Hey SENTENTIAL....................

[EdzAviator]

You said you have both A64 & P4 w/ HT.......So what are your observations on both of them????

In Single Applications, does A64 run FASTER than P4?????/
What about in Many Applications( Like Multi-Tasking), Does P4 w/ HT runs VERY SMOOTH than the Athlon 64???How many percentage of Smoothnes is the P4 w/ HT compare to the Athlon 64????

 

[alkemyst]

Dude, first the TO DUVIE..... post and now a TO SENTENTIAL?

there is a PM system here.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: EdzAviator

You said you have both A64 & P4 w/ HT.......So what are your observations on both of them????

In Single Applications, does A64 run FASTER than P4?????/
What about in Many Applications( Like Multi-Tasking), Does P4 w/ HT runs VERY SMOOTH than the Athlon 64???How many percentage of Smoothnes is the P4 w/ HT compare to the Athlon 64????

Single apps are dominated by AMD...always has and always will. However AMD has always lacked (to some degree or another) in multi tasking. That is intel's stron point. Since most people do not game but rather multi-task overall Intel is a better result.

There isnt a percentage or a figure I can give you. You would simply have to sit down on both PCs and decide what you like. Im sure you have a frend who has a Dell with HT or atleast a school compy that does.

But yes, on desktop/workstation applications P4s do run noticably smoother especially when loading high capacity programs that chew up alot of RAM (photoshop, CAD, Maya, general rendering programs).

Its also quite noticable when entering or exiting games. Generally speaking AMD tends to "struggle" somewhat (lag wise) when opening or closing out games. On my P4 its no different than closing an IEexplorer window. One click and poof its done.

Overall thats the differences as I saw them. As ive stated before it all depends on what *you* want in a PC. Duvie has also had both and I think he will agree with what I have said.

 

[mdchesne]

IMHO

 

[Capt Caveman]

I think this is the third or fourth thread you've started asking the same question. What answer are you looking for?

Sen and Duvie have summed it well. A64 for gaming, single apps and most general day usage. P4 w/ HT - serious multi-tasking, video encoding.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: mdchesne
IMHO

Helpful and usefull all at the same time.

 

[alkemyst]

I built a P5AD2E with 540 (3.2) and my A8N-SLI and K8N Neo4 with a 3200+ feels more snappy in everything. I usually have quite a few windows open, I burn / decode a lot of discs (I backup everything due to cats that think cd/dvds are toys). I do have my a64 overclocked to a 3.7 equivalent.

I came from a PIII-S 1.5Ghz (1.4GHz stock) on a TUV4x motherboard. That multi-tasked pretty much as good as I noticed compared to the other machines, with the obvious limitation being initial open of applications and CPU intensive times.

All machines had fast drives and 1GB of cas 2 RAM.

All the above smoke the 2.8 HT P4 GX280 Dell's we have at work with 512MB.

I wish I could figure out how to make my dad's P5AD2E boot faster but I think since you have to use one of the RAID channels if you need a 2nd IDE that's the reason. I am not over their house enough to play with it.

I think a lot of this talk of gaming vs multi-tasking is just a way to give the Intel guys some bragging rights.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I built a P5AD2E with 540 (3.2) and my A8N-SLI and K8N Neo4 with a 3200+ feels more snappy in everything. I usually have quite a few windows open, I burn / decode a lot of discs (I backup everything due to cats that think cd/dvds are toys). I do have my a64 overclocked to a 3.7 equivalent.

I came from a PIII-S 1.5Ghz (1.4GHz stock) on a TUV4x motherboard. That multi-tasked pretty much as good as I noticed compared to the other machines, with the obvious limitation being initial open of applications and CPU intensive times.

All machines had fast drives and 1GB of cas 2 RAM.

All the above smoke the 2.8 HT P4 GX280 Dell's we have at work with 512MB.

I wish I could figure out how to make my dad's P5AD2E boot faster but I think since you have to use one of the RAID channels if you need a 2nd IDE that's the reason. I am not over their house enough to play with it.

I think a lot of this talk of gaming vs multi-tasking is just a way to give the Intel guys some bragging rights.

I went from AMD to Intel and you're right the Intel takes a lot longer to boot-up. But I do love hyperthreading. I guess I'm a serious multi-tasker. I'll have 10-12 apps open including a mysql db capturing online data using 8 threads(long story), folding and seti. I could not do this with my A64 w/out serious lag and slow downs. With my intel, everything is smooth as butter and think my only limitation now is memory and may add another gig of ram. My two cents.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: mdchesne
IMHO

Everybody loves to hate the top-dog :roll:

 

[kini62]

I went from AMD to Intel and you're right the Intel takes a lot longer to boot-up. But I do love hyperthreading. I guess I'm a serious multi-tasker. I'll have 10-12 apps open including a mysql db capturing online data using 8 threads(long story), folding and seti. I could not do this with my A64 w/out serious lag and slow downs. With my intel, everything is smooth as butter and think my only limitation now is memory and may add another gig of ram. My two cents.

Intel 640 3.2 @ 4.0 250x16 1.4v | Asus P5AD2-e Premium | Powercolor X800XL | 512mbx2 Patriot PC2-5600 DDR2-700 3-2-2-4 | 2X80gb WD RAID0 120gb Seagate 160gb Maxtor| Plextor 16x DL 716A | Super Lanboy til Antec P180 comes out | 23" HP L2335 and 19" Viewsonic GS-790 | Logitech MX Laser | Logitech Z-2300 | Antec TruBlue 480 PSU

Nice setup, very nice

 

[Capt Caveman]

Thanks kini62, I put a lot of time researching everything. I just wish I had the time to play around with it more.

However, I don't know if it could keep up with your system, P4 3.6, 2gb ram and huge SATA drives. Very nice!

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

I went from AMD to Intel and you're right the Intel takes a lot longer to boot-up. But I do love hyperthreading. I guess I'm a serious multi-tasker. I'll have 10-12 apps open including a mysql db capturing online data using 8 threads(long story), folding and seti. I could not do this with my A64 w/out serious lag and slow downs. With my intel, everything is smooth as butter and think my only limitation now is memory and may add another gig of ram. My two cents.

I have had both chips in recent iterations....I run photoshop with 3.2MP images (mostly 2MB or less though), have audio / video decoding, SQL Server / IIS running, winamp doing some tunes, a few browser windows, etc...don't notice too much of a difference HT or not. I obviously haven't pushed my dad's machine that far, but it doesn't seem as snappy, the 2.8's at work seem like dogs though....although that mostly can be due to me running at 3700+ and he at a stock 3.2GHz clock and at work 2.8GHz.

I have done this multi tasking recently with prime95, etc running (finally 24 hour stable)....

Along with my 6800 GT at ultra speeds I can push any game as far as I want and it's fluid.

Basically I believe once you are at the latest technology whether Intel or AMD at this moment you are going to be hard pressed in double blind testing without benchmarking to determine a winner. Hell in a lot of things it's hard to tell if I am running any faster/snappier than my old PIII-S @ 1.5GHz on 3GHz+ hardware.

 

[carlosd]

You again. I also use HT P4 machines at job, which sucks for my multitasking tasks, thats why I tend to use the dual opterons machines. P4 icoul be a little more responsive under SPECIFIC multitasking secenarios, not your scenarios, I can archive winrar, surf, the web, play winamp on other tasks with no critical slowdown, even with my old Athlon XP 2400+, I also do the same with the 2.8 HT P4 and I really don't see huge improvements regarding the responsiveness. On the other side these task are a joke for my A64 system (which by the way is very much faster in winrar archiving than ANY p4), of course I have Raptors in raid 0 config.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: EdzAviator

You said you have both A64 & P4 w/ HT.......So what are your observations on both of them????

In Single Applications, does A64 run FASTER than P4?????/
What about in Many Applications( Like Multi-Tasking), Does P4 w/ HT runs VERY SMOOTH than the Athlon 64???How many percentage of Smoothnes is the P4 w/ HT compare to the Athlon 64????

Single apps are dominated by AMD...always has and always will. However AMD has always lacked (to some degree or another) in multi tasking. That is intel's stron point. Since most people do not game but rather multi-task overall Intel is a better result.

There isnt a percentage or a figure I can give you. You would simply have to sit down on both PCs and decide what you like. Im sure you have a frend who has a Dell with HT or atleast a school compy that does.

But yes, on desktop/workstation applications P4s do run noticably smoother especially when loading high capacity programs that chew up alot of RAM (photoshop, CAD, Maya, general rendering programs).

Its also quite noticable when entering or exiting games. Generally speaking AMD tends to "struggle" somewhat (lag wise) when opening or closing out games. On my P4 its no different than closing an IEexplorer window. One click and poof its done.

Overall thats the differences as I saw them. As ive stated before it all depends on what *you* want in a PC. Duvie has also had both and I think he will agree with what I have said.

Load times have nothing to do with the CPU, it is disk issue, I use dual raptors and the load times are short loadind demmanding apps compared to similar P4 systems.
Exiting games doesn't have nothing to do with the CPU it is a memory issue, if you have little memory you computer will be very slow afer exiting demandig games, if you have lots of memory the computer will behave normally after exiting games, no matter the CPU, after playing long hours of HL2 and exiting my A64 exist inmediately and behaves very smoothly as if I have just turned on the PC. The same happens with my old AXP 2400+. Entering games speed depends on the hard disk speed, in my case the load times are extremely short compared to P4 systems with slower disks. It doesn't have nothing to do with the CPU.

Regarding maya and other graphich apps I don't use nor the P4 neither my A64, I use dual opterons systems which are very much faster and responsive than the HT P4 I have at work.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: mdchesne
IMHO

that helps a lot, thanx for your mindless contribution

 

[BitByBit]

I'd personally like to see a comparison between a P4 with HT disabled and an Athlon in multitasking, to determine just how big of an impact HT makes in this area.
Never having used an Athlon, I haven't a clue as to which platform is generally better for multitasking.
My guess is that without HT, the P4 should fall behind because of its higher instruction latency (relative to an equally-rated Athlon), since switching between threads should take longer.

 

[Promit]

This is probably the wrong place, but how many instructions can an Athlon64 have in flight compared to a P4?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Promit
This is probably the wrong place, but how many instructions can an Athlon64 have in flight compared to a P4?

I would go directly to AMD and Intel since most of the fanboys have no idea really what's going on inside their chips, nor how that spans to the chipsets/memory/etc as a whole.

Fact is HT or not the a64's and P4's are pretty close in my opinion across all benchmarks to usually warrant something as statisically insignificant. What many of the lop-sided benchmarks do is put the wrong hardware platform under the chip they want to lose and show that as it's not in the same league.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: mdchesne
IMHO

Everybody loves to hate the top-dog :roll:

Thats because they sell more, but make worse chips, at least in the desktop arena. If AMD could start making some real money, they'd have a R&D budget that would be a lot bigger, and we'd see some much nicer chips on the market.

 

[imported_Kensai]

11 pipelines in the A64 (Something around there) and 31 for the Precott P4.

 

[Duvie]

I think it is called stages..of the pipeline. The P4 suffers from latencies and penalties from the longer pipeline. Part of the reason the A64 and lack of long idle waits cannot really gain anything by implementing a hyperthreading scheme like Intel...

the northwood was like 22 I think....A reason the prescott without optimized SSE3 programs actually clock for clock performs a bit worse then a similar clocked northwood from the 2.8ghz range up to the 3.4ghz range.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: mdchesne
IMHO

Everybody loves to hate the top-dog :roll:

top-dog in what? selling the most?

 

[Promit]

Originally posted by: Kensai
11 pipelines in the A64 (Something around there) and 31 for the Precott P4.

It's actually 12 cycles in the A64 and 31 in the P4 (plus 8 for instruction decodes, they're usually not counted in the pipeline because a mispredicted branch doesn't clear those stages).


These numbers are, of course, not related to my question.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I think it is called stages..of the pipeline. The P4 suffers from latencies and penalties from the longer pipeline. Part of the reason the A64 and lack of long idle waits cannot really gain anything by implementing a hyperthreading scheme like Intel...

the northwood was like 22 I think....A reason the prescott without optimized SSE3 programs actually clock for clock performs a bit worse then a similar clocked northwood from the 2.8ghz range up to the 3.4ghz range.

Yea what you have said is all true. Northies were indeed faster per clock....to a point. Once you get beyond 4ghz Prescott really begins to shine

 

[alkemyst]

This is an interesting article http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2213

There are lots of articles better searched for to get 'real' answers to questions like these. You mostly will hear fodder from those making claims to having both CPU's, or doing their own intensive benchmarks (yet somehow have trouble pulling up matching results to anyone else), etc.

There are plenty of tests out now showing AMD is no longer the gaming only chip and one of the MAIN reasons I chosse it this time despite giving up on them in the 486 days.

I chose chip 'equals' for my father's machine I built at the same time as mine.

His board (the P5AD2-E) is a bit more seasoned than the A8N-SLI I choose for myself (and now the K8N Neo4 due to the A8N failing to recognise my SCSI card).

He has the 540 and I have the 3200+....he is not overclocking and doesn't plan on it...I am pushed now to 3700+ speeds....I would have loved to test both these chips pushed to the max on timings and run benchmarks simulaneously and then geared up my own suite of SQL Server/IIS, Photoshop, video decoding, run a top tier game and do some online number crunching and see how they both scaled. I am willing to bet the benchmarks may have shown more differences than I could realize once I ran real-world situations.