# AMD Dual core vs. Pentium Diual core



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Decision time--

Trying to understand the latest mix in CPU speeds. 

Application will not be gaming but will be rendering of video.


Bench mark speed of current system is a 3.6Ghz Pentium with 2G Ram

Under consideration is the hp m7590N that has 2G ram and a Pentium D listed at 3.2Ghz.

Under consideration is the hp 7470N AMD athlon 64 X2 2.2Ghz 2G ram

Both have hardware compliments that meet my needs and are priced similar at about $1100 - $1200 depending on where I buy.

What I am having trouble understanding is how the new breed of CPU rates speed. One store salesman said with dual core it is 2 times the clock speed to be equal to what I have now. as in the second one with the AMD chip is not 2.2 Ghz but equal to 2 times that or 4.4Ghz on a single processor. Same for the Pentium D, at 3.2 it would be equal to the Pentium at 6.4 Ghz.

Is this BS or accurate? 

Also, to fully access the dual core processor, doesn't the software application have to recognize that and if it doesn't, the dual core will actually be less speedy because it is using only one of the dual CPU's ( or half the processor depending on how you view it) and then any other application launch will use the other half which is controlled by the OS (windows XP)

Someone tell me where I'm accurate and where I have it wrong.


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

Go here to compare CPU's using various benchmark tools. Based on your choices, I think the Intel CPU might be the better one to grab. However its really a flip of the coin as both win some benchmarks against the other:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

Dual core is really just parrallel processing and putting 2 cpu's into one physical unit. Your understanding is correct... if an application doesn't understand how to use it, it will only run using one core.

And while some applications can make use of two cores, the benefit isn't always 2x the CPU strength. Some things do have to be done sequentially and not in parrallel, and the OS will always be running other applications as well in the background that take up processor time.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Thanks for the link, Danny. From what I see most of the tests favor the AMD processor. A couple of years ago I tried AMD, one in a Desktop and the other a Laptop and the experience on both left me unhappy. The system crashes were too frequent and I believe they may have been caused by excessive heat. Hope they got this issue fixed since then. I have one new CPU in now and it is the 7590 pentium D said to run 3.2 Ghz. The first test here shows it a bit slower than my Vaio 834G which was a 3.6 Ghz Pentium using liquid cooling. I'm pretty sure my video application does NOT use the dual core. Hints at NAB was that the next release this Fall will have that capability. The 7590 is, however faster than the machine it is replacing which is a much slower Pentium 1.8 Ghz.

My tests-

Vegas 6.0d render of 28.5 minute TV show:

RX-670 P 1.8 Ghz 2G ram: 67 minutes

RA 834 P 3.6 Ghz 2G Ram: 35 minutes

hp M7590N P D 3.2Ghz 2 G Ram: 44 minutes


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Don: Although they are largely gaming oriented, three sites that may give you additional insight are:
www.anandtech.com
www.sharkyextreme.com
www.maximumpc.com

From what I've seen, the new AMD's have a slight edge over the Intel processors. Also, there seems to be a bit more flexibility as far as motherboards are concerned.

Just a thought: My youngest son is a game programmer, and several of the artists and animators he's worked with have used Alienware computers. He has used both Alienware and Sony Vaio computers over the past few years. There may be some merit to the Alienware systems in your application, since game designers, artists and animators require systems with excellent video rendering performance.


----------



## sampatterson (Aug 27, 2002)

The new conroe processors from Intel (X6800, E6700, E6600, E6500, E6400) now beat any of AMDs chips. Do a google search on those.

Intel and AMD go back and forth on who is the fastest. The nice thing about the Intel Conroe chips is if you get a system that is compatible, then in December you can get a 4 core version (kentsfield) that will work with the same board.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

Methinks the performance differences are insignificant in all but the most demanding applications (and Don you may use those apps). The differences may be measureable with benchmark software written for that purpose but I'd bet those differences are imperceptible to most humans most of the time. We've saved a lot of money over the years by using AMD instead of Intel.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Yes, I'm sure I do. I have two very CPU intensive apps. One uses the Video card processor and with that it is extremely fast. I have yet to benchmark the new 7590 dualcore with the nvidio card with 256mb video ram yet but I have with the P D CPU software and what I can't understand is why a Pentium 3.6 Ghz is so much faster than the 7590 with a Pentium D 3.2Ghz. I'm just quoting specs here. The real question I have and I was hoping people here could answer was this- In the new Pentium D 3.2 Ghz spec, is that really 1.6 Ghz per side times 2 for a total of 3.2? If so that would explain why the dual core I have is that nuch slower than the older 3.6 Ghz Pentium. 

BTW- I just got word back on my RA834 machine, and the repair center said it was the liquid cooler failure. Figures since it is 1 month out of warranty I have to pay for the repair. Anyway, I should have it back in operation by the end of the week so I can actually do the same render with the same applications on each to do my own bench marks with software that matters to me. What I did above was use data from an older project, not actually run a race with the two computers doing the same task at the same time. 

In forums for users of these apps the best I can decipher past the Sony NDA's is that the next release of Sony Vegas will fully support the Dual core processor. Some of the current expert suggestions for the meantime have been to split the rendering operation in two, launch two instances of the render engine and load half the project into each and then let them both run. I haven't tried this yet but it would make for an interesting experiment.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Went to pick up my RA 834 Sony Vaio from repair and they tried to put in the new powersupply. Seems it was not the cooler at all but the powersupply, Makes sense. But the bad news is the powersupply Sony uses is special, not in electrical but in mechanical mounting. Of course the computer system is discontinued and while they can order a new one (Sony) the backorder status could be months. So I picked up everything including a new 480watt supply that doesn't fit and began to rebuild a new powersupply from parts from the new one and parts from the Sony. I got lucky since the new supply board just fit inside the case of the Sony powersupply with a bit of work with hole knockout and some resoldering of some wires, mostly on the 120VAC side of the supply. So, I'm back up with the fast Pentium now. The new hp will work OK as a backup and hopefully when the software is rewritten it will run faster too. 

I guess I support the many claims that Intel Pentium Dual core is a poor investment. Buit why should I expect it to run as fast as a computer that cost over twice the price? Simple, progress! Unfortunately, it looks as if Intel has not progressed in the last year.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

Aother reason to avoid Sony and their proprietary crap. My bother-in law has new-ish and out of warranty Sony Vaio and the LCD display went south. $700 estimate to fix a 2 year old $1500 computer.

I'll probably be ready to upgrade my home system later this year. I'll keep a close eye on AMD and Intel when I get ready to build it.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

LCD panels are all very expensive parts regardless of the computer. If you need to replace one the best bet is to buy a used similar laptop and scavenge the LCP part from that. Then you'll have all sorts of spare parts. I've done that on two hp laptops in the past. You can find the parts, the panel and the starter for about $800-$1000 online but as I said buying the same used laptop from the surplus sites may only cost you $300 or so, and you get the bonus goodies.

I have a slightly different take on oproprietary hardware. If the hardware is good and very stable, why not? Every person has a different need but I really don't intend to experiment with different motherboards, different CD Rom drives, and video cards. Just give me a machine that is stable and fast. Sony Vaio's have been amazingly stable compared to Gateways, Hp's Dells and Compaq's I've worked with in the past. The worst I have had for stability and trouble were the clones. I'll never buy a no name brand clone again for a mission critical job. Usually, I will buy a CPU that is on the certification listings for my principal applications. I'm one of those who buys the software and then buys the computer certified to run it. Clones are never on those lists.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

To each his own. A year or so late one Sunday afternoon ago my nVidia graphics adaptor in my desktop crapped out. I went to Wal-Mart of all places and bought a great gamer replacement card at a great price. I was back online inside of an hour.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

many of the new proprietary computers have 3rd party graphics cards like the ATI and nvidia. All my Vaios do. Even the HP does. Not since I had a clone did I have a computer with embedded video on the MB that could not be disabled. With graphics speeds being waht is required today, I doubt any clone maker will try to reinvent the graphics wheel. I thought they all used generic 3rd party cards. The specialty stuff is usually what I ran into which is case mounts but even then the electrical and connectors are generic standards. In fact the power supply I bought to gut and stick into the sony PS case had 4 different aux power sets, because it was designed for several flavors of MB power connections.

But a big issue I have found with the Sony's is the software loads. Often you will find an OEM version of windows XP that does not have the full driver set to auto install other hardware. While not impossible, it makes for some frustration. On the flip side, I had one Sony Vaio that I installed a fresh OS and the OS from windows did not recognize the audio on the Sony MB properly. I had to get special drivers, not from MS but from SONY to get rid of the distortion. In this respect, buying proprietary IS a pack of hidden gotchas.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Can't tell about your benchmark's results ( I would rather redo it by myself ),
but can answer to the question: "The real question I have and I was hoping people here could answer was this- In the new Pentium D 3.2 Ghz spec, is that really 1.6 Ghz per side times 2 for a total of 3.2? If so that would explain why the dual core I have is that nuch slower than the older 3.6 Ghz Pentium. 
".
No, both cores running at 3.2GHz and what's more important new D have 2 MB full speed cache.


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

CPU speed means nothing anymore. Both manufacturers have for all intents and purposes dropped the speed from the CPU because it was no longer an accurate gauge as to how "fast" the CPU is. Different applications perform differently with different CPUs. The link Danny provided is probably the best way to gauge the overall performance of a processor. In many of the tests, they were essentially the same. An extra 15 seconds to encode a CD or even a minute or two, while measurable, really isn't that much of a difference.

What application(s) are you using for your processing? You might check with the vendors to see if they optimize for one brand of processor or another. 

I personally prefer AMD processors. Their performance to cost ratio use to be much better, they ran cooler and slower as compared to a Intel processor with "equal" power. But the cost is less of an issue these days since Intel realized AMD was killing them on price. The whole RAMBUS issue also hurt Intel as AMD had the cheaper although maybe not as technologically superior memory. 

I think you aren't going to go wrong with either brand.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

Yeah, the rambus debacle was loosely the modern day equivalent to the vhs/beta war. Intel tried to go proprietary instead of open and suffered a huge black eye. The high end, graphics intensive engineering software I use prefers AMD and nVidia chipsets.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Today we have new winner - Intel Core 2 Duo.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

CDRU- The two apps I use here that tax the system and my productivity are render speeds for Sony Vegas 6.0d and Serius Magic's Ultra II but admittedly the Ultra II is mostly rendering its speed based on the graphics card since I have that capability for GNU rendering. So, it really is a contest using Vegas render engine.

I now have all the machines installed and up and running. I will now give it the old horse race run and see how they do with exactly the same project to render and I'll report back later. 

Paul, thanks for the clarification on the speed. Now it does seem strange that the Pentium D 3.2Ghz is so much slower than the Pentium at 3.6Ghz. 

I know many prefer the AMD today and most reports suggest that as being the fastest processor, even for my application. The problem is, up until this Spring, Sony was recommending the Pentium, in particular the one I'm using as the fastest machine for what I do. Then about Apri, when I was attending their classes at NAB, I was surprised to see they were using all AMD machines in the classroom. When I asked they said we use the best machines for our classes. So, typical Sony, they switch gears on a dime and act like, its always been that way. Since Sony takes all my money, I can't be switching machines like they do. 

Maybe next year I'll try the AMD but I have to say, when I had two AMD computers in the past they both overheated all the time. My wife has the Notebook now and hates it as it wants to reboot without warning and it runs so hot and the fans are noisy, it's not a good machine for a woman.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> LCD panels are all very expensive parts regardless of the computer. If you need to replace one the best bet is to buy a used similar laptop and scavenge the LCP part from that. Then you'll have all sorts of spare parts. I've done that on two hp laptops in the past. You can find the parts, the panel and the starter for about $800-$1000 online but as I said buying the same used laptop from the surplus sites may only cost you $300 or so, and you get the bonus goodies.


The "clones" as you put it are just non-branded versions of the computers that you favor. The distinct advantage is that they aren't using specialized "cost reduced" nor proprietary goodies that make them impossible to replace.

If you're at all interested avoiding LCD life issues, you absolutely must stay away from anything with Pavilion or Presario in the product line designation. Replacement panels aren't really a problem if you know where to shop, but nowhere are problems as prevalent as with the HP units.

When you can buy a modest Acer notebook with a 15" display and a dual layer DVD burner for under $500, why worry about being able to repair it?

As I see it, almost everything is made and/or assembled in China anyway so when you know you're paying extra for the brand name, you have to wonder what they scrimped on to get to the price point.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> In the new Pentium D 3.2 Ghz spec, is that really 1.6 Ghz per side times 2 for a total of 3.2? If so that would explain why the dual core I have is that nuch slower than the older 3.6 Ghz Pentium.


Yes! Both Intel and AMD are doing this. As the tomshardware benchmarks show, it kinda goes both ways, but as you point out, benchmarks are only important with the applications that you run.

Intel processors seem to have an edge on video and audio compression but the AMD processors render faster.

I'm a big proponent of using video hardware to work with video. In the long run it often proves to be more cost effective than dumping lots of money into a general purpose personal computer.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

harsh- Yeah you are probably right- My HP laptop, the big one that runs video well in the field is just an old 3.2 Ghz pentium but it has all the bells and whistles and does a pretty decent job. However, when the TSA cop grabs it out of my hand and drops it on the floor, and the screen smashes, those cheap HP's just don't take a lickin and keep tickin. Not like a Timex watch does.  So, that's when I found the used refurb machine and swapeed out the screen for a couple hundred bucks plus I got the spare 80G 7200 RPM drive and some other spare parts like extra power supply and battery. Sure beats buying the surplus LCD screen as that one was close to $1000 as a part!. I've never had a problem with any of my HP laptops with intel inside, just that one with the AMD processor and it is just not built right to cool the thing.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Some good news to report...


I got the Pentium D machine to render within minutes of the older Pentium 3.6 Ghz. Happy camper now!

I got a clue from the tech guy at Circuit City where I bought the new HP machine. He suggested that hp loads a tons of stuff I may not need that is taxing the CPU in the background. I went in and dumped most everything I saw that was unrecognizable for my needs. NortonAV which I should have known since Sony advises to shut that down when using Vegas rendering. I suspect that was the biggy hit on CPU cycles as it probably was trying to test each frame rendered for virii before saving the updated file. 

I dumped the Norton AV and replaced with the AVG free version which doesn't affect rendering of internally generated files. It only tests inbound files. Dummy me for leaving that Norton junk on my render machine. Bottom line, more than doubled the HP's rendering speed.

Render a 30 minute timeline with all sorts of color correction, reframing of avi files, 3d effects and sound processing using Sony Vegas 6.0d on both machines-

Sony Vaio 834G Pentium 3.6Ghz. 36 minutes

Hp 7590 pentium D 3.2 Ghz. 39 minutes
(Note- Render had the dual core process disabled)
Unchecked ( enabled dual core) and rendered again- 27 minutes



HP 7590 as it was with stock software running 
before dumping the stock stuff 84 minutes. (benchmark)

Anyway, numbers don't lie!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Another point is the software doesn't support multi threading/muli core CPU.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

P Smith-

Continuing to do more research into the dual core-- Seems that as of version 6.0c of Vegas, the consensus is that it does support dual core processors but those saying this are using the AMD. These people are very reliable sources like Doug Spotted Eagle. So since I am using 6.0d I decided to look into this further- I discovered a new software preferences setting in this version: "Disable multicore processor for rendering" That was checked. I unchecked it and will do another test to see what happens.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> harsh- Yeah you are probably right- My HP laptop, the big one that runs video well in the field is just an old 3.2 Ghz pentium but it has all the bells and whistles and does a pretty decent job.


My boss has one like that and he dropped it without assistance at the airport. It broke the display and messed up the something else in the driver system. The replacement display was nowhere near $1,000, but that didn't help. It is an Intel based unit and it, like the other Pavilion notebooks, is far too "delicate" to be carried around. I have two friends with older Pavilion notebooks and one with a similar Presario and they have all had backlight problems.

There is a definite pattern in there somewhere.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> I discovered a new software preferences setting in this version: "Disable multicore processor for rendering" That was checked. I unchecked it and will do another test to see what happens.


IIRC, there was a recommendation at one point to disable hyperthreading on Intel single core processors due problems with CPU cache trashing with multithreading software. Perhaps it is this cache trashing that also afflicts the multicore processors as they still share the same cache.

Intel goes to great lengths to disparage AMD's dedicated caches, so I suspect that there might be something to this.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

On the single core machine, it doesn't matter, checked or unchecked. On the dual core, disabling definitly slows the render. 

I'm beginning to conclude that to best use the Pentium D, one must disable the background processes like Norton AV. ( This is probably a good idea no matter what processor but my older machine had it disabled a year ago anyway.)

The second, is to be sure the software can use the dual core processor and that option if present is selected.


Added new data above.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> On the single core machine, it doesn't matter, checked or unchecked. On the dual core, disabling definitly slows the render.
> 
> I'm beginning to conclude that to best use the Pentium D, one must disable the background processes like Norton AV. ( This is probably a good idea no matter what processor but my older machine had it disabled a year ago anyway.)


Removing Norton products always offers a big boost in performance. Boot times go down by orders of magnitude and smoothness of operation is restored


> The second, is to be sure the software can use the dual core processor and that option if present is selected.


As I said in my previous post, this may not always be the case depending on the application. It is always true of the AMD mulitcore processors.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> <...>Perhaps it is this cache trashing that also afflicts the multicore processors as they still share the same cache.
> 
> Intel goes to great lengths to disparage AMD's dedicated caches, so I suspect that there might be something to this.


Care to provide details ?
Lets start from the page http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/default.aspx?familyID=1&culture=en-US
look at "Intel® Pentium® D Processor" chapter and tell me what that letters "2x2M L2" means .


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Care to provide details ?
> Lets start from the page http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/default.aspx?familyID=1&culture=en-US
> look at "Intel® Pentium® D Processor" chapter and tell me what that letters "2x2M L2" means .


The cache trashing problem was originally discovered on single core processors and was attributed to Intel's Hyperthreading technology which they claim makes a single core processor work like a two core processor.

You are correct that I was mistakenly attributing shared core cache to the older Pentium chip, but the problem was there because of Hyperthreading. With the advent of the Core Duo, the cache is truly shared and Hyperthreading is still employed (and may again need to be disabled under certain rare circumstances).

In the grand scheme, Don's problem is likely the background software that must be run to protect any machine running Windows that is exposed to "The Wild".


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> I'm beginning to conclude that to best use the Pentium D, one must disable the background processes like Norton AV.


While it wasn't with video rendering, I do a lot of software development. Whenever I load up the Visual Studio project, it automatically refreshes all the files out of our source control server. It got to the point where it would take about 5 minutes to refresh the entire project (about a thousand files). A coworker's machine did the same task in just a few seconds.

After some research, I found a setting within the configuration of Norton where you could specify when the real time filesystem protection would check a file. By default, it would scan a file every time it was accessed, including creation, modification, move, copy, run, etc. The other option was only on create. Switching to only scan on create significantly speed up operations that were file system intensive.

Since you are using AVG, this may not be an issue anymore.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

cdru- Rendering is a file creation process.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Don, I am very disappointed in you. Leaving Norton on a computer. :nono: What did you expect? 

While I was on vacation I read an article comparing durability of laptops. I don't remember which magazine is was now, but the clear winner was the Toshiba Tecra. If I remember correctly it survived a 5 foot drop onto a hard surface. My own experience with three Toshibas, a Tecra, a Qosmio, and a Satellite, have all been good.


----------

