AMD Athlon X2 4850e vs AMD Athlon LE-1660

[JackMDS]

AMD Athlon X2 4850e vs AMD Athlon LE-1660

They cost the same.

Which one would do better.

Mulitasking more important than gaming on the computer that it would be installed on.

 

[error8]

The Athlon LE is a single core, where the X2 is a dual core. It's pretty simple which is faster in multitasking.

 

[stevf]

if you are looking at prices on newegg then they really arent the same as the LE1660 is a retail package with heatsink/fan and the x2 is oem with no heatsink/fan - not a huge difference but that does make x2 a little more expensive. Still would go with x2

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: error8
The Athlon LE is a single core, where the X2 is a dual core. It's pretty simple which is faster in multitasking.

It may be simple for you.

If it was simple for me I would ask the question.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I imagine it depends on how cpu intensive some of that multitasking might be and how much RAM you plan to install.

The combo deal with the LE-1660 and the Gigabyte 740g looks interesting - pop in some 2x2Gb DDR2 800 sticks and you're out less than $150.

Also - at stock clock your RAMS will run spec speed with the LE-1660. The X2 4850e memory at stock speed: 714MHz.

 

[Concillian]

I wouldn't relaly even consider a single core processor for much of anything right now. Most applications are dual core aware at this point in time so that things run significantly better on a slower dual core than a faster single core CPU.

 

[robmurphy]

I have the 4850E and I'm happy with it. Mine runs at 2.8 Ghz on stock voltage. I measured the power used and compared it with the stock speed (2.5 Ghz) and the power meter showed the same power being drawn at idle. I also tried it when underclocked and did not get a difference of more than a watt at idle.

Running at 2.8 Ghz means the DDR2 800 memory runs at full speed. At the stock speed the memory is running slower.

I did not use the stock HSF, I used the one from a previous S939 CPU. The S939 CPU was a 89W TDP, so was rated roughly twice the TDP of the 4850E. With both cores fully loaded using prime 95 the CPU gets to about 40 to 45 C.

If you get the 4850E and overclock it to 2.8 Ghz then its running at the same speed as the LE-1660, but with 2 cores. Each core on the 4850E has the same L1 and L2 cache as the LE-1660. Bother CPUs are listed as the G2 stepping.

Both CPUS are shown as 45w TDP. The LE-1660 operates between 1.25 and 1.4 V and the 4850E operates between 1.15 and 1.25 V. This may result in the 4850E having the same idle power consumption as the LE-1660. The LE-1660 however would take longer to get back to the idle level in a mutli tasking environment.

On other point in the 4850E's favour is that it has a higher max temp of 78 C compared to 65 C for the LE-1660.

Given the point of both these CPUs is that they are low power then I would go for the 4850E. Its lower voltage, and it has a higher max CPU temp. Performance at multitasking would be much better (especialy if overclocked to 2.8Ghz). To be honest I would expect to pay more for the 4850E than the LE-1660. If you have an old S939 HSF that will fit and cool the 4850E better than the stock cooler, saving the cost of buying a HSF.

Rob.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I don't disagree that the 4850e is 'better' - only that the LE-1660 may well be 'good enough'.

""2"" is not always greater than ""1"" and the overwhelming majority of software now (and for the foreseeable future) is single-thread.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
""2"" is not always greater than ""1"" and the overwhelming majority of software now (and for the foreseeable future) is single-thread.

Huh? Most modern games take advantage of at least dual core, the last 2 iterations of Photoshop also, some MS applications... I would be surprised if any major developer is not coding for multiple threads.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: JackMDS

Originally posted by: error8
The Athlon LE is a single core, where the X2 is a dual core. It's pretty simple which is faster in multitasking.

It may be simple for you.

If it was simple for me I would ask the question.

Weird, since you are a "general hardware moderator", you should have known that a dual core cpu, is faster then a single core cpu. This was, wrong, a couple of years ago, when a fast single core would provide more performance then a slower clocked dual core, since the vast majority of applications, we're single threaded. But this is not the case anymore. Now quite about any program out there is using both cores .

So, a 4850e, even though it's clocked at 2,5 ghz, it has two cores and that makes it faster then the LE, clocked at 2,8 ghz. Now, you can probably find a small number of single threaded applications, where the LE might prove to be faster, but those are rare and overall, the X2 smokes his single core brother.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Because an operating system balances cpu utilization across multiple cores does not make application software capable of running parallel threads across those same cores ...

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Because an operating system balances cpu utilization across multiple cores does not make application software capable of running parallel threads across those same cores ...

True, but a dual core can help in situations where you're downloading, surfing the web, a virus scan is running and you're working with images in photoshop. Perform a major operation in PS and your mp3 player starts skipping with a single core. . . with a dual core it won't. This is the primary reason I recommend going with the 4850e.

I have a 4850e and love it. It's fast enough for my work tasks, cost me very little and runs painfully cool. I can't break 42C under load and at idle its vcore drops to .9 to .89. Low power is great.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo...and the overwhelming majority of software now (and for the foreseeable future) is single-thread.

This is what I'm mainly wondering about. How do you know this?

And, I'm not talking about load-balancing, I'm talking about honest-to-goodness parallel-threading support.

Also, as nerp stated, running just a few apps simultaneously really boosts the benefits realized by dual (and quad) core.

The OP states: "Mulitasking more important than gaming on the computer that it would be installed on." Perfect rationale for a dual-core over a single.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo...and the overwhelming majority of software now (and for the foreseeable future) is single-thread.

This is what I'm mainly wondering about. How do you know this?

And, I'm not talking about load-balancing, I'm talking about honest-to-goodness parallel-threading support.

Also, as nerp stated, running just a few apps simultaneously really boosts the benefits realized by dual (and quad) core.

The OP states: "Mulitasking more important than gaming on the computer that it would be installed on." Perfect rationale for a dual-core over a single.

'Multi-tasking' for the most part is more dependent upon RAM and fast disk I/O.

I'm not disputing advantages of dual core microprocessors - just that some of the 'hype' is mostly 'phantom'. CPU 'wait states' far outweigh successful cycles ...

As far as ""honest-to-goodness parallel-threading support"" it is easier (and cheaper) for programmers to utilize new instruction sets to increase performance than to rewrite millions of lines of code - or in the case of high-dollar software like Photoshop, to utilize plug-ins and filters which are specifically written to run across multiple cores.

The issues with coding for multi-parallelism exist to the extent that Intel is developing a new compiler that can take single thread apps and make them work in a multithreaded mode to save programmer angst.

Additionally (and we are getting way beyond my paygrade) issues expanding single-thread 'parallelism' on the CPU are quickly being supplanted by the parallel arch of the GPU - IIRC the new PS uses CUDA (or something CUDA-like) in lieu multiple threads across CPU cores.