Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part I: First Encounter
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 4, 2005 2:44 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Characterizing Dual Core Performance
There are three areas to look at when measuring the performance of a dual core processor:
- Single-threaded application performance
- Multi-threaded Application Performance
- Multitasking Application Performance
For the first category, plain-jane single threaded application performance, the Pentium Extreme Edition or the Pentium D will simply perform identically to the equivalently clocked Pentium 5xx series CPU. The second core will go unused and the performance of the first core is nothing new. Given the short lead time on hardware for this review, we left out all of our single threaded benchmarks given that we can already tell you what performance is like under those tests - so if you're looking for performance under PC WorldBench or any of our Game tests, take a look at our older reviews and look at the performance of the Pentium 4 530 to get an idea of where these dual core CPUs will perform in single threaded apps. There are no surprises here; you could have a 128 core CPU and it would still perform the same in a single threaded application. Closer to its launch, we will have a full review including all of our single and multithreaded benchmarks so that you may have all of the information that will help determine your buying decision in one place.
The next category is pretty easy to benchmark as well. Things like 3ds max, iTunes, and Windows Media Encoder, are all examples of multi-threaded applications that are used rather frequently. We've included a few of these benchmarks as well in this article.
The final category is by far the most interesting as well as the most difficult to truly get a hold on - multitasking performance. The easiest way to measure multitasking performance is to have a number of applications loaded with one or more actively crunching away, and measure the performance of one or more of them. However, an arguably more useful way of looking at multitasking performance is to look at the response time of the system while multitasking. Unfortunately, no real benchmarks exist to measure response time of a system accurately while under a multitasking load, so we're left to do our best to try to develop those benchmarks to help answer the dual vs. single core purchasing debate. We are still working on developing those benchmarks and unfortunately, they didn't make it into this article, but we will keep cranking away and hopefully be able to debut them in one of the upcoming successors to this piece.
We did, however, string together a few benchmarks that don't explicitly measure response time, but do offer a good look at multitasking performance. Despite the fact that Intel has these types of benchmarks on their own, we went out and built benchmarks ourselves that was based on the feedback that we received from you all - the AnandTech readers.
We will describe these benchmarks later on in this piece, but first, let's take a look at two largely single threaded benchmark suites with a touch of multitasking: Winstone and SYSMark.
The Test
Our hardware configurations are similar to what we've used in previous comparisons.
AMD Athlon 64 Configuration
Socket-939 Athlon 64 CPUs
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
NVIDIA nForce4 Reference Motherboard
ATI Radeon X850 XT PCI Express
Intel Pentium 4 Configuration
LGA-775 Intel Pentium 4 and Extreme Edition CPUs
2 x 512MB Crucial DDR-II 533 Dual Channel DIMMs 3-2-2-12
Intel 955X Motherboard
ATI Radeon X850 XT PCI Express
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.