C2D v X2 = Not as good as you think?

[FatRakoon]

I have been running both my C2D and my x2 4200 into the ground to see which ones is going to be my main PC and which will be the mess about one.

I have had suspicions that the conroe ( Well, for those who want to argue, its the 6300 which is supposed to be an allendale, but its still a C2D )

Now, as you should all know, the conroe is twice as fast as the AMD. SuperPI will pretty much very this. On these 2 PCs as they stand right now for me, are giving me 17 seconds on the C2D and 33Seconds on the 4200, so with rought rounding off, the C2D is roughly about double the speed right?

Now, I would like anyone else who has both an AMD and a C2D to check this out... Cos I have also done these tests on other PCs too ( Single core Opteron / X2-3800 ) and its fairly surprising what you may find.

Ok, I run Folding At Home on both cores of the C2D and the X2, I also run utorrent too for my Lunix distro downloads.

Now, I have a load of Ghostfiles on DigiCam, that I am converting to DVD from AVI, and this is done using DVD Santa and this program uses both cores, I also use DVDtoONE, and TMPG DVD Author for the VOB files.

Naturally, this can all take a short while, and so while I am burning the last batch onto my 4 DVDRW Drives, I am converting the next batch, and of course I occasionally play a game or two while I am waiting.

Now, I have been doing this for a fair while now. I was able to do it just fine on my Barton Setup, on the NF7S Motherboard with 1GB of RAM, that would obviously slow the background apps down a little but at least they would be done in the hour. I moved to A64 and while the speed initially wasnt that much, encoding etc was massively improved.

Moving to C2D I expected that as SuperPI was giving me such a hike, I was rather hoping that encoding would alos have a hike too, but this has proved to be not as true as I was hoping.

It turns out, that while I can have a number of thigns going on at once, it seems that the AMD loves it, there is no ( Apparent ) slow down at all, and I can jumpo to andfromany running app I want to with no slowdowns, hangs or pauses, it is just as quick when using the Opteron too actually, but when using the C2D, its ploning along like a phart.

It seems to me, that the more apps you put into the C2D, the slower it gets. Now, I dont mean to sound thick here, I know that this is obvious, but hang on... Check it out, the C2D struggles when 2 apps are battling to do a job and when 3 or more are, it gets worse, while the AMD is still firing on all 4

A quick look at the CPU time in the task manager shows me something interesting...

FaH should only take up CPU time thats not being used right?

Well, on both the AMD and the Intel, I am seeing 50% twice. This is normal, as we know 50% of one core + 50% of the other core makes the 100% of both cores, and thats great, but then, when I run say, DVD Santa, then with FAH one core still gets about half the CPU time, just under actually, and so the FAH Clients still get roughly about 20-25% CPU time each. This does not happen on the AMDs... FAH gets 0%

So, DVDSanta, then on the Intel only actualyl gets to run at about half its potential speed, and on the AMD it gets to go at full pelt.

Result is that the AMD and the C2D are roughly finished at about the same time!

( I tested this and on one file in particular, the C2D was done in 18 minutes and the AMD in 17 Minutes )

Now, as I said, I like to run lots of apps at the same time, but lets just go to basics a little here...

When I am doing my usual jobs of encoding job B and burning job A, what would happen if I do some letters? I use StarOffice8, so I double click on the icon and wait. On the AMD, it comes up in 2 seconds... Not the quickest program to start I will admit, but hold on, how long does it take on the Intel?

9 seconds.

This MUST be because of the HDs being slow surely?

Nope!

The AMD is running 2 x Seagate 250GB SATA II Drives ( 2 partitions each )
The C2D is running a pair of 80GB Hitachi drives as Striped Raid, and a pair of WD200GB Drives and also my torrents are going to the 36GB Raptor.

HDTach is showing the Disk access of the C2D is pretty muchdouble of the AMD, so it cannot possibly be the speed of the disks.

I run good old simple notepad and its the same thing... absolutely instant on the AMD, and 3 seconds on the Intel??

So, it seems to me, that for when you are running one app or only need to use a PC for doing one thing very quickly, that the C2D are by far, the best option there is right now, however, if you plan on running a number of thigns that are all pushing for CPU time, then a C2D maybe isnt the best option?

As I said, I have also played about doing the very same jobs using a Single core Opteron 144 @ 2.6 and the opteron is also showing that its more than holding its own at particular tasks against the C2D, and that opteron does not lsow down as much as the C2D does either, but does lose out due to its single core.

So, can anyone else actually verify this for me, make sure its not just me who is finding this out.

As I said, when running or concentrating on one thing, the C2D is the beast to go for, but when loaded up with a few apps , the AMD is the better option.

Either way, for my needs, I am finding that after knocking out my Conroe setup, while Im absolutely in love with benchmark results, for the more serious stuff, I have actually gone back to my AMD and think that perhaps I wasted my time in some ways on going to conroe... Im just grateful that Im a hoarder and rarely sell any of my old kit off ( Hence currently owning 14 PCs )

 

[FatRakoon]

Thanks for all the replies guys.

Ok, yes, I know that I said twice as fast... I did only mean in SuperPI, but also as a general too...

Clock speeds?

The C2D ( 6300 ) is currently at 415FSB
The x2 4200 is at 240FSB
The Opteron is at 290FSB

DVD Encoder using 50%?
No, 50% of each core... This means 100% of both cores

It drops down ONLY on the C2D and to be fair, only when Folding on both cores too! - stop FAH and I do indeed get the full sherbert, as long as nothign else is playing.

For sure, it is way quicker than the AMD. I never said it wasnt... I am saying that when I run many apps, it gets worse, while the AMD keeps on chugging along.

As easyrider says...
Opty 170 @ 2.8ghz 15 mins to shrink a DVD
E6600 @ 3.8ghz 3mins

Thats sweet cos mine dotn give anywhere near that much of a gap?

Now, throw a load of apps at the 2 PCs and you will find the gap between the two will be a lot smaller - Are you running FAH on each core or not?

Ok, the 3.8Ghz is way further apart than my AMD & Intel thats for sure, but I think you will find that with running several apps, the AMD time will be say 16 or 17 minutes which will be fairly obvious, but the Intel will be much higher, possibly even as much as 10 minutes.

And while you are doing all these, also try running other stuff too, and the AMD might just keep on loading stuff, while the Intel will take a lot longer to start up its apps.

Maybe with such a gap between them, you wont notice it quite as much, but I recon if you throw enough in, you will see what I mean.


I know there is a lot of points here that I am wrong about. I know the C2D is way quicker, I know this.

But, I also know that while I keep throwing stuff at these PCs, I know that the AMD drops in performance by say 5% but the Intels performance drops by much much more than that, meaning that by the time I have say 5 apps going at once, the AMD is doing its jobs much better than the Intel is... I dont just mean silly thigns either, I do mean proper work thats gettign the CPU to work, but as I said before, even notepad can take its time to startup on the intel.

 

[FatRakoon]

I guess it's possible that there is some kind of configuration or setup problem with FatRakoon's Intel system but I can't imagine what it could be.

Yes, this is very possible, but I get similar results with my other DS3 too ( With a P4 660 Prescott @ 4.3 ).

When it started to lag, I decided to go RAID. this in itself has been a chore, and I eventually ended up intergrating the drivers into the installation CD, but apart from defragging it is quicker, I am finding that RAID on this ( or any other Mobo ) is pretty much a waste of time really. and anyway, this didnt cure the lag in loading apps.

Like I said running one thing, the C2D is way quicker...
Running 2 apps the gap is smaller and running more, this gap becomes wafer thin and eventually the AMD will take over it.

Ok, for 99.9% or us, this means jack No disguised swearing!, but I think I qualify into that 0.01% of users who do expect their PC to perform above and beyond.

Oh, and also when converting AVI to DVD, I have found that for some annoying reason, the end video file can be a little bit jerky when encoded on the intel. I cant figure this one out and surely there must be some reason behind this because any CPU can encode, Im not sure why it does this, but thats not for here... Not now.

 

[FatRakoon]

Now I'm debating whether I should leave my Conroe kit unopened and just put it straight on ebay!

NO!

Im only having half a moan myself.

As I said, Im perfectly happy with my Conroe, its just that I was hoping for so much more...

Then again, when I went from the Winchester 3200 to the x2 3800 and found it was no better, I also had a whine at that...
When I went from the barton 3200 to the winchester 3200, I also had a moan at that...
When I went from... You get the idea!

The conroe is a dream CPU it really is.

You iwll find that it does everythign a lot faster than your AMD does it.

Its just that I tend to throw half a dozen apps at my PCs and I am finding too much lag when going between them, whereas I never have this with my AMDs.

Sure, it could be that my Intels are not setup right, and my AMDs are, but I doubt it, I have changed too much in the BIOS to not now know what does what to what and how for it to be a setting or two!

 

[FatRakoon]

Sounds like you could do with some Quad core action!

And how!

hehe... I've always wanted to say that.

Seriously, which is why I opeted for the kentsfield compatible option when I was chooseing the Mobo. Not sayign I will go for it when I can... Just that I have the option to, should I fancy it ( Or the missus let me )

No it doesn't. How can 50% of each = 100% of both?

Piccy - deleted for obvious reasons

100% will show as both graphs maxed out

You know what I mean... 50% in the task manager means that its 50% of the whole of the CPU power, or 100% of that core...

50% ( 100% of core 1 ) + 50% ( 100% of core 2 ) = 100% ( of the both cores )

I see what you mean, what I typed was not how I meant it to be...

I meant that Taskmanager was showing the core at 50%, meaning that it was 50% of the total, but, as we know this means 100% of that core.... Its how Taskmanager shows its figures.

 

[FatRakoon]

SNIP!

I agree with you in part, but would not go as far as you have.

It has been too much overhyped, but I think its been overhyped by those who dont actually need or even use the power it can give.

Im not going to categorise any individuals here, but the main reason most have bought a conroe is beause of the hype, and there are many people who actually do feel that perhaps they did spend on theirs when their AMD was more than efficient for their needs ( Even wants ) and so many are really tryign to justify their spending.

I know I have.

While I am totally glad that I have spent on mine, and I would not have it any other way, I also wish, that I had not even bothered, and just got to use my mates more instead.

My conroe is now back up in the attic ( The attic is converted into a LAN Room and it does get used every day ) and I have brought my AMD back down, because the AMD does everythign that the Conroe does, and while the conroe may very well finish TASK "X" long before the AMD does, the fact that I also want it to run TASKS "B to Z" at the same time as Task "A" and I also need it to do other stuff in the meantime, such as play a few rounds on UT for example, the AMD is showing me that it can do all those much better than the conroe can...
End result is quite simply that the AMD for me feels much better, much cleaner and does not lag as badly as the conroe does... Or rather as much as the conroe can.

Dont get me wrong here... As I keep saying.

Task "A" on the conroe is done much quicker than it can be done on the AMD

But tasks "A-Z" at the same time cannot.

Its as if it can run the tasks faster than the AMD, but when it keeps jumping between each task, it stops off for a brew all the time.

 

[FatRakoon]

But thats exactly what they said about the conroe against the AMD too!

With the ATI GPU being built into the AMD CPU, its going to ( Perhaps? ) cut out the need for Physics cards and deliver far more gamign power than an Intel CPU alone can provide ( Depends on what p/review you read there )

Then again, Its often best to ignore 99% of what you read / hear as its almost all spin and speculation.

I dobelieve however, that AMDs decision could actually be something as bad as that they know that Intel have taken the crown from them in such a big way, that they simply will not be able to compete... If their next run of CPUs dont knock the hell out of the Conroe, then I really do think that it will mark the end of AMD as a CPU SuperPower.

 

[FatRakoon]

For 110 quid you can have a 6300 overclocked to 3.4ghz and its a lot faster than anything by AMD in this price range clocked to there capacity.

Take a X2 3800 clocked at 2,8ghz (if you are lucky and have water cooling )

I see what you are saying on all those points you made except you also left out one vital point...

RAM.

Ok, the CPU does acheive these figures, however, in order to get those speeds, you cant just use any old RAM.

When the C2D came out, you also had to go and buy a new Motherboard too come to think of it, so this £110 is a little misleading isnt it?

Be honest now, when oyu upgraded to your Conroe, how much did you have to pay out to get it running?

I know I have had to fork out for the CPU, RAM, and a new Conroe capable Motherboard, and thats from a 3.6Ghz P4.

-

Also, to get 2.8Ghz from an X2 3800 you dont need Water. My A64 PCs that have hit 3Ghz have done it on Air, and been cool enough to not even consider Water.

Please... You have pointed out about AMD Fans talking rubbish, so dont you start doing the same.

 

[FatRakoon]

Ok, try the most simple test to get an example of what I am talking about...

Whatever is in your system right now, it should not make too much of a difference and you will probably get the idea on how I mean...

1 - Run Folding At Home on both cores. I think Folding at Home is about the best example, because the idea of how that works, is that it uses up CPU time thats NOT being used.
No apps and FAH uses up 100% btu as soon as the CPU gets used, it drops off to 0%

2 - Now run a program that converts something to another thing... MP3 to WAV or AVI to DVD or such like... Anything will do but oviously if its MP3 then the job will be done before you can grasp the idea. One that uses up both cores is preferable, if it uses only one, run another instance of it

3 - Have a look at TASKMAN, and what FAH cores are up to and the program you are using to encode the stuff...

You will notice that even FAH is eating up a lot of CPU time, giving less to the encoding.

4 - Cycle through the Start menu... Tell me honestly if everything comes up instantly ( Sub-Menus ) or if there is a small gap for it to bring them up ( I know you can change the time of the menus to apprear, so it depends on that as well )

5 - DeFrag all your partitions ( I have currently 6 partitions on 4 Drives ) - C: and T: are sharing I use T: for ISO Images, and D: and F: are sharing, my Apps & Games are on D: and F: is junk, E: is my media, and M: is my downlaods - utorrent is on permanently, currently downloading 12 files

6 - burn as many disks as you can, I have 4 DVDRW Drives, and so I burn 4 DVDs at a time, this should take nothign out of the CPU, but will take the time from the HDs

7 - Now, open up Notepad and tell me its still instant?

On the AMDs it is.

On the P4 I gave up waiting long ago and the conroe takes 3 or 4 seconds.

Now play a game. and tell me its still perfectly playable?

On the AMD it is... Slight pause when its loading up but thats to be expected.
Games like Doom3 and Quake 4 have a slightly larger pause between levels but thats because Im also defragging all my partitions, and burning disks

The conroe is bubbly ( Jerky ) all the way through, takes 5 times longer to start up ( Not that I have timed it, youcan see its slower ) and I can go out and fill the kettle in between times of it loading levels.

I accept the Conroe is quicker. Id be a total liar to say any other way, and this, I will never argue about.

The fact is, that with any system, you push it, each task gets less and less time to do its job right... This is obvious.

The thing is, that the AMD canstill flick between each job with complete ease and speed while the conroe gets worse and worse at it.

I mean, use CTRL-TAB and cycle through each app, to bring it up to the front and on the AMD... BANG! - there it is in about half a second, but on the conroe, Im waiting for it to shuffle the top app to the bottom, and then bring up the new app and let it finish displaying the page... Much like as if I have not installed the video drivers yet.

At this time, the AMD has an X800GTO2 and the conroe has the X1600, but previously the GFX Cards were the other way round and even though the x1600 is slower than the 800 it makes no difference here.

If I open up Notepad here, on the conroe I can wait 5 seconds easily... The AMD... Instant again.

Its this kind of pressure I put my systems under all the time. Hell, even my barton 3200 in the NF7S was capable of doing all this, albeit a fair bit slower, but at least it also didnt give me the waiting times in between loading apps and messing about within windows and cycling through my jobs was quick and painless.

Yes, the conroe is way quicker than the AMD, howevr, once loaded up, the speed of the AMD starts to shine through and in the end, it makes it a much better workhorse than the conroe ( For me ) and so after a few weeks, I have decided that I am much better off in sticking to the AMD as my main PC.

Like I said, the conroe when its only doing the basics or one or two things at a time, as 99.9% of people will only ever do, is vastly superior to the AMD, its just that I need it to do more.

Ok, right now, I am burning 3 DVDs, I am using DVDSanta to convert 2 AVI files into one DVD, Im also using DVD-2-ONE to convert another file, when DVDSanta has finished on its 2 files, I will add it to the DVD2ONE file, and build up a DVD using TMPGEnc, but at this time, I am also converting the last lot to a finished DVD with TMPGDVDEnc. In all, I am currently working on 2 AVI files, and 7 DVDs if you consider both the INPUT and OUTPUT of the programs... Taking into account that I am also downloading 12 torrents and defragging all 6 partitions and while I am havign a browse through the forums, I have just paused NeedForSpeed.

Im doing this one the AMD because it takes too long on the conroe.

Hey, I have not checked this one out, but perhaps if I left the PCs alone, which would finish all the jobs first?

I will do some stuff later on for that... I just need to finish off some thigns first.

 

[FatRakoon]

FatRakoon - is there any chance that your C2d system is cluttered or is it a fresh install?

Fresh install... I took the RAID off it last night, and just used the one Drive.

Mostly because one of the drives is a bit clunky and I will be returning it soon, but the main reason is that while defragging etc is much quicker, overall I dont find RAID all that much better than a normal Good HD for basic general stuff and so that was overkill.

PMSL

Hmmm

I smell BS

Anyone who defrags their hardrives wen burning DVD's is a noob.

I'm sorry its should be a scheduled task thats done when the pc is not in use.

Half the stuff you talk of has nothing to do with CPU power but with disk access.

Are you burning the 4 DVD's at the same time at 16x?

ROTFL


P.S its ALT-TAB to cycle through apps not CTRL-TAB

Smell what you like. I dont give a toss. I know what I see, and in my case, the AMD has proved to be the faster system for my jobs I ask of it.

Burning & Defragging = Noob.

Why?

I use O&O, and I defrag C: first then D: and by the time its got to E:, the burning will usually have finished... Even when it has not, its setup so it will put priority to the burn rather than the defrag.

Disk Access Yes, thats true, but Disk access only happens for a short while, it does not explain why the system is so slow going in and out of apps when using ( ALT + TAB ) - Thanks for the correction on that.

Burn Speed = 16x

Hell no. I try to burn as slow as possible to be honest, so 2x and only sometimes 4x... The LG Burners wont go lower and the DataWrite Titaniums fail if they are lower, so 4x on those, but the riteks are always done at 1x or 2x depending on whats going onto them.

If I burn 4 at once at 16x the chances of disk failures are much greater, so I never bother, plus they dont actually burn at the 16x even if I did have 16x disks and they end up being no faster than 8x anyway.

FatRakoon,
Have you actually checked cpu usage when doing notepad, when i start notepad cpu usage doesnt go above 2 %, although i do hear my hdd seeking, as easyrider said, most of your probs sound like hdd lag, nothing to do with the cpu itself, or with wrong settings, like windows useing most res for program x instead of for program y or user input, all fix-able with ctrl-alt-del and set priority's... ( for cpu anyhow).

4 DVD's at once? How can you stand that, i usually get ****** for just having to burn one, i hate starting up software, putting empty dvd's in, etc etc...

Also you know its bad to defrag a hdd being used? ( not that i dont do that myself sometimes )

But i seriously think you have problems with your config, and with a proper tweak everything would crush the amd...

Oh no, Notepad takes nothign from the CPU, or even the disk access itself, its that Explorer itself takes up the whole % of the CPU and needs time to kind of sort itself out before it loads it up.

4 DVDs... Well, I usually just put the disks in, and click on go really. During the first 20 or so seconds the other instances of Nero can seem to hang while its getting itselt in order, but most of the time, I am burning the same files you see, so, I just select multiple drives and this way its just like Im burning one. When I do burn my own stuff off, I only really burn 2 Disks if they are different files, occasionally I might burn a third, but only if its a CD. And I only really burn CDs at 8x - no reason other than I have burned them slow since I first got my first burner, and I really dont care too much about how long it takes as long as its a good burn.

Know how bad it is to defrag a HD being used?

Crap. Windows access the disk every time Windows does anything, it has the Pagefile on the disk and so even if you were running nothing but defragging the drive, windows would still access the disk for something.

I have been using a Maxtor 40GB for my downloads disk for 4 years or so now, and I have been permanently downlaoding onto that drive, with IMESH, Ares, and now Torrents, and I have defragged that drive every few days and its still going strong.

My C: is defragged 2 or 3 times a week, and D: and E: are only defragged when they need to be, and T: has been defragged perhaps twice - EVER! cos it rarely changes and so does not need to be.

Sure, if I only had one large drive and expecting to do what I do and defrag it as well, would be pushing the boat a little and I would expect nothign but bad news, but I have 4 drives ( 6 partitions ) and with Windows on C: - my games and Apps on D: - the Media on E: - Junk on F: - downlaods on M: and the ISOs on T: I can access more than one partition and not have any problems burnign from another and defragging a third all without the partitions touching each other.

No, you can do a hell of a lot more disk access with multiple drives than you would think, so defragging and burning at the same time wont touch it at all.


Proper tweak?

Im all ears.

Hell, I put enough money into this PC and after all that Im still finding that I prefer the AMD for hard work, then tell me what I need to do, because right now, the AMD is being the better system for my needs.

--

Please please please everyone read my posts properly, and try to see what I am trying to say.

I have never once said that the AMD is faster than the conroe at any one task... I know its not, the conroe is much faster.

But, what I am saying is that when you load the PC up with several jobs, the lagging ( that is only to be expected with even the best CPU ) get so much greater on the conroe that in the end the AMD is still very responsive while the conroe struggles... And this makes the AMD for me, the better option.

 

[FatRakoon]

What are your Conroe system specs Fatrakoon? I take it you are using DDR2? I may have gotten you confused with someone else but someone here was using ddr1 with a conroe setup..was this you?

Sorry didnt get to see this one before I posted.

Yes, currently using Geil PC6400 ( As of today that is ) Previously I was using Corsair XMS6400 and I got the Geil cos everyone else seems to love it, but also my P4 will be going to conroe soon too and, I will need the RAM in that possibly.

DDR1 - Yes, originally when I got the P4, that was using DDR1, I forget in the exact order, but I got a DS3, and a Conroe, and the RAM I had at the time for the conroe was DDR2 PC3200 ( Which was a mistake purchase some months previous - but at least its fine at 266 / 533 ) and so while that did let me use the conroe in either board ( in the DS3 & Kingston DDR2 or the ASus with the Samsung DDR1 ) both systems were awful. I ended up with another DS3 for the P4, letting me use the Kingston and finally thats now running at 4.3Ghz and its a nice runner ( Thats also faster than any of my AMDs FWIW - except for folding when HT is on, so thats off )

At this time, I am running

DS3 - Conroe 6300 @ 3.0Ghz & Geil 6400 DDR 2
DS3 - Prescott 660 @ 4.3Ghz - Kingston DDR2

So, yes, for a very short time I was tryign to experiment with DDR1 but not recently... You may be thinking of that?

Oh and yes, My AMD has 2GB and my Conroe has 1GB

 

[FatRakoon]

There lies your answer

No it doesnt.

If I use another AMD ... The 3800 is only using 1GB, I get similar results.

the 1GB v 2GB certainly does make a difference - of course it does, but the same problems are there if I had just 1GB on the AMD, just not as obvious.

 

[FatRakoon]

Ok, specs of my AMDS?

AMD x2 4200 @ 2.5
MSI Neo4-f
4x512MB OCZ
2 x WD200 SATA
4 x OCZ PC3200
X800
Audigy 2 ZS

AMD x2 3800 @ 2.5
2x512MB Corsair XMS4400
MSI Neo2 Platinum
1 x Seagate 80GB
1 x Seagate 120GB
BFG 6800GT
Audigy 1

Opteron 144 @ 2.6
DFI Lanparty
2 x 512MB OCZ
1 x 40GB Maxtor
1 x 60GB Hitachi
Rad 9800Pro
Audigy 1

Few others, but those are my 939 systems.

 

[FatRakoon]

I left it out cos I have only just up there posted its specs.

Here goes..

Gigabyte DS3 ( F7 BIOS )
E6300 @ 3.0 Ghz
2 x 512MB Geil 6400UL
X1600
Audigy 2 ZS
1 x Hitachi 80GB
2 x 250GB Seagate
1 x 40GB Maxtor

 

[FatRakoon]

FatRakoon : Yeah thought it was you lol. Glad to see you saw sense and got some DDR2. I don't have the benifit of having both of my setups with me anymore so I can't really do a true comparison but it certainly appears there is something seriously wrong with your conroe setup if it is being outperformed by an AMD in multitasking. I can't say I have ever done all those tasks you are doing at the same time though (defrag and game at the same time - NO!). Hope you get it sorted - if not I have a m8 who will gladly swap his opty setup for your Conroe

Only a matter of time. I was building up to the conroe via what I had in the Intel range at the time, it was only a phaze I went through while testing thigns out... Still am I suppose.

Your mate... Tell him thanks but no thanks.

The Conroe is killing the AMDs at everything. If I wanted another AMD then I would just get a new CPU as I have all the rest I could need for it.

Im only gone back to my AMD purely because the conroe lags too much when I am loading it up with lots of stupid rubbish while the AMD does not... or does, but just not as much.

 

[FatRakoon]

Hmm...

Ok, the AMD now has only 1GB just like the Conroe.

Its still doing the same thing. The lag on the AMD has increased, but only slightly, and certainly a lot less than I had expected it to, and its still managing to run multiple apps and jump between them better than the conroe is doing.

This whole thread has gone totally away from my original post.

I really dotn give a freaky fat flying f??? about any benchmark results. They have stopped impressing me years ago because 9/10 times, a game does not actually play any better whether it gives out 100FPS or 101, it seems to me, that just because something gives out that extra 1 FPS, all of a sudden, the system that does it in 100FPS has all of a sudden become a pile of No Swearing!? sod that. I really dont care one tiny bit about that. I do care that running a whoel host of apps on both my conroe and my AMDs are showing that the AMDs can handle them all better than the conroe... Much better.

Ok, so going back to basics, they are both now running only 1GB ( 2x512MB )

With Folding on both cores, here is what I ran

StarOffice8 ( And opened up a Spreadsheet and a 32MB DOC )
PaintShop Pro 8 ( And loaded up a whole Directory of Pictures )
DVDSANTA ( And started to convert 7 AVI Files that are 120MB Each )
Ran 4 instances of DVD-to-ONE on copies of the same DVD and converted the DVD down to as small as poss )
Imported 3 DVD Files into TMPGENC and built them up into one DVD
The files I used are copies of each other - Just to do the tests by the way.
I then ran Need For Speed Underground 2, Most Wanted and Carbon at the same time ( This is for kicks more than usefullness ) as well as UTClassic and 2004 God knows why I do this, cos they can argue like hell to gain top stop it seems

But either way, I dont care, one game always ends up on top, and the others just get chucked into the background and this particular exercise is completely poinless really.

The AMD was playing CTF in UT2K4 and I was a good couple of minutes into the game by the time the conroe was showing me anything other than the desktop. I ESCaped *** game and ALT-TABbed through to each of the DVD2ONE programs and they came up in less than a quarter of a second.

The Conroe was still showing me a black screen from one of the games.

Anyway, I quit the games on the AMD and then canceled all the running apps and quit the program and then shut down.

NFSU2 came up first, I quit it and then the others were minimised and I opened these up and quit them, but they took a fair few secodns each to come up, this never happened on the AMD and then I quit them all and then quit the DVD/AVI Programs too.

Ishut it down and even shutting down took 30 odd seconds!

The Conroe was quicker at a few apps, but dire when loaded up with loads of them.

I still have not seen anyone actually prove me wrong on this, only some stupid benches of graphic card / game performance, and this is somethign I am not disputing.

So, Im thinking that maybe a few people have indeed doen this and seen that I am in fact correct.

 

[FatRakoon]

Yes, thanks dave

Your system does look a bit of a dream machine Ill give you that, and sure, I hope that with that much power, you should be running spot-on.

Ok, Fresh install on a New HD etc...

Ok, last night, I did put a fresh install on. I did say that, as I had previously ( For a few days ) been running a pair of 80GB Hitachis RAID0 for bit, but found that the speed increase wasnt really any use for me, so I went back. to the one HD... Currently one of those Hitachis ( The other was giving me a grinding sound anyway so its getting sent back to OCUK )

Ok, I am looking at daves and I dont think that Prime deos any real work to the CPU as such, and CS2 when its loaded up does nothign but wait anyway.

Try convertign a number of different Video Fiels at the same time with at least 2 or preferably more different apps... Like I said, I use DVDSANTA, DVD2ONE, and TMPGEnc as well as defragging 6 partitions and playign a game wjile Im waiting for these do finish.

Oh, while Im on the subject of why I burn 4 disks slowly rather than one at a time fast, is simple... I start the job and I know that I can walk away... If I did one disk at a time then Iwould have to wait till its done, do the next disk and wait for that one, do the next disk and then... At least as I said, because more often than not, they are the same files, I feel its ridiculous to do them one by one.

Anyway, back to dave... I can see your conroe will kill mine, but you must also appreciate that the actual work your system has done on that test is a quarter of what I have had mine doing.

Robbie G
Trust me mate... I have been. I have reinstalled Windows on this PC in the ... What? Month that I have had it, I have tried Windows 2000 Pro, SP3 and SP4, Windows XP Home, Pro, and 64 with SP1 SP2 and even no SP at all in the vain attempt at gettign it to play nice, I have the supplied drivers on the CD, plus a few various flavours of downloaded drivers, both from the official site, and other places. I am currently using an Audigy Card, and I have tried it with and without the card, and various drivers for that and the onboard Intel thing, I also have a PCI IDE card for the Maxtor and 2 DVDRW Drives and I have tried it with and without this card and again, various drivers.

There is one point though with regards to Disk access...

Can anyone tell me what the Device manager says in the ... Er... Device Manager???

I mean, When oyu have no drivers for the IDE controlers, it comes up with somethign like :-

GENERIC PRIMARY HOST CONTROLER
GENERIC SECONDARY HOST CONTROLER

For each IDE line yes - or somethign in that way, Im on the AMD right now so I cant tell you EXACTLY what it says on the DS3

Now, on the AMD that I am on, it shows me 4 of these, 2 Primary and 2 Secondary and then, once I install the drivers etc, it then comes up with the NForce controler only... One for each controler, so no more Master & Slave but the one for each controler... This is now showing 2 instead of the 4 right?

Now, on the DS3, while its showing me the 2 drive controler and the 4 drive one ( As I would expect it to ) its also still showing me a fair few standard ide controlers too!

Looking at this, I know I have the ITE8212 IDE Card, thats got one, and I am also using Daemon Tools, with 2 virtual drives on that, but these also show up in the SCSI Devices.

I have got 6 standard ide controlers showing up in my device manager.

Surely that should not be the case should it?

Hang on, I wil grab a screenie to show you what I mean... I need to go and have a play about.

Also while im here, is there any particular BIOS setting that can cripple this PC as much as it is doing?

Ill have to have a peek in that CTRL-F1 option in the BIOS that gigabytes have... I keep forgettign about that one.

 

[FatRakoon]

Because it doesn't achieve anything? Nobody else takes it as a personal insult that FatRakoon isn't happy with his Core 2 Duo.

You sir, are a conroe fanboy.

oh no... I am very happy with the conroe... Very happy indeed.

Im just happier with my AMD.

I sir... Am an AMD Fanboy

 

[FatRakoon]

Hells bells, what did I miss???

Maybe I dont want to know...

Anyhow, as I said earlier on, I have grabbed a screenie of these extra devices so if anyone can point them out, and tell me if you also get them or not?



There are currently 2 primary and 2 secondary IDE channels right.

I do have a PCI IDE card, and before the drivers went in for that, there was actually 3 of each not 2. So, what are these other 2 for?

In the SCSI/Raid section, there is the Gigabyte, the 8211, and that SCSI/Raid host controler... Hmm... Hang on. I also have a Daemon tools in with 2 drives, plus the ITE card I have, is an 8212 not an 8211... I need to check that out.

Oh, and yes, I forgot about that... I swapped the Maxtor 40GB out for the Raptor... This was because with the Maxtor, I was unable to enter the BIOS without disconnecting it, plus the Raptor is SATA not IDE. They do the same job... Just downloading my torrents and nothign else.

 

[FatRakoon]

case of power vs torque is what you may be experiencing.

Yes, possibly?

Thats quite interesting actually because I have owned A Guzzi Cali3 and a GoldWing and much prefer those to my current ZZR due to the massive torque they have over the ZZR, and yet in terms of BHP the ZZR is way more than the others.

Torque v Ponies.

Good comparison that.. Maybe it is? who knows? Maybe my conroe is a bit iffy due to soemthing Im missing, dont get me wrong here, but if I suddently come across somethign and set or change it and all of a sudden, my conroe kills the AMD as many say it should then by all means, I would love it, of course I would, like anybody else would, but at this time, Im back on the AMD.

Hey at least with the conroe doing nothing but folding and storage, at least my stats should go up a bit eh?

Oh, I forgot to mention, that I have now put the corsair into the other DS3 instead of the Kingston. Dont know if it will do anything cos thats running a P4 @ 4.3 but I have also put in the other Hitachi from this ones RAID array, and I am installing winXP onto it fresh, and I have no other hardware in that PC - just its own, which is mostly disabled for now, and I will have a play, mostly for disk access rather than CPU power obviously althouth at 4.3 its still a seriously powerfull PC and I have enabled HyperThreading just on the off-chance I find any use for it.

But I will play about and see if I can find anythign that will help on the conroe setup.