Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1366 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 17 - 10:45am EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Intel's dual core processors, sizzling hot snake o...
 

  Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
some guy Apr 05, 2005, 10:02am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List Replies: 15 - Views: 2523
I disagree. I have noticed big performance boost from going from a P4 2.6ghz with only 533 buss speed to a P42.6 HT 800 mhz buss speed on Windows Xp. Main time I noticed the difference is with programs running in the back ground like AIM and Limewire and also closing out of game such as Battlefield 1942. My old box with the P4 2.6 ghz with the 533 buss speed slows down big time with out the HT. My HT box runs like a dream and doesn't slow down, only time it does is if I only have 63mb or ram (out of 512mb).


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
fasttoon fasttoon Apr 06, 2005, 03:21am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Apr 06, 2005, 03:24am EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
the reason you had that improvement is because the fsb went from 533 to 800 that's over a 50% improvement in your fsb right there regardless if it has HT or not. If you could overclock your 533mhz to 800mhz you'll most likely see similar results.

ian elliott Apr 07, 2005, 09:01am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
Closing a game down , has nothing to do with HT or anything like that but is your ram is running low. If you were to upgrade to 1GB you see when you come out of a game it does so very quick! I used to have that problem with 512mb.

VOYAGER Apr 08, 2005, 09:40pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Apr 08, 2005, 09:49pm EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
Finally a review I agree with! When the real performance gains are in fsb, flavor of ram, quantity of ram, hdds, cpu cache, and the correct implementation and combination of all these technologies.

Its a good thing there are a lot of users that will believe the hype so Companies like Intel and my favorite AMD can have the money to put in RnD to develop technologies I can use. Cpu speed and # of cores just wont cut it by itself.

The average user very rarely uses there pc to its full potential, dont have enough ram and is using some of the oldest and slowest hdd technology.

Money can be better spent in other areas to improve speed instead of paying more for a dual core processor and waiting or hoping for software vendors to catch up!

Oh by the way, I am listening to Eric Clapton-Derek and the Dominoes and my pc is doing a virus scan while I write this! WITH NO PROBLEMS.

AMD 3000-400fsb
BFG 6800
GA-7NNXP 1.5 gigs of PC 3200
2 WD 74 gig Raptors Raid O Win XP Gaming array
2 WD 250 gig Raid O Storage
1 WD 30 gig server 2003
Swiftech MCX462-V
Audigy 2, Creative 6:1
All stuffed into a Cheiftech dx-01wd
A_Pickle Apr 10, 2005, 04:07pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Apr 10, 2005, 04:07pm EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
"...the reason you had that improvement is because the fsb went from 533 to 800 that's over a 50% improvement in your fsb right there..." -fasttoon fasttoon

No. Try using Calculator for once. 533 MHz to 800 MHz is not a 50% boost in power, nor is it OVER 50% boost in power. 533/800 = 33.4% boost in power.

Personally, I find this review arguably intel bashing. Again. Yes, intel, a multibillion dollar international corporation can NOT know what the hell they're doing in terms of processor design. I mean, it only specifies what the goals of intel's multicore processing are.

http://www.intel.com/employee/retiree/circuit/righthandturn.htm

Specifically, the phrase,

"...Intel plans to run dual-core chips at lower frequencies than single core chips so theyll require lower voltage and throw off less heat..." -Daniel P. Jajeh

Or the other phrase,

"...By placing more than one computational engine or core on each die, Intel can continue to add more and more transistors to its processors and diminish the troublesome effects of processor scaling..." - Daniel P. Jajeh

IE, intel's dual core front was DESIGNED to take the first step in correcting the problems facing current processing engines. AMD has ambitions to do the exact... same.... thing.

You say,

"...Will dual core processors take the market by storm and obsolete all single threaded processors overnight? Hardly, as we've outlined before; in essence it comes down to the simple fact that most applications that we use on the desktop today are not SMP capable, hence they can't make efficient use of a dual core processor..." - Daniel P. Jajeh

Nothing ever will do that. 64-bit processors suffered from the EXACT, SAME, DIFFICULTY. People had to wait quite some time whilst software corporations either rushed to engineer a patch or update that allowed their programs to use the 64-bit processing technique. The same went for hyperthreading, programs had to be readily made to use it. The same will happen to dual core processors. The same will happen to every, single, freaking, processing and computational advancement that will ever be made.

Intel has also made very clear that their

intel is the one processor corporation that suffers most from the detriments of today's chip architecture. Their processors run the hottest, and have the tightest packed transistors, and have thusly, experienced firsthand the difficulties in the future of our current chip architecture mentality. Having the aforementioned experience, they are also the first to develop a solution for these problems in the short term, as most chip makers intend to keep to Moore's Law, stating that the power of our chips will double every 18 months.

"...By contrast, dual core components have two complete processor chips inside each package - a dramatic manufacturing change from today's single core chips and one that promises at least temporary relief from the power and thermal challenges threatening processor performance..." - Daniel P. Jajeh

Furthermore, it's not intel's fault software corporations are simply not using the multithreading capabilities of these processors, as it has shown to be a viable asset. Programs with it enabled show that it gives performance roughly a 10-15% gain with just normal hyperthreading. Enter the dual core processor, and hyperthreading becomes multithreading.

3D Studio Max R6 is one such application which supports multithreading, not simply hyperthreading. The results of the below benchmark seem to prove that.

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/9/0,1311,sz...651,00.jpg

Dual core processing is designed to compete against the hurdles that our current processor engineering faces, and it does so with admirable performance.

Jeff Bone Apr 10, 2005, 11:34pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Apr 10, 2005, 11:37pm EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
I just cant seem to get my "static causing mouse" to quiet down .
I am not really able to pass judgement on what is asked, but this is my issue I do wish I could fix
see I am trying to use my pc as a DAW for creating original music in the form of 16 bit audio...
and I can do well enough but this one issue has me unwell.
I am asking in various forums one by one... with the entry time that goes with each..
so I am grateful if anyone can offer a suggestion
my mouse that is noisy is non usb, wired,optical so in case that was any question..
thanks

A_Pickle Apr 13, 2005, 12:16am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Um...
Sir, you may consider starting a new topic for your qualm. Or, I recommend visiting Dell Computer Corporation's online forums at:

http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums?~ck=mn

Despite your computer being or perhaps not being a Dell, they offer a great deal of customer support and satisfaction. Living up to the expectation, as so few corporations these days do so.

In any case, this is a heated debate about dual core processors, if you want to join in. :D

Wayne Peterson Apr 13, 2005, 03:38pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
Tom,

Going from 533MHz to 800MHz is an increase of 267MHz. 267/533 IS 50%.

guru Shane Apr 13, 2005, 04:10pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Apr 13, 2005, 04:15pm EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
Never fear! The math genius is here! lol (Yea, that was corny.. hehe)

Whenever you are increasing or decreasing from a value, that value is considered the base value and any changes are based on that value and what percent of that value is decreased/increased.

Let's take 533 for example. That is our base value that will be increasing, in this case. We start at 533. We then have to look at how much is being added to this value. We are adding 267 here. Like I just said, any changes are based on 533 and the percent of 533 that was increased, (267). That means that we would have to find out what percentage of 533 that 267 is. In order to do that, we divide 267/533. The answer is 0.5009380863039399624765478424015 or approximately 50.093%. There was a 50%, (rounded to the nearest whole number), increase in MHz from 533 to 800.

If you're going to quote someone and prove them wrong, make sure you're right first.

Cheers!

some guy Apr 13, 2005, 05:30pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
so what is the difference in 333mhz to 800 mhz then math dude.

guru Shane Apr 13, 2005, 06:03pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
so what is the difference in 333mhz to 800 mhz then math dude

If you plug in the different numbers under the exact same categories, you get a 333 base and a 467 increase. You divide the increase of 467 by the base of 333 to get 1.4024024024024024024024024024024 which is 140%. You can check this by multiplying 140% by 333 and then adding that result to 333. It should be close to 800, (since we rounded it to 140%) and it is 799.2. That would be a 140% increase.

john fisher Apr 21, 2005, 03:50pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
As a proud owner of a venerable Abit BP6 mobo, I was among the early adopters of dual processor desktops. Adding to the fun, the processors were celerys hotrodded to 550/100. Like many in these posts, I was suspicious of performance based on lack of multithreaded applications. Also, although benchmarks were sparse, results for dual processor mobos were not exactly overwhelming. Nonetheless, because of (lack of) performance issues in my uniprocessor machine I decided to try it. I have been very pleased with the results and am happy that dual processing is making a comeback after fading from the scene. For starters its true that few apps may be multithreaded (although some of the pgms I write for our test lab are). But, arent you astonished at the list of running processes even with nothing really going on? Fire up a couple of programs, open a few browser windows, play some music and its hard to even scroll to the bottom of the list. A dual processor machine gets to split these up. The net result for me is a noticeably more responsive machine. Admittedly, this machine with its 440BX chipset (the B52 of chipsets) is quite long in the tooth. But, even after a company wide upgrade to the then blazingly fast 1.5G Pentiums, I would get comments from our MIS guys on how crisp my machine ran when they had to do anything on it.

In these days of 3G processors and DDR memory, one might argue that speed alone would eclipse any of the perceived gains from yesteryear, but the debate is over for me. As soon as everything shakes out, I am going pick a mobo and build a new hotrod.

kanav khosla Apr 24, 2005, 02:05am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
am currently using a dual xeon 2.4 ghz cpu workstation and must say it runs pretty well.what am curious about is with the dual cores coming in what happens to the dual cpu systems would they still stick around and be used or get outdated by the dual cores. what kind or performance gains could you be looking at between the two.

Thermalfreak Apr 24, 2005, 03:29am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
Anyone want 6 cores on thier mobo?

One of the first reviews i saw was two dual core opterons runnig in a dual cpusystem with dual 68000 ultra cores running in SLI.....thats 6 times as many cores as my system boasts sticking out of its slots and sockets.....

Ive snapped:
An xbox360 and a 12" iBook....
And a kawasaki er-6n to mod instead
Sander Sassen Apr 25, 2005, 06:28am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Intel�s dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
Alright, after some delay Intel shipped us a 3.2GHz (840) dual core processor and 955 chipset motherboard, before I let her go on a standard set of benchmarks that'll not do much for dual core, I'd like for you to tell me what you'd like to see. Keep in mind that we don't have time for elaborate testing schemes, as we're out to see if dual core can prove its worth on the desktop.

If you have any suggestions feel free to post them in the below thread, or email me directly at ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com.

Dual core benchmarking, we'd like your input
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/42925/

Best regards,

Sander Sassen
Editor in Chief - Hardware Analysis
ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com
Joseph Kosuda May 04, 2005, 02:34am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: May 04, 2005, 03:07am EDT

 
>> Re: Intel dual core processors, sizzling hot snake oil?
Money can be better spent in other areas to improve speed instead of paying more for a dual core processor and waiting or hoping for software vendors to catch up!///

Agreed!

How about donating your skills to refurbing PCs for womens shelters, orphans or needy public school districts?
Who are you trying to impress by having a computer that shuts down games 'faster'?

Excellent article and analysis Mr. Sassen.

Abit NF7 v.2
1GB TwinX Corsair
ATI Radeon 9000
Barton 2.5 Ghz 333fsb
120GB Maxtor
180GB Seagate
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3930612
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8551320

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

http://www.enrager.net


Write a Reply >>


 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.