AMD vs Intel: which is better for MULTI-TASKING?

[zenrunner92]

- Zero gaming or video editing.

Up to 80 tabs in Chrome open at the same time while also using:
Word, Excel, Skype, Foxit PDF Reader, Jet Audio, & possibly (I haven't tried this yet but would like to) uTorrent at the same time.

and with these background processes: 3-4 desktop widgets, MS security essentials.

Currently using an Asus UL50VT with:

Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300
NVIDIA GeForce G210M graphics with 512MB DDR3 VRAM
4GB DDR3 RAM (max capacity)
Intel 80GB SSD
WD Black 500GB
Win7 HP

Right now, with 3 Chrome windows open for a total of maybe 35 tabs and no other apps running, it's saying 85% memory usage already. The SSD has helped a lot but the SU7300 is still a bit laggy, definitely more so than my girlfriend's i3 Asus (and she doesn't even have an SSD).

===

Am considering my first DIY desktop, looking at the i5-3450 Ivy Bridge, but the AMD A8 or FX4100 are half the price.

What I can't figure out: would the much faster Intel speeds (benchmarks) would make any noticeable difference for someone with my mundane, low-graphics, non-gaming usage?

Hard to find an answer on these boards because it seems like 95% of the posters are gamers.

 

[FinneousPJ]

As I stated in your other thread, these tasks aren't computationally demanding and you won't see a meaningful increase in speed from buying the more expensive CPUs.

 

[Lee-m]

Multitasking is more down to the operating system than the cpu.
I guess the more cores/threads you have the better, but its mostly a none issue these days.

 

[zenrunner92]

As I stated in your other thread, these tasks aren't computationally demanding and you won't see a meaningful increase in speed from buying the more expensive CPUs.

Ok, have just replied in the other thread. Just trying to gather as many opinions as possible, hence the duplicate threads in different sub-forums.

 

[zenrunner92]

Multitasking is more down to the operating system than the cpu.
I guess the more cores/threads you have the better, but its mostly a none issue these days.

Yeah, from what I've read Linux is way better at multi-tasking than Windows.

I have a dual-boot Ubuntu/Win7 setup on my Asus...would love to use Ubuntu exclusively, but unfortunately I am a heavy Skype user and Skype in Linux *still* does not support videochatting.

 

[digdog]

THE ANSWER
if you buy a 2500k (yes, it's *slightly* older than the 3570k - which i normally reccomend - yet you seem to be keen on saving money) and give it a slight overclock, say 4.2 Ghz

and

buy 8gb of ram which cost about the equivalent of one bag of peanuts these days

you will be able to run any number of apps and you won't even notice they are open.

the thing here is that the processor you are using atm is truly so awful that intel should be fined $100000000 dollars just for selling it to you.

anyway, even the 3459 is a good proc. but go 2500k and be happy. (or ZOMG even a 3570k)

 

[zenrunner92]

THE ANSWER
if you buy a 2500k (yes, it's *slightly* older than the 3570k - which i normally reccomend - yet you seem to be keen on saving money) and give it a slight overclock, say 4.2 Ghz

and

buy 8gb of ram which cost about the equivalent of one bag of peanuts these days

you will be able to run any number of apps and you won't even notice they are open.

the thing here is that the processor you are using atm is truly so awful that intel should be fined $100000000 dollars just for selling it to you.

anyway, even the 3459 is a good proc. but go 2500k and be happy. (or ZOMG even a 3570k)

Well, overclocking is probably way above my paygrade...this would be my first-ever DIY computer. Will be hard enough not to electrocute myself or blow up something, lol.

Do you think that an i5 LAPTOP (with 8GB of memory and SSD which I'd install) would be just as good as an i5 Desktop, for my usage? Something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834246288

or even this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834246316

 

[digdog]

depends on you. do you *need* a laptop? if you don't, laptops are inferior to desktops. if you do need it, then sure.

btw overclocking is not a matter of tracing lines with a pencil on your CPU anymore. you start your PC, press del a couple times, set the max multiplier from 39 to 42, and that's it. 4.2Ghz.

 

[zenrunner92]

depends on you. do you *need* a laptop? if you don't, laptops are inferior to desktops. if you do need it, then sure.

btw overclocking is not a matter of tracing lines with a pencil on your CPU anymore. you start your PC, press del a couple times, set the max multiplier from 39 to 42, and that's it. 4.2Ghz.

Well, I guess it all comes down to just how much NOTICEABLE performance improvements a desktop would provide for someone with MY mundane, non-gaming, multi-tasking usage, even if it might be measurably "superior" to someone who does intensive gaming, video editing, etc.

I mean, I don't want to go to all the time and trouble of DIY if the end result is not much better than a budget i5 laptop that costs about the same or less and has the advantage of instant mobility during one of my periodic relocations.

 

[Houndsteeth]

In a recent development effort, I was creating a queued processing environment using a canned workflow to convert PDF and PostScript files to raster image files using GhostScript on a stock Debian build. The canned workflow was single-threaded and the process itself was trivial, but the task was to create multiple queues that would flood the processor.

The first environment I tested was an i5 2500K. I was able to keep 9 queues running simultaneously before the processor was brought to 100% utilization. Processing 3,000 files, the overall time average for each file conversion was 22 seconds and change. Overall, it took just over 2 hours to process all the files.

The second environment I tested was an FX 8120. I was able to keep 17 queues running simultaneously before the processor was brought to 100% utilization. The overall time average for each file conversion was 29 seconds. Overall, it took just under an hour and a half to process all the files.

All else being equal, the FX processor does actually perform better in multitasking, but the i5 is faster per process. The client eventually went with a 16-core Interlagos server to support this process, and from last account, they are very pleased with the performance.

 

[zenrunner92]

In a recent development effort, I was creating a queued processing environment using a canned workflow to convert PDF and PostScript files to raster image files using GhostScript on a stock Debian build. The canned workflow was single-threaded and the process itself was trivial, but the task was to create multiple queues that would flood the processor.

The first environment I tested was an i5 2500K. I was able to keep 9 queues running simultaneously before the processor was brought to 100% utilization. Processing 3,000 files, the overall time average for each file conversion was 22 seconds and change. Overall, it took just over 2 hours to process all the files.

The second environment I tested was an FX 8120. I was able to keep 17 queues running simultaneously before the processor was brought to 100% utilization. The overall time average for each file conversion was 29 seconds. Overall, it took just under an hour and a half to process all the files.

All else being equal, the FX processor does actually perform better in multitasking, but the i5 is faster per process. The client eventually went with a 16-core Interlagos server to support this process, and from last account, they are very pleased with the performance.

Interesting! I wonder how differently things work in Debian than in Win7 though. Someone on this thread, and another tech friend of mine, said that Linux is optimized to use multiple cores when multi-tasking. Would love to see the same task performed on a Win7 machine.

Especially some task involving various Internet browsers...I get the distinct impression that Chrome is especially good at separating each tabbed window into a separate process, so that inactive tabs do not utilize any system resources.

 

[migrax]

Earlier in this thread you stated that having so many chrome tabs open took your memory resources to 85%, yet you neglected to mention how much processor it used. Browsers are not normally great CPU hogs, but they are tremendous memory hogs. No matter how many tabs you have open, you only use one tab at a time under normal circumstances. So your CPU resources will not be as impacted unless you are running something in each of those browser tabs... something like HTML or text you can have 10000 tabs open and use bouscous memory and only start using processor when your OS starts parsing out to the virtual memory because you have run out of RAM. A browser is not a good CPU benchmark at all.

migrax

 

[cbrunnem]

when in doubt go with the intel equivalent. amd wins no segment of the cpu market.

 

[zenrunner92]

Earlier in this thread you stated that having so many chrome tabs open took your memory resources to 85%, yet you neglected to mention how much processor it used. Browsers are not normally great CPU hogs, but they are tremendous memory hogs. No matter how many tabs you have open, you only use one tab at a time under normal circumstances. So your CPU resources will not be as impacted unless you are running something in each of those browser tabs... something like HTML or text you can have 10000 tabs open and use bouscous memory and only start using processor when your OS starts parsing out to the virtual memory because you have run out of RAM. A browser is not a good CPU benchmark at all.

migrax

It depends on what I'm doing in the browser and what Internet site I'm visiting or refreshing. A low-graphics site might show both CPU cores spiking to 20-30% for a few seconds as the page loads, but a more demanding page like HuffPost can jack them up to 70% while loading.

Chrome almost never makes my computer hang, whereas Firefox did so at least once a day.