stealth_thunder
New Member
- Messages
- 556
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Dual-Core CPUs Arrive
Yes, they're tempting--but here's why you should wait to buy one.
Tom Mainelli, PC World
Friday, June 10, 2005
Two is always better than one: two monitors, two graphics cards, two pieces of chocolate cake. One is good, but two is twice as nice. So you can imagine my anticipation as Advanced Micro Devices and Intel announced their first 64-bit capable dual-core desktop processors. It only stands to reason that a processor with two cores will be faster and better than a chip with one measly core. For anyone in search of a real, noticeable boost in performance, this has got to be the easiest upgrade decision of all time, right?
Well, um, maybe not.
It's true that preliminary tests of dual-core processors--particularly AMD's Athlon 64 X2--have shown some promising results (more on those in a minute). But the fact is that for many computer users, a single-core processor may actually offer better performance on some of today's most demanding apps (read: games) than a dual-core chip. That's because heat and power restrictions mean the vast majority of these initial dual-core chips are running at slower clock speeds than their highest-end single-core siblings. Plus, there's the nagging reality that these early chips are too dang expensive right now--and if you want an Intel CPU, you'll have to upgrade your motherboard just to make it work.
Yes, it pains me. But I'm forced to admit that, for many folks, it may not make sense to leap to a dual-core processor yet.
Pricing and Upgrade Path
Dual-core CPUs incorporate two physical processors and two L2 caches. Microsoft Windows XP can see both cores, and if you're running more than one program, it puts each core to work crunching numbers. Dual cores also come in handy when you run multithreaded applications, which are fairly rare on the desktop. As more desktops move to dual-core CPUs, hopefully more programs will utilize multithreading.
AMD and Intel achieved their core duality through very different architectures. I won't get into that whole argument-prone business right here, but I will say that AMD's appears to be the superior implementation--at least for now.
Intel was the first out of the chute with its 3.2-GHz Pentium Extreme Edition 840. And the company recently launched its Pentium D line, which includes the 3.2-GHz 840, 3-GHz 830, and 2.8-GHz 820 dual-core chips. All of Intel's dual-core chips have dual 1MB L2 caches.
AMD's new Athlon 64 X2 is available in four flavors with a mix of speeds and L2 cache sizes: The 4800+ runs at 2.4 GHz and has two 1MB caches; the 4600+ runs at 2.4 GHz and has two 512KB caches; the 4400+ runs at 2.2 GHz with two 1MB caches; and the 4200+ runs at 2.2 GHz and has two 512KB caches.
Unfortunately, you can't just pop your new dual-core chip into your system and go about your business. If you have an AMD Athlon 64-based system with a motherboard that supports a 939-pin CPU, you have the easiest upgrade path: Depending upon your board, you'll probably just need to update your BIOS to support the dual-core chip. However, if you're an Intel fan, you're going to have to replace your motherboard: Only Intel's new 945 chip set supports its dual-core processors.
Another tidbit about dual-core chips: They ain't cheap. At this writing, I could find only one of the chips for sale through the PC World Product Finder: Intel prices its EE 840 at $999 in lots of 1000, but it's selling online for about $1100 a pop (and no, I haven't misplaced the decimal point). At launch, AMD priced its 4800+, 4600+, 4400+, and 4200+ at a whopping $1001, $803, $581, and $537, respectively--and that's also in quantities of 1000. It's not clear how much a single chip will cost you. Intel has priced its Pentium D processors 840, 830, and 820 at $530, $316, and $241, also in quantities of 1000.
On to the Tests
So, I've established that upgrading might be a chore and that prices--particularly at the top of the food chain--are ridiculously high. What about performance? PC World's crack Test Center staff benchmarked Intel's dual-core EE 840 and AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+. They haven't tested any of Intel's Pentium D chips yet.
The EE 40 achieved mixed results in our tests. As I mentioned, most of the dual-core chips are actually running at slower speeds than the highest-end single-core chips. Intel's top-of-the-line single-core Extreme Edition is a 3.73-GHz chip. That probably explains why, in our PC WorldBench 5 tests, the single-core processor notched a 102 and the dual-core EE 840 running at 3.2-GHz posted a 95. I'm no math wizard, but it's clear that's not a step in the right direction. That said, the EE 840 did slightly outpace a single-core Pentium 4 640 running at 3.2 GHz, which scored 92.
In a system comparably configured to the Intel rig, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ chip performed quite well in our tests, notching a 116 score on PC WorldBench 5--the second-highest score ever. It even outperformed the averaged score of two systems running 2.6-GHz Athlon 64 FX 55 single-core chips.
The Athlon 64 X2 then went on to excel where we most expected it to: in our multitasking test. The Athlon 64 X2 system finished the PC WorldBench 5 multitasking test in 6 minutes 44 seconds, which is 3 minutes and 42 seconds faster than the averaged time of the two systems with the FX 55 processor. Intel's dual-core EE 840 chip trailed the Athlon 64 X2 system by about 3 minutes in our test.
Single Core for Single Threads
Still, AMD is quick to point out that for those folks who want the absolute fastest performance on single-threaded apps, the company's single-core Athlon 64 XP FX line is the way to go. The company plans to roll out its next FX chip soon, and it will remain a single-core chip for the foreseeable future. I expect the new FX chip to beat the X2 4800+ in our single-threaded tests. Unfortunately, it's also probably going to remain prohibitively expensive, too.
So what's the bottom line? Dual core is going to rock; and today AMD's dual core beats Intel's dual core. If you've been known to rip a CD while editing a high-resolution image while patting your belly and chewing gum all at the same time, then you definitely want one of these bad boys--eventually.
Unfortunately, right now the best chips in both lines are simply too expensive to touch for power fiends on a budget. Unless you have a wad of cash burning a hole in your pocket, I suggest waiting until more dual-core chips roll out and prices on this first batch slide downward a bit. And by that time, there might be more desktop apps tuned to take advantage of dual-core chips.
Website taken :
Code:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121266,00.aspthis is dammn cool to have but now the prices is not cheap
