Intel article sheds some light

[horndude]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

If Intel gets its act together,which it probably will, I dont think AMD will be doing so well based on that article from TomsHardware.com.I always wondered what hyperthreading was all about, now I understand why AMD didnt do the same.IBM could still easily throw a bunch of changes and competition into the mix, going to be interesting to see how all this unfolds.

 

[Elbatrop1]

I read that article a couple days ago. It was quite interesting. This might be the edge that Intel is looking for.

They finally realize that clock speed isnt everything.

I laughed when I saw that the OC'd Pentium M was pwning some 3GHz+ P4s in some of the benchmarks.

If the Dothan at like 2.2GHz can compare to and beat a high-end P4, just think what it can do once they can get a 800MHz FSB, higher clock speeds, and improved architecture...

 

[Codeine]

I cant believe you dident know what HT was. Dont be fooled though, HT is not compatible with all programs. Somewhere around 40%+ are not compatible with dual processors. Thats true, but by the time Intel improves there Dothan. They would of Improved there LGA775, and AMD would of done the same. The big problem with Intel processors is there FSB. FSB creates so much damn latency between hardware communications.

 

[horndude]

I knew what it was, just not how it was setup at the architectural level on the chip.In the end, I think single cores days are numbered, once that happens a whole bunch of things are gonna change.

 

[Elbatrop1]

Ya, I think one BIG thing that slows Intels down is the lack of an on-die memory controller.

HT is expecially useless for games. I use 2 monitors, and I open my Performance tab of task manager and leave it on my other monitor as I play a game on my primary monitor. One of the 'virtual' CPUs gets used up a whole bunch, while the other doesnt do a whole bunch.

The nice thing though, is that I can rip a CD while Photoshopping, etc without lag.

 

[horndude]

well here's a side by side comparison I did a few days ago:
sempron 2800+,256mb ram, integrated graphics/sound running windowsXP corp

vs

Duron 1.8ghz,256mb ram,geforce2 mx400,integrated sound, running slackware 10.1

both machines ripping a dvd onto hard drive,no encoding,straight rip

Both machines have identical dvd drives and hard drives

results, Duron wins by 2.5 minutes !!!, Not only that, but any CPU intensive app brings windows to its knees,I was pretty shocked to be honest,software makes a difference.I tried it a few times, opening a second app under windows while ripping and it stuttered and windows opened and closed in slow motion with mass disk drive activity, under linux it barely skipped a beat.

I tried all sorts of apps and combos, I spent a couple days fooling around with the two comparing numbers and results, bottom line, when it comes to multitasking windows is a serious liability.I wish I had had an Intel system of about the same speed to compare at the same time just to see what would happen.With linux its very easy to run things in parallel, I could have tried to see if HT helped at all,not sure how to do that in windows but Id be interested in seeing what happens with that too.

At some point microsoft is going to have issues being so far behind keeping up with hardware advances, multicores are going to hit the market with a quickness, windows isnt even close to being ready, what happens then?

 

[Elbatrop1]

windows isnt even close to being ready, what happens then?

They go and release something that is as great as Windows ME

 

[dhw200]

Question: Whats the stupidest thing youve ever done to your comp?

Answer: Installed Windows ME on it...

 

[desiboi]

Downloaded Kazaa

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

Downloaded Kazaa, and put a beta version of X64 on it.....

Anyways ill stick with AMD as long as they are the cheaper company and the nice guys....