AMD X2: Dual core impressions

igalan · 03-01-2006, 05:30 AM

A couple of weeks ago I upgraded the CPU of my main computer from an AMD64 3200+ to a shiny new AMD64 X2 3800+

. It's been over 11 months since my last upgrade, and I was willing to try something new, not just a few more MHz. At first my options where the AMD64 4000+ or instead adding another GeForce 6600 GT so I could set it in SLI. But adding another video card only improves game performance, nothing else. And lately I don't have almost time for gaming

(I use my PSP instead for a quick game

). The AMD64 4000+ was a good option but the geek in me asked to try a dual core processor, so that's why I got it

.

After two weeks using it I have to say that I am impressed. I made the right choice. First after installing the CPU, with the heat sink (I'm using an Asus all copper heat sink with a large 80mm fan) I went to the BIOS to check how much hotter would that baby get. But after a few minutes it wouldn't get any hotter than the AMD64 3200+! So I went ahead and booted Windows XP Home (yes, Home Edition does support dual core processors). Windows detected the new CPU installed the correct processor driver (1.2.2.2 was already present with Cool'n'Quiet enabled) and asked for a reboot. After that I was back to Windows.

Asus Probe confirmed the temp readings, it was at a stable 35ºC (with the AMD64 3200+ It would be at 34ºC, not much difference here). That's a nice surprise. I opened the AMD Monitor which showed the two cores CPU load, speed and voltage and confirmed that Cool'n'Quiet was at work: both cores were running at 1000 MHz.

Next it was time for a stress test; I opened the task manager (which shows two CPU graphs), and launched Aquamark (it's very old, but allows me to compare specs with older configurations). No surprises it was a bit faster but not much, less than 15% faster. I was expecting this because games aren't optimized for parallel processing. After closing Aquamark I saw that CPU load was distributed evenly to both cores. Next I launched Half Life 2 Lost Coast, a good test, because HDR stresses a lot the GPU and CPU. Before the upgrade I was running it at 1024x768 8xAA, no AF. At 1280x1024 (my TFT native resolution) it was a bit jerky, so I scaled back. Well now it was incredibly fast, not dropping a frame even in the worst situations! I launched it in benchmark mode to verify that I got a steady 72 fps with no drops! That's an unexpected surprise

. After that I checked Asus Probe and saw that the processor reached 51ºC, which is about the same that I would get with the AMD64 3200+ (or maybe one degree more).

So I can only recommend the upgrade. It seems that not only it is a very powerful processor, power efficiency has not been overlooked. However let me warn you about some issues with some programs. Some programs aren't designed to be run on multi-core/multi-processor systems. For instance, FarCry (1.33) runs fine, but the introduction videos are jerky.

I haven't had much time to test more games, but for daily work the computer is more responsive with fewer delays.

FrYGuY · 03-01-2006, 10:05 PM

I am so friggin' jealous. I still use a P4 1.8GHz Williamette in my desktop. (My Pentium M 1.6GHz in my laptop is actually faster, but since the desktop has an ATI 9550 whereas the laptop has an ATI 7500, plus the desktop has 1GB of RAM and laptop has 768 MB, it's pretty obvious which one I game with).

Still, a peak of only 51ºC is impressive... one of my roommates has a Prescott which has a faulty heatsink, it got up to 94ºC once. The BIOS alarms were fun!

igalan · 03-02-2006, 04:09 AM

I have also a P4 1,8 GHz at work

.

The Netburst architecture (foundation for Prescott processors) wasn't a good idea; so deeply pipelined processors to allow higher clock rates at any cost and the move to 90nm didn't prove a wise move. Intel had to scrap them when it was evident that Prescott won't scale as well as expected. Things were pretty bad beyond 3,2 GHz with thermal envelopes over 120W.

It has taken some time for Intel to find a better approach, but it is slowly starting to build much efficient processors. Recently I tested one of the new Intel 820 (doble core, 2.8 GHz 2x1MB L2 cache 90nm) and I found that it ran cooler than a Pentium 630 or 530. In fact I was surprised to find it a lot more efficient than expected, based on my experience with Prescotts. And the new Intel Core Duo processors are promising.

However AMD has the edge on multi core processing. Their dual core processors are really dual core: two processing units communicated with an Xbar switch. Intel approach has two processors that only share the same dye, but are not connected internally. Anyway things are starting to be very interesting in the CPU market, we're no longer stuck to the race in MHz which ultimately proven to be a dead end.

FrYGuY · 03-03-2006, 08:38 AM

Actually, Intel Dual Core chips DON'T share the same die, only the same socket. They do it that way to improve yields (One of the chips bad? Chuck it, and use another one! The AMD way, one cache unit is bad, you've pretty much gotta chuck the whole chip)

igalan · 03-03-2006, 10:27 AM

Smithfield cores share the same die. And neither AMD nor Intel have unified cache; each core has it's own separated caches. Where did you get that information?

Tom's Hardware: Intel moves to double core

**greffov** · 03-03-2006, 11:14 AM

k, cool! I'm still waiting for them, as I get a bit tired of my single-core non-smp machine

03-01-2006, 05:30 AM	#1 (permalink)
igalan PCTT Articles Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Barcelona, SPAIN Posts: 1,018	AMD X2: Dual core impressions A couple of weeks ago I upgraded the CPU of my main computer from an AMD64 3200+ to a shiny new AMD64 X2 3800+ . It's been over 11 months since my last upgrade, and I was willing to try something new, not just a few more MHz. At first my options where the AMD64 4000+ or instead adding another GeForce 6600 GT so I could set it in SLI. But adding another video card only improves game performance, nothing else. And lately I don't have almost time for gaming (I use my PSP instead for a quick game ). The AMD64 4000+ was a good option but the geek in me asked to try a dual core processor, so that's why I got it . After two weeks using it I have to say that I am impressed. I made the right choice. First after installing the CPU, with the heat sink (I'm using an Asus all copper heat sink with a large 80mm fan) I went to the BIOS to check how much hotter would that baby get. But after a few minutes it wouldn't get any hotter than the AMD64 3200+! So I went ahead and booted Windows XP Home (yes, Home Edition does support dual core processors). Windows detected the new CPU installed the correct processor driver (1.2.2.2 was already present with Cool'n'Quiet enabled) and asked for a reboot. After that I was back to Windows. Asus Probe confirmed the temp readings, it was at a stable 35ºC (with the AMD64 3200+ It would be at 34ºC, not much difference here). That's a nice surprise. I opened the AMD Monitor which showed the two cores CPU load, speed and voltage and confirmed that Cool'n'Quiet was at work: both cores were running at 1000 MHz. Next it was time for a stress test; I opened the task manager (which shows two CPU graphs), and launched Aquamark (it's very old, but allows me to compare specs with older configurations). No surprises it was a bit faster but not much, less than 15% faster. I was expecting this because games aren't optimized for parallel processing. After closing Aquamark I saw that CPU load was distributed evenly to both cores. Next I launched Half Life 2 Lost Coast, a good test, because HDR stresses a lot the GPU and CPU. Before the upgrade I was running it at 1024x768 8xAA, no AF. At 1280x1024 (my TFT native resolution) it was a bit jerky, so I scaled back. Well now it was incredibly fast, not dropping a frame even in the worst situations! I launched it in benchmark mode to verify that I got a steady 72 fps with no drops! That's an unexpected surprise . After that I checked Asus Probe and saw that the processor reached 51ºC, which is about the same that I would get with the AMD64 3200+ (or maybe one degree more). So I can only recommend the upgrade. It seems that not only it is a very powerful processor, power efficiency has not been overlooked. However let me warn you about some issues with some programs. Some programs aren't designed to be run on multi-core/multi-processor systems. For instance, FarCry (1.33) runs fine, but the introduction videos are jerky. I haven't had much time to test more games, but for daily work the computer is more responsive with fewer delays. __________________ AMD64 X2 3800+, Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, 2 GB RAM, GeForce 6600GT, Windows XP Home SP2

03-01-2006, 10:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
FrYGuY Member Type Guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 501	I am so friggin' jealous. I still use a P4 1.8GHz Williamette in my desktop. (My Pentium M 1.6GHz in my laptop is actually faster, but since the desktop has an ATI 9550 whereas the laptop has an ATI 7500, plus the desktop has 1GB of RAM and laptop has 768 MB, it's pretty obvious which one I game with). Still, a peak of only 51ºC is impressive... one of my roommates has a Prescott which has a faulty heatsink, it got up to 94ºC once. The BIOS alarms were fun! __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GB/G/H/J/MC/S d-(--)@ s+:+ a-- C !U--- P--- L--(-) E- W N-(--) !o K--- w++ O--- M--(--) V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t-- 5-- X- R(+) tv(++) b-- DI+ D---- G- e+++ h-- r* y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Yeah, my computer sucks. You try and do better.

03-02-2006, 04:09 AM	#3 (permalink)
igalan PCTT Articles Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Barcelona, SPAIN Posts: 1,018	I have also a P4 1,8 GHz at work . The Netburst architecture (foundation for Prescott processors) wasn't a good idea; so deeply pipelined processors to allow higher clock rates at any cost and the move to 90nm didn't prove a wise move. Intel had to scrap them when it was evident that Prescott won't scale as well as expected. Things were pretty bad beyond 3,2 GHz with thermal envelopes over 120W. It has taken some time for Intel to find a better approach, but it is slowly starting to build much efficient processors. Recently I tested one of the new Intel 820 (doble core, 2.8 GHz 2x1MB L2 cache 90nm) and I found that it ran cooler than a Pentium 630 or 530. In fact I was surprised to find it a lot more efficient than expected, based on my experience with Prescotts. And the new Intel Core Duo processors are promising. However AMD has the edge on multi core processing. Their dual core processors are really dual core: two processing units communicated with an Xbar switch. Intel approach has two processors that only share the same dye, but are not connected internally. Anyway things are starting to be very interesting in the CPU market, we're no longer stuck to the race in MHz which ultimately proven to be a dead end. __________________ AMD64 X2 3800+, Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, 2 GB RAM, GeForce 6600GT, Windows XP Home SP2

03-03-2006, 08:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
FrYGuY Member Type Guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 501	Actually, Intel Dual Core chips DON'T share the same die, only the same socket. They do it that way to improve yields (One of the chips bad? Chuck it, and use another one! The AMD way, one cache unit is bad, you've pretty much gotta chuck the whole chip) __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GB/G/H/J/MC/S d-(--)@ s+:+ a-- C !U--- P--- L--(-) E- W N-(--) !o K--- w++ O--- M--(--) V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t-- 5-- X- R(+) tv(++) b-- DI+ D---- G- e+++ h-- r* y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Yeah, my computer sucks. You try and do better.

03-03-2006, 10:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
igalan PCTT Articles Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Barcelona, SPAIN Posts: 1,018	Smithfield cores share the same die. And neither AMD nor Intel have unified cache; each core has it's own separated caches. Where did you get that information? Tom's Hardware: Intel moves to double core __________________ AMD64 X2 3800+, Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, 2 GB RAM, GeForce 6600GT, Windows XP Home SP2

03-03-2006, 11:14 AM	#6 (permalink)
greffov Da House Nerd Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: One CPU Lane Posts: 3,512	k, cool! I'm still waiting for them, as I get a bit tired of my single-core non-smp machine __________________ Linux virusscanner detected a virus: Windows 95 ... delete [Y/n] y ~ ~ :wq

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode