Dual Core System Impressions

Despite our best efforts, some of the best characterization of the impact of dual core is done with words.  The best way to put it is like this: if an application is eating up all of your CPU time, with dual core, you still have one core left to make the rest of your system just as responsive as before.  But if you want a more detailed account of such a scenario, take a look at some of our lab notes:

CPU: Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz, Hyper Threading Disabled

So, I was playing around with Outlook, copying a bunch of emails, basically the equivalent of copying a 280MB PST file, which isn't huge by any means.  In copying the emails, the CPU utilization skyrocketed to 100% and I was off trying to browse the web to see how responsive that was.

On this HT disabled P4 3.73EE, I could browse the web just fine. I had Firefox open and around 10 tabs and all was fine.  I went to minimize Firefox and the animation was very choppy, but it still minimized/restored just fine.  I had Photoshop CS running in the background - I tried to switch to it, but all I got was the outline of Photoshop. I couldn't see or interact with the app at all.  I switched back to my other apps, Newsleecher, Firefox, iTunes, and they all worked fine, but Photoshop and Outlook were not responding. 

I tried to take a screenshot of what was going on, but print screen wouldn't work.  I could launch Paint, but I couldn't paste anything into it.  So, I went to go get my digital camera to take a picture of it, but my CF card was full.  I went and found my CF card adapter, plugged it into my personal machine, copied all of my pictures back to my computer (128MB card), wrote this text and then put the CF card back in my camera and took a picture of what was going on.  At least 10 minutes had to have elapsed and Photoshop was still not responding. 

The only solution?  Kill both Photoshop and Outlook using task manager - at least I had access to task manager. 

I wanted to see if it was a fluke, so I tried it again.  This time, Photoshop was fine, but Outlook still hung.  I closed and restarted Photoshop and got the following: Photoshop was basically hung and slowly made its way into a loaded state.  A bit of a pain, especially when the only solution is to kill Outlook and I still can't get my emails copied over. 

CPU: Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz, Hyper Threading Enabled

I repeat the same basic test with HT on; the obvious difference is that the UI is a lot faster.  Minimizing/restoring windows is no longer super choppy, and application launches are much quicker.  Launching Photoshop didn't yield the same, almost dying; results as before. 

To push things even further, I started the DVD Shrink test and although the performance was obviously impacted, the system still remained quite responsive - other than Outlook, which was taking its sweet time. 

I could still browse the web just fine, and overall, the rest of the system was pretty impressive despite Outlook being a rogue process. 

CPU: Dual Core Pentium D 3.2GHz

Now, time to try it out on the Pentium D 3.2GHz.  On this chip, I went through the same setup. The first thing I noticed was that merely clicking on the Inbox in Outlook didn't pause the system for 7 - 10 seconds as it did on the single core platforms. It only took 1 - 2 seconds; it felt much more responsive. 

The next thing was that the Outlook window never turned completely blank. I still couldn't play around with the Outlook interface, but the window was always drawn.  I'm not sure if this is necessarily a great thing, but it's a noticeable difference.  I could still minimize the window, but I just couldn't interact with anything within the window. 

Time to stress the system a bit more. I fired up the DVD Shrink benchmark, and started shrinking a DVD while downloading headers from Newsleecher.  I then closed Photoshop and tried to restart it...wow, the application opened as quickly as it normally would have - no delays, nothing. 

Outlook did eventually start listing itself as "Not Responding", but I still had full interaction with the rest of my system, even though both CPUs were pegged at 100% I'm guessing that because of the nature of the other applications, I could still switch between them, interact with them and launch more apps without any noticeable degradation in performance. 

The other major change was that Outlook could now be closed using its own X button, instead of me having to kill it via task manager.  Speeding up the Outlook task would require faster single cores (and maybe a faster hard disk), but dealing with its impact on the rest of the system is best handled by multiple cores. 

CPU: Dual Core Pentium Extreme Edition 840

The experience here was pretty much the same as the Pentium D, but just with even better performance in the DVD Shrink task (still taking under 14 minutes to deal with the DVD).

The computer was maybe slightly more responsive, but nothing huge. When compared to the non-HT Pentium D.  It is clear that HT does help dual core, although not as much as it helps single core P4s. 

Multitasking Scenario 3: Web Browsing semi-Final Words
Comments Locked

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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now