PDA

View Full Version : 2 AMD or not 2 AMD


Capt.Jackass
09-29-2002, 05:31 AM
i've got a question, about a dual AMD processor comp, will viewport speed and rendering speed increase with 2 dual processors or just one fast processor like a p4 or something?

Array
09-29-2002, 08:18 AM
you'll see a huge increase in rendering times if your renderer supports multithreading. you wont see much, if any, improvement in your viewport speeds though.

little
09-30-2002, 02:18 AM
im running dual athlons and arry is righ ti saw a lot of inprovment in rendering but nothing noticable in veiwport speed it also seems to load a little slower but thats just me thinking it is im sure
really it all depends of what app you run some progs take better advantage of 2 cpu's then others
as a side note a good dual system resource you might want to look at is www.2cpu.com they have a good forum

Capt.Jackass
09-30-2002, 04:58 AM
thanks for the info guys

GregHess
09-30-2002, 03:27 PM
Viewport modeling is almost always determined by the video accelerator, unless your specifically running some sort of software emulation of the viewports.

Since its being controlled by video hardware, the particular drivers of whatever card your using would have to be multithreaded to make use of the second cpu. Since virtually all opengl accelerators have primarily single threaded drivers, its pretty safe to say that unless the manufacturer specifically states "multithreaded drivers" that the second cpu in a dual, or the second, third, and fourth cpu's in a quad system will do nothing to aid viewport performance.

This is why many people run multiple copies of their app on each cpu, so that rendering can be done while modeling, etc.

Its interesting to note, that 3dsmax, which features a software heidi acceleration of the viewports (if your graphics card sucks) does feature multithreading, which can net upwards of a 20-40% boost in viewport performance. (Of course any decent accelerator still blows this completely away)

Matt
10-04-2002, 12:02 PM
Just get AMD because of the price. Why spend 600 for something an AMD can do for just 200!

Side by side, AMD Athlon XP 2800+ has the same performance as the Intel Pentium 4 2.5ghz, and it's $400 less.

Plus, it's not such of a big leap when you upgrade, as you'll not be thinking about the multi-thousand dollar system you're leaving behind, but rather an AMD box that cost you under 1200 for top of the line stuff.

HOWEVER I'd suggest for you to wait. AMD will release their 64-bit processor line, the Opterons, early next year.

MadMax
10-05-2002, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Matt
Side by side, AMD Athlon XP 2800+ has the same performance as the Intel Pentium 4 2.5ghz, and it's $400 less.


A slight correction here.

The AMD 2800+ is as fast or faster than the Intel 2.8.

The benchmarks being posted on many of the hardware sites for Lightwave are msleading in the extreme.

While they are posted as being the Raytrace benchmark, they are not. The test being used is the radiosity test which gives Intel a distinct advantage due to SSE2 support.

However, radiosity is a bit of a useless feature which is not used much as raytrace often looks better and is much quicker.

Also the available right now 2400+ XP's can overclock safely to as high as 2.5ghz with no problems.

My Fault
10-28-2002, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by MadMax
A slight correction here.

The AMD 2800+ is as fast or faster than the Intel 2.8.

The benchmarks being posted on many of the hardware sites for Lightwave are msleading in the extreme.

While they are posted as being the Raytrace benchmark, they are not. The test being used is the radiosity test which gives Intel a distinct advantage due to SSE2 support.

However, radiosity is a bit of a useless feature which is not used much as raytrace often looks better and is much quicker.

Also the available right now 2400+ XP's can overclock safely to as high as 2.5ghz with no problems.

Are you sure of this? Looking at Chris's Lightwave Benchmark site, the P-4's seem resoundingly faster. Are there any benchmark sites that show 2400+ XP's and higher render times in LW 7.5? I'll be buying a new computer in November (can't wait for the Opterons) and am trying to gather as much real user info as possible.

Thanks
B

GregHess
10-28-2002, 07:26 AM
Even more notes....

A Pentium IV 2.53B goes for around 239 USD + Shipping, while a

2400+ XP (Fastest currently available) goes for around 194 USD + Shipping. (OEM)

Prices current as of 10:00 PM EST Oct 27, 2002 www.newegg.com

The 2.53B However is the retail price (heatsink included) while the AMD would require something like a Thermalright SK7 which adds around 30 USD to the price. 24+8 (Heatsink + Fan)

[The Intel Retail cooler is actually quite good, and doesn't warrant replacing]

This makes the 2400+ XP cost nearly about the same price as the 2.53B. +/- a few dollars.

Speedwise I'd say that their pretty evenly matched, with a slight edge falling to the 2.53B

(These prices are for the USA, and don't apply to those outside the US..unfortuantly :( )




"The AMD 2800+ is as fast or faster than the Intel 2.8. "

This is extremely debatable. It all depends on what app, and what action is occuring. I would definitely agree that these are comperable processors, and one will beat the other depending on which benchmark or program you choose to look at.

Here's another note....

The 2400+, 2600+, and 2800+ Are Throughbred REV B processors. This means a few things...

1. There is an increased transistor count, mainly to compensate for increased EMI.

2. There is an additional metal layer, to create some breathing room for both the new transistors, and future stepping increases.
(9 Layers total)

3. The rating system has changed (more on this in a minute)

4. These will require a bios flash to use in your motherboard. Support will be determined by each individual motherboard manufacturer.

The rating system change is definitely in AMD's favor...

The 2400+ XP is a 2.0 Gigahertz AMD
The 2600+ XP is a 2.13 Gigahertz AMD
The 2800+ XP is a 2.25 Gigahertz AMD

You'll note that this is a DIFFERENT rating system then before. This RATING system will change AGAIN when Barton comes out. So be wary and make sure to read up on the different performance #'s before buying.

[This is actually a pretty big change, as the 2200+ MP (Tbred Rev A) is actually a 1.8 Gigahertz chip. So between two rating numbers, is a 200 megahertz Jump, instead of the average 66 megahertz per 100+ rating increase. ]

Its been my experience that all things being equal, an AMD chip at a specified gigahertz, is usually equivilant to a Pentium IV thats 500-600 megahertz faster. (Reduce the # slightly if the P4 is using rambus or DCDDR)

So if you add 600 megahertz to a 2.25 Ghz AMD, you get 2.85 which is slightly faster then a 2.8 Intel. So is it really faster?

Lets take a look.

Here's some articles showing the performance of what the 2800+ XP will bring to the table. Due note that neither the 2600+ nor the 2800+ are currently available, which is severly hurting AMD. (Aka they have no chips to compete against the 2.8 Gigahertz, nor the upcoming 3.08 and 3.08 SMT Processors [2 weeks])

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000304

and

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q4/athlonxp-2800/index.x?pg=1

and

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718

You'll note by browsing through these articles that the winner between the two chips, varys greatly depending on the test done.

(Btw Madmax, the new nforce2 scores LOOK INSANE)

Declaring a winner is rather difficult to do, until you take price into consideration...However, we really can't do that right now, because at the moment the 2800+ XP is a paper release. (Announced but not on the market). Its EST date to ship is Q1 2003, with a POSSIBLE December shipment.

Unfortuantly this really puts a shadow over AMD, because in this time Intel is planning not one, but two-three stepping increases. So by the time the 2800+ XP comes out, it will most likely match the Price of a 2.8B Pentium IV (Because the 3.1+ Intel Chips will be out, as well as a new divisor between SMT and non SMT chips..pricewise)

SMT in case your wondering is simultanous multithreading, or as intel calls it...Hyper Threading. It basically allows for the processor to be more efficent in its distribution of cycles, giving most secondary apps (as in the apps your not running primarily) a 10-15% performance boost. SUPPOSEDLY (not confirmed) you can actually divide the processor into two, and assign affinities to tasks. (Aka like you would in a dual processor system). This seems a bit far fetched to me, so I doubt its validity.

Intel sees the grim reaper knocking on its door (Hammer), and is going to do everything in its power to delay that reaper.

So lets for the time being just compare too similarly priced systems...a 2400+ XP, and a 2.53B Pentium IV. Much like the 2800+ and the 2.8 P4, the winner here is really determined by what your doing, and on what application. Either system will be speedy and useful in whatever you plan on doing.

What system would I lean too? Both really. I have both Intel and AMD systems. Its great because you can play off each of their strengths. The AMD renders like a mofo, while the P4 does all the modeling and post work.

MadMax
10-28-2002, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by GregHess
(Btw Madmax, the new nforce2 scores LOOK INSANE)

Declaring a winner is rather difficult to do, until you take price into consideration...However, we really can't do that right now, because at the moment the 2800+ XP is a paper release. (Announced but not on the market). Its EST date to ship is Q1 2003, with a POSSIBLE December shipment.

There has been a bit of confusion on this so let me say this again.....

the 2800's which are supposed to be available in January are BARTON core chips. There are 2800's available right now, but thse are Tbred cores and are only available to system builders, not the joe sixpack who would buy from pricewatch.

AMD is going to have 2 different processors with the 2800+ designation. Personally I wish they had just stayed with mhz. numbers as their sliding scale is doing more to confuse people than it is to clear up any mhz. myth.

GregHess
10-28-2002, 12:20 PM
"the 2800's which are supposed to be available in January are BARTON core chips."

The barton 2800+'s are NOT designated with a 2800+.

A Barton (2.25 Ghz) is a 2900+ XP. [333 FSB]

The Barton 2800+ XP designation is a 2.13 Ghz Processor. (Which is actually a 2600+ Tbred Rev A)

As you said, confusing as all $@!#. At least it keeps people like us in business :).

The major oem's do not have either 2600+ nor 2800+'s available. These include boxxtech, monarchcomputers, alienware.com, and a variety of other oem's and online retailers.

The distributors I use are not expecting any 2800+ XP shipments this month, nor next month. Looks like the EARLIEST we'll see one in a system available for purchase would be december/january. Supposedly if we do see them before 2003, they'll be in extremely limited supply.

The only 2800+ XP's available are samples direct from AMD, which though may be in the hands of system builders, ARE NOT available for consumer purchase and WILL not be for some time yet.

The main source of 2800+ XP information is from overclocked Rev A Tbred's and samples delivered to reviewers by AMD.

I wish I could give you the exact 2800+ Release date to clear things up, but AMD's lawyers won't let me.

"Personally I wish they had just stayed with mhz. "

But then their sales would be down, due to consumers not mistaking the #'s for megahertz.

My Fault
10-28-2002, 05:03 PM
Yeah great stuff!

Still curious how the two compare using Lightwave though. I'll keep hitting google and see what benchmarks I can come up with.

Nephos
10-28-2002, 05:05 PM
This is very helpfull info. I have a newbie question. I see there's a lot of talk here about the XP processors, do they work well in dual setups or are the MP 2200 processors better suited?

GregHess
10-28-2002, 05:30 PM
Dual XP's only work if.....

You have an earlier rev motherboard....

You don't flash the motherboard's bios....

You bridge the MP gap on the processors manually, either with pencil lead, or some sort of conductive material.

In otherwords, don't even consider Dual XP's now, especially not with the new Tbred's.

Nephos
10-28-2002, 10:38 PM
Thank you. The increase in power in a dual set up was what I was considering for it's aid in rendering times. The board I was looking @ was a Tyan dual inwhich I was looking to add 2 MP2000's. Would it be better to go that route and see 2 or three mor MP's come out or wait with the introduction of the Opteron class of cpus (early next year). Basically will I see anymore life out of this board? http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?sku=W450-2000

MadMax
10-28-2002, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Nephos
Thank you. The increase in power in a dual set up was what I was considering for it's aid in rendering times. The board I was looking @ was a Tyan dual inwhich I was looking to add 2 MP2000's. Would it be better to go that route and see 2 or three mor MP's come out or wait with the introduction of the Opteron class of cpus (early next year). Basically will I see anymore life out of this board? http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?sku=W450-2000

There should still be some life in these boards for awhile.

There will be 2400, 2600 and above MP chips later on. Even Barton is to come in MP versions.

The Hammer line of chips are going to be FAR more expensive than what you see now.

Nephos
10-28-2002, 11:11 PM
Very good looking forward to this. It willbe a huge step-up from the Athlon 900 I'm running now. Thanks again.

GregHess
10-30-2002, 12:19 AM
I hate to always be the one going against the grain... :)

Last I heard the expected price point for a Dual Operton (Or however the hell you spell it) system was Sub 4,000 USD.

(With considering possible competition, could drop to around a 3,000 USD price point).

The quote was for an entire system.

That is at least what they were saying at Siggraph 2002, at the AMD booth.

So yes, DEFINITELY more expensive...but not anything rediculous like the Itanium1 chips. (They were 10-18k PER PROCESSOR)

KayosIII
10-30-2002, 11:50 AM
You will find a variance depending on your app.

AMDs Athlon series has much stronger Double precision (64bit) floating point support.

Intels P4 series has stronger SSE 2 support.

Unless your application is specifically written with intel in mind. you will probably find the Athlon to be the stronger performer with 3D apps. (especially high precision ones)

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 05:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.