Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part I: First Encounter
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 4, 2005 2:44 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
semi-Final Words
The verdict on dual core is far from in, but what we've presented here is a start. We have more coverage coming, including power consumption, overclocking potential and a look at the more economical dual core price points from Intel. We're also hard at work on creating new multitasking benchmarks with the hopes of eventually reaching the holy grail of being able to measure and quantify system response time accurately. To that effect, if you all have any suggestions for usage models that you'd like to see tested or any benchmarking suggestions in general, please let us know.
We're far from being able to make any conclusions about dual core or Intel's Pentium D/Extreme Edition, but there are some things that we can say at this point:
- In general use of the system, the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 felt just as fast as the 3.73GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. In multitasking, there was no substitute for the dual core Pentium Extreme Edition.
- Hyper Threading made a decent impact on our usage, even on the dual core platform. However, the benchmarks show that Hyper Threading on dual core doesn't always result in a performance boost. That being said, we'd still opt for Hyper Threading as it just seems to make things smoother than without on the dual core chip. Although Intel has a desire to separate their Extreme Edition and Pentium D lines, we think that Hyper Threading is the wrong feature to use as a differentiator - all users could benefit from its presence on their dual core platforms.
- Intel's pricing strategy for dual core makes a lot of sense to force market adoption. In the near future, we will be looking at Intel's cheapest dual core offering to see how well it stacks up to AMD's similarly priced single core chips. The only way to make sure that developers crank out multithreaded desktop software is to ensure a large installed user base, and Intel appears to be committed to doing that.
- AMD should get an even larger boost from the move to dual core than Intel has, simply because AMD doesn't presently have the ability to execute more than one thread at a time. Intel's Hyper Threading on their single core chips does improve response time greatly as well as improves multitasking performance. For AMD, the move to dual core will give their users the benefits in response time that their Intel counterparts have enjoyed with Hyper Threading as well as the extra advantage offered by having two identical cores on a chip.
- When it comes to dual core vs. single core with Hyper Threading, there's a huge difference. While both improve system response time, dual core improves it more while also guaranteeing better overall system performance. Hyper Threading lets you multitask, dual core lets you actually get work done while multitasking.
That's all for now - we'll have much more dual core coverage later on this week and the next.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
141 Comments
View All Comments
johnsonx - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
It looks like AMD better get busy. AMD woke up Intel from it's complacent slumber, and now Intel is going to start eating AMD's lunch. AMD has completely lost the 64-bit advantage, and will now lose whatever dual-core advantage it had by designing Hammer to be dual-core from the start. Prescott may or may not have been designed for dual-core, but it sure seems to work just fine, doesn't it?AMD's problem is that it talks about what it's going to do for too long before actually doing it, as if there isn't anything Intel can do about it. Intel surely can do something about it, and definitely has. This may be an obvious consequence of being a much smaller company: AMD doesn't have the resources to get things done as quickly as Intel can (when Intel is sufficiently motivated), but that just means AMD needs to keep their mouths shut for longer. AMD has been relegated to 'me-too' status for technologies they themselves were first with...
Object lesson for AMD: Intel can beat you to any launch date you set for any technology or feature you think you've got an exclusive on. Intel can then crush you with volume and market presence. It ain't fair... welcome to life.
AMD's best bet: whatever you set your launch dates to, surprise launch everything 6 months ahead of schedule. That'll only work a couple of times, but it's better than nothing.
Klober - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
Two separate points here:First, I suppose dual-core may not improve single threaded application performance much over a single-core CPU with HT, but shouldn't it increase performance over a single-core CPU w/o HT? I would think it would allow the OS to run on one core while the application runs on the other core, which in theory should increase performance some. Just a thought, as I'm no expert on scheduling and the resources the OS actively requires.
Second point, a small simple application that may be useful in benchmarking, particularly in multitasking benchmarks, might be Macro Scheduler by MJT Net. It takes very little in the way of resources, and is very easy to program for starting applications, switching between them, taking screenshots, clicking on options and even typing whatever you'd like wherever you'd like. I think it could be a great base for switching between applications and starting processes inside those applications, all in a very repeatable manner. Timing can be down to the 1/10,000th of a second if need be, and using a scheduler with minimal resource impact would take the human element out of the benchmarking. Maybe you've already looked into this, or something similar, but it's just a thought that may make certain benchmarking situations easier for all of you that bring us these great (p)reviews.
Googer - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
In Soviet Russia you post all you bad jokes Here:http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...
knitecrow - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
yo dog, where the temperature at?but seriously, in addition to the usual suspects, I think anandtech should have compared pentium D to xenon 3.2ghz just to see the performance difference.
johnsonx - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
ok, sorry... I posted my comment before reading the encoding benchmarks, where I see you did exactly what I suggested. My bad.vaystrem - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
"2) Open iTunes and start playing the latest album of avid AnandTech reader 50 Cent on repeat all."? Really?
johnsonx - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
I know it's nearly double the number of benchmarks to run, but it would have been instructive to see both Pentium processors benchmarked without HT as well. Testing the dual-core pentium EE without HT would of course mimic a 3.2Ghz Pentium D, and testing the single core P4 without HT would give us a baseline single-core, single execution thread reference.Finally, it might also be instructive to benchmark current P4 at 3.2Ghz, again both with and without HT.
Easy for me to say, I know, since I'm not the one who has to do all the benches....
LeadFrog - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
I like the theory of if it can't get any faster lets just combine a few.SLI, RAID, and Dual Core CPU's.
segagenesis - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
One site mentioned 125W power consumption. Ow.Well, its a start... but I want to see AMDs offering first.
msva124 - Monday, April 4, 2005 - link
This looks promising, I wonder if AMD might eventually cave and implement hyper-threading in their processors, in addition to dual core. Or is that not part of the cross licensing agreeement?