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
mlittl3 - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Hey Anand,A really cool multitasking scenario for gaming would be running a game with something like Skype in the background. Everyone saying that a respectable gamer (whatever that means) would not run multi applications in the background is not thinking about VoIP.
I am in Louisiana and I like to game with my friend in Georgia. We talk to each other using Skype will playing Halo on the same server. I know the overhead necessary for VoIP must slow things down some.
Won't dual core help in this case?
Aikouka - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
I know I personally have a lot of things open when gaming, especially if I'm playing World of Warcraft. I'll typically alt-tab out of the game to check IRC or Firefox (with a bunch of tabs open) to look something up or if I'm bored, just browse the net a little bit.The only problem I ever have with slowdowns is if the game is highly CPU-bound and uses up 100% of my CPU, which WoW does almost all the time.
Rand - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
#10- I'm inclined to agree, but people did request it so presumably some people ar interested in doing so for whatever reason."I don´t close AVG and MS Antispyware and MSN and outlook and IExplorer everytime i open warcraft or half life 2, so...WHO MADE ME BELIEVE AMD WAS FASTER?"
Merely running applications in the background isn't going to do much to benefit DualCore/SMP unless those applications are actually utilizing the processor. Odds are MSN/Outlook/Spyware/Anti-virus probably aren't doing a thing but sitting idle when your gaming.
marcusgarcia - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
#10: There surely is.I play warcraft III online, which is a RTS game.
Being so, not all actions are dependant on my reflex (in fact i can many times minimize the game for around 20 seconds which is the time my char takes to walk to a certain place on a given map).
That being said, i am ALWAYS with a few instances of internet explorer open, MSN open, outlook express open and of course AVG and MS Anti spyware loaded on memory with real time protection.
Add the fact that sometimes i am viewing and being viewed on MSN webcam.
I'm sure MANY more people do that.
Remember not all players are FPS gamers...in fact, FPS is far behind MMORPG in sales, which doesn't require near as much attention and reflex.
marcusgarcia - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
OK.Something is very wrong here.
I mean, WHY DIDN'T ALL SITES DO THESE TESTS WHEN HT WAS LAUNCHED?
It clearly shows here what is MUCH better when it comes under regular usage.
A Pentium 4 3.0 ghz is beating AMD's trash on 3500+....i mean, WTF?
Almost noone (does anyone at all?) goes closing all applications before gaming or doing any other activity and HT is clearly giving AMD a serious beating on the multi-tasking scenario (read: EVERYONE's usage).
I don´t close AVG and MS Antispyware and MSN and outlook and IExplorer everytime i open warcraft or half life 2, so...WHO MADE ME BELIEVE AMD WAS FASTER?
I mean...dude...are we talking about servers here to compare single threaded performance?
Are we still on Windows 3.11?
By the way, how in the hell aren't they including Half Life's 2 performance?
Surely the physics engine plays quite a bit on processing and even more surely it is done on separate threads, which would show the dual core being strong even on a single application, let alone on a multi-tasking one.
I'm quite repented for having an Athlon 64 3000+ as my CPU right now when the Pentium 4 3.0 HT would be clearly outspacing the Athlon in every respect as long as i was multi-tasking/opening/closing/minimizing things (e.g.: ALWAYS).
Damn at all these sites.
boban10 - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
i think that this real-world multitasking testing done by Anandtech is 1000 times better than one syntetic benchmark, that is most time optimized for one or another cpu....someone agree ?
ronaldo
mbhame - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
I'm sorry but I find the premise of Page 11 borderline absurd. I *cannot* fathom there's a respectable amount of gamers that actually do that on a regular basis.Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
WooDaddyMulti-core multitasking is already quite difficult, you have no idea how frustrating last weekend was. The issue is that I can sit with you on a computer and show you all the areas that dual core will improve performance, but quantifying it so I can stick a bunch of bars in a graph is far more difficult. AMD and Intel are actively working with BAPCo on SYSMark 2006 that should be much more multi-core friendly, but until then we're left with a lot of hard work. We're trying to write our own benchmarks as well, it's just that they take quite a bit of time to put together.
Take care,
Anand
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Thanks for pointing out the graph error, the labels just got messed up it looks like; should be fixed now.Remember AMD is talking about a 2H 2005 launch for dual core Athlon 64 on the desktop, don't expect to see reviews of desktop parts anytime soon.
As far as the encoding comment goes, it's tough for me to actually elaborate without stepping into areas I can't get into just yet. Let's just say that the dual core Athlon 64 running at 2.2GHz won't be compared to a dual core Pentium D running at 2.8GHz.
Take care,
Anand
WooDaddy - Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - link
Ok Anand, either you're slick or you're slipping. History shows you're slick..You said a dual-core A64 won't help in encoding apps. I know you're not one to say stuff just because you THINK it's true, but because you KNOW so. I'm not at T0M H4rdware..
So.. Since you're alluding to it, WHEN'S THE DUAL CORE A64 TEST COMING OUT!?!?! *pant**pant*
Seriously though, I see that this multicore, multi-tasking benchmarking is going to get quite difficult. How do you know just how fast it really is considering all the combinations of different apps you will have running in the background? It Madonion or those other benchmarking guys going to be coming out with a synthetic benchmarking tool to gauge the max performance of these new multi-core processors?