Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Sep 2005 20:39 UTC, submitted by mikemuch
Intel "Last week in Part I, we took a look at the AMD dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800's performance on 64-bit Windows. As it turned out, Windows XP Pro X64 ran most 32-bit applications just fine on the X2 4800, and 64-bit code showed a few modest performance gains." This week, they focus on Intel.
Order by: Score:
bland
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 22:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This seems like a pointless line of articles, I mean testing 32bit code on different word-sized cpus? How about testing native code on each cpu, under different Operating Systems? I guess now that it's AMD vs. Intel it should become a little more interesting.

Reply Score: 0

nothing new
by re_re on Mon 19th Sep 2005 22:16 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

An ok review but nothing new here, I've seen most of these tests a dozen times.

Reply Score: 1

Linux benchmarks
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 22:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

How about some 64-bit dual-core Linux benchmarks that allow more direct comparison? It would be interesting to see how much faster applications run in Linux on those systems.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Linux benchmarks
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 00:01 UTC in reply to "Linux benchmarks"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Agreed. It would be interesting to hear how well something that can be tuned for 64-bit -- like Linux -- performs on the new 64-bit dual core processors.

How well a soon to be replaced version of Windows performs with 32-bit apps isn't too enlighting when all you want to know is how well Intel or AMD get it on the hardware side.

Reply Score: 0

v OS news?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 03:56 UTC
More accurate benchmarks
by Dark_Knight on Tue 20th Sep 2005 05:19 UTC
Dark_Knight
Member since:
2005-07-10

AMD Athlon64 X2 vs Intel Pentium Extreme 840: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a64x2&page=1

Reply Score: 1

Intel needs to get off it's ass
by deathshadow on Tue 20th Sep 2005 13:17 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

and OPTIMIZE the damned processor core. Did they fire their core design team right after the P4 came out or something and just keep pushing new manufacturing techniques to make up the difference or something?

That a 2.4ghz chip from an allegedly 'inferior' competitor can bury a chip running at 50% higher speeds should be a total embarrassment, not a regular occurance. That AMD can offer comparable products when the FASTEST CHIP IN THEIR LINE is 2.4ghz shows how badly intel's design has languished without a real change.

Of course, if they'd bother optimizing EXISTING instructions instead of just slapping on new ones every year, they might get somewhere. iSSE, iSSE2, iSSE3... While the common FPU routines people already have code that USES it continue to take multiple clocks...

Reply Score: 1

Dual Core
by Smartpatrol on Tue 20th Sep 2005 15:35 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not sold on dual cores anyway. Its a nifty trick that placates the masses and attmept to hide the antiquated design of the PC. They need to sit down and design the PC of the future taking all the knowledge that we have gained in the past 20 some odd years of the PC's existence and create a design standard that will live another 20 years or more. Its time we demand a little more as consumers

Reply Score: 1

also
by raver31 on Tue 20th Sep 2005 15:48 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

why do you all seem to always fall for marketing hype.

64bit code is usually SLOWER than 32bit code

Reply Score: 2