\\Dual Core or Hyper Threading?

[apinagez]

I've been wondering lately, and reading some articles about Dual Core processors (Athlon64 X2 family), if they are, at the current moment, really better than an Intel Pentium 4 HT for home users.

 

 

 

Both teorically work as "2 processors", but Athlon runs 2 tasks at once 1 line of code in each task, while Pentium runs 2 threads at once, 2 code lines in the same task.

 

 

 

Of course that, as new software is developed, the dual core ability will be considered, and it will end by being necessary to run the newest software.

 

 

 

But, right now, dual core processors can even mess up the code lines of oldest applications.

 

 

 

So, what you think? Is it better to pay more for a dual core processor that will only be fully useful, for a home user, in some years, or should we save up and buy a hyper threading one?

 

 

 

Also, how long should it take till dual core gets mainstream software-wise?

[Kwisatz]

Look, I quite frankly have no idea what you're talking about with the dual-core processors messing up old code. Perhaps somebody with a bit more experience can shine light on that issue. But what I do know is that dual-core processors are far superior to HyperThreading ones. HyperThreading doesn't always increase performance, as essentially all it does is use one core to execute two threads, rather than two cores as with dual-core processors. In fact, HyperThreading processors actually decrease performance in some applications, most especially ones written exclusively for one core.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, in my opinion, unless you're doing CAD, lots of multitasking, or video or audio editing, I see little point in buying either type of processor. My current machine can handle 50 Firefox tabs, CS: Source, Gaim, Winamp, Source Dedicated Server, wordpad, and all the background crap just fine with an Athlon 64 3500+ Venice 939-pin.

[Lews_Therin]

I've been wondering lately, and reading some articles about Dual Core processors (Athlon64 X2 family), if they are, at the current moment, really better than an Intel Pentium 4 HT for home users.

 

 

 

Both teorically work as "2 processors", but Athlon runs 2 tasks at once 1 line of code in each task, while Pentium runs 2 threads at once, 2 code lines in the same task.

 

 

 

Of course that, as new software is developed, the dual core ability will be considered, and it will end by being necessary to run the newest software.

 

 

 

But, right now, dual core processors can even mess up the code lines of oldest applications.

 

 

 

So, what you think? Is it better to pay more for a dual core processor that will only be fully useful, for a home user, in some years, or should we save up and buy a hyper threading one?

 

 

 

Also, how long should it take till dual core gets mainstream software-wise?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With regards to dual core processors messing up old programs: bollocks. Some code will run slower if it is designed as only one thread, but that is because each core in a dual-core CPU is slower than the single core version. HT is even worse in this regard, since it's basically just splitting up a single CPU.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short answer: if you want speed, get a dual-core CPU.

[Doomster]

Hyperthreading queues up two execution streams (two logical processors) for the execution units that are not fully utilized by a single stream. They can run two independent taks, just as a dual core, but have contention for units that are not paired or under-utilized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance gain of a well desgned multithredaing app under Hyperthreading, about 30%, due to contenton for several resources.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under dual core, the gain is about 80%, due to contention for bus and ram.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only code that is incredibly badly written, should have any problem - if it makes problematic assumptions about exception order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actual usefulness of HT/dual core is still rather limited, though ATI graphics drivers from 5.12 onward have rudimentary dual core capabilities, so all games may benefit - and they are getting better tuned since the introduction of the capability in 5.12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMD Processors tend to score better in gaming benchmarks, Intel in office app benchmarks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Making use of dual threads for a single task is a new science in the mainstream PC field, though some tasks have long been addressed by a "divide and conquer" approach.

[Augsback]

The only really good thing about having dual processors is the ability to do multitasking at its finest as where you wouldnt be able to do that as a single CPU. You will be able to rip DVD's while gaming, burn CD's while running virus scans and so forth. With a single CPU you wouldnt have the ability to do that and would lag like crazy. As for gaming it's still bascially the same but runs smoother then before.

[apinagez]

Ooh, I really like the cd-burning part.

 

 

 

I usually dowload some stuff, brose like 7 Firefox tabs, and use some graphics (PS 9) programs at once, if I could burn my CDs while I do that, it would be fantastic :)

 

 

 

Currently I have a Pentium 4, and I'm happy with it, but when it gets slow I may get a Dual Core, as it's bullocks that it messes up threads of older software :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the support people :D

[Pballer007]

I've been wondering lately, and reading some articles about Dual Core processors (Athlon64 X2 family), if they are, at the current moment, really better than an Intel Pentium 4 HT for home users.

 

 

 

Both teorically work as "2 processors", but Athlon runs 2 tasks at once 1 line of code in each task, while Pentium runs 2 threads at once, 2 code lines in the same task.

 

 

 

Of course that, as new software is developed, the dual core ability will be considered, and it will end by being necessary to run the newest software.

 

 

 

But, right now, dual core processors can even mess up the code lines of oldest applications.

 

 

 

So, what you think? Is it better to pay more for a dual core processor that will only be fully useful, for a home user, in some years, or should we save up and buy a hyper threading one?

 

 

 

Also, how long should it take till dual core gets mainstream software-wise?

Don't buy intel. Intels suck, ghz means nothing no more, amd owns intel sad to say, dual core messing up old app's, iv never heard of this before.

[apinagez]

Pballer, don't say Intel sucks...I use Intel and I'm happy with it.

 

 

 

Was your last Intel processor a Pentium MMX 200Mhz?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your opinion what matters now then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and from what I know, AMD processors get overheated, wich makes them last less than similar ones.

[Blackthought]

woot i feel like an idoit compare to guyz :D

[Cruiser]

Pballer, don't say Intel sucks...I use Intel and I'm happy with it.

 

 

 

Was your last Intel processor a Pentium MMX 200Mhz?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When a 200mhz was considered fast, yes, Intel was king of the hill. We arn't running at 200mhz anymore. Even with Intels latest and greatest dualcore release, AMDs top offering still keeps up easily, and beats it on most fronts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and from what I know, AMD processors get overheated, wich makes them last less than similar ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I call shinanigans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Athlon64 runs WAY cooler than my dad's P4, which keeps his office nice and warm all year round on it's own. Dual cores should run even cooler because they don't spend as long heating up doing a task if it's properly multithreaded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heat isn't an issue anyway if you have a proper heatsync and thermal material on the chip.

[apinagez]

Even with Intels latest and greatest dualcore release, AMDs top offering still keeps up easily, and beats it on most fronts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm saying that just because AMD does better than Intel, it does not mean Intel sucks...Intel may rock less than AMD, but it doesn't make it suck.

 

 

 

See? :wink:

[Anesthesia]

Oh, and from what I know, AMD processors get overheated, wich makes them last less than similar ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is absolutely ridiculous, if any manufacturer's CPUs have a reputation for running how it's Intel's.

[Kwisatz]

 

Oh, and from what I know, AMD processors get overheated, wich makes them last less than similar ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is absolutely ridiculous, if any manufacturer's CPUs have a reputation for running how it's Intel's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Word! Intel Prescotts have a rep for running so incredibly hot. That's why you almost ALWAYS find AMD processors in enthusiast machines. My AMD keeps at 27 C almost all the time, and I overclocked it by 15 FSB once and it only went up to 32. They're WAY cooler than P4s...

[Pyro]

 

 

 

Was your last Intel processor a Pentium MMX 200Mhz?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[...]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and from what I know, AMD processors get overheated, wich makes them last less than similar ones.

We are not living 3 years in the past. The top AMD processor is not the Athlon Socket A Barton line. At the moment, you can purchase any AMD processor, run it with the cooling included, and expect less than 40 degrees celsius on full load (obviously there can be conditions that will increase the temperature, but you get the idea). Hence, I fail to see to how this is relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah, and my last processor is an Intel Pentium 4 which was originally specced at 3.0 Ghz :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm saying that just because AMD does better than Intel, it does not mean Intel sucks...Intel may rock less than AMD, but it doesn't make it suck.

 

 

 

See? :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it does. When there are two major competitors and the difference in product-quality is so large that the choice is obvious, the brand which you will not purchase *really* sucks. Now, this is not the case in the entire market. An Intel Pentium M laptop for example might very well be an excellent purchase. But as for the Pentium 4, the Pentium D or anything related to Netburst... Don't even try defending it. It's not worth it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following is an example of CPU performance in games, which is what the majority of the users on this board mainly use their computers for:

 

 

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/12/21/ ... age16.html

[apinagez]

*Ashamed of his dumbness, Apinagez enters the litte hole, grabs his white flag and surrenders*

[Pballer007]

*Ashamed of his dumbness, Apinagez enters the litte hole, grabs his white flag and surrenders*

Nice job sir. Last computer well my computer beside me that im not useing is 2.4ghz pentium. I can assure you (this is only in 1 game note that) but in battlefield 2 my amd athlon 3500+ 2.2ghz can load 1 minute quicker then a pentium 3.2ghz.

[wahoo]

well, i'd hate to agree with the people that say intel suck, but they are right :P. The only good products intel do at the moment are laptops, and the upcoming intel based macs will be good too. The PC's they are really falling behind on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, this will change at the middle of the year or so, maybe a bit later, stay tuned :o

[Kwisatz]

Just an interesting thing to note...

 

 

 

I'm calculating a SHA1 sum, converting a DVD to DivX, and copying a file to my MP3 player and browsing the forums, all without slowdown, on an Athlon 64 3500+ Venice 939-pin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just thought you might like to know that :P.

[Anesthesia]

Very interesting that my 3700+ rates higher than the 3800+ in the first test... And better than the highest intel offering in both tests :D

[apinagez]

BTTF, the best intel processor does that as well.

 

 

 

Ok, so you wanted to say that a normal AMD will be same as the best Intel. Great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I just wanted to discuss about the dual core tecnology, if it is already useful, when it will becoe mainstream and if it messes up older softwarres on the first post, but it became pretty much a flame war between me and all of you :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we are coming back on it, can we stay on topic? Otherwise I'd like a mod to lock this, please.

[Kwisatz]

BTTF, the best intel processor does that as well.

 

 

 

Ok, so you wanted to say that a normal AMD will be same as the best Intel. Great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I just wanted to discuss about the dual core tecnology, if it is already useful, when it will becoe mainstream and if it messes up older softwarres on the first post, but it became pretty much a flame war between me and all of you :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we are coming back on it, can we stay on topic? Otherwise I'd like a mod to lock this, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dual core doesn't mess up older software. I thought we established that already...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that a normal AMD does as well as the Intel, I'm just noting something :P.

[wahoo]

Dual core doesn't mess up old software, old software messes up dual core, well, not really messing it up, but not using it fully.