Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part II: A Deeper Look

106 Comments

View All Comments

• segagenesis - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  #30 - Excuse me for trying to save money also. Last I checked Intel was still more expensive. Not to mention Extremely Expensive edition.

• rqle - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  All i know is that i alt-tab / alt-enter to the desktop running general apps all the time while gaming. I bought two system so i can download while gaming on the other system for this very reason. To do both at the same time would cause the ftp software to go into idle state with the fastest download speed at only 8-10kb/s. I can set the ftp software at a higher priority but then it would just cripple my gaming. These dual core look very promising, but ill hold out for amd dual core.

• GentleStream - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  I'm interested in benchmarks that would be relevant to scientific computing and software development.
  How about benchmarking a parallel compile of some non-trivial software package such as building the
  gcc compiler. That takes quite a long time on my 4 year old laptop.
  

• danidentity - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  So when are the Pentium D and the new chipsets being released?
  
  Spill it Anand. ;)

• Turnip - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  #23
  
  What about the fourth option? That by the time AMD's desktop dual core processor is available, Intel will have a new dual core processor available. Now, whether we're talking more than "two cores bunged on a chip", or whether we're simply talking a jacked up FSB (which has, remember, always given Intel a hefty jump in the encoding arena), I don't know. But I do know one thing...
  
  Intel is a very big company and Intel has very big sleeves. ;)
  

• Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  Spearhawk
  
  Good catch, the graphing engine didn't regenerate those graphs properly. Fixed now.
  
  Take care,
  Anand

• Questar - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  I love this, all the AMD fanboys having seizures over that fact that an Intel CPU can actually have some benefits.
  
  It's been a blast reading all these posts the last two days.

• Spearhawk - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  He said that a 2.2 GHz dualcore Athlon 64 wouldn't compete with the 2.8 GHz Pentium D at encoding. Notice the encoding part, he said nothing about other stuff.
  I'm guessing one can know that by looking at dual CPU Opteron systems, the dualcore A64 won't beat them, and if they can't beat a 2.8 Pentium D then the dualcore A64 won't be able to either.
  
  Is there something wrong with the graphs in the DVD Shrink/Game test? The comments doesn't seem to match them (especialy the part about the minimum frame rate being equal)

• PorBleemo - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  How do you calculate the system wattages like that? I have been attempting to find detailed information on how to do this but have turned up nothing yet.
  
  Thanks!

• Illissius - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link

  #10 - you are quite correct. anyone who games with a processor-intensive background task running at the same time _on a single core processor_ is insane. the reason I wanted to see benchmarks is to see whether dual core changes that.
  theoretically, I don't see why it wouldn't work:
  - you only have one GPU, and only the game is using it
  - you have two processor intensive tasks - the game and the background task, and two cores, one for each
  hence, no conflict. whether that actually holds up in the real world is/was the question (if the background task is multithreaded, or heavily uses reasources other than just the processor, then naturally the above doesn't hold true).