Pent-D vs P4 with ht'ing

[onetrueday]

My last setup contained a p4c 3.0, but I had trouble with lockup's. Rather then fuddle around attempting to pinpoint what was causing the problem, I replaced everything and went with an AMD64 based setup.

I love the amd64 for it's speed and stability. However, I do a lot of multi-tasking and miss the ht'ing of intel. While I would love to buy an X2, it's tough to swallow the pricetag.

So, I'm considering switching back to intel with the pent D variety.

I'm most interested in understanding the difference in performance between the p4c's and the pent D's.

thanks for any links or thoughts.

 

[dekard]

Simply put a p4 with HT for the same ammount of money will be clocked faster than a p4 with dual cores. So, you'd increase your multitasking ability at the cost of some clock speed. So... gamers need not apply.

I'd had two suggestions for you: 1, see what kind of oc you can get out of your Athlon 64. Its free, actually fairly easy and you maybe be pleased enough to keep the setup.

2, wait just a but. AMD has already released a x2 and $365 do my magic number won't be fair behind. ($299) in case you were wondering.

 

[Dillusion]

If you multitask allot, not AMD will quite satisfy you. Dual Core is somewhat different than a P4 with HT, HT is obviously a logical, not physical processor and is more general than having two cores.

With dual core chips, the application has to be coded to take advantage of the other processor.

 

[Talonz]

...HT is obviously a logical, not physical processor and is more general than having two cores.

With dual core chips, the application has to be coded to take advantage of the other processor.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more general then having two cores." The functionality is the same, it's just that the "second" core's performance is much less.

 

[chrisf6969]

If you multitask allot, not AMD will quite satisfy you. Dual Core is somewhat different than a P4 with HT, HT is obviously a logical, not physical processor and is more general than having two cores.

With dual core chips, the application has to be coded to take advantage of the other processor.

Wrong, dual core can take advantage b/c of the OS just like Hyperthreading. No extra programing is needed for multi-tasking smoothness.

OP, you might want to get an X2 4200/4400. (assuming you have a 939 socket)

I think they're overpriced, but if I already had a 939 system, I'd probably consider getting one.

Dual-cores will give you the same smoothness as HT (actually better). HT (and dual core/ dual processors) both work on the OS level, and work with multiple apps reguardless of whether the individual app is multi-threaded, b/c the OS can assign the different applications to different cores.

Dual core processors are like HT on steroids. (far more powerful than HT)

 

[mikelz85]

If you multitask allot, not AMD will quite satisfy you. Dual Core is somewhat different than a P4 with HT, HT is obviously a logical, not physical processor and is more general than having two cores.

With dual core chips, the application has to be coded to take advantage of the other processor.

wait, are you saying that HT multithreading is somehow different (and it even seems that you are saying it is better) than dual core multithreading? I don't really think this is the case.

 

[USMC2Hard4U]

Thread Starter, If you already have a socket 939... get a X2. The price is not at all more. If you concider you will need to buy a 945 or 955 Chipset Motherboard and DDR2 Ram in addition to your processor, you will end up spending more money.

Just get the X2

 

[onetrueday]

Thread Starter, If you already have a socket 939... get a X2. The price is not at all more. If you concider you will need to buy a 945 or 955 Chipset Motherboard and DDR2 Ram in addition to your processor, you will end up spending more money.

Just get the X2

yeah, that's the way I'm going to head.

I'm waiting for the x2 3800 to be released though.

thanks for the input everyone!

 

[MemoryInAGarden]

If you already have DDR and an AGP video card, a 3800+ dual core in addition to a NF3 board would be the poor man's road to dual core.

 

[onetrueday]

If you already have DDR and an AGP video card, a 3800+ dual core in addition to a NF3 board would be the poor man's road to dual core.

recently went to socket939 to overcome some issues I was having with intel, along with pci-e x800xl video.

 

[Mabrito]

Wrong, dual core can take advantage b/c of the OS just like Hyperthreading. No extra programing is needed for multi-tasking smoothness.

OP, you might want to get an X2 4200/4400. (assuming you have a 939 socket)

I think they're overpriced, but if I already had a 939 system, I'd probably consider getting one.

Dual-cores will give you the same smoothness as HT (actually better). HT (and dual core/ dual processors) both work on the OS level, and work with multiple apps reguardless of whether the individual app is multi-threaded, b/c the OS can assign the different applications to different cores.

Dual core processors are like HT on steroids. (far more powerful than HT)

No I think he was talking about programs designed for dual cores. Not for multi-tasking, we all know that dual cores play an important role here. I think he was talking about programmers, to tell the program to this calculation, and use this core to do something else. I know in a couple years, we should start seeing game and programs taking advantage of dual cores.

 

[chrisf6969]

No I think he was talking about programs designed for dual cores. Not for multi-tasking, we all know that dual cores play an important role here. I think he was talking about programmers, to tell the program to this calculation, and use this core to do something else. I know in a couple years, we should start seeing game and programs taking advantage of dual cores.

no he said:..... that no AMD chip will satisfy him if he multi tasks a lot. (Implying that only HT [intel] would be good for that)

If you multitask allot, not AMD will quite satisfy you. Dual Core is somewhat different than a P4 with HT, HT is obviously a logical, not physical processor and is more general than having two cores.

With dual core chips, the application has to be coded to take advantage of the other processor.

He was trying to say HT is better ("more general") than dual core, b/c dual core needs specific programming to work. Which isn't true at all. They do the same thing by allowing more than one thread to be executed at the same time (HT & dual-core) Though they accomplish it differently.

Multi-tasking is what dual-core AND HT are great at. - no extra programming is necessary, since the Operating system will assign different applications to different threads for HT or dual-core.

Gaming and encoding, etc... need to be recompiled, reprogrammed to take advantage of the extra threads that can be run. And in that case NEITHER HT or dual-core helps unless the program is multi-threaded.

His point was wrong... b/c HT is just a weaker version of dual-core. The operating system uses them very similarly, just dual-cores are stronger than HT.

 

[onetrueday]

here's my problem with my amd64:

I was capturing via minidv camcorder a hi-8 120minute tape, straight to avi. So, there wasn't any encoding done via my computer.

1:15 into the capture, I begin unrar'ing some things and burning them to cd. I think I was also transfering a video to compactflash. During this procedure, I managed to drop over 400 frames.

Now, my main HD is a scsi cheetah and I was using seperate HD's for the capturing and burning/unraring.

wtf? I used to be able to do a LOT more with any intel chip with ht'ing. I'm COUNTING the days till the x2 3800 comes out.