Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part II: A Deeper Look
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 6, 2005 12:23 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
The point of this article was to present you with the choice that you'll be making, should you decide to upgrade to a new system in the coming months; the choice between very fast single task performance (and to some extent, light multitasking performance) or more responsive, heavy multitasking performance. No one is really exempt from this decision and you'll have to come to the decision based on your own needs.
We've shown the Athlon 64 to have extremely solid single threaded performance. With the exception of our encoding tests, the Athlon 64 really can't be beat when it comes to running a single application.
The tables are turned as soon as multitasking is introduced, where you can't beat the fact that the Pentium D is able to fulfill the needs of more applications running in the background.
So, the question quickly becomes, how heavy of a multitasker are you? If you're primarily a gamer and you find your gaming performance gets bogged down at all by the tasks you're running in the background, then dual core will most likely outweigh the benefits of a strong single core CPU. If not, then your answer is clear: go for the faster single core.
For encoding performance, you still can't beat the Pentium D. Even a dual core Athlon 64 isn't going to help enough in that area.
To characterize all other non-gaming, non-encoding performance is extremely difficult. For the most part, if you're doing a lot of things at the same time or if you have a lot of applications eating up CPU time - you're better off with the Pentium D. If you are a much cleaner operator and don't have all that much going on, then a single core CPU will still be your best bet; and what better single core to have than the Athlon 64.
The surprise here is the impact of NCQ on multitasking performance. The difference in two of our tests was not only measurable, but also quite noticeable in real world usage. Given that NCQ is quickly becoming a "free" feature of new hard drives, it's a feature that we'd strongly recommend to have in your next system. It doesn't improve performance across the board, but it doesn't hurt things and when it does work, it works extremely well.
With all this excitement, we still have to keep ourselves grounded in the thought that dual core isn't here yet; it's still as much as two months away. For AMD, as we've known all along, the wait is going to be a bit longer on the desktop. The workstation and server markets will be serviced by AMD first, and we will have a look at workstation/server dual core performance as soon as AMD launches those parts. It's looking like, at least on the desktop, if you want dual core at a reasonable price point, your only option will be Intel. But the prospect of more affordable dual core chips out of AMD in 2006 is quite exciting as well.
A dual core Athlon 64 solves a lot of our dilemmas simply because you get stronger single threaded performance than the Pentium D (in everything but encoding) while also getting the multitasking benefits of dual core.
For Intel, the Pentium D is a saving grace - it's the first time that we've been interested in any processor based on the Prescott core. It's also perfect timing; if it weren't for the Pentium D, we'd have no interest in the Intel 945 and 955 chipsets, and definitely not in NVIDIA's new nForce4 SLI Intel Edition product. With that said, it should be pretty clear what our next article in this series will be...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
106 Comments
View All Comments
GregL - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
P.S. I love your site... been reading it for years now.GregL - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Anand,Thanks for the explanation and the quick reply.
Have an excellent day,
Greg
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
GregLLast time I checked (which admittedly was a while ago), SMP support was broken in the later builds of Q3A. I can't remember if it was Quake 3 or the combination of Q3 and ATI/NV drivers, but the performance stopped improving.
Take care,
Anand
GregL - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
I know Quake3 is dated but how about a quick benchmark with the new dual core CPU. Quake 3 is supposed to support dual core.seta r_smp "1"
Thanks,
Greg
Goi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
I didn't know 50 cent was an avid reader of ATTuborg - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
It`s nice to finaly see some competition from Intel.They slapped together theyr old stuff in a new package. But we all know that a new package isen`t going to change anything(Like wrapping s*** in gold paper).
Be happy as longe as it last, and have your 15min of fame.
Remember they rushed out the dual core, and they did it for you IndelJugen!.
Viditor - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Thanks for the article Anand...none of us take Charlie seriously anyway..."AMD's dual core will be quite impressive, even more so than Intel's"
I am hearing the same. There is some serious research work being done in the TV and Film industry right now with the dualcore Opterons, and it is MOST impressive! Still under NDA (as are we all), I can only say that the results so far have been much better than expected!
Son of a N00b - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Thank You Anand for the great article, especially the info on the NCQ. Great writing, and overall a very good read.btw, I understand how fusterated you must feel making these benchmarks, not having things work, trying to remember all the things you want/have to do next, ect......Keep it up Anand, that is why you are the best!...try to get some sleep though m8 :-P
I would probably say that the 2.2 ghz from AMD it would not be compared to the dualCPU in this article because if the 2.2 is going to probably be the FX line, then it would be compared with the top of the line of Intel's...remember this was an article about "value" dual cores (oxymoron ;-))...so due to price and probably performace it would not be paired with the Pentium D at 2.8...sort of like AMD's naming scheme, an AMD 2800 at 1.8 ghz matches up with a 2.8 ghz Intel...so I would assume that AMD's biggest baddest dualy will blow Intel out of the water...and not because i am an incessant AMD fanboy because i am an avid gamer, but becuase of AMD's past performace, and AMD architechure is designed for dual core. We shall see, wh shall see...
*STATEMENT: The author of this post is not hereby responsible for any grammatical errors, typing, or syntax, of any kind.* lol
Googer - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
In adition to my #57 post,In the future I cannot Imagine the power requrements of CPU's they may end up needing their own 500watt dedicated supply and a second one for HDD's, GPU's, Fans, motherboards, and accessories.
Googer - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
The only thing more ineffieciant than a 250watt fully loaded Prescott is the old eniac, It was said that when it was turned on the Whole City of Philadelphia would go in to a brown out. I am afraid that modern processors are taking steps back instead of forward.