Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD X2 better than Intel's C2D for floating point calc's

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 25, 2006 6:36:27 AM

I am looking at getting a new computer. I was thinking of getting a Core 2 Duo (probably E6400). I do some software development, mainly engineering software which involves heavy duty number crunching.

It seemed to me that the X2 5000 and the E6400 were neck and neck on Tom's CPU charts. However, I noticed tonight that the X2 5000 handily beats the E6400 for the SiSoftware Sandra 2007 Memory Floating benchmark (8355 to 5745) and for the SiSoftware Sandra 2007 Arithmetic MFLOPS (15998 to 13688). I am referencing those two as it seems that they would represent my interests more than the gaming benchmarks.

Is it commonly known that the Athlon X2 chips are noticably better than the Core 2 Duo chips at number crunching? Or am I missing something here?

More about : amd intel c2d floating point calc

October 25, 2006 7:07:00 AM

The problem with buying computers for scientific computing is that no one software/program is representative of any group of processing tasks. I can tell you with a high level certainty that my 64-bit 4D image reconstruction algorithms run much faster on K8 than C2D (clock for clock). This doesn't really mean anything though, since your software/computations do something completely different.

So you have two options: (1) Test your program/programs on two similarly configured machines and/or (2) base your purchase on its performance across a wide array of benches which clearly show the C2D winning.

Unless you plan on doing one very specific thing and have time to test that thing, its better to go with the overall.
October 25, 2006 7:57:42 AM

Quote:
Is it commonly known that the Athlon X2 chips are noticably better than the Core 2 Duo chips at number crunching? Or am I missing something here?

Where the program used is set up for SSE, the core2 duo chips do very well.
In most cases, where the program has not been so optimized, the AMD's may still hold a slight advantage.
Having said that, it's not like we are talking about the difference between an A64 and a P4. The C2D have a much better IPC than the P4s did.
Related resources
October 25, 2006 8:54:04 AM

Guys, he's talkin about engineering software.
Not everybody buys a computer just for gaming...
And yes, if some SW uses x87 FP instructions rather than SSE, the Athlon X2 comes up faster (Sciencemark, for example).
Intel probably (and rightfully) felt that x87 code is dying anyway.
This also happens in bandwidth measuring synthetic tests (not because these tests are "rigged").
October 25, 2006 11:16:43 AM

What you have seen has nothing with FP performance. It is a synthetic benchmark for memory bandwidth and memory bandwidth does not translates into FP performance. What you've seen is the sAM2 X2 with DDR2 which has double the theoretical bandwidth of the s939 X2, but it is not faster.
C2D has much better FP performance than X2 at same freqfency. There is a sticky thread on this subforum about the C2D. Check out the benchmarks.
October 25, 2006 12:25:22 PM

Quote:


yes you are missing almost everything
the sis tests are not real its a guesstimate
if you take an athalon and C2d and do real tests with them the athalon gets destroyed
in fact we should be sending the company for the sandra tests emails asking why this is messed up. my guess is they used specific procs and system configs to design the tests. and now that c2d is out the tests look bad.



just curious what "heavy duty number crunching" tests do you do that is not for gaming?

thanks
dave


Yes, it is really possible to have the Athlon 64 (and not Athalon...) to perform better at certain task than core2 processor. Just like old P4 were faster than Athlon64 in some task. Intel was loosing to AMD in the gaming segment, so they put effort to improve this part. Those who believe that core2 processor are the one to have, well, it is partly true. depending of the task, you may better get an X2.

I can use core2 and X2 computer so I know what I mean. Overall feeling are the same for both. neither one seem faster, unless I do specific task on the core2. which one is the faster? ..both.

Would I trust benchmark better than real life experience? Never.

Would I trust advice from someone thant can even spell the CPU part correctly? No

Would I trust advice from someone that have no clue about applications that use heavy number crunching beside gaming? never..
October 25, 2006 12:30:39 PM

This is a bit of a stretch.
Core 2 is considerably faster (clock for clock) in, like, 99% of benchmarks...
October 25, 2006 12:34:42 PM

Quote:

Is it commonly known that the Athlon X2 chips are noticably better than the Core 2 Duo chips at number crunching? Or am I missing something here?


It can be. depending of the algorithm used, one could perform better than the other. Not so long ago, the Athlon64 was overall faster than the P4, but in some application, the P4 was noticably faster than the Athlon. in some video application, the P4 was sometime faster. But sometime, dependingof the application or the codec used, the AMD was better.

If you could just write a small application like algorithm, that could represent some of your work, to make like a benchmark application, you could go to a store, and try it on both. this way, you will see if your needs are toward core2 or Athlon64 performance.

But don't rely only on what you see on benchmark. benchmarking machine are not really configured the same than your work machine, that run multiple task in the backgroung and can have some hardware limitation (network storage) that would just level the performance of both machine.

The fastest computer is always as fast as its slowest component.
October 25, 2006 12:48:12 PM

Quote:
This is a bit of a stretch.
Core 2 is considerably faster (clock for clock) in, like, 99% of benchmarks...


If you take a 3.0Ghz P4 against a 3.0Ghz OCed A64, then A64 is generaly faster clock for clock, but still could have problem to keep up with the P4 for some specific task..

Just like in this case, maybe the specific task he's doing is better for the A64.. and there's nothing wrong (or right..) woth that.. it just happen.
October 25, 2006 1:07:08 PM

Get a Quad and call it a day =P

Also, the X2 5000+ is more comparable to the E6600 pricewise, any reason why you were comparing it to the 6400?
October 25, 2006 1:38:34 PM

Can you give an example of task where 3GHz A64 can not keep up with P4 with the same clock speed? 8O

Quote:


If you take a 3.0Ghz P4 against a 3.0Ghz OCed A64, then A64 is generaly faster clock for clock, but still could have problem to keep up with the P4 for some specific task..

Just like in this case, maybe the specific task he's doing is better for the A64.. and there's nothing wrong (or right..) woth that.. it just happen.
October 25, 2006 1:51:20 PM

Quote:
I am looking at getting a new computer. I was thinking of getting a Core 2 Duo (probably E6400). I do some software development, mainly engineering software which involves heavy duty number crunching.

It seemed to me that the X2 5000 and the E6400 were neck and neck on Tom's CPU charts. However, I noticed tonight that the X2 5000 handily beats the E6400 for the SiSoftware Sandra 2007 Memory Floating benchmark (8355 to 5745) and for the SiSoftware Sandra 2007 Arithmetic MFLOPS (15998 to 13688). I am referencing those two as it seems that they would represent my interests more than the gaming benchmarks.

Is it commonly known that the Athlon X2 chips are noticably better than the Core 2 Duo chips at number crunching? Or am I missing something here?



You shouldn't even be comparing the X2 5000+ to the E6400. First of all, the X2 5000+ pricewise is comparable to the E6600 like the above person stated. Performance wise though, it's comparable to a E6300-E6400. As we all know, the E6600 heavily outperforms the X2 5000+.
October 25, 2006 2:17:37 PM

I am just replying to the last one posting, but thanks to everyone for some very valuable discussion. Just a few comments on some of the posts:

- I was comparing the X2 5000 to the E6400 because they seemed to line up to each other in the overall benchmarks on Tom's CPU chart. The price difference is why I why was originally leaning to the E6400.

- I like the idea of writing a small program that does some benchmarking and running on some similarly equipped computers with those two CPU's.

- It also dawned on me after the post, that a lot of the time will be spent compiling. Therefore the comments about looking out for overall performance as opposed to one task are quite appropriate.

- Comments about synthetic benchmarks as opposed to real life are noted.

Thanks again everyone.
October 25, 2006 2:45:45 PM

Compiling could be the matter on actual code.
Some could run faster and some seems just to trash C2D 8O

http://www.planetamd64.com/lofiversion/index.php/t26394...

Quote:



mmoy
Sep 18 2006, 09:41 AM
I think that the main reason for the Core 2 Duo drop in performance gain is that Macro Ops Fusion isn't supported in 64-bits. But that's just a guess.

As far as performance goes, I have a Core 2 6600 desktop, Athlon 64 3200+ (754) laptop and X2 4400 desktop. The Core 2 machine is very nice but there is one area where it performs very poorly. And that's on 64-bit builds of Mozilla. I clocked it over the weekend and my old Athlon 64 3200+ laptop (over two years old) took less than half the time than the 6600 desktop took to get through the first stage of the build. The desktop had the advantage of 7200 RPM disks as well (one 160 GB SATA and one 160 GB Deskstar). The laptop was using 5400 RPM disks.

One of the main reasons why I bought the Core 2 desktop was for Mozilla builds. It looks like I will continue to use the laptop for 64-bit builds. I haven't tried 32-bit builds on the Conroe yet. The kids have the X2 desktop and prying it away from them is hard to do.



Quote:

- It also dawned on me after the post, that a lot of the time will be spent compiling. Therefore the comments about looking out for overall performance as opposed to one task are quite appropriate.

.
October 25, 2006 2:49:31 PM

I don't trust any comments about Intel/AMD from a website that blatantly states PlanetAMD... sorry

I would still go with the E6400 since even in the benchmarks there's not a huge difference in performance while the price savings is quite a bit more (33% price saving to what... 10-20% performance increase?) Don't forget the OC potential (if your interested at all). If you really want end-all be all performance, the e6600 will do just fine...

or like I also said... quad-core anyone? :wink:
October 25, 2006 3:03:02 PM

Well, that comment is so shocking that it must be true :) 

For more balanced point of view:

http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/ebats/computers.html

In any instance I would just try to compile the code on similarly configured machines with different processors in local CS.





Quote:
I don't trust any comments about Intel/AMD from a website that blatantly states PlanetAMD... sorry

October 25, 2006 11:34:05 PM

Quote:
Can you give an example of task where 3GHz A64 can not keep up with P4 with the same clock speed? 8O



If you take a 3.0Ghz P4 against a 3.0Ghz OCed A64, then A64 is generaly faster clock for clock, but still could have problem to keep up with the P4 for some specific task..

Just like in this case, maybe the specific task he's doing is better for the A64.. and there's nothing wrong (or right..) woth that.. it just happen.


I don't remember which apps it was, but the p4 was very strong at it.. it was related to video work, iirc.
October 26, 2006 12:36:23 AM

If you are a codewriter and need serious number crunching ability for iterative calculations you may want to have a look at a product called the ClearSpeed Advance™ Accelerator Board and the ClearSpeed software development kit.

see the link

http://www.clearspeed.com/ :) 
October 26, 2006 2:02:58 AM

Quote:
Can you give an example of task where 3GHz A64 can not keep up with P4 with the same clock speed? 8O



If you take a 3.0Ghz P4 against a 3.0Ghz OCed A64, then A64 is generaly faster clock for clock, but still could have problem to keep up with the P4 for some specific task..

Just like in this case, maybe the specific task he's doing is better for the A64.. and there's nothing wrong (or right..) woth that.. it just happen.


I don't remember which apps it was, but the p4 was very strong at it.. it was related to video work, iirc.

There never were benchmarks were a p-4 and athlon were at the same clock. P-4 would have been wasted way to bad if it had to work againced a athlon at a clock per clock basis. They didnt ramp the clock speeds mearly for looks they had to so thier chips could keep up.

Quote:
Would I trust advice from someone thant can even spell the CPU part correctly? No


Becuase that actualy means he has no clue what hes talking about. Seriously when will this ignorance die.

Really though find out what optimisations the software you want to use incorperates. Either CPU is going to do the job and youll most likely not really see the difference. Just get what works best for your software if it really matters to you. Research doesnt hurt.
October 26, 2006 2:40:35 AM

The first step in making a good decision is choosing the right benchmark. In your specific case (software development and numbercrunching) I would recommend looking at the widely accepted SPEC CPU2000 and the just released successor SPEC CPU2006 (www.spec.org) for the following reasons:

- SPEC CPU is a real world benchmark consisting of a set of real applications from different fields (science, engineering, software development, encoding ...)

- Whoever wants to submit SPEC CPU-results to www.spec.org has to compile the source code of the benchmarks by himself before running the benchmark, with the compiler and compiler options of his own choice. So the software can be adapted in the best possible way to the CPU at hand. For example, if a CPU is good in SSE, the benchmark will be compiled to make heavy use of SSE, if not, it won't. So the conditions are equally fair for all CPU families.

- Since a number of different applications is involved, the results are a good average of different program characteristics.

For an estimate of compilation speed, look at the SPECint results for integer workloads, or more specifically at the results for the subtest that involves compilation. For an estimate of the numbercrunching abilities, look at SPECfp.

To find out about C2D vs. Athlon 64, just look up the best results published for each processor. You can look at Xeon Woodcrest or Opteron results as well for models with comparable frequency with the C2D or Athlon 64, since the cores are very similar, although the cache size might differ.

In general, judging from the SPECint2000-results, the Athlon 64 will be behind the C2D by about 30 % clock for clock for integer workloads. The results of the compilation subtest 176.gcc give a similar picture.

For numbercrunching, however, the Athlon/Opteron is somewhat faster overall and clock for clock in SPECfp2000 than the C2D/Xeon Woodcrest. In SPECfp2000, a 2,8 GHz Opteron 1220SE wins against a 2,9 GHz Core 2E by 3073 to 3050, and in SPECfp_rate2000, a 2,6 GHz Opteron 1218 wins against a 2,9 GHz Core 2E by 56,5 to 53,1.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2006 4:36:46 AM

Quote:
Guys, he's talkin about engineering software.
Not everybody buys a computer just for gaming...
And yes, if some SW uses x87 FP instructions rather than SSE, the Athlon X2 comes up faster (Sciencemark, for example).
Intel probably (and rightfully) felt that x87 code is dying anyway.
This also happens in bandwidth measuring synthetic tests (not because these tests are "rigged").


C2D is still faster clock for clock then A64 X2 under Sciencemark. Not sure where you're getting that the A64 X2 is superior in this benchmark. Could you link us?
October 26, 2006 5:00:57 AM

Quote:


yes you are missing almost everything
the sis tests are not real its a guesstimate
if you take an athalon and C2d and do real tests with them the athalon gets destroyed
in fact we should be sending the company for the sandra tests emails asking why this is messed up. my guess is they used specific procs and system configs to design the tests. and now that c2d is out the tests look bad.



just curious what "heavy duty number crunching" tests do you do that is not for gaming?

thanks
dave


There are TONS of engineering modeling programs out there that are much more demanding than any game on the CPU. FOr example earthquake modeling, FLAC2D (ground modeling). These programs are all floating point, and run for days before producing a result (FLAC2D for example has runs that take 3 days at 100% CPU utilization and uses only 100 MB of memory). Anyhow I could come up with more examples if I thought about it, all related to civil engineering.

Anyhow I find that synthetic benchmarks are a terrible thing to use to predict real world performance...
October 26, 2006 5:08:59 AM

Careful on your thread bud it looks like the psycho intel pushers found ya.
Some of them dudes will faster cut off your head than admit their C2D is a piece of crap.
It boils down to your programs code, and if it is multithreaded or not. If not save your cash and buy a single core Athlon or perhaps Opteron.
I don't claim to be a software engineer but i know 90% of software can only use one core at this time.
Intel no longer makes a reasonable single core solution, and a single core will always be a superior core.
You can buy AMD single cores in an unbelieveable 35 WATT TDP now, which is a fantastic technological leap IMO.
October 26, 2006 5:15:31 AM

Would you shut the f*ck up already? If you don't have any kind of proof to back up your erroneous claims, I suggest you refrain from posting anymore bullshit.
This is my last warning to you.
October 26, 2006 5:34:26 AM

Habanero and Lucky Luke: Thanks for the info and links.

Beerandcandy: Our office is in a minute field of engineering and we use about a dozen (incuding the ones I write) programs in which all they do is number crunch all day long. Multiply that by the umpteen fields in engineering and there are a lot programs out there. I'll guarantee that you've never heard of about 99.9999% of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
October 26, 2006 5:44:00 AM

Quote:
FOr example earthquake modeling, FLAC2D (ground modeling).


Yes FLAC is definitely a good example of a CPU hog.

Quote:
Anyhow I find that synthetic benchmarks are a terrible thing to use to predict real world performance...


So I'm finding out.
October 26, 2006 6:41:03 AM

There are a lot more factors consuming power in those test systems than just the CPU, The chipsets in the Mainboards are different which can make a lot of difference.
This test was done in the transitional period when AMD was switching over from 754/939 to AM2, so we have newer generation Intel platform and previous generation AMD involved here.
The AMD system is driving DDR memory at a fairly tight timing, and that SLI board has all kinds of extra features on it that the Aopen one does not.
Not a fair test by any means.
The testing group that did this also did not properly list the right chipset that comes on an A8N-SLI Premium, so who knows what the heck these guys were really running.
October 26, 2006 7:09:36 AM

Quote:
This test was done in the transitional period when AMD was switching over from 754/939 to AM2, so we have newer generation Intel platform and previous generation AMD involved here.

O RLY?
That's Core Duo, not Core 2 Duo. Same generation.

Quote:
The AMD system is driving DDR memory at a fairly tight timing, and that SLI board has all kinds of extra features on it that the Aopen one does not.

O RLY? Like what?

Quote:
Not a fair test by any means.

Life is unfair. Get over it.

Quote:
The testing group that did this also did not properly list the right chipset that comes on an A8N-SLI Premium, so who knows what the heck these guys were really running.

Nitpick nitpick. Get over it.

Take your fanboi bias out of these forums. Go join AMDzone or PlanetAMD, go preach your "wisdom" there. We don't need FUD spread in these forums.
October 26, 2006 7:49:19 AM

As someone else mentioned, you'll get a different answer based on different software. That being said, your best bet would be to write the software to be optimized for the strengths of whatever platform/CPU you choose to go with. Figuring out where your bottlenecks are, and applying that to figure out which platform best suits your needs. For example, if your software is memory-bandwidth intensive with floating point numbers (like SM2.0 is), then maybe AM2 is your choice, if not, then probably C2D.. either way.. you should choose a platform and write the software to take advantage of the unique advantages of that platform. In other words, your code should be optimized to run best on the hardware you're going to be using.
October 26, 2006 8:32:15 AM

Quote:
Careful on your thread bud it looks like the psycho intel pushers found ya.
Some of them dudes will faster cut off your head than admit their C2D is a piece of crap.
It boils down to your programs code, and if it is multithreaded or not. If not save your cash and buy a single core Athlon or perhaps Opteron.
I don't claim to be a software engineer but i know 90% of software can only use one core at this time.
Intel no longer makes a reasonable single core solution, and a single core will always be a superior core.
You can buy AMD single cores in an unbelieveable 35 WATT TDP now, which is a fantastic technological leap IMO.

STFU stupid idiot & AMD fanboy troll!
You don't know anything about CPUs and computers.
So, why don't you go to your mummy and cry because AMD sucks more than Intel?
October 26, 2006 9:08:16 AM

Quote:
Guys, he's talkin about engineering software.
Not everybody buys a computer just for gaming...
And yes, if some SW uses x87 FP instructions rather than SSE, the Athlon X2 comes up faster (Sciencemark, for example).
Intel probably (and rightfully) felt that x87 code is dying anyway.
This also happens in bandwidth measuring synthetic tests (not because these tests are "rigged").


C2D is still faster clock for clock then A64 X2 under Sciencemark. Not sure where you're getting that the A64 X2 is superior in this benchmark. Could you link us?
Sure, just a couple of links, there are probably many more.
(here)
(here)

But ok, let's say that the performance in this benchmark is very tiny, but it slightly favors AMD (E6700 has slightly higher clock than X2 5000+, in case of X6800 vs FX-62 the clock delta is even a bit bigger).
October 26, 2006 10:17:34 AM

However, i find the question regarding the energy efficiency of Athlon X2s VS C2D to be still controversial.
This review from Tom's HW shows that a standard X2 3800+, rated at a TDP of 89W, draws significantly less power than the 65W TDP rated C2D E6600 both at idle and under load (and less than the 65W TDP rated X2 4600+ EE).
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2006 1:10:43 PM

Quote:
Guys, he's talkin about engineering software.
Not everybody buys a computer just for gaming...
And yes, if some SW uses x87 FP instructions rather than SSE, the Athlon X2 comes up faster (Sciencemark, for example).
Intel probably (and rightfully) felt that x87 code is dying anyway.
This also happens in bandwidth measuring synthetic tests (not because these tests are "rigged").


C2D is still faster clock for clock then A64 X2 under Sciencemark. Not sure where you're getting that the A64 X2 is superior in this benchmark. Could you link us?
Sure, just a couple of links, there are probably many more.
(here)
(here)

But ok, let's say that the performance in this benchmark is very tiny, but it slightly favors AMD (E6700 has slightly higher clock than X2 5000+, in case of X6800 vs FX-62 the clock delta is even a bit bigger).

hmm those links indicate the tests as shown on their own. You need to look at the Final Sciencemark score which takes everything into account and assigns a final score. I suppose this is where the mis-information is being spread. People are looking at individual tests (primarily the memory benchmark test in sciencemark) and claiming AMD the victor, far from it. Memory bandwidth plays only a small roll in the C2D's performance. Most of it's performance is attained through Wider SSE, Higher IPC and Shared Cache technologies, if Sciencemark included tests to test these features of the two processors you'd get a more even-rounded picture.

Anyways.. here are links with the full Sciencemark Score:
CLICK ME!
synthetic benchmark suite that simulates the number crunches and memory accesses used in theoretical scientific and engineering computing.

So a large part of the score is attributed to memory bandwidth." alt="" class="imgLz frmImg " />[/b]
October 26, 2006 3:06:54 PM

I love AMD, but Intel came out with a winner in the C2D. It's well ahead of any A64 overall, and overclocks better as well... so OC an E6600, kick back with a brew, and watch "The Man Show" in your skivvies and Sperry Topsiders... 8)

Intel C2D E6600 2.4GHz (OC'ed to 3.33GHz, and rising)
ABIT AW9D mobo
G.Skill DDR2-800, 5-5-5-15
NZXT Zero case (very nice)
WD 36GB Raptors in RAID 0 (Upgrade coming soon...)
PC/P&C 1KW PSU
Vigor Monsoon II TEC HSF (works like a charm)
EVGA 7900GT's in SLI (and a big THANK YOU to the genius who modded some drivers to make SLI work on a Crossfire mobo! ...as well as a big EAT **** to ABIT for putting an SLI bridge connector in a mobo package when its a Crossfire mobo [jerks])

PDH-NicFury

PS: I wonder what cpu 'fatchicken' will go with...
October 26, 2006 3:39:36 PM

Quote:

hmm those links indicate the tests as shown on their own. You need to look at the Final Sciencemark score which takes everything into account and assigns a final score. I suppose this is where the mis-information is being spread. People are looking at individual tests (primarily the memory benchmark test in sciencemark) and claiming AMD the victor, far from it.
Anyways.. here are links with the full Sciencemark Score:
CLICK ME!


My friend, you just posted the same link i did.
So i'll go with it: don't you see that in the overall score (not bandwidth score) a 2.6GHz X2 5000+ beats a 2.66GHz E6700 (1500 Vs 1495)?
Sure, it's a tiny margin, but this is what i had already said!
Same for the X2 3800+, 1.8GHz Vs C2D E6300 1.83GHz.
Now, the X6800 2.93GHz beats the 2.8GHz FX-62, but its clock speed advantage (4,6%) is greater than its score advantage (1.9%)


Quote:
Also it would be good if everyone were open and honest about what ScienceMark does. All it is is a synthetic benchmark suite that simulates the number crunches and memory accesses used in theoretical scientific and engineering computing.

So a large part of the score is attributed to memory bandwidth.

Also it would be good if you'd be open and honest about the fact that this thread was about number crunching in theoretical scientific and engineering computing.

Quote:
Memory bandwidth plays only a small roll in the C2D's performance. Most of it's performance is attained through Wider SSE, Higher IPC and Shared Cache technologies, if Sciencemark included tests to test these features of the two processors you'd get a more even-rounded picture.

Higher IPC is not a technology, IPC is just a measure of performance.
Higher issue rate (4/5 instructions per clock) plays little role in FP computing where at best 2 instructions are executed per clock.
Shared cache has its advantages and disadvantages, but plays a minor role when dealing with large datasets.
The wider SSE engine (twice as fast as the Athlon 64 and Pentium 4) is a major player in Core 2 performance, but i believe it is not used for this benchmark; i guess the reason could be that x87 FP code supports 80bit precision and SSE2 only 64bit.
Anyway, when it comes down to x87 FP code, the Athlon 64 is still very strong, even compared to Conroe (both can execute a FADD and FMUL in parallel, i do not know what latency these instructions have on the Core architecture, but on the K8 they are very low latency).
Memory bandwidth and raw FP performance are very important for scientific calculations.
October 26, 2006 6:57:48 PM

In my experiences at work.. we've purchased 3 core duo systems now.. 2 from HP and one from Dell. From the applications that are being ran.. office apps, a few heavy java script apps, and eralink a car dealership program.. the Sempron 1800+ 512mb, P3's 256mb, and some random p4's with same memory are performing MUCH faster than these 2gb systems at least in these apps. All machines have norton running and about 3 separate pages, 2 eralink screens, and one more addition FMC dealer screen.

I've sent the two HP's back now.. and they came back the same. SLOW.
I've been on tech support for a few hours now.. and its useless.

Sure your god systems rock for benchmarks, but its not for my work. However, i'd be glad to take one for my overclocking pleasures ; ).

It really is user specific. Dual core sucks so far for my work.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2006 7:03:13 PM

Quote:

hmm those links indicate the tests as shown on their own. You need to look at the Final Sciencemark score which takes everything into account and assigns a final score. I suppose this is where the mis-information is being spread. People are looking at individual tests (primarily the memory benchmark test in sciencemark) and claiming AMD the victor, far from it.
Anyways.. here are links with the full Sciencemark Score:
CLICK ME!


My friend, you just posted the same link i did.
So i'll go with it: don't you see that in the overall score (not bandwidth score) a 2.6GHz X2 5000+ beats a 2.66GHz E6700 (1500 Vs 1495)?
Sure, it's a tiny margin, but this is what i had already said!
Same for the X2 3800+, 1.8GHz Vs C2D E6300 1.83GHz.
Now, the X6800 2.93GHz beats the 2.8GHz FX-62, but its clock speed advantage (4,6%) is greater than its score advantage (1.9%)


Quote:
Also it would be good if everyone were open and honest about what ScienceMark does. All it is is a synthetic benchmark suite that simulates the number crunches and memory accesses used in theoretical scientific and engineering computing.

So a large part of the score is attributed to memory bandwidth.

Also it would be good if you'd be open and honest about the fact that this thread was about number crunching in theoretical scientific and engineering computing.

Quote:
Memory bandwidth plays only a small roll in the C2D's performance. Most of it's performance is attained through Wider SSE, Higher IPC and Shared Cache technologies, if Sciencemark included tests to test these features of the two processors you'd get a more even-rounded picture.

Higher IPC is not a technology, IPC is just a measure of performance.
Higher issue rate (4/5 instructions per clock) plays little role in FP computing where at best 2 instructions are executed per clock.
Shared cache has its advantages and disadvantages, but plays a minor role when dealing with large datasets.
The wider SSE engine (twice as fast as the Athlon 64 and Pentium 4) is a major player in Core 2 performance, but i believe it is not used for this benchmark; i guess the reason could be that x87 FP code supports 80bit precision and SSE2 only 64bit.
Anyway, when it comes down to x87 FP code, the Athlon 64 is still very strong, even compared to Conroe (both can execute a FADD and FMUL in parallel, i do not know what latency these instructions have on the Core architecture, but on the K8 they are very low latency).
Memory bandwidth and raw FP performance are very important for scientific calculations.

Umm an X2 3800+ is 2GHz not 1.8GHz. Now do you understand where I'm coming from?

Also compare an X2 4600+ (2.4GHz) with an E6600 (2.4GHz). What you get is that even with full x87 only FPU intensive tasks.. the Core 2 Duo is not beaten. Only beaten in memory bandwidth (which is taken into account in the final Sciencemark 2 suite).

All in all a Core 2 Duo is either a match Clock for Clock (if not a tad faster as the E6700 numbers seem to be a fluke) when running Sciencemark2 while being anywhere from 18-40% faster in other applications.

Again.. no reason to waste ANY money on an AMD Athlon64 X2 platform for ANY reason.
October 26, 2006 7:19:16 PM

Quote:
Again.. no reason to waste ANY money on an AMD Athlon64 X2 platform for ANY reason.

Especialy if the reason is overclocking. :wink:
October 26, 2006 7:34:40 PM

ok its official:
yet another thread who cannot be taken seriously anymore just because i got a intel vs amd war again. both sides saying that the other side is crap.
anyway i thought processors like the x2 and c2d were made for pcs not workstations. AMD and intel itself advise you to get an opteron or xeon. And i really think they know someth about processors ;) 
October 26, 2006 8:21:53 PM

Quote:

Umm an X2 3800+ is 2GHz not 1.8GHz. Now do you understand where I'm coming from?

Also compare an X2 4600+ (2.4GHz) with an E6600 (2.4GHz). What you get is that even with full x87 only FPU intensive tasks.. the Core 2 Duo is not beaten. Only beaten in memory bandwidth (which is taken into account in the final Sciencemark 2 suite).

All in all a Core 2 Duo is either a match Clock for Clock (if not a tad faster as the E6700 numbers seem to be a fluke) when running Sciencemark2 while being anywhere from 18-40% faster in other applications.

Again.. no reason to waste ANY money on an AMD Athlon64 X2 platform for ANY reason.

No, the E6700 numbers dont seem to be a fluke, as they're confirmed by the X6800 numbers, while at the lower end, the 2 architectures are tied (maybe it's a consequence of the scaling of IMC frequency with CPU frequency).
But, yes, as i had said since the beginning, these differences are minimal.
The point is that i see most forum people to take black&white positions, like "Netburst sucks" or "Core 2 rocks", while in fact different architectures have different tradeoffs and very often, a worse overall CPU, might be more suitable for some specific task.
Of course i'd generally recommend a C2D CPU over an X2, but there are a couple of tasks where the K8 architecture is still competitive.
One of these is scientific computations on large datasets, and this is further confirmed by the SPECfp scores of the AM2 Opterons VS Woodcrest Xeons, as someonelse has already posted in this thread.
AM2 Opterons significantly outperform S939 Opterons (by 10% if i recall correctly, should dig for a link) clock for clock on SPECfp.
The problem here is that most people now thinks that the extra bandwidth of AM2s is useless, because in most common benchmarks, this translates in a 2-4% improvement at best, over DDR1.
But the point of this thread was, this guy here has some specific needs, which are not gaming or DIVX encoding or running office business suites, but crunching numbers in engineering simulations.
One should buy the computer which is best for him depending on the planned purpose of the computer.. and it might well be that in his case, an Athlon 64 X2 is a valid solution.
October 26, 2006 8:26:52 PM

Quote:
Again.. no reason to waste ANY money on an AMD Athlon64 X2 platform for ANY reason.

Especialy if the reason is overclocking. :wink:
Yeah, nobody is gonna argue on that! :) 
October 26, 2006 10:59:16 PM

Quote:
There are a lot more factors consuming power in those test systems than just the CPU, The chipsets in the Mainboards are different which can make a lot of difference.
Typical, these are excuses.... data is data is data...

You claimed a technological marvel with a 35 watt single core CPU that underperforms a dual core using less power. Nothing unfair about the comparision, I simply showed you an Intel alternative that does what you call fantastic.There does seem to be a lot of poorly thought out articles looking at power consumption that is giving people the wrong impression IMO. The choice of motherboard is critical and rarely gets acknowledged. Anandtech had a decent recent review of the newer C2D chipsets but even that failed to look at the previous generation chipsets, which are a lot more frugal. At the end of the day if you’re concerned about low power it’s all about the platform and not just the CPU.

35W CPU!!! I put together a desktop system with a Celeron M 420 last week that consumed only 44W whilst running Prime95; 250GB SATA drive, 1GB DDR2-533, DVD-RW. It’s a Yonah based Celeron M – 1.6GHz, 1MB cache, 533 FSB and has a TDP of 27W!
They over-clock like crazy according to various threads on XtremeSystems; 3.2GHz on air! Probably consuming a bit more than 35W at this point. :lol: 
I must stick it in my i975Xa-YDG and see how high it can go.
October 27, 2006 12:19:08 AM

No doubt regarding what kind of applications does he compile and run. Also try data-mining/neural networks; in 1991-2 we ran simulations on 486-33 MHZ and 486-66 MHZ beowolf systems that took a week or more to arrive at a solution. I would have loved to have the computer power we have today.

Regards....
!