Slashdot Mirror


AMD Dual-Core Performance Revealed

Timmus writes "In two separate articles, FiringSquad takes a look at the performance of AMD's dual-core Opteron CPU. The first article examines the performance of dual-core in scientific computing applications (MATLAB and LS-DYNA) as well as digital photography, while the second story focuses on the performance of dual-core Opteron paired against Intel's dual-core Pentium Extreme Edition in video encoding, Cinebench, and a few other applications. The performance improvements are pretty impressive in multi-threaded applications that take advantage of the technology."

11 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. OK then. by millennial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So we have:
    scientific computing applications (MATLAB and LS-DYNA)
    digital photography
    video encoding
    Cinebench and
    "a few other applications".
    So what about the average user? Will the college kid who just needs to type their papers, the parents who want to do their taxes, the gamers who want to play high-end stuff, etc. get any sort of boost from this?

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
    1. Re:OK then. by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would they need a "boost"? These are expensive and obviously aimed at high end users. You can already get sub $1k laptops that really do all the stuff you described, so why would they buy a dual core desktop system?
      If you are using a dual core system to run word either a) you have WAY too much money, or b) the code bloat at Microsoft has REALLY gotten out of hand......

    2. Re:OK then. by nmg196 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > the code bloat at Microsoft has REALLY gotten out of hand......

      I wish people would stop talking about Microsoft code bloat when nobody else does any better.

      Currently, 50 processes. The two highest (memory and VM wise) are Thunderbird which is using (60mb of main memory) and Firefox which is using 55mb of main memory. All the microsoft products I'm running like Visual Studio.NET 2003 are WAY down the list as none are using more than 10-15mb of main memory.

      Nearly all popular linux distributions now come on more than one CD (even if you ignore the source code) and the default installations are WAY bigger than that of Windows XP.

    3. Re:OK then. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Currently, 50 processes. The two highest (memory and VM wise) are Thunderbird which is using (60mb of main memory) and Firefox which is using 55mb of main memory.

      Point conceeded. Some OSS software chews up the memory, and FireFoo are major culprits.

      Though I'd hope to hell Visual Studio is way down the list. It's just an IDE! It has a GUI and a text editor. All the memory-chewing hard work is done in the compiler back end. With that comparison, my Emacs session is 6MB.

      Nearly all popular linux distributions now come on more than one CD (even if you ignore the source code) and the default installations are WAY bigger than that of Windows XP.

      Of course they are -- they include reams of free software! Nobody would complain about the large size of Windows installations if that installation came with practically every piece of software you would ever need! Even a 'default' install that doesn't install everything still has vast swaths of software from compilers to office suites to web browsers to web servers to image manipulation to whatever.

      Who could possibly complain about getting more free stuff, even if it takes another CD or two or three to fit it? Consuming disk space for useful things is fine. Windows installs are considered bloated because the size increases but the perception is that you're not actually getting more stuff. Honestly -- what comes with the XP install these days?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  2. All I can say is... by FlyByPC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...LONG LIVE COMPETITION!

    I wish both AMD and Intel well. All the better for us. Lower prices and better performance.

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  3. Re:The simple future by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wouldn't work. Why do you think we have processors with two or three levels of cache? There is a serious speed/bandwidth mismatch between the processor and the main memory system. There are ways of increasing main memory bandwidth, but they are very expensive. There's no point in adding more processors if they are going to spend 95% of their time stalled, waiting for cache lines to be filled.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  4. Re:As for gamers (from TFA) by John+Courtland · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And then detrimental again because both processes share the L1 cache... I don't know if Intel fixed that problem yet, but the cache sharing actually decreased performance compared to a processor with HT disabled while running high-demand single-threaded applications (games).

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  5. Is this article worth a darn? by GweeDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With comments like:
    "Even grandmothers own 8-megapixel consumer digital cameras now"

    I really have to question the intellegence of this poor guy. I don't know many grandma's that drop $700-$1000 on digital camera's.

  6. Re:Dr. Dobbs and Threading/Multi-Core by zx75 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The computing theory and architectures are already there. Now that Java has finally jumped on the bandwagon of reliable multi-threading with v1.5 (or v5.0, or whatever the hell they're calling it today), chances are unless you're using really legacy code the language will have the appropriate system calls available to it.

    The difficulty is that in order for multi-threading to be worthwhile, a developer really needs to know their stuff. It is not easy, there are a number of things that must be taken into consideration that simply do not occur in single-threaded programming. A programmer who just picked up a 'C++ in 24 hours' book is most likely not going to have the tools available to them in order to handle or understand the complexities of multi-threaded programming.

    That being said, there are many situations where multi-threading is not appropriate, but if you think the theory needs to play catch-up, you might be surprised at how common it is in professional development.

    --
    This is not a sig.
  7. Amateurs by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can anyone take an article seriously when the very first sentence just screams, "AMATEUR!!" like this one does:

    Intel may very well go down in history as the first processor manufacturer with a dual-core solution, if only by three days.

    IBM Power4, Power5
    HP PA-8800
    Sun Sparc IV

    All full-fledged dual-core processors shipping long before Intel -- HP's been shipping for over a year and IBM's already well in to their 2nd generation of dual core processors with Power5.

    Sure, you can excuse the author with some hand-waving about x86 context only or whatever. But if they really knew what they were talking about, they would have said it that way - or at least a competent editor would have corrected it. If these guys can't even get the trivial stuff right, how can anyone trust them to get the real technical details right?

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Amateurs by leoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another thing that pisses me off is that he tests these 64 bit CPU's with 32 bit Windows, claiming that Linux is "hardly mainstream".

      What a load of crap.

      These dual core chips are PERFECT for high performance NON-GAMER Linux systems, and yet these guys disregard the most mature and stable 64 bit platform to run game benchmarks on 32 bit windows.

      --
      STFU about slashdot bias.