3.2 (840 Pentium D discussion)

[Mr_Fuchs]

OK what is the word on these ? are they as amazing in the computer as they areon paper ?

is it really like having 4 cpu's ?? (2 cores both with HT)

[pip]

The early verdict is that they actually perform slower in many apps than single CPUs. They're also generally slower than the AMD x2s. But so far they've been overclocking like a mother, consistent 4 ghz overclocks. But I'm not really informed enough to give you a hard and fast reccomendation.

[Sjaak]

For single threaded apps a regular P4 will give you better performance. Unless you are a consistent multitasker (and i'm not talking music/msn/cd burning but really heavy apps) then you may find an advantage in them.

As said, they overclock great so if you are willing to spend a little more on cooling and planning the rest of the components you can get a whole lotta more out of it.

[Goateh]

The amd X2 couter-parts hardly OC at all don't they?

[alinosa]

so would photoshop benefit from these cpu's? i think that photoshop can take advantage of multiple processors.

or...

what about video rendering? i know having a render farm is the quickest way to get something rendered, so would having "4" cpu's in one box provide the same type of performance?

[Goateh]

I'd say it would definately help with high end video rendering and CG imaging. I'm not sure about photoshop, would it really use that many threads? It doesn't seem to be as harsh on cpus as a high end video or graphics renderer.

[eli]

so would photoshop benefit from these cpu's? i think that photoshop can take advantage of multiple processors.

You should see a boost in heavy Photoshop applications, especially if you get the model with Hyperthreading enabled. Photoshops performance is more contingent on memory though. I have 2 gigs of DDR2 running at 600mhz. That's where I see Photoshop happy. :cool:

[ZGOZZ]

So everyday use and gaming there really is no great beniffit?

[Goateh]

Not unless the game is designed to use about 4 threads :p

[Sjaak]

So everyday use and gaming there really is no great beniffit?


Normal use: not in favour of either of the two.

Games: largely in favour of the AMD

The rest: Intel

[Mr_Fuchs]

^ i think you just summed it up

[Lancelot]

Keep in Mind though that ONLY the Extreme-Edition chips have HT enabling 4 threads. The regular Pentium-D's have no HT so handle dual threads like the Athlon X2's do. I'm a veteran Intel fanboy but I must admit there's a HUGE performance difference with Athlon X2's even kicking Pentium-D Extreme Editions ass easily in various reviews...

[hawtrawkr]

Keep in Mind though that ONLY the Extreme-Edition chips have HT enabling 4 threads. The regular Pentium-D's have no HT so handle dual threads like the Athlon X2's do. I'm a veteran Intel fanboy but I must admit there's a HUGE performance difference with Athlon X2's even kicking Pentium-D Extreme Editions ass easily in various reviews...

well not quite like the X2 does. the X2s cpus can communicate directly with one another the intel on the other hand has to go from one cpu to the chipset back to the other cpu even though theyre right next to one another. im not an intel fanboy so much but i do tend to prefer intel over amd (ive owned multiple a64 systems from a 2800 newcastle up to fx-55 and quite a few in between but still rock the intel) but the x2 looks alot more appealing to me when compared to the intel dual core offerings.

[Lancelot]

That's basically what I tried to say hawtrawkr, if only AMD took care of their rediculous pricing!!!

[@md0Cer]

I agree. The A64X2's seem to have better performance than the Pentium D's, however their prices make it almost unrealistic unless you are just swimming in cash. I think the Pentium D is more practical than the AMD just because it is that much cheaper. Also, unless you do some extreme computing with multi-threaded apps, or DC's, or whatever, a dual core CPU may not be the best option for you. They do, however, overclock quite well since they are the cream of the crop anyway to lower thermal output.

[Sjaak]

In the end, price makes or breaks a product. It made the whole company AMD and now it's killing their early dual core release. They'll get over it.

[DanIdentity]

Why does everyone keep saying dual cores will perform worse than their single core counterparts? A dual core will perform like a single core at the same clock speed if its running a process not optimized for multithreading.

[pip]

Why does everyone keep saying dual cores will perform worse than their single core counterparts? A dual core will perform like a single core at the same clock speed if its running a process not optimized for multithreading.


Well the highest clocked dual core right now is 3.2. while the non dual cores go all the way to 3.8. And then there's the fact that the dual cores only have 1 MB of cache per core, while the 6xx series has 2MB.

[alinosa]

Why does everyone keep saying dual cores will perform worse than their single core counterparts? A dual core will perform like a single core at the same clock speed if its running a process not optimized for multithreading.


i think there is overhead to contend with as well... something has to keep these two cores synched up.