Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part I: First Encounter

141 Comments

View All Comments

• nserra - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  Amd dualcore platform is right here today, the processor is not. And i dont see that a bad thing, upgradable as always been a good thing.
  
  #65 "Yes, same will also apply to the AMD's solution. Both CPU cores in dual core Opteron will share same bus and memory controller."
  
  I am not really sure about that, amd always said the processor was being done dualcore since day one that must mean something. Dont forget that socket 939 is dual channel it could be possible to give one memory channel for one processor and the other channel for the other.

• matthewfoley - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  You people screaming for the gaming benchmarks, RTFA. Gaming or any other single threaded application will have identical results to a similarly clocked single core proc.

• ceefka - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  #62 I read the article and think it's a rant, just a rant, no facts, just implications. I can sympathise with the feeling that Intel is let off the hook, for now.
  
  I do hope that games will be a substantial part of the benchies once the traditional AMD vs Intel dual core tournament takes place. Remember the pre-release benchies of the Opteron (that Italian thing)?
  
  I also think that shrinking DVD's while typing in MS Word and listening to mp3 is about the maximum of things to do simultaneously. I have to get my head around it as well, you know ;-). It does however open a way to have someting like a home server or HTPC for everything but the most extreme stuff. It could record a TV-show, while watching a DVD and the wife chatting away on another screen.
  
  Some say that dual core will have more benefit in servers because of the typical threaded applications. That's a good point. Can we look forward to a comparison of a 2 and 4-way dual core Opteron vs Xeon on typical server applications, workstation apps and maybe a few games just for fun.

• smn198 - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  lol @ #11 "now Intel is going to start eating AMD's lunch"
  
  Do you mean eating AMD for lunch? I think I prefer it your way.

• RLandon - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  The multitasking benchmarks clearly shows that Windows doesn't deserve to be refered to as an operating system.

• ceefka - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  The price-difference between a dual and single core might not be too big on an Intel CPU, but you MUST get a new board. So the actual price difference when upgrading is $80 + brand new 955x motherboard. Nice one, Intel. A new board will cost you around $ 100 at least: actual difference $ 180. If AMD can stay under that difference they're at least competitive in pricing.
  
  Benchies are promising/impressive though. Wonder what the 64-bit benchies would be. Too bad that the introduction of dual-cores is in different segments (desktop vs server). Can't wait for some traditional Intel vs AMD benching ;)
  
  #2
  Read this article
  http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... page 3, last paragraph.
  AMD's Fred Weber finds Hyperthreading a "misuse of resources". AMD have always said two cores are better than a single core acting like one.

• defter - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  "INTEL's dual core isn't really dual-core, it's just two CPUs stick together"
  
  dual consisting of or involving two parts or components usually in pairs; "an egg with a double yolk"; "a double (binary) star"; "double doors"; "dual controls for pilot and copilot"; "duple (or double) time consists of two (or a multiple of two) beats to a measure": http://dict.die.net/dual/
  
  Yes, two CPU stuck together can be called "dual core".
  
  
  "the two cpus share the same bus, without any logic in between."
  
  Yes, same will also apply to the AMD's solution. Both CPU cores in dual core Opteron will share same bus and memory controller.

• IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  130W isn't actually bad. The Xeon MP Potomac had TDP of 125W and max power of 136W, saying probably due to EIST, the difference is much less now. Plus, you aren't running two cores all the time, so if you are playing games only, then you would have 65W power consumption.
  
  Hmm... I wonder if the reason 1066MHz is not supported by any of the dual core processors is to dedicate more bandwidth of the Dual-DDRII-667 to integrated graphics. Or maybe we would see Yonah with 1066MHz bus as desktop?

• IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

• falcc - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link

  No games tested at all? Since when does this happen? Intel doesn't want dual core to look bad so Anandtech doesn't bench ANY games at all.
  
  Come on guys, judging by the article below on the Inquirer I'm not the only one who is suspicious.
  
  http://theinquirer.net/?article=22332