future, in 2006 we will maybe have quad-core cpu.
The real future is quantic cpu, the clock speed will disapear.
It's so fast that you can't imagine what we will be able to do on these ...
Last edited by 410 on 31 May 2005 - 16:57 -
#13.4 Posted by neufuse on 31 May 2005 - 16:53
-
I thought in 2000 we'd be mineing on other planets and doing space travel... 2001 Space Oddesy told me so 
-
#13.5 Posted by Digital Punk on 31 May 2005 - 17:13
- No! Garlic bread's the future.
I've tasted it. -
#13.6 Posted by krono6 on 31 May 2005 - 18:33
- Y'know thats so true... I asked it "what am I going to eat tomorrow" and it left me to stare at it for an answer till the next day. Then I got bored and ate it, but still! It was the FUTURE when I ate it! (its Psychic too)..
-
#13.7 Posted by Jstphish on 31 May 2005 - 18:55
QUOTE The real future is quantic cpu, the clock speed will disapear.
It's so fast that you can't imagine what we will be able to do on these ...
It's so fast because it's instantaneous, there is no speed at all and it will be the future if they can get it to work ... which is a looooooooong long way off. I, personally, don't think they'll ever get to that stage ... but we'll see.
-
#14 Posted by slim_Az on 31 May 2005 - 17:33
- [flame] Woo AMD Rule!! [/end flame]
-
#15 Posted by zivan56 on 31 May 2005 - 17:36
- No wonder. Considering the Intel is expected to be half the price of the AMD dual core procs...
-
(5 replies)
#16 Posted by AethylFilth on 31 May 2005 - 17:46
- You do all realize that Dual Core is a marketing scam.. the things people believe.
-
#16.1 Posted by krono6 on 31 May 2005 - 18:37
- Wow really?! I just considered the fact that when they said DUAL-CORE they mean TWO CPUs!!!! But hey, if you say its otherwise, it MUST be true!!!!
-
#16.2 Posted by Jstphish on 31 May 2005 - 19:01
- Technically it is two cpu's on die (chip) but what everyone fails to see is that this won't be any better than HT (Hyper Threading) technology which only programs written for it will take advantage of it, which sucks.
-
#16.3 Posted by AethylFilth on 31 May 2005 - 19:31
- I didn't write that at all! someone spoofed my name!
-
#16.4 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 31 May 2005 - 22:59
QUOTE Technically it is two cpu's on die (chip) but what everyone fails to see is that this won't be any better than HT (Hyper Threading) technology which only programs written for it will take advantage of it, which sucks.
Hyper Threading allows the system to believe there are two cores, but one is only a VIIIIRRRRRTTTTTUUUUUUUAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL core.... Did I say that loud enough for you?
I'll quote a question being answered in Maximum PC's Dual Core Acamedy article in which they were asked questions, and benchmarked HT P4's side by side with dual core P4s. (unfortunately there were no AMD X2's to test at the time)
QUOTE Q: Sounds good, but is it any more effective at multitasking than my Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading?
A: You betcha. Hyperthreading is Intel's gallant strategy to make more efficient use of a single execution core. Because common computing tasks don't use 100 percent of a CPU's resources, Hyper-Threading splits the physical CPU core into two virtual cores, which allows you to use different portions of the CPU core for different tasks at the same time. Compressing your digital audio to MP3 occupies the floating-point resources of the processor, while taskes that aren't floating-point intensive (say word processing or browsing the Internet) can avail themselves of the chip's other resources. Hyper-Threading has proved to be valuable for people who do multiple things at once, but it doesn't work well when you present it with two apps that function similarly -- floating point operations, for example. In the end, you're still trying to divvy up the phyiscal resources of a single processor. Because dual core gives you two FULL CPU cores (each with it's own cache, in some configurations), you can breeze through two floating-point intensive apps at once, something that would strangle a mere Hyper-Threading processor.
Page 44, June 2005.
Read up on what you're going to stand by. HT procs are no match for dual cores.
-
#16.5 Posted by VikingStorm on 01 Jun 2005 - 12:26
- We've also seen that dual-cores with HT seem to be useless except for rare occasions.
-
(2 replies)
#17 Posted by feelgood13 on 31 May 2005 - 17:57
- Dual-Core Duel: AMD Beats Intel
Contributed by jerry on 31 May 2005 - 12:51 CET | 31 Comments and 38 Trackbacks
---------
what is a friggin trackback? -
#17.1 Posted by Monkey Man on 31 May 2005 - 18:09
- i would love to know that too!
-
#17.2 Posted by jerry on 31 May 2005 - 18:20
QUOTE its a feature that tracks the number of people linking back to us from blogs.
-Mr magoo @ http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...90&hl=trackback
-
#18 Posted by Schnitzel on 31 May 2005 - 18:39
- Thanks Mr Magoo, I was wondering too
-
(2 replies)
#19 Posted by johndotcom83 on 31 May 2005 - 19:24
- who here really NEEDS a dual core or a 64-bit single core for that matter, thats for some massive data movin, if you do video rendering, ok, i can see that, but for gaming, come on
-
#19.1 Posted by AethylFilth on 31 May 2005 - 19:37
- I'm running two 64bit Xeon processors?
I make maps -
#19.2 Posted by GL_RandomHero on 01 Jun 2005 - 08:36
- Well...down the road I'd expect game developers to utilize multi-threading so that games can throw more instructions at the CPU's with out a drop in performance...
Imagine Physics and AI being handled by one core, while everything else is done on the other....at least I'd expect developers to do this. If not, they're lazy *******s and should die horrible deaths!
-
(1 reply)
#20 Posted by Hills420 on 31 May 2005 - 21:42
- Hasn't AMD had dual core out longer, hence their product is more mature?
-
#21 Posted by kaffra on 01 Jun 2005 - 01:17
- will theese intel cpu/chipsets have drm in it?
Ready for the era of dual-core? You now have a choice of dual-core processors; and based on PC World tests, the winner is clearly AMD's new Athlon 64 X2, which handily outdistanced a dual-core Intel system we tested last month.
Our tests indicate that with both AMD's and Intel's dual-core chips you'll obtain the biggest performance benefit when you work with multiple applications at once or when you use multithreaded software, designed to recognize more than one processor.
Last Update of this document: May 29th, 2005
Please note that this beta version cannot be installed beside an already installed version 3.0 and signature updates may be less frequent during the beta.
The new features/changes are:
- Heuristics to detect unknown threats
- Scanning and cleaning of the Windows registry
- New scanner interface with different search types (quick, full, custom...)
- Massive speed improvements
- Support for NTFS-ADS scanning
- Cookie scan now supports mozilla/firefox
- Extended support for archives (CAB, SFX and some installers)
- Improved emulation (petite, pex and mew)
- Engine-Improvements (Rebasing etc.)
Known Bugs:- Fast user switching is not supported
- Scan report does not show complete detail
- Only basic heuristics
- No warning message when an infection has been found inside an archive
- Signatures and heuristics may cause some false positives
- Minor interface glitches
Meaning:New Feature- Bugfix
- Feature change
version 3.5 beta