«

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html (updated 06/24/05)

A few points worth noting [with my anotations]:

"When multiple applications are running, the clear conclusion is that the
Intel Pentium 840 Extreme Edition is superior to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+.
This result attained by Intel's dual-core processor is particularly
attributable to hyperthreading (HT) - the division of the two cores into
four virtual CPU units."

"We got a different picture, however, when we ran single applications on
each system. Here, the AMD system performed distinctly better (by just about
30% on average) compared to the Intel system."

"With our tests so far, it seems that hyperthreading is better than having
separate CPUs at distributing and balancing the load on the overall
processor(s)."

[I'd like to see the comparable results for Xeon v. Opteron...]

"Stability is an important topic for professional-level situations, and
there were some surprises in this respect: with the Intel system, three
motherboards with the nForce SLI chipset turned out to be problematic. There
were several crashes, and in one case the voltage regulator even burned out.

The only thing that could help stabilize the system was to combine the Intel
CPU with the Intel chipset, which then of course rules out a SLI graphics
configuration."

[And thus (at least part of) AMD's gaming dominance.]

"AMD uses up to 30% less energy than its competitor, which is supported by
our extensive investigations."

"AMD's dual core systems are more reliable at this point in time, at least
when we put the final AMD product up against the pre-release Intel products
that we used."

-----------

Both are still *way* too expensive for my taste just yet. Just give me a
dual Xeon (single core).

I have to say the AMD's stability impresses me, but then the Intel wasn't a
true production chip. What surprises me is the AMD's lack of strength in
multitasking, which is the reason I'd want a dual-core to begin with. And
I'm surprised hyperthreading would be better at multitasking than two true
CPUs (or two cores on one processor).

Overall, for multitasking business apps and video conversions, I'm sticking
to my guns with an all-Intel system. But if I were a gamer, I'd stick with a
single-core Athlon.

Toms chooses Intel for business as well (without a strong reason why
vis-a-vis the test results), but considering the costs savings initially and
with electrical use, I might lean toward using AMDs in an office setting
instead, except in situations where multi-tasking is the dominant use.

Pretty good article, a definite must-read.

"Randy" <> wrote in message
news:...
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html (updated 06/24/05)
>
> A few points worth noting [with my anotations]:
>
> "When multiple applications are running, the clear conclusion is that the
> Intel Pentium 840 Extreme Edition is superior to the AMD Athlon 64 X2
> 4800+.
> This result attained by Intel's dual-core processor is particularly
> attributable to hyperthreading (HT) - the division of the two cores into
> four virtual CPU units."
>
> "We got a different picture, however, when we ran single applications on
> each system. Here, the AMD system performed distinctly better (by just
> about
> 30% on average) compared to the Intel system."
>
> "With our tests so far, it seems that hyperthreading is better than having
> separate CPUs at distributing and balancing the load on the overall
> processor(s)."
>
> [I'd like to see the comparable results for Xeon v. Opteron...]
>
> "Stability is an important topic for professional-level situations, and
> there were some surprises in this respect: with the Intel system, three
> motherboards with the nForce SLI chipset turned out to be problematic.
> There
> were several crashes, and in one case the voltage regulator even burned
> out.
>
> The only thing that could help stabilize the system was to combine the
> Intel
> CPU with the Intel chipset, which then of course rules out a SLI graphics
> configuration."
>
> [And thus (at least part of) AMD's gaming dominance.]
>
> "AMD uses up to 30% less energy than its competitor, which is supported by
> our extensive investigations."
>
> "AMD's dual core systems are more reliable at this point in time, at least
> when we put the final AMD product up against the pre-release Intel
> products
> that we used."
>
> -----------
>
> Both are still *way* too expensive for my taste just yet. Just give me a
> dual Xeon (single core).
>
> I have to say the AMD's stability impresses me, but then the Intel wasn't
> a
> true production chip. What surprises me is the AMD's lack of strength in
> multitasking, which is the reason I'd want a dual-core to begin with. And
> I'm surprised hyperthreading would be better at multitasking than two true
> CPUs (or two cores on one processor).
>
> Overall, for multitasking business apps and video conversions, I'm
> sticking
> to my guns with an all-Intel system. But if I were a gamer, I'd stick with
> a
> single-core Athlon.
>
> Toms chooses Intel for business as well (without a strong reason why
> vis-a-vis the test results), but considering the costs savings initially
> and
> with electrical use, I might lean toward using AMDs in an office setting
> instead, except in situations where multi-tasking is the dominant use.
>
> Pretty good article, a definite must-read.

That article makes a good read but Im still baffled how they conclude that
the Intel would be the best choice for business AFTER declaring that it uses
more power, is unstable in some motherboards and is 30% slower at individual
tasks. If I were in charge of purchasing I'd be filling the offices with AMD
X2's based on those key points.

"Andy Stubbs [383037]" <> wrote in message
news:...

> That article makes a good read but Im still baffled how they conclude that
> the Intel would be the best choice for business AFTER declaring that it
> uses more power, is unstable in some motherboards and is 30% slower at
> individual tasks. If I were in charge of purchasing I'd be filling the
> offices with AMD X2's based on those key points.


As a bit of a gamer I also found this quote rather interesting.. 'In our Far
Cry tests, the AMD system with a single Nvidia graphics card still beat the
frame rates posted by the Intel system with dual SLI cards'

Those SLI mobo's and cards aren't cheap so the money I will save buy only
buying one card will go towards buying a bigger processor <bg>.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1788685,00.asp
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2005/arti...ualcore/p1.htm





"Randy" <> wrote in message
news:...
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html (updated 06/24/05)
>
> A few points worth noting [with my anotations]:
>
> "When multiple applications are running, the clear conclusion is that the
> Intel Pentium 840 Extreme Edition is superior to the AMD Athlon 64 X2
> 4800+.
> This result attained by Intel's dual-core processor is particularly
> attributable to hyperthreading (HT) - the division of the two cores into
> four virtual CPU units."
>
> "We got a different picture, however, when we ran single applications on
> each system. Here, the AMD system performed distinctly better (by just
> about
> 30% on average) compared to the Intel system."
>
> "With our tests so far, it seems that hyperthreading is better than having
> separate CPUs at distributing and balancing the load on the overall
> processor(s)."
>
> [I'd like to see the comparable results for Xeon v. Opteron...]
>
> "Stability is an important topic for professional-level situations, and
> there were some surprises in this respect: with the Intel system, three
> motherboards with the nForce SLI chipset turned out to be problematic.
> There
> were several crashes, and in one case the voltage regulator even burned
> out.
>
> The only thing that could help stabilize the system was to combine the
> Intel
> CPU with the Intel chipset, which then of course rules out a SLI graphics
> configuration."
>
> [And thus (at least part of) AMD's gaming dominance.]
>
> "AMD uses up to 30% less energy than its competitor, which is supported by
> our extensive investigations."
>
> "AMD's dual core systems are more reliable at this point in time, at least
> when we put the final AMD product up against the pre-release Intel
> products
> that we used."
>
> -----------
>
> Both are still *way* too expensive for my taste just yet. Just give me a
> dual Xeon (single core).
>
> I have to say the AMD's stability impresses me, but then the Intel wasn't
> a
> true production chip. What surprises me is the AMD's lack of strength in
> multitasking, which is the reason I'd want a dual-core to begin with. And
> I'm surprised hyperthreading would be better at multitasking than two true
> CPUs (or two cores on one processor).
>
> Overall, for multitasking business apps and video conversions, I'm
> sticking
> to my guns with an all-Intel system. But if I were a gamer, I'd stick with
> a
> single-core Athlon.
>
> Toms chooses Intel for business as well (without a strong reason why
> vis-a-vis the test results), but considering the costs savings initially
> and
> with electrical use, I might lean toward using AMDs in an office setting
> instead, except in situations where multi-tasking is the dominant use.
>
> Pretty good article, a definite must-read.
>
>
>
>
>

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:27:46 +0100, "Andy Stubbs [383037]"
<> wrote:

>"Andy Stubbs [383037]" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>
>> That article makes a good read but Im still baffled how they conclude that
>> the Intel would be the best choice for business AFTER declaring that it
>> uses more power, is unstable in some motherboards and is 30% slower at
>> individual tasks. If I were in charge of purchasing I'd be filling the
>> offices with AMD X2's based on those key points.
>
>
>As a bit of a gamer I also found this quote rather interesting.. 'In our Far
>Cry tests, the AMD system with a single Nvidia graphics card still beat the
>frame rates posted by the Intel system with dual SLI cards'
>
>Those SLI mobo's and cards aren't cheap so the money I will save buy only
>buying one card will go towards buying a bigger processor <bg>.
>

And AMD thinks the single core FX processors are better for gaming.

I still plan to buy a 4400 later this week....