Inside-amd-performance-lab

M

maleficarus

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
744
Now that was funny. What I loved while fast forwarding the boring parts was when he started talking about dual cores and the benefits to it. It kind of made me laugh. He called it "add" but basically he goes on how while playing a game he got bored and decided to do some special effects with a program. Then he got bored again and decided to search the net for something for his son all the while the original game was playing in the back ground.

Now common please gimmi a friggen break. If you are that bored with the video game then there has to be a problem in the first place. Who really plays a video game only to minimize it to do something else? That is so unrealistic coming from a guy that claims synthetic benchmarking is not real world. Well it is really not real world to be playing a video game and surfing the internet either. To use this as some kind of illustration of dual core only shows me dual core really is smoke and mirrors. Then he makes a comment on quad core , if his dual core example wasn’t bad enough. He basically admits no real performance gains but having quad core can free up other processors to do other tasks. Again what tasks? Or can we just say you can play 4 video games leaving 3 minimized in the background?

I know I have ranted on about dual cores but shit like this link shows just backs up the reason why I never bought a dual core to begin with. I went single core Prescott because dual core is just smoke and mirrors. Comments?

Scroll down about half way to view the video that is about 45 minutes long I think.


http://www.gearlive.com/news/article/167-inside-amd-performance-lab/
 
I too dislike dual core. Better to get the fastest single core that you can get - programs have a sequential flow that isn't sped up by having a second core. And the multitasking argument sucks. Unfortunately, all the new chips have 2 or more cores and you just have to pay for that.
 
Rhettius said:
I too dislike dual core. Better to get the fastest single core that you can get - programs have a sequential flow that isn't sped up by having a second core. And the multitasking argument sucks. Unfortunately, all the new chips have 2 or more cores and you just have to pay for that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Ironically hard[ocp] was commented on by the tester in this video. I thought hard[ocp] would like that =)
 
This better not be one of those "single core is better than dual core" threads because really, I thought we covered this...
 
Rhettius said:
I too dislike dual core. Better to get the fastest single core that you can get - programs have a sequential flow that isn't sped up by having a second core. And the multitasking argument sucks. Unfortunately, all the new chips have 2 or more cores and you just have to pay for that.
Click to expand...

Wow...not again.

Either way, I'll explain it. Processors have reached the point where a much larger performance gain is found within multiple over more speed. Have you noticed how an FX-62 can clock nearly as high as an FX-57 despite having two cores. This gives it nearly twice the theoretical speed. The same is seen with Intel's Quad cores, they clock almost as high but offer twice as much power for less than twice as much power consumption. It's advancement, don't think you can make a better decision than all the engineers from Intel and AMD. While it is hard on developers now, it's worth it in the end.

And also, while I do minimize games sometimes, or leave things like my virus scanner and web browser open while gaming, gaming is NOT the only reason people buy fast processors. The benefits of dual cores are seen everyday with 3D rendering in any program, encoding and decoding any type of file and generally running Windows.

Don't talk out of your ass again.
 
Seeing as how my household only has one computer, minimizing my game is a common occurance. I'll be playing a game and my wife will ned to check something on the internet (bank accoutn, phone numbers, etc). So I'll minimize the game and let her use the computer. I come back and my game is right where I left it. Then of course, there's folding, whcih everyone should be doing anyway :)
 
Rhettius said:
I too dislike dual core. Better to get the fastest single core that you can get - programs have a sequential flow that isn't sped up by having a second core. And the multitasking argument sucks. Unfortunately, all the new chips have 2 or more cores and you just have to pay for that.
Click to expand...

Having wow open and watching tv on my pc would disagree with you. I do both regularly, and I can tell you its much smoother on a duel core than a single core.
 
maleficarus said:
I know I have ranted on about dual cores but shit like this link shows just backs up the reason why I never bought a dual core to begin with. I went single core Prescott because dual core is just smoke and mirrors. Comments?
Click to expand...

So you picked a Prescott core on purpose and you're now trying to convince us that it was a good choice? Multi-core processors are superior for everything except running one single-threaded app at a time.

maleficarus said:
Agreed. Ironically hard[ocp] was commented on by the tester in this video. I thought hard[ocp] would like that =)
Click to expand...

It's [H]ard|OCP, get it right.
 
LOL, i watched this the other night, well actually i was letting it play while i surfed the net, it played nice and smooth on my X2 4200+ while i surfed other pages, something that single core can have problems doing along with a virus scanner and such.

The video was a joke, and boring, it talked about windows index score and such which i figured it might actually talk about more from the hardware performance and relation to newer games and benchmarks, maybe even encoding :rolleyes:
 
Rabid Badger said:
So you picked a Prescott core on purpose and you're now trying to convince us that it was a good choice? Multi-core processors are superior for everything except running one single-threaded app at a time.
Click to expand...

You picked a Prescott that has a Hyper Threading which is a Sudo dual core.So by your logic you should be using one of the pre H/T Northwood Cores.

Say what you want about Dual-Cores but I'm not giving mine up. Its entirely to nice to have a functional machine while something CPU heavy is going on and not having my games start lagging.
 
ive got a pentium d 805 and a 754 a64.

i know the a64 is faster but as soon as it try and do more than one app at a time the crappy 805 kicks the a64 into submission.

there are marginal speed gains for a single core at the same speed but any more than one app running or a mutli threaded app the a dual core rules without question.
 
Rabid Badger said:
Multi-core processors are superior for everything except running one single-threaded app at a time.
Click to expand...

If they're running at the same frequency, a dual core processor would run a single-threaded application just as quickly as a single core processor. In fact, it could run it more quickly by being able to off-load OS elements and such to its other resources...

Anyway, back on topic: I thought it was a bit of a long and drawn out interview which probably could have been done in half the time. I laughed a little when he mentioned [H], but he's right about the benchmarks. Getting real-world performance benchmarks is critical to making honest improvements in your technology.

To this whole multicore stuff: Unless I'm building a system for someone who only surfs the web and checks their email, I see little reason to stick with single core. Dual core systems are far smoother than single core systems; multitasking performance is greatly improved (even moreso in vista as the application management is better), as well as (obviously) multithreaded app performance. Games are beginning to realize performance from multiple cores, and the prices of the multicore processors are just so low. To say that multicore systems are "smoke and mirrors" is very short-sighted; probably also evidence that the person hasn't spent a significant amount of time with one either.

Although I agree with the people talking about how that benchmark he was running (encoding, web browsing, gaming, special effects processing) was overkill, only by running so many applications at once can they even begin to stretch the limits of that system. So if they're looking for a true improvement in multitasking speed, that benchmark would be able to show just how capable a system is under heavy loads. That isn't to say that everyone needs that kind of power; however software is catching up to make use of multiple cores.
 
Wow, talk about a touchy subject. I guess most here misinterpret my point. I don't think dual core is not valid or is a scam. That is not it at all. What I do think is the whole idea behind it is basically smoke and mirrors meaning the notion that you will see performance gains doing several different things at once is silly at best when HT can do that just fine too. Also the idea that minimizing games to do other things is laughable to me. Try to minimize BF2 to surf the net, see where that gets you. Or even in a RTS game try to walk away to do some banking. Again not going to happen. The only time I can honestly see someone walking away from a game especially online would be a RPG game and that pretty much is the only genre that is even feasible.

I don't see why someone disagreeing with the idea of "Do more, dual core" is such a bad topic when there is DOZENS of threads and topics about dedicated physics cards talking about how they are not needed or wanted. SO please spare me this "not again" attitude. This is a discussion forum on hardware and right now dual core is the hot ticket so why can I not discuss it in a rational and mature manner? The last time this topic was discussed the gods at ---->[H]ard closed the thread completely. Does it really offend you guys that much?

I went single core with HT because I don't multitask other then running MSN surfing the net and maybe listening to an MP3. You do not need dual core for that. Again the idea of playing several games at the same time is restarted to me so that is not even worth debating. You guys need to relax especially when talking about PC hardware. The link I posted was for general debate only...

Cheers!
 
Indeed. You do not need dual cores to do what you have listed. You also do not need more than a P2-233 with 64 MB of ram. It comes down to degree. You want it X fast, the rest of us want it XXX fast. It's fine :)
 
maleficarus said:
I went single core with HT because I don't multitask other then running MSN surfing the net and maybe listening to an MP3. You do not need dual core for that.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone is debating that. For basic users (as I mentioned in my first post), a single core processor is fine. However at this point in time, dual core processors are cheap, fast, and we're seeing more and more multithreaded apps (including Vista's improved multicore handling) as well as games arriving on the shelves.

I think the reason most people get bothered is because in terms of technology, multicore processors are the way forward, and specifically for a place like [H] we are power users. We are the exact type of people who do more than just surf the net with some MP3s running in the background.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
ever play an mmo?

sit there and watch a wow flightpath the 100000th time
Click to expand...

More than that; alt-tabbing b/c you need to check some stuff online (info about a game, movie listings, etc.), or checking emails, or maintaining a torrent or FTP client, or any other variety of tasks. It's so refreshing when you have the flexibility.
 
People who don't know what they are talking about should never post on these forums unless they like interweb humiliation. :D

There are large advantages in multi tasking with dual core vs single core cpu's. However it depends of the PROGRAM utalizes the 2 cores silly. It means sqat to single threaded applications. The full power of dual core hasn't even been utalized yet. I can do virus scan, spyware scan, defrag HD's, disk check, compress multiple files in the backround and still play a bloody game on max settings with all that in the backround. I can not do that with a single core AMD at 2.7ghz when I can with a 2.6ghz dual core AMD.

My last 90nm clocks where 2.9ghz, and 65nm clocks where 2.8ghz with dual core, still messing with my new chip. But 2.9ghz is too fast for anybody I can tell you that much. There is no way I can find a program that can stress the cpu's enough, even prime95 them and still play a game with no hickups. Rambo six vegas, ES4 Oblivion. Not one skip. X1800XTX forced max AA16x and FAA8x with HDR at high res, 700/1800mhz clocks. It gives it roughly the same performance of a X1900XTX. A X1950XTX is only 3-5% faster then a X1900XTX. I'm not bottle-necked not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top