Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

C2D vs Athlon X2 in 64-bit app. - Is the table turned?

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 21, 2007 12:39:22 PM

More about : c2d athlon bit app table turned

February 21, 2007 12:52:57 PM

Naaah, it still lags behind the much cheaper E6600 :?
February 21, 2007 2:00:51 PM

certainly not turned, but there is a decrease in the performance gap by a bit in 64-bit -from say a 15% gap to a 6-7% gap ? Idk.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 21, 2007 2:04:47 PM

However, you stil have to look for a 5200+ or lower to find something competing in price with a C2D.
February 21, 2007 2:17:02 PM

Tables turned? Not really.

Like m25 and RandMcNally have mentioned, it did decrease the gap, but the lower priced E6600 still had the edge over the 6000+. Add on the overclockablity seen for the E6600, and that edge might even disappear, but that's another topic.

The real turn around is the power comsumption @ load. AMD was always winning that battle, and now, it's still pretty far behind. At idle, it's king, but idle for most people (not companies) is maybe a few hours a day (personally, it's more like 2 mins for me).

Either way, 64 bit Vista does make AMD more competitive.
February 21, 2007 2:18:54 PM

Micro-opp fusion does not work in 64bit mod. That's the whole difference in performance.
February 21, 2007 2:29:03 PM

Quote:
Tables turned? Not really.

Like m25 and RandMcNally have mentioned, it did decrease the gap, but the lower priced E6600 still had the edge over the 6000+. Add on the overclockablity seen for the E6600, and that edge might even disappear, but that's another topic.

The real turn around is the power comsumption @ load. AMD was always winning that battle, and now, it's still pretty far behind. At idle, it's king, but idle for most people (not companies) is maybe a few hours a day (personally, it's more like 2 mins for me).

Either way, 64 bit Vista does make AMD more competitive.


The 65nm X2 they had was very competitive in terms of power consumption, so don't go throwing too many claims around.
February 21, 2007 2:29:26 PM

The gap in performance between C2D and K8 in WinXP (32bit and 64bit) is 20% in average(considering real-world apps), clock for clock. In Vista (32bit and 64bit) the gap is decreased to 15% in average, clock for clock. The reason is the immaturity of Vista and it's poor optimizations. With twice RAM, it performs slower than Win XP. Once SP1 arrives, things will be better for sure (better kernel, better compatibility with old software, optimized drivers, optimized software, etc.).
February 21, 2007 3:09:06 PM

We know that in XP the gap widened when using 64-bit.
So theres something wrong or "wrong" with Vista.
February 21, 2007 4:34:34 PM

Quote:
Tables turned? Not really.

Like m25 and RandMcNally have mentioned, it did decrease the gap, but the lower priced E6600 still had the edge over the 6000+. Add on the overclockablity seen for the E6600, and that edge might even disappear, but that's another topic.

The real turn around is the power comsumption @ load. AMD was always winning that battle, and now, it's still pretty far behind. At idle, it's king, but idle for most people (not companies) is maybe a few hours a day (personally, it's more like 2 mins for me).

Either way, 64 bit Vista does make AMD more competitive.


The 65nm X2 they had was very competitive in terms of power consumption, so don't go throwing too many claims around.

Yes, the X2 3800+ is very good, but not anywhere near competitive in the benchmarks, like the 6000+ was. And the 6000+ was using 60w or more than the E6400 and the E6700.

I was stating that the 6000+'s power consumption is not as good as other X2's, with the 5600+ being an exception. If you want to just look at the X2 3800+, then you must also look at how well the 3800+ did against the E6600/E6700, in the benchmarks. Sure, the X2 3800+ did very well in power under load, but it didn't fair as well in any of the testing vs. the Core 2 CPUs. In fact, the 65nm part was still higher in load, than the C2D's were.
February 21, 2007 5:49:54 PM

i totally agree with rand on this one, maybe amd's early adoption of 64bit is really going to pay off, I'm no pro but i know k10 is going to be 128 bit...what i'm sayin is how long till 128bit becomes the standard? everything is speeding up so i'm sure they'll have "windows vista SUPREME EDITION" or some gay anus like that...

anyway these benchmarks are awesome i'm glad someone is actually testing this stuff...puts things in perspective in the whol athlon c2d war...

of course being an underdog supporter i think amd has to be twice as smart as intel to compete in this field...and well i don't think their twice as smart anymore...but maybe...sigh...if they could get sooner launches people wouldn't piss and moan about them so much...WHERES MY AM2+ MOBO?! i'd buy one and slap a pos sempron in it and just wait....

seems like amd doesn't rely on clockspeeds as much as intel...

bring on the microarch wars!! intel slapped amd in the face...lets see who wins the 10 paces turn and shoot...kuma hurry up....dear lord...
February 21, 2007 6:30:06 PM

Quote:
The gap in performance between C2D and K8 in WinXP (32bit and 64bit) is 20% in average(considering real-world apps), clock for clock. In Vista (32bit and 64bit) the gap is decreased to 15% in average, clock for clock. The reason is the immaturity of Vista and it's poor optimizations. With twice RAM, it performs slower than Win XP. Once SP1 arrives, things will be better for sure (better kernel, better compatibility with old software, optimized drivers, optimized software, etc.).



Dude, you're kidding. Vista isn't immature. The only problem I see is the higher RAM requirements, but with 3.25GB Vista is much snappier than XP even with the animations for everything.

I can't believe you actually think they released an unfinished kernel. SW compat is better than it was with XP and software won't be "optimized" for Vista. The only real difference is how the UI is drawn now that Aero is around.

And to think you hollar that OTHER people are unknowing.
February 21, 2007 6:33:17 PM

Quote:
i totally agree with rand on this one, maybe amd's early adoption of 64bit is really going to pay off, I'm no pro but i know k10 is going to be 128 bit...what i'm sayin is how long till 128bit becomes the standard? everything is speeding up so i'm sure they'll have "windows vista SUPREME EDITION" or some gay anus like that...

anyway these benchmarks are awesome i'm glad someone is actually testing this stuff...puts things in perspective in the whol athlon c2d war...

of course being an underdog supporter i think amd has to be twice as smart as intel to compete in this field...and well i don't think their twice as smart anymore...but maybe...sigh...if they could get sooner launches people wouldn't piss and moan about them so much...WHERES MY AM2+ MOBO?! i'd buy one and slap a pos sempron in it and just wait....

seems like amd doesn't rely on clockspeeds as much as intel...

bring on the microarch wars!! intel slapped amd in the face...lets see who wins the 10 paces turn and shoot...kuma hurry up....dear lord...



I think you are misunderstanding the 128bitness of Barcelona. The bit widths are 128 bit for transfer but data is still crunched at 64bit (if using native apps). It will be a long while before we get to a 128bit instruction set.
February 21, 2007 7:14:54 PM

Quote:
i know k10 is going to be 128 bit

Care to provide proof?
February 21, 2007 7:22:03 PM

Quote:
We know that in XP the gap widened when using 64-bit.
So theres something wrong or "wrong" with Vista.



No. I would say the difference is because the XP/2003 kernel was completed before A64 was really prevalent. Now that it has been around, optimizations for the extended instuction set just may favor the IMC or HyperTransport.

Or it could be that the use of SuperFetch is affecting the FSB more. Also, the gap didn't widen with XP X64, AMD actually caught up because Core2 lost more perf.
February 21, 2007 7:27:22 PM

Quote:
So you are saying microsoft has never released and unfinished product? Then what the heck do you call Window's ME (Mistake Edition)? It was a rushed product that ended up being the worst OS ever. To me that seems pretty unfinished because if they would have taken the time to do it right it would have been a pretty decent OS.


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. At least in terms of the kernel. As a person who worked on every Windows since 98 up to Server 2003, I can say that Vista is ready.
I have it installed and with at least 3GB RAM, it is noticeably snappier than XP with the same amount of RAM.

ME was not rushed. It was a hog compared to 98SE but it introduced several new technologies, like System Restore, SAF, HelpCenter, Remote Help, and several others.

People got upset because it seemed exactly like 98SE. ME was supposed to be Win2K for home use.
February 21, 2007 8:02:15 PM

Quote:
I think you are misunderstanding the 128bitness of Barcelona. The bit widths are 128 bit for transfer but data is still crunched at 64bit (if using native apps). It will be a long while before we get to a 128bit instruction set.


o i c...i know its a "native" quadcore but i thought it would somehow be able to run a so called 128bit program because it could function like two 64bit dual cores... :oops: 
February 21, 2007 10:01:38 PM

Quote:
Dude, you're kidding. Vista isn't immature.
Oh please.....tell me about how mature is Vista. :roll: No drivers, no software, not compatible with lots of pre-Longhorn applications, runs slower than pre-Longhorn OSes.....

Quote:
The only problem I see is the higher RAM requirements, but with 3.25GB Vista is much snappier than XP even with the animations for everything.
You don't know what you are talking....You want to tell me that I need 4GB of RAM, just because of Vista's make up?

Quote:
I can't believe you actually think they released an unfinished kernel.
I don't believe, I know. They done it so many times, and they have done it again with Vista. Not only WinME, but do you remember Win95 16bit? Also, do you remember when WinXP arrived, how many Win98 apps were incompatible, and Win98 was faster. I see a pattern here, so SP1 will make it better.

Quote:
SW compat is better than it was with XP and software won't be "optimized" for Vista. The only real difference is how the UI is drawn now that Aero is around.
New software will be written optimized for Vista. And there are a lot more differences between Vista and XP than the GUI.
February 21, 2007 10:15:04 PM

More amd media bias - they should be slamming the new "heat oven" "me too" product. Way too nice - o well - with out amd, intel would be charging $2000 a chip so gogo amd!

mr fanboy
February 21, 2007 10:18:51 PM

You seem kind of biased yourself from some of my observations. Then again, I maybe wrong.
February 21, 2007 10:49:19 PM

Quote:
Dude, you're kidding. Vista isn't immature.
Oh please.....tell me about how mature is Vista. :roll: No drivers, no software, not compatible with lots of pre-Longhorn applications, runs slower than pre-Longhorn OSes.....

Quote:
The only problem I see is the higher RAM requirements, but with 3.25GB Vista is much snappier than XP even with the animations for everything.
You don't know what you are talking....You want to tell me that I need 4GB of RAM, just because of Vista's make up?

Quote:
I can't believe you actually think they released an unfinished kernel.
I don't believe, I know. They done it so many times, and they have done it again with Vista. Not only WinME, but do you remember Win95 16bit? Also, do you remember when WinXP arrived, how many Win98 apps were incompatible, and Win98 was faster. I see a pattern here, so SP1 will make it better.

Quote:
SW compat is better than it was with XP and software won't be "optimized" for Vista. The only real difference is how the UI is drawn now that Aero is around.
New software will be written optimized for Vista. And there are a lot more differences between Vista and XP than the GUI.


Hey, it's not my fault Vista wants more RAM. The differences in Vista are mostly the way the kernel is accessed (or if it can be) and the fact that drivers now run in USER mode. SP1 for Vista will not speed it up. it may have some compat patches but it's doubtful. The kernel is ALWAYS the first thing to be completed and optimized as if it doesn't work MALLOC doesn't work and you can't talk to Ring 0.
February 21, 2007 11:19:43 PM

Quote:
Dude, you're kidding. Vista isn't immature.


yes it is. its new.
it will take a sp or 2 to fix all the bugs, and the upcoming ones.
February 22, 2007 12:02:34 AM

Quote:
Hey, it's not my fault Vista wants more RAM. The differences in Vista are mostly the way the kernel is accessed (or if it can be) and the fact that drivers now run in USER mode. SP1 for Vista will not speed it up. it may have some compat patches but it's doubtful. The kernel is ALWAYS the first thing to be completed and optimized as if it doesn't work MALLOC doesn't work and you can't talk to Ring 0.


The fact that the CPU is in User Mode or in Supervisor Mode should have no effect on the speed of the processor.

A broken Kernel does not necessarilly equal a broken malloc -- not a good analogy.
February 22, 2007 2:52:19 AM

Quote:
Quote:
I have it installed and with at least 3GB RAM, it is noticeably snappier than XP with the same amount of RAM.



Barron you should spend more time using your PC and less time posting BS like this. Vista doesn't not have any noticeable pickup in performance going to 3Gb over 2Gb. There are some small gains going from 1.5Gb to 2Gb but it flatten out there. You are going to mislead someone into upgrading there RAM who will be quite disappointed.

I run 4Gb of ram and hate going back to XP for any reason. Even though I hate going back XP is still a faster OS.
February 22, 2007 5:02:49 AM

god i hated windows 98 i remember my parents spent 5k of a phuckin p3 850 with a geforce 2 gts in it...that a piece of sh!t the first day i got it ...would hang on shutdown...played half life (1) like a complete champ though!!

The compy was so crappy there was no fan on the heatsink on the cpu...just some plastic ducting to the powersupply fan...would overheat like a CHAMP!! crash all the time...oh and the harddrive was so damn noisy...couldn't even finish a defrag overnite on a 20gig hd...

i heard windows vista leaves programs "running" in the ram even if you aren't using them...so the more you use vista the more ram you need?? gotta be some way to turn that crap off....if it exists
February 22, 2007 5:12:29 AM

Quote:
I don't believe, I know. They done it so many times, and they have done it again with Vista. Not only WinME, but do you remember Win95 16bit? Also, do you remember when WinXP arrived, how many Win98 apps were incompatible, and Win98 was faster. I see a pattern here, so SP1 will make it better.


What worries me is that the clock is ticking on Vista already. If MS is to keep to its stated schedule, Vienna (?) is 28 months away. Given Ballmer's confirmation of a slow takeup on Vista, if the next OS has similarly increased hw requirements as the XP to Vista jump are the combined computer buyers of this planet just gonna tell MS to take a long jog off a short pier?
February 22, 2007 5:50:33 AM

28 months away...everything we call a home pc could be standing on its head...amd's supposed fusion...scary
February 22, 2007 10:44:02 AM

No, dedicated GPU's will still have their place. Fusion is more likely to hit either the mobile sector or SFF OEM.
February 22, 2007 12:52:18 PM

Please no more talks of Windows ME. Those were the dark times. Before the empire.
February 22, 2007 2:17:46 PM

Quote:
No, dedicated GPU's will still have their place. Fusion is more likely to hit either the mobile sector or SFF OEM.


I would think that fusion would have a place in the HTPC market. At least, that's where I imagined it.
February 22, 2007 2:22:24 PM

And in OEM markets. Especially budget OEM.
February 22, 2007 2:57:18 PM

Yeah, I can't see Fusion going towards the higher end of the market or the enthusiast-prosumer segment. In these rarefied echelons, consumers are way too picky about mixing and matching their own components.
February 22, 2007 5:25:33 PM

Quote:
It was the worst OS ever and buggy as can be. I actually went back to win98 at the time because it was so unstable and constantly crashed for some reason or another. I have yet to talk to one person that complained about ME because it was like 98. Every person that I have talked to that had it hated it because it was pure unstable crap.


I actually still use Win Me on my second machine, for compatibility with older games (playing Knights of Legend currently). For years it was every bit as stable as Win98 though I guess that's not saying much. I think mainly because I disabled System Restore. But now some six years later without a re-install, it's gotten pretty unstable, sometimes it'll hang for no reason and I have to reset the machine. I don't even want to know how clogged with junk the registry has probably become.
February 22, 2007 7:13:20 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I can't see Fusion going towards the higher end of the market or the enthusiast-prosumer segment. In these rarefied echelons, consumers are way too picky about mixing and matching their own components.


I see Fusion lining the shelves of Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.. The build your own crowd is going to see Fusion as just a new integrated graphics solution.
February 22, 2007 7:18:31 PM

Quote:
I see Fusion lining the shelves of Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.. The build your own crowd is going to see Fusion as just a new integrated graphics solution.


Yeah, that's too bad as it seems to have some really exciting technology in there with all that fusin' of CPU and GPU, especially in light of that recent NVidia announcement that their GPUs can run specially written software at Warp 9! Wouldn't it be funny if we all ended up only having GPUs in our PCs five years from now?
February 22, 2007 7:26:19 PM

Quote:
I see Fusion lining the shelves of Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.. The build your own crowd is going to see Fusion as just a new integrated graphics solution.


Yeah, that's too bad as it seems to have some really exciting technology in there with all that fusin' of CPU and GPU, especially in light of that recent NVidia announcement that their GPUs can run specially written software at Warp 9! Wouldn't it be funny if we all ended up only having GPUs in our PCs five years from now?With the power requirements and heat output of the latest GPU's....it would be like Prescott days, all over again.
February 22, 2007 7:31:33 PM

Quote:
With the power requirements and heat output of the latest GPU's....it would be like Prescott days, all over again.


As my father used to say: (quote) "We can put a man on the moon, but we can't..." (endquote) ...come up with GPUs that don't broil!

That new 12 inch OEM monster video card is just an example. How much heat do those things put out????
February 22, 2007 7:56:40 PM

Same old Intel vs. AMD story. One week Intel is winning the next AMD is. Competition is good for all of us!

Intel has the edge right now, but I think it is because they are primarily focused on pressing the limits of their currect technology. AMD's card was 64-bit, while Intel's card was dual core. Its clear now, months later, that Intel indeed had an ace while AMD only had a queen.

You can almost hear the conversations going on inside these two companies.

"We are getting killed by that new CPU! What are we going to do to stop them from eating up market share?"

"Do what we always do, copy them until we come up with something better."

I'm very interested in seeing what the AMD/ATi merger has in store for us once its in full swing. I think we are going to start seeing a move away from the traditional CPU/GPU and start witnessing a revolution to multiple CPUs capable of handling both roles. In this world AMD has an edge since Intel's graphics technology is so far behind that it will be hard to catch up with Nvidia's support.

Imagine if the next model Radeon comes out with an AMD processor on the card capable of taking over CPU cycles when nessecary and an AMD processor capable of taking GPU cycles. Add in Crossfire for mutliple GPU supprt and you're looking at a lot of horsepower. AMD is also making moves in the chipset world, somewhere that it will need to catch up if it hopes to cash in on the AMD/ATi merger.

Not that all this high end stuff effects me. If the processor cost more than $100 you can usually count me out.
February 23, 2007 1:28:14 AM

Quote:
With the power requirements and heat output of the latest GPU's....it would be like Prescott days, all over again.


As my father used to say: (quote) "We can put a man on the moon, but we can't..." (endquote) ...come up with GPUs that don't broil!

That new 12 inch OEM monster video card is just an example. How much heat do those things put out????

Just move the GPU to the top of the case and put an anodized aluminum plate on the top then you could surf the net and fry up breakfast all at the same time.
February 23, 2007 1:43:23 AM

Quote:
Same old Intel vs. AMD story. One week Intel is winning the next AMD is. Competition is good for all of us!

Intel has the edge right now, but I think it is because they are primarily focused on pressing the limits of their currect technology. AMD's card was 64-bit, while Intel's card was dual core. Its clear now, months later, that Intel indeed had an ace while AMD only had a queen.

You can almost hear the conversations going on inside these two companies.

"We are getting killed by that new CPU! What are we going to do to stop them from eating up market share?"

"Do what we always do, copy them until we come up with something better."

I'm very interested in seeing what the AMD/ATi merger has in store for us once its in full swing. I think we are going to start seeing a move away from the traditional CPU/GPU and start witnessing a revolution to multiple CPUs capable of handling both roles. In this world AMD has an edge since Intel's graphics technology is so far behind that it will be hard to catch up with Nvidia's support.

Imagine if the next model Radeon comes out with an AMD processor on the card capable of taking over CPU cycles when nessecary and an AMD processor capable of taking GPU cycles. Add in Crossfire for mutliple GPU supprt and you're looking at a lot of horsepower. AMD is also making moves in the chipset world, somewhere that it will need to catch up if it hopes to cash in on the AMD/ATi merger.

Not that all this high end stuff effects me. If the processor cost more than $100 you can usually count me out.

what crappy blog did you copy and paste this from?
February 23, 2007 3:20:19 AM

Quote:
Just move the GPU to the top of the case and put an anodized aluminum plate on the top then you could surf the net and fry up breakfast all at the same time.


That's not a bad idea. There has to be some use for all that heat! :lol: 

The external part is also another good idea. We are entering the era of monster GPUs. Why aren't they being standardized as external boxes? First of all to stem the proliferation of 1KW+ PSUs that cost more than CPUs by plugging right into the mains, and also to more adequately dissipate heat. I'd challenge anyone bereft of liquid nitrogen to keep a conventional midtower case containing an OCd Prescott 3.8GHz and a 12 inch DX10 card folding and playing Crysis at the same time without a China Syndrome! :lol: 
February 23, 2007 1:52:16 PM

Quote:
what crappy blog did you copy and paste this from?


Thanks for your valued input.
!