Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part I: First Encounter
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 4, 2005 2:44 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Multitasking Scenario 3: Web Browsing
For our final benchmark, we decided to switch things up a bit and keep Firefox as our foreground application while background tasks ran. To make things even more stressful, we had no less than 12 tabs open in Firefox, with our main tab being IGN's PSP website - which happens to be very Flash heavy.
The iTunes and Newsleecher tasks from the first test scenario were also present in this one, plus we did the following:
Open Outlook, immediately import 130MB PST file and immediately switch app focus to Firefox.
We then recorded the total time required to import the new PST while Firefox was our foreground application. The results were very interesting:
The most surprising is how poorly AMD did in this test. We actually had to exclude them from the graph as it distorted the bar lengths too much. AMD weighed in at over 27 minutes; from actually using the system, it looks like Flash takes a much bigger performance toll on AMD platforms than it does on Intel. The end result is that the scheduler devoted very little time to the Outlook process, resulting in the import taking an extremely long time.
Ignoring the AMD outlier, dual core offered serious performance improvements over single core within the Intel realm alone. The 840 completed the PST import in around 70% of the time of the 3.73EE. Again, the gap would grow if more tasks were running, or if we were actually interacting with Firefox instead of just sitting there and reading one page (we confirmed this by actually doing it, but it is a little too difficult to do in a repeatable fashion for testing purposes).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
141 Comments
View All Comments
Hans Maulwurf - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
#27 thats because these benches are opted for HT and dual core. Everybody should know they are not typical for usage of a desctop PC.Maybe dual core will be a good thing, but to value its implementation you have to compare it to, for example, a dual Xeon.
If I would take this review seriously we all should have buyed dual CPU systems some time ago. But some time ago nobody could show dual CPU desctop systems are useful.
Why did this change so radicially? Is it really the way we use our computers or is it just the way you benchmark when allowed to be one of only very few Intel-previewers?
Son of a N00b - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
#11, next time label you post with *Caution Fanboy Post* so I do not waste my time reading your comments that are biased and misinformed...w0w! great preview, I cannot wait until six months from now you doing a head to head match up with SLI, dual core cpu rigs from both AMD and Intel....it should be very interesting indeed....Cannot wait to see what AMD's performancee is...it could go either way....
Anyway great article, keep up the great work that keeps us all coming back, it must be hell to come up with new benchmarks for these systems.
w00t go anandtech and dualies!
MaxisOne - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
Hey Not even 1 Game Benchmark ? and wheres the temps ??MaxisOne - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
cbuchach - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
I think these are the first benchmarks I have seen where Hyperthreading was shown to make a significant performance difference outside of video encoding tasks or a few other specialized apps.Overall I think Hyperthreading amongst the enthusiast community has never held much worth mostly because it has little impact on gaming performance. But these benchmarks clearly show in my eyes that whether it be the single-core/hyperthreading or dual core chips, Intel is the way to go. I of course am not a big gamer but nonetheless most computer users, especially power users at least do some moderate multitasking. Having two virtual or real cores really does improve the computing experience up unitl this point, in mostly immeasurable ways.
redpriest_ - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
When can I buy one? =PThese previews will probably be followed up by shipping versions 6 months from now.
AtaStrumf - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
WAU this was a shocker! Sure didn't expect dual cores so soon.Great preview Anand! It covered all of the areas I was interested in and it basicly confirmed all my expectations.
It seems that one thing that can still bring dual cores to a grind is the I/O bottleneck. With everything going dual lately and with RAID controllers being as common as USB ports and HDDs being pretty cheap, I think it's time you retested how much of an impact RAID can have on desktop performance. If I remember correctly it was you who said that RAID made no sense on desktop, which essentially killed my burning desire to get one. What about now? If we're going dual we might as well go all out.
tynopik - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
try running stuff with software raid5 eating up cpu cyclesBeenthere - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
Hyperthreading does NOT significantly improve system performance unless the software is written for hyperthreading and there is damned little of that currently available. Dual core when execurted properly offers a considerable performance advantage. Intel's cobbled mess is sure to be a nightmare and when all the facts are known it will be impossible to conclude otherwise despite the cheerleading of the media.sri2000 - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
#14 - As you say the enterprise market is where multi-processor rigs live (whether dual-cpu or dual-core), it's also where dual-core makes it's best financial case.ie. when Microsoft came out to say that their software license pricing will treat a dual-core cpu as a single processor (as opposed to pricing it as a dual-proc), that really gives businesses (especially small ones with tight budgets) a great incentive for getting dual-core servers (not to mention for those who're using Linux).
And since AMP will get dual-core Opterons out ahead of dual-core Xeons, it's an opportunity to get some nice growth in their small business server market share.