Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual 2600 AMD MP vs 3/3.2 ghz p4 in multitasking?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 23, 2003 4:22:08 AM

I am planning to get new computer to handle my multitasking stuff. I wanted to know whether 2600 MPs or 3.0 ghz/3.2 ghz p4 with HT is better in multitasking? I know that P4 would be alot better at running a single program, but I really ONLY interested in multitasking beause I run alot of programs. I atleast 5 programs all time (not all of them take alot cpu usage). I probably will over 10 programs usually on this comp.

I was thinking the dual 2600 system would be better at multitasking, but I haven't found any benchmarks comparing two of them anywhere. I was thinking it would be nice to have P4, because motherboards got all new techs like dual channel DDR, SATA, 8x APG. I am just not sure about it multitasking performance.
August 24, 2003 1:40:34 PM

Quote:
I was thinking it would be nice to have P4, because motherboards got all new techs like dual channel DDR, SATA, 8x APG.

You're right there... unfortunately, MP mobos are old(er) and don't have any of the new features... Personally, I'd probably go with the P4, because HT really works great for multitasking... maybe not as well as a dual-cpu system, but you have to consider that the 3.2Ghz is a lot faster than a 2600+. Plus HT, and (I think) you're set...

Your call, really...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
August 25, 2003 3:25:01 AM

Since you inidicated your apps are not CPU intensive it sounds like you need a bunch of memory, not another processor.

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
<A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new"> CLICK ME </A>
Related resources
August 25, 2003 3:37:45 PM

Quote:
Since you inidicated your apps are not CPU intensive it sounds like you need a bunch of memory, not another processor.

Maybe so, but getting a P4C (all of them have HT - preferrably the 3.2Ghz, of course, but it's expensive as hell) will certainly be the best choice anyway for him. I think a P4C with lots of memory is what he needs... Just my opinion.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
August 26, 2003 11:58:49 AM

You could always get a 2.4C and Overclock it to ~3Ghz... Would require some decent quality RAM, but would probably cream both the other choices.

obviously this is only if you're comfortable with Overclocking, but it would give more perf. for less money. Just a thought.

On the actual question though, I'd go for the P4 as well.

---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least) :smile:
August 26, 2003 2:30:06 PM

Okay, first lets look at costs (newegg). 2x MP 2600+ is 2 x $185 = $370. A 3.2GHz P4 is $635. Motherboard for your dual AMDs is MSI K7D Master-L $187 - dualie boards are expensive, for the P4 the MSI Neo-2 $108. That makes a total of $557 for the dual AMD and 882 for the P4. I reckon you could do alot with that extra $325.

Performance wise it is clear that the P4 setup is going to excel in benchmarks against the AMD. But that's not the same as realworld performace. Dual processor machines are great for running many applications simultaneously, I know, I own 3 and my dual 733MHz P3 machine still runs sweet with WinXP and numerous applications running simultaneously (including folding@home). On the other hand I've seen P4 machines slowup with just a handfull of windows open. So in my opinion the Dual AMD would handle multitasking better than the P4. On the other hand I don't own a 3.2GHz P4 so I can't make a direct comparison.

You suggest the P4 would be nice for the new things, but dual channel DDR isn't going to make a big difference to office / internet and drawing apps. You can forget about 8x AGP, that makes no difference nor does SATA although you can easily get with a cheap PCI card should you need it.

I have a strong preference for dual processor systems having used them and enjoyed the benefits of them. They cost about twice as much as a single processor setup but then dualies also seem to attract a certain enthusiast element in the PC market. If you're really interested in a dual setup it's worth taking a look at <A HREF="http://www.2cpu.com" target="_new">http://www.2cpu.com&lt;/A>


<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A> :cool:
August 26, 2003 2:50:42 PM

Quote:
On the other hand I've seen P4 machines slowup with just a handfull of windows open. So in my opinion the Dual AMD would handle multitasking better than the P4.

HT makes a big difference (and I really mean big) in multitasking. I haven't seen any Windows-running machine with HT - just Xeons on Linux - but they multitask tremendously well... it's almost pathetic.

A 2.4Ghz Xeon with HT enabled will crunch through a single thread of one of our simulations (I work @ a physics institute) within 17 minutes. Two threads of the exact same thing will take that same Xeon only 23 minutes (as opposed to 34 minutes...).

So HT in multitasking is something that has to be seen to be measured... it's hard to really benchmark.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
August 26, 2003 10:17:15 PM

Gotcha, that's a nice bonus. Incidentally, if you're using Xeons I can only assume that is because they are in an SMP machine. I would have thought the effect of HT would be even better in an SMP environment which is presumably why it was enabled earlier in the Xeon processors.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A> :cool:
August 28, 2003 2:46:07 PM

Yes, I'm using a SMP machine. I have access to 4 dual-cpu Xeon @ 2.4Ghz (533Mhz FSB) systems... Not unrestricted access, of course, but enough to drool... :smile:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
!