AMD64 or P4 Hyperthreading

Peter Moore · October 27th, 2003, 12:35 PM

Does the AMD64 have hyperthreading like the Intel? I think that's a key benefit- I can't stand doing a long task on the PC and not being able to do anything else.

Arnaldo Paixao · October 28th, 2003, 03:53 AM

"Does the AMD64 have hyperthreading like the Intel? "

No, it doesn't.

Best regards,
Arnaldo

Peter Moore · October 28th, 2003, 07:19 AM

So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs?

Arnaldo Paixao · October 28th, 2003, 08:46 AM

On single processor computers yes.

Go to Tom's Hardware site and you'll find a lot of info on this subject.

If you want/can spend some more cash, there is one fine system you can assemble --> ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard, (875 chipset supporting 2 Xeon processors)

Best regards,
Arnaldo

Peter Moore · October 28th, 2003, 05:57 PM

I've been checking all the hardware guides. I haven't found any yet that specifically benchmark the P4 in multi-tasking environments versus other chips.

With Intel's recent price slash though I'm definitely going with the P4, probably the 3.2. The Extreme Edition sounds great but I don't know that it'll be so necessary to justify its cost.

Glenn Chan · October 28th, 2003, 08:59 PM

On some tasks (involving both virtual processors) hyperthreading decreases performance but generally hyperthreading increases performance. Programs can be rewritten to take advantage of hyperthreading. Some programs are also written with optimizations for Pentium processors- Premiere Pro is supposed to be by Adobe's claims.

Peter Moore · October 28th, 2003, 09:55 PM

Yeah, that's basically multithreading, which all programs should do anyway, IMO. It's a great way to program, though a little tricky sometimes.

Jon Kamps · October 29th, 2003, 03:05 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs? -->>>

YES and NO:

Yes hyperthreading makes the p4 more efficent than it was. This is do to the way the chip is designed and how many clock cycles it wastes, they needed a way for the chip to keep busy while it was wating on I/O from the Ram. The reason AMD hasn't done HT is that thier chip is so much more efficiant it doesn't need it (the reason why a 2.0ghz chip keeps up with the 3.2 HT P4), by the time its needed amd will have thier multi core chip on the market (2 cpus one chip)

John Uchida · October 31st, 2003, 01:43 AM

> So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs?

Hyperthreading typically adds -5 to +10% additional speed to the P4. Yes, in some cases, hyperthreading can make the P4 run some programs slower. Benchmark tests take hyperthreading into account.

The benchmarks say that for most tests, AMD64's without hyperthreading are faster than P4's with hyperthreading.

Of course, when Win XP 64 bits is available, you can upgrade the operating system with an AMD64, you're out of luck with a P4.

There will be advantages to a 64 bit XP even if you don't have a 64 bit version of an application program. Currently, XP and 2K can only use 4 gigs of memory, 2 gigs are reserved for the operating system, and application programs use the other 2 gigs. In 64 bit XP, each application can run in it's own 4 gig virtual space so if you have enough memory, you can run multiple copies of memory hog programs without using your hard drive for swapfiles.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · October 31st, 2003, 05:12 AM

Longhorn will have some 64 bit flavors, but it is still some years away.

The 2 GB application limitation is a serious hindrance for desktop rendering and compositing work.

Peter Moore · October 31st, 2003, 07:19 AM

What about all those benchmarks from Toms Hardware and other sources showing the P4 WAY ahead of the Athlon 64 and even ahead of the Athlon 64 FX for "media creation" - photoshop, MPEG encoding, MP3, etc.

Arnaldo Paixao · October 31st, 2003, 08:58 AM

Precisely my point...

Best regards,
Arnaldo

Peter Moore · October 31st, 2003, 09:26 AM

Well yeah, but no one seems to agree on this. :)

Arnaldo Paixao · October 31st, 2003, 09:43 AM

Hi Peter.

Another way to see the issue of preforming multiple tasks in paralel is using more than one computer. In many situations, with the price of a top of the line dual processor machine riged with lots of ram and bla bla bla, you can assemble 2 good or 1 very good and 1 so so machines.

Weddings is my trade and using multiple computers, allows me not to slowdown my workflow:

One is capturing, another is processing the files for a DVD and I'm editing on the third one (for example).

Just some thoughts...

Take care,
Arnaldo

Jon Kamps · October 31st, 2003, 01:56 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : What about all those benchmarks from Toms Hardware and other sources showing the P4 WAY ahead of the Athlon 64 and even ahead of the Athlon 64 FX for "media creation" - photoshop, MPEG encoding, MP3, etc. -->>>

go read some other sites like anandtech.com toms tends to be biased tords whoever is paying his bills. p4 does beat the a64 in SOME tests but not by much, overall worst case p4 and a64 are so close it doesn't matter. best case a64 is faster.

Now if it was me buying today I would either wait if I had something to get me by for another 8-12mo (which I am my 2100 athlon will be fine for the short term) or buy a p4 2.53 rig. Then upgrade a year or so from now when win 64 is out and its clear weather a64 is the way to go or not, and also proubly getting in the sub 200 range for the chip.

October 31st, 2003, 05:12 AM	#25
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Longhorn will have some 64 bit flavors, but it is still some years away. The 2 GB application limitation is a serious hindrance for desktop rendering and compositing work. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 27th, 2003, 12:35 PM	#16
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Does the AMD64 have hyperthreading like the Intel? I think that's a key benefit- I can't stand doing a long task on the PC and not being able to do anything else.

October 28th, 2003, 03:53 AM	#17
Arnaldo Paixao Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Vimeiro - Portugal Posts: 255	"Does the AMD64 have hyperthreading like the Intel? " No, it doesn't. Best regards, Arnaldo

October 28th, 2003, 07:19 AM	#18
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs?

October 28th, 2003, 08:46 AM	#19
Arnaldo Paixao Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Vimeiro - Portugal Posts: 255	On single processor computers yes. Go to Tom's Hardware site and you'll find a lot of info on this subject. If you want/can spend some more cash, there is one fine system you can assemble --> ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard, (875 chipset supporting 2 Xeon processors) Best regards, Arnaldo

October 28th, 2003, 05:57 PM	#20
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	I've been checking all the hardware guides. I haven't found any yet that specifically benchmark the P4 in multi-tasking environments versus other chips. With Intel's recent price slash though I'm definitely going with the P4, probably the 3.2. The Extreme Edition sounds great but I don't know that it'll be so necessary to justify its cost.

October 28th, 2003, 08:59 PM	#21
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	On some tasks (involving both virtual processors) hyperthreading decreases performance but generally hyperthreading increases performance. Programs can be rewritten to take advantage of hyperthreading. Some programs are also written with optimizations for Pentium processors- Premiere Pro is supposed to be by Adobe's claims.

October 28th, 2003, 09:55 PM	#22
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Yeah, that's basically multithreading, which all programs should do anyway, IMO. It's a great way to program, though a little tricky sometimes.

October 29th, 2003, 03:05 PM	#23
Jon Kamps Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 56	<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs? -->>> YES and NO: Yes hyperthreading makes the p4 more efficent than it was. This is do to the way the chip is designed and how many clock cycles it wastes, they needed a way for the chip to keep busy while it was wating on I/O from the Ram. The reason AMD hasn't done HT is that thier chip is so much more efficiant it doesn't need it (the reason why a 2.0ghz chip keeps up with the 3.2 HT P4), by the time its needed amd will have thier multi core chip on the market (2 cpus one chip)

October 31st, 2003, 01:43 AM	#24
John Uchida New Boot Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 22	> So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs? Hyperthreading typically adds -5 to +10% additional speed to the P4. Yes, in some cases, hyperthreading can make the P4 run some programs slower. Benchmark tests take hyperthreading into account. The benchmarks say that for most tests, AMD64's without hyperthreading are faster than P4's with hyperthreading. Of course, when Win XP 64 bits is available, you can upgrade the operating system with an AMD64, you're out of luck with a P4. There will be advantages to a 64 bit XP even if you don't have a 64 bit version of an application program. Currently, XP and 2K can only use 4 gigs of memory, 2 gigs are reserved for the operating system, and application programs use the other 2 gigs. In 64 bit XP, each application can run in it's own 4 gig virtual space so if you have enough memory, you can run multiple copies of memory hog programs without using your hard drive for swapfiles.

October 31st, 2003, 07:19 AM	#26
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	What about all those benchmarks from Toms Hardware and other sources showing the P4 WAY ahead of the Athlon 64 and even ahead of the Athlon 64 FX for "media creation" - photoshop, MPEG encoding, MP3, etc.

October 31st, 2003, 08:58 AM	#27
Arnaldo Paixao Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Vimeiro - Portugal Posts: 255	Precisely my point... Best regards, Arnaldo

October 31st, 2003, 09:26 AM	#28
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Well yeah, but no one seems to agree on this. :)

October 31st, 2003, 09:43 AM	#29
Arnaldo Paixao Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Vimeiro - Portugal Posts: 255	Hi Peter. Another way to see the issue of preforming multiple tasks in paralel is using more than one computer. In many situations, with the price of a top of the line dual processor machine riged with lots of ram and bla bla bla, you can assemble 2 good or 1 very good and 1 so so machines. Weddings is my trade and using multiple computers, allows me not to slowdown my workflow: One is capturing, another is processing the files for a DVD and I'm editing on the third one (for example). Just some thoughts... Take care, Arnaldo

October 31st, 2003, 01:56 PM	#30
Jon Kamps Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 56	<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : What about all those benchmarks from Toms Hardware and other sources showing the P4 WAY ahead of the Athlon 64 and even ahead of the Athlon 64 FX for "media creation" - photoshop, MPEG encoding, MP3, etc. -->>> go read some other sites like anandtech.com toms tends to be biased tords whoever is paying his bills. p4 does beat the a64 in SOME tests but not by much, overall worst case p4 and a64 are so close it doesn't matter. best case a64 is faster. Now if it was me buying today I would either wait if I had something to get me by for another 8-12mo (which I am my 2100 athlon will be fine for the short term) or buy a p4 2.53 rig. Then upgrade a year or so from now when win 64 is out and its clear weather a64 is the way to go or not, and also proubly getting in the sub 200 range for the chip.