PDA

View Full Version : Processors Whats Quicker?



badllarma
02-25-2006, 02:03 AM
Ok I'm a little confused I thought the AMD 4400 actually related to processor size but it doesn't so what it quicker

P4 3.0 (or 3.06 what ever the latest build is Hyper threaded
Or
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ / 2.2 GHz Dual-Core - Socket 939

Was looking at getting the AMD 4400 but at 2.2 GHz I wonder if its quicker than the 3.0 + P4??

gatibee
02-25-2006, 04:40 AM
The AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is about 30%-40% faster on larger scenes.
But i recomend Opteron 170 .. it clocks really well and is rock stable at 2600Hrz
And in XP64 and LW64 things are flyng. Only missing NormalDisplacement plugin in LW64.

badllarma
02-25-2006, 04:46 AM
cheers for the info

AbnRanger
02-26-2006, 04:49 AM
My older setup of an AMD64 3400 (single-core) is slightly faster than the P4 3.0Ghz, and the AMD 64 X2 4400 I now use is roughly twice as fast as that. Does that give you any clue?
The AMD64 X2 4400, at $450, out performs Intel's Big Daddy Pentium D (Dual Core) 840 Extreme Edition, which costs over $1000.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=8
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=8

Para
02-26-2006, 11:25 AM
Lesson #1: The amount of megahertzes doesn't tell which one's faster. The PR value of AMD processors (the number with + after it, for example 4400+) is supposed to give out a rough estimation of how many "Intel-MHz" the processor has.

colkai
02-26-2006, 11:39 AM
Ok,
silly question, feel free to snigger beinhd your hand. :p
I am *thinking* (only thinking mind you) of finally upgrading my poor old XP1800 system as it is one of the old very hot chips.
I would be looking to still run Win2k on my machine rather than WinXP / WinXP64.

If I get something like the 3400 Athlon64, is there much 'penalty' for still running something like W2k?

Captain Obvious
02-26-2006, 12:11 PM
If I get something like the 3400 Athlon64, is there much 'penalty' for still running something like W2k?
That depends on what you mean by "penalty." By not running a 64-bit operating system, you're not really using the CPU to its full potential (all x86 CPUs, be they Intel or AMD, are about 10-20% faster in 64-bit mode). But there is no penalty, as such.

colkai
02-26-2006, 12:55 PM
Cool, that helps matters. Now all I have to do is find a way to convince the wife that I really need a faster / quieter PC :p

AbnRanger
02-26-2006, 02:26 PM
The reason AMD's run faster than their Intel counterparts (i.e. 2.2Ghz vs 3.6Ghz) is that they use different technologies that make it MUCH faster per clock cycle....like having a 2Ghz system bus, compared to Intel's 800mhz. They have memory controllers built into the chip itself, whereas Intel's is located on the motherboard...so AMD chips have much faster repsonses to memory requests...etc, etc.

badllarma
02-26-2006, 02:34 PM
So if I was to buy a AMD 4400 Do I have to have XP 64 to take control of all that extra 64 bit horse power?

Or can I still use standard XP and still get the speed improvements just wondering as most of my apps VT2, DFX, Lightwave, Photoshop etc............. Are all 32 bit and where it is possible and apart from Lightwave i'm not sure if any of the others can/would even run on XP 64?

Captain Obvious
02-26-2006, 03:42 PM
So if I was to buy a AMD 4400 Do I have to have XP 64 to take control of all that extra 64 bit horse power?
Yes and no. You have to have a 64-bit operating system (as well as 64-bit versions of the software), but it doesn't have to be Windows XP. Still, since Lightwave is not available for Linux, XP-64 is probably the easiest way.




Or can I still use standard XP and still get the speed improvements just wondering as most of my apps VT2, DFX, Lightwave, Photoshop etc............. Are all 32 bit and where it is possible and apart from Lightwave i'm not sure if any of the others can/would even run on XP 64?
With standard 32-bit XP, you will not see a speed-up from the extra bits. But don't let that stop you from buying an Athlon64; they're very fast in 32-bit mode as well.

32-bit software runs (for the most part, anyway) just fine in 64-bit Windows. It doesn't get the 10-20% speed-up, but it runs.

lots
02-26-2006, 04:32 PM
I'd like to point out that the AMD chips have a generally higher speed on a per clock basis to the Intel chips (I mean MHz to MHz AMD is faster) because of the chips higher IPC (or instructions per cycle) For example, an instruction that takes 1 cycle on an AMD chip (1Hz) would take 2 or 3 on an Intel chip.

This is thanks in part to Intel's design. They realized early on that MHz sells, so insted of building chips to be better all around, they focused on upping that clock speed. The result is a very high clock speed CPU, with very deep pipelines. Which results in a low IPC. But what Intel lacks in IPC it makes up for in sheer MHz, that is until they hit the speed wall (at 3.8GHz). Now they've rethought thier direction, and have switched gears to how everyone else approaches CPU design (IBM and AMD, generally :P). By that I mean higher IPC more energy efficient, and going the multicore route.

Boris Goreta
02-26-2006, 04:38 PM
My AMD 4400 X2 2.2 GHz overclocked at 2.64 GHz (stock cooling, X2 is seriously overclockable) is exactly twice as fast as my Intel 2.8 GHz which is not overclocked. That is the true comparison tested on real scenes with FPrime so I would guess it is not true that 4400 is twice as fast as Intel 3.0 GHz both not overclocked.

AbnRanger
02-26-2006, 04:38 PM
Just to make sure everything is clear. Both AMD64 and Intel 64bit CPU's work fine with Windows 2000, regular (32bit) XP, XP Pro, and XP Pro x64.
The CPU's 64bit addressing capabilities are simply "future-proofing" for software that will take advantage of some of the enhancements that 64bit architecture provides. Beyond that, it functions in 32bit mode as easily as a non-64bit CPU would.
Going with XP Pro 64 (OEM copy is $139) is a relatively safe bet for most upgrades...It's a bit difficult, initially, to find 64bit drivers for all of your hardware, but most companies have at least 64bit beta drivers, or a google search can help you track down any stragglers. After that's done, it's smooth sailing.
You can run both 32bit and 64bit programs without any real troubles. The advantages are that memory barriers have been virtually eliminated, and it simply works with memory more efficiently than 32 bit.
It's more stable, and more secure (like Apple, it's less of a target for hackers). Hope this helps.

AbnRanger
02-26-2006, 05:06 PM
My AMD 4400 X2 2.2 GHz overclocked at 2.64 GHz (stock cooling, X2 is seriously overclockable) is exactly twice as fast as my Intel 2.8 GHz which is not overclocked. That is the true comparison tested on real scenes with FPrime so I would guess it is not true that 4400 is twice as fast as Intel 3.0 GHz both not overclocked.Granted, I couldn't find any "Lightwave" benchmarks to base those comparisons on, but the links I listed above (especially the Tech Report one, which on the previous page has benchmarks for Cinema 4D, and they all reflect that even the AMD64 X2 4200 renders almost Twice as fast as a P4 660/3.6Ghz)
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=9
Plus, when I bought the AMD 64 3400, it was comparable to a P4 3.2 Ghz. So, when I network-rendered some Afterburn Clouds in Max 8, using FinalRender (Stage 1), the X2 4400 was rendering 2-3 frames to the 3400's 1.
Although, the 3400 has 2GB of RAM, and the X2 4400 has 4GB, it's not going to change the results drastically.

Nevertheless, my point was that...when it comes to rendering horsepower, Dual-Cores nearly double the output of single-cores running at the same clock speed, and are certainly worth spending a little more $$$ for (it's essentially like getting and extra render node built in, and not taking up extra floor space, or wattage).

RedBull
02-26-2006, 10:34 PM
It's actually quite hard to tell which is faster at the moment.....

I find that LW seems to do fine on the X2, but certainly some scenes generally like the P4 chips....

Here is one benchmark of the Intel, 3.46Ghz which shows it as much faster for LW than the AMD. Interesting it says that LW8.0 was faster than on the AMD, but LW8.5 is much faster on the P4........ (compiler again?)

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1909164,00.asp

badllarma
02-27-2006, 01:45 AM
cheers guys for the info :)

mattclary
02-27-2006, 05:55 AM
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1909164,00.asp


LightWave 8.5 is interesting because the rendering engine seems to have changed since 8.0. The same scene, rendered using LightWave 8.0, runs faster on the AMD processor

Got to love this part. WTF? :devil: