Parallel Processing, Part 1: CPU Cores

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
It was quite a good article and would have been even better if they had thrown in a couple of AMD cpu's for comparison.

I realise they would have been bested at most things compared to the core2 line but it would have been of interest to me to add a single and dual core AMD @2.4Ghz.

Nevertheless a good article.
 

While i agree that it would have been interesting to see the performance of AMDs offerings in the comparisons too, it would have shifted the focus of the article.
In addition it does not make sense to compare intel and amd clock for clock. Their products are offered at different prices and even their platform prices are different. The components would need to be comparable too, i.e. Memory, chipset etc. which is simply not possible. It would be like comparing vehicles by horsepower.
 
I did not see any computer clogging tests like antivir scan + winrar + some music playing + some background activity.
People tend to have more apps running at same time ;-)
 
However, I don't think most background tasks would eat too much CPU time. Now, if a full HDD Virus Scan kicked off it may, but not the background noise. I would expect a such a small hit that it's not noticable. It would also take a savvy person to ensure that all of the system processes were only on Cores 1&2 and that the Game launched on Cores 3&4 to really ensure that nothing interferred.
 
Interesting article but no real surprises I suppose. If anything, it just highlights the need for more apps to be multi-threaded. I believe that the conclusion of, ": if you can get a quad core of similar clock speed for only a little premium over the dual core, go for it; if not, stick to a reasonably priced dual core." to be spot on. My opinion though, I still say quad core simply for the sake of having a quad core (ahem...braggin rights) is a waste of money, no matter how "cheaply" you can buy one.; moving into '08 & '09 may be another story. However, I think that is largely up to Developers.

I agree that it would make no sense to have AMD procs in the mix. It's still hurry and up wait for Phenom and until it's up to speed and readily available, using comparable dual/quad cores from Intel are the best baseline for an article like this.

As side note and as an opporunity to Vista bash, I would like to have seen the testbed run on Vista 32 and/or Vista 64 rather than WinXp SP2. One of the much hyped "advantages" of Vista over XP SP2 was better multi-threading support and the supposed ability for Vista to load balance across multiple cores. Oh well, maybe THG will introduce Vista as the test OS in the subsequent parts of this article.
 
As a small business owner, I would have liked to have seen an analysis of how these processors do with old software (like 5+ years old). Am I getting any bang for my buck if I buy a new motherboard, new processor, new memory, and new power supply to upgrade my system while still running old software? The old software runs just fine, reads my old data files, handles my backup, and does all that I need. The new software that's out there does not add anything to what I need so why spend the money. A word processor is a word processor, spreadsheet programs are spreadsheet programs, Other analysis programs haven't changed significantly since I bought the one I use. However, if I could get my computer running a bit faster, well, that might be something to think about. Word processor on one screen, spreadsheet program on a second screen and the portfolio analysis program on the third screen - this I got but faster might be nice.
 
I wish they had benched a game that takes advantage of multi threaded cpu's to see how much of an increase you get over a single cpu.

I run a dual core and when I am gaming I turn off any extra applications so they won't interfere with the game. Those people who play games while running a virus scan, down load music, burn a cd, etc. etc.... need to be checked by a psychiatrist for ADD. But I do agree they could have at least opened up a few windows and apps and then tested them to show the impact. Some how these articles always seem to always come up short in one department or another.
 

True and we didn't see any test on differences in programs exiting back to windows or program startup. How much faster is program startup and shutdown on quads?
 





AMD does not currently offer any quad core CPUs at the desktop level.
 
I'll say this much about startup speed and shutdown since I have a Q6600. I am running Vista and after Post and the loading screen Vista is up pretty much in about 2-3 seconds with almost every progam up and running. Shutdown is roughly 5-7 Seconds.

Total startup time without Post is about 15-25 seconds(that includes the Vista loading screen.

I'll compare this to my old system which was a single core P4 EE running XP. Startup after Post and XP loading screen was about 10 seconds shutdown was 15 seconds depending on what I had running.

Without Post and with the XP loading screen it was roughly 45-60 seconds startup.

I personally think that a Quad core is worth the investment right now since you can get a Core 2 Q6600 for $277.99 where as a Core 2 Duo E6600 is $229.99 making it a $48 dollar difference and a even higher clocked Core 2 Duo E6850 is $279.99 or $2 dollars more.

So basically the investment is worth it since it will allow you to keep the same PC for longer without having to spend more money on a new CPU and Mobo when games/applications start to be enhanced for multiple threads.

I got all my prices at www.newegg.com and are current as of 10/08/07 so some may be lower/higher than I quoted if found on another site.

My basic principle is when you design and build a new PC try to make one that will last for at least 2 years instead of having to build a new one in 6-12months.

I for one love my Q6600. I OC'ed it to a 300MHz FSB(1200MHz) so it is running at 1.8GHz when idle and 2.7GHz when under load and it only runs at about 1c hotter than at stock speeds which is 31-34c idle and 40-44c load(if even that). That is a G0 stepping though and I still have plenty of headroom to OC with my Zalman CPNS 9700 which I recommend to get maximum air cooling for OC'ers.
 
How about multitasking? If I am using older programs to demux a video file and to compress an audio file at the same time, will it run nearly twice as fast on a dual core under XP?
 
come on what kind of an article is that? show me some power user tests! like running a benchmark while ripping an mp3 and decompressing a rar file couple that with some internet download and some youtube buffering and have another pc copy a file from it while printing and installing some software in the background.. phew. give me the ultimate CORE STRESS TEST cause im already stressed
 
Why are there only single application benchmarks? The article is focused on multi core systems, is it not?
Who buys a quad core and run one application at a time? I bought mine so I could play games at the same time I other do heavy tasks like Divx, winrar etc.
And don’t forget that a modern operation system like Windows vista does tons of background tasks like, indexing, defragmentation, and virus scanning.
Who doesn’t remember playing a game when suddenly a scheduled virus scanning starts in the background and everything begins to lag?

In an article like this would like to see benchmarks like Quake+Winrar+Divx or Lame+Xvid.
 
This is the kind of article we need to help choose between CPUs now. Despite the fact that it was Intel-only it helps you see where quads do and do not provide significant performance gains. That's what I wanted to know.

One nit: please keep each CPU type at the same place on each graph! Rearranging each graph to have the highest performer on top each time is really confusing and just makes it harder to see how a processor performs overall.

Arbie
 


And this means that AMD's can't compete against the other dual and single cores? :non:
 
I don't buy the Vista loading on a quad in 2-3 seconds thing. XP is just as fast on a P4 with a fresh install. The longer you run any OS, the longer it takes to startup and shut down. Thus, it's really hard to compare startup and shut down times from one system to the next, let alone attribute the difference to hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom