Dual Core Benchmarks and Reviews

Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by eva2000, Apr 5, 2005.

  1. eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,902
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
  2. sanjeevlives

    sanjeevlives Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,784
    Location:
    Perth
    firing squad have one
    FS
     
  3. Deeman

    Deeman Vagrant.

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    8,727
    Location:
    Melbourne
    More links at the bottom of Ars too...

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050404-4769.html

    Edit: Even better... Anand's review here.

    http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388&p=1

    Nothing on Xbit yet :(

    Anand sums up what everyone's been trying to tell you about dual core (from both AMD and Intel) in the forseeable future:

    I know that's stating the obvious, but we're seeing the big problem with dual core...

    http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388&p=7

    Conversely, the massive benefits of CPU level SMT...

    http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388&p=12 :shock:

    That's FAST.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
  4. bphelan

    bphelan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Brisbane River Bank
    As others have posted, Unreal Engine due soon will be rather fast with solid multi thread support. Other games will follow with new releases and updates to already released products. Of course, we will have to wait until these CPUs are available for purchase :rolleyes:
     
  5. A||uSiOn

    A||uSiOn Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2001
    Messages:
    824
    Location:
    NSW - SYDNEY
    I don't get it, intel drops increasing its core speed and goes to dual.

    1. I would say over 90% of home users don't use there home PC's to do Video editing / 3D Rendering, thus useless getting a dual.
    2. I would say more home users & kids play games then video editing, again you wold be going backwards buying a dual core as per most benchmarks.
    3. Why would intel bring a dual core out that is SLOWER in most games then its single core solutions you think they would make it ATLEAST on par with a single core solution.
    4. OK , last thing , be honest , weren' you guys expecting ALOT more from these CPU's? OK Hyperthreading this and that is good but what everyone hs been complaining about is how AMD doesn't feel as smooth, IMAGINE when the DUAL AMD CORED CHIPS come out! hehehehehhe they not only will me smooth as a p4 feel but alot more powerful in GAMES and everthing.

    GAME OVER INTEL, and you all know competition is good and that intel will eventually come out with something crazy but for now I think they have let alot of people down.
     
  6. Deeman

    Deeman Vagrant.

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    8,727
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yes, but the software is still a long way off, and the CPU's are due in the next 2-3 months... There's going to be a *long* lead time before any games begin to take real advantage of multiple cores...

    Allusion - You've kind of missed the point. Dual core (at the current target core speeds) was always going to be slower than a single core for games - we've known this from the outset.

    Home users & kids don't spend money on Pentium-D class hardware - they're the ones out there buying Celeron 2.8's, or P4 3.2's. Workstation users are the ones who these CPU's are targeted at (and later rather than sooner for Intel, the server space. AMD is releasing dual core Opterons before the desktop A64's.)

    And no, i don't think anyone was expecting more - we knew exactly what this generation from Intel was going to offer - two physical 90nm dies, glued together on a single package. The performance the reviews are showing, and the clock speeds the CPU's have arrived at is pretty much on par with what everyone was anticipating. No suprises.
     
  7. bphelan

    bphelan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Brisbane River Bank
    It is all about price, sure a Dual Core A64 will be sweet, but at what cost. Nothing is going to matter until we see real CPUs with real Price Tags..then honest evaluations of the benefits can be weighed. The software that Dual Cores shows gains in can be achieved with Clustering software that can link up all networked PCs in your home..which is why Longhorn may well have Clustering built in :Paranoid: Dual Cores are the future, both for CPUs and GPUs, but software is the bus that will get you there, the Silicon is just the road :p
     
  8. Deeman

    Deeman Vagrant.

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    8,727
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Not really, unless you're going to fibre connect all the PC's in your house. The internal bandwidth a dual core CPU provides is far greater than you'll get by clusetering home PC's. There are many tasks that clustering is totally unsuitable for, due to latency and bandwidth restrictions.
     
  9. Toasty

    Toasty (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    607
    Current pipeline-centric quad-based GPU architectures are already effectively multi-core. There are significant issues involved in moving to multiple physical cores, mostly involving vertex/geometry work and the memory controller, which are currently tightly integrated and shared between quads. You either need to move to a third chip, or double up on components, neither being an efficient solution.
     
  10. bphelan

    bphelan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Brisbane River Bank
    In the end, the software is all that counts. I have no doubts it will appear, both OS and Apps. It is like XP 64, nothing appears ready, yet on launch day stuff will appear as if by magic. Microsoft is already well up with its Apps, productivity and games, moving to multi threaded design ;) The sooner the mass market push the quicker we arrive . Intel has taken the right approach, now they have to get the Fabs pushing units out while Engineering cranks out the next gen. Like all long suffering SMP users, I know what reality is like with this sort of thing :rolleyes:
     
  11. Zieprus

    Zieprus Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,570
    Although these are only the initial benchmarks, they do confirm my earlier thoughts.
    That being that the DC processors are not there for gaming, and are worse than both Intel and AMD’s top half of their processor lines.

    As I have linked to before the guy from Unreal (yes forgotten his name) said that don’t expect games to take advantage of dual core until the second half of next year (this is PC). I also agree that most computers are not bought for encoding wav or whatever nor do people really care to much if they are only doing a few songs if it saves a few seconds.
    So I wouldn’t bother with a dual core at least until either next year for Intel when they release higher speed processors ( and more software is out to take advantage of DC) or until the AMD offering in the second half of this year. Reason for the AMD when it comes out because it comes out at the 4000+ speed.
    Not like Intel which will only release their DC this year at 2.8GHz to 3.2GHz slower than their single core lineups. But things can change Intel may also push some 2006 processors into late 2005.
    I must note also though these reviews are with the top DC from Intel the 3.2 EE I would like to see a review of the 2.8 and 3.0 chips.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
  12. Toasty

    Toasty (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    607
    The AMD chip may well be rated at 4000+, but will it run at the same MHz as the single-core 4000+?
     
  13. SpaceFrog

    SpaceFrog Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,025
    Location:
    Brunswick, Melb.
    Intel are going dual core, becuase they have to eventually, and they're rushing it out now because AMD have been working on it for quite some time.

    The question is how much are we expecting to pay for dual core? They're definately not aiming these cpu's towards the home users that buy the low end systems. I'd expect they'd put a high premium on them. They'd have single core processors still trying to pump out max mhz. But they'll have another line of dual core processors for those who want to shell out the extra $$
     
  14. Zieprus

    Zieprus Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,570
    Yes see this page for details...
    http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/
    2.4Ghz, but AMD if the roadmap is to be believed will have a 2.6Ghz and 2.8Ghz single core A64 Venice chip out by then also.

    Having said that despite what the roadmap may say I will not be surprised if AMD release the DC in Q3 not Q4.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
  15. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    103,017
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I see it somehow similar to the situation with 64-bit. The advantage is without any doubt. But what we will have for a while is a 64-bit OS, 64-drivers and 32-bit apps and games running in a 64-bit environment. But sooner than later that will all change. The race to 64-bit apps is already on, because nobody wants to fall behind. The hardware is in place, and now developers will do everything to utilize it. It would have been a disaster if dual core were not delivering, even with multithreaded software but apparently it does. Therefore: Knowing that dual core can deliver stellar performance, the below quote from the ANAND article is the point I see:

    I'm sure Intel will push this through, for their own benefit of course. Also let's not forget, they tested a new platform as well. This is also interesting ;)

    Do we smell something like SLi?
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
  16. bphelan

    bphelan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Brisbane River Bank
    The AMD Dual Cores will be called 5XXX I believe, like 5200+ just as the Opterons will have much higher numbering..264 & 864. AMD has the advantage that their Dual Core 2.0 and 2.2 will be very fast at games whereas Intel needs to be at 3.4 Ghz to match them. No one is expecting Intel Dual Cores to hit 3.6 for a while but AMD may get to 2.4 before Xmas. This huge technology burst is good for us as we get new toys and current stuff usually gets cheaper.

    And I know I like being able to Burn A DVD, surf the Web and Fold at the same time. Off to look behind the sofa for gold coins ...
     
  17. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    103,017
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Rumor has it that they will do so in Q1 2006 : That's the 860 and 870 with HT.
    Launch dates and speed grades
    Pentium D logo
    Pentium D 820 (2.8 GHz)
    Pentium D 830 (3.0 GHz)
    Pentium D 840 (3.2 GHz)
    Pentium D 860 (3.4 GHz) Extreme Edition with HyperT III
    Pentium D 870 (3.6 GHz) Extreme Edition with HyperT III

    Officially confirmed is that in Q2 2005 Intel will launch 820/830/840. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050207corp.htm The rest is information from the recent IDF. My guess: The 860 and 870 EE versions will come later, probably as exactly the time when AMD is launching its dual core products - same story as with the original EE in 2003. With HTIII enabled Smithfield will virtually run as a processor with 4 cores.
     
  18. Deja Vu

    Deja Vu Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2002
    Messages:
    1,455
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    I will want to know what happened to HTII.
    Also i agree with the release dates you said, no doubt intel will hold back on their EE release to try to knock down AMD. It has happened countless times in the past between rival companies.
     
  19. Deja Vu

    Deja Vu Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2002
    Messages:
    1,455
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    anandtech have a preview of dual core pentium stuff
    here

    Also anantech stated the video encoding was multi-threaded, i didnt think that was the case most of the time. I know in some cases it can be. Am i wrong here?
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
  20. Toasty

    Toasty (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    607
    NVIDIA cards can only run in SLI when the drivers recognise a 'compatible' chipset. So far this is only when the chipset identifies itself as NF4 SLI. Other dual-slot solutions (like VIA's PT/K8T 894) allow you to run two video cards, but not combine them to render to a single screen. With NF4 due for Intel any day now, I don't see NVIDIA changing their habits. ATI's MVP solution is rumoured to run on any chipset but require two genuine PCIEx16 slots.
     

Share This Page