C2D v X2 = Not as good as you think?

[Dangerous Dave]

I have just had a look at mine and FAH is now sitting at 20% complete on each instance not sure if this is good or not. Its showing 216ppd average on one and 225ppd average on the other doing gromacs

For what its worth I just ran a everest memory benchmark and my memory came back as 8832mb/s read, 6419mb/s write, 6770mb/s copy and 50.4ns lantency. (I run my memory at 4-4-4-12)

I checked the priority of each FAH and its set to low if I fire up any other application they go in as normal in task manager, I set up FAH exactly as the guide on this forum setting the "Allow receipt of work assignments and return of work results greater than 5MB in size" to no to use the machine for other tasks also, checking the config file it shows the priority for each as 0 if that helps.

I may add I'm not doing this to say Intel is defo better than AMD if my system ever slowed down etc I would say I have no doubt FatRakoon is telling the truth I just thought I would try and show a everyday conroe system with roughly what FatRakoon is doing on his, as everyone else was just firing benchmarks from pages which doesn't always show the whole picture.

On everyday tasks like web browsing, playing some mp3s and maybe burning a couple of disks my current system appears no faster than my old barton 2500 overclocked to a 3200, the conroe even takes longer to hit the windows dekstop from a boot up. However when it comes down to pure number crunching like video editing and editing photos which my system is mainly used for it shows its processing power.

 

[FatRakoon]

As I said, the conroe is great for 99.9% of users. Its speed for running just a few apps is way higher than it is on my AMD. Even encoding a video in the background while running a game is better on the conroe than it is on the AMD. Im not argueing that one a single jot.

Im often encoding a couple of files with DVDSanta, sometimes running DVDSanat more than 2 or 3 instances at once, Im also encoding some files with DVD2ONE, again 3 or 4 times at once, depending on what I have on, and also converting 2 or 3 instances of TMPGDVDENCoder, all at once, as well as my usual junk, and I can throw those into the background no problem and just forget about them, and carry on doing anything I should wish to... My while the conroe is definitely chugging through all of that for sure, it struggles to bring each one up to show me its progress, while the AMD is much quicker, also as I said, if I fancied playing a game such as HalfLife2, Doom3, or even basic Need For Speed, the AMD just does it with only a small ammount of slowdown during the disk access, and yet the conroe is really struggling, to the point that half the time I seriously doubt its going to actually bother because its taking that long.

When the conroe runs a few things, its the better system, when the conroe runs a few and a few, it simply is not.

Ok, this could be down to a simple thing:-
My conroe may not be setup right and the AMD might be spot on?

Sure, this is true, however, I have gone through several attempts at getting an installation right and its never been any different each time.

 

[easyrider]

Ok, this could be down to a simple thing:-
My conroe may not be setup right and the AMD might be spot on?

I can't believe this thread is still going on.

I told you this on the first page.

 

[spookywillow]

Opty 170 @ 2.8ghz 15 mins to shrink a DVD

E6600 @ 3.8ghz 3mins


kthxbye

i'm not sure what dvd's your shrinking or what program your using but i just tried 3 dvd's and not 1 takes more than 3 mins to shrink and as far as i can remember none that i have shrunk in the past have ever taken any where near 5 mins to shrink.

 

[clv101]

Maybe easyrider's old AMD system wasn't set up right?

 

[joeyjojo]

Maybe easyrider's old AMD system wasn't set up right?

Or Rakoons AMD system is ultra-leet

 

[FatRakoon]

Or Rakoons AMD system is ultra-leet

Hmmmm...

Maybe both!!!!

( Rubs chin )

Maybe I have got my AMDs setup right, I dont know?

One thing I NEVER do, is put any unecessary junk of C:
All of my systems for several years now, have had Windows on C: and NOTHING ELSE... Ok, thats untrue, some System Tools like AntiVirus/Spyware and my defragger and the odd utils but no apps or games or anyhting else I can think of... They all go into D:\Program Files\

And D: is always on a different drive than C: too!

My C: is only 8GB and at this time, it has 3GB left on it.

I also spread out the Pagefile too, usually 256MB on C: and 512MB for any other drives. Maybe may argue on this, but I feel that it makes me feel like its faster... Whether it does or not, is debateable ( No, not here ) but I have had times where its faster and times where its slower. This is how I do it.

I do these things such as having Media on E: and my junks stuff on F: and they all add up to make a system thats very responsive even when its full of stupid junk. The Remaining space on the C: Drive is taken up for storing my ISO Files, and thats Partition T: and my downloads are also on a different Drive too, this is M:

This means that I can indeed load up the PC with files coming to and from various partitions and I get very little slowdown in the file access..

For example, if I copy an ISO from one drive to another, it takes about 10 seconds... If I copied this file to the same partition, or even to a different partition on the same drive, it takes about 14 seconds... If I am defragging C: and copying it, we are talking just over 20 seconds. Defragging, and burning and the copy now goes over 25 seconds.

Not the way I have my system... It still takes only 10 seconds pretty much no matter how ridiculous I go with other disk access ( Pinch of salt of course )

I have found that even a basic RAID setup struggles to do the same jobs compared to this way...Basic RAID as in 2 drives and multiple partitions.

So, yes, I think my AMD setups are pretty L33T now you mention it.

 

[Mr Paul]

On die memory controller for the win

 

[Things change I've changed]

too many variables, close thread.

 

[WJA96]

too many variables, close thread.

I partly disagree - I think there are a lot of variables, but they need to be looked at because we are all blindly screaming 'Core2Duo is best' when, for some jobs, it might not be.

 

[Things change I've changed]

I really don't want to get involved with this aurguement/debate, all I know is we are never going to know for sure unless we have two system's with the exact same components in every way shape and form (apart from cpu obviously), setup exactly the same way, and then run the test, EVEN then the test may be unfair due to software not be optimized for the new C2D architecture, this thread is not worth the six pages it's reached thus far until proper a test can be done, one man that has two systems that are pretty similar don't cut for me,

We need to make a mutlimedia test that everyone can do easly and involves using software that is easy for everyone to get hold of, free/shareware etc.

 

[FatRakoon]

I really don't want to get involved with this aurguement/debate

But... here you are...

all I know is we are never going to know for sure unless we have two system's with the exact same components in every way shape and form (apart from cpu obviously), setup exactly the same way, and then run the test, EVEN then the test may be unfair due to software not be optimized for the new C2D architecture

Very true.

I dont really know what my real point of this is truely all about when it comes down to 99.9% of users. My conroe is faster than my AMDs... Any of my AMDs, even my Winchester thats gone back to 3Ghz for some of the messing about tests against the conroe, and *** conroe is still faster for everything I can realistically ask of it.

Its just that I dont. I ask far too much, and the AMD handles these jobs better than the conroe does.

this thread is not worth the six pages it's reached thus far until proper a test can be done

Agreed in part, but then 6 pages of replies ( And junk ) say otherwise ( sort of )

one man that has two systems that are pretty similar don't cut for me,

Which is why I posted and asked if anyone can verify it.

I have seen a number of replies that have said "My conroe can do this or that" but no one has come back and said that they have run the same thigns on both their AMD and their Intel and kept loading up till one of them got bogged down, and of the PC that bogged it first, was it their intel or their AMD.
We can go on and on for 60 pages saying whatever the hell we like, but until you actually see for yourself what I mean, its all pretty much one word against another.

We need to make a mutlimedia test that everyone can do easly and involves using software that is easy for everyone to get hold of, free/shareware etc.

Yes, thats spot-on.

And not just that but it needs to be completely free of any kind of preference of the CPU being used, or indeed, it must have the tweaks needed for all CPUs. It needs to be 100% neutral, and it also needs to do EVERYTHING that can be asked of a CPU... Its no good doing tests based around, say for example adding 1+1 when an intel might be able to add 1+1 a million times quicker than an AMD when the AMD might be able to add 2+2 a million times quicker than the Intel... The tests needs to have a bit of everythign possible that could be asked from a CPU. ( Not possible I suppose but you see what I mean )

 

[Rizz]

Well I thought my x2 4200 was good but my machine is faster clocks higher and I prefer my new 6300, it only cost £110 when I was looking at the x2 3800,s they were over £200 then the next thing they drop 939, I wont get amd again untill they are the clear winner, even if the x2 does run 4 aps better than cd2.

 

[easyrider]

i'm not sure what dvd's your shrinking or what program your using but i just tried 3 dvd's and not 1 takes more than 3 mins to shrink and as far as i can remember none that i have shrunk in the past have ever taken any where near 5 mins to shrink.

I take it you dont use 2 pass?

Cause at 2.5ghz a relative small clock for an x2 3800 i think you are telling porkies.

LOL

 

[NathanE]

I also spread out the Pagefile too, usually 256MB on C: and 512MB for any other drives. Maybe may argue on this, but I feel that it makes me feel like its faster... Whether it does or not, is debateable ( No, not here ) but I have had times where its faster and times where its slower. This is how I do it.

I'd recommend you start a topic regarding this page file setup in the Windows forum. Briefly, I can tell you 256MB + 512MB is nowhere near enough for 1GB of RAM, let alone 2GB - and unequal size page files on different drives is not recommended.

Obviously you need to sort this out before the thread can continue on any logical route. Conroe relies heavily on precaching and a duff page file setup could be affecting this.

 

[FatRakoon]

I'd recommend you start a topic regarding this page file setup in the Windows forum. Briefly, I can tell you 256MB + 512MB is nowhere near enough for 1GB of RAM, let alone 2GB - and unequal size page files on different drives is not recommended.

Obviously you need to sort this out before the thread can continue on any logical route. Conroe relies heavily on precaching and a duff page file setup could be affecting this.

Start Topic
NO. Already seen enough on that subject, and its never been resolved ... Not really, and read far too many reviews by many sources and they all say its this way or that way thats the best... I no longer give a stuff what anyone says or writes about the pagefile anymore.

Although...

You are correct in that unequal pagefiles are apparently not the best option to choose, and sure enough, it may very well affect the Intel. and not being stuck up my own rear like many others I know of, I will have a play about again when I next go onto the intels, but however, on the AMDs ( Or at least the last time I did toy about with setting up the optimal pagefile(s) ) I found that when running multiple Apps from Multiple HDs, having Multiple Pagefiles did indeed make the PC seem more responsive... By a minute ammount mind you, dont get me wrong here, but it felt snappier never the less.

Oh, I didnt say 256+512 is the total... I said 256MB for C: and 512MB for the other partitions... My PCs all have at least 2 drives, and my main ones have at least 4... The ones with only 2 drives are setup 256MB + 1024MB which is plenty and my main PC right here, is actually running 512MB + 1024 + 1024 + 512MB which is also fine... Each PC has their Pagefile setup in their own ways, but in a similar way to this.

 

[spookywillow]

I take it you dont use 2 pass?

Cause at 2.5ghz a relative small clock for an x2 3800 i think you are telling porkies.

LOL

i dont see any option for 2 pass in dvd shrink.


i stick a dvd in, open it with dvd shrink and select backup and adjust the output size i want and it takes about 3 minutes to finish

 

[FatRakoon]

I got to ask, but what size is the DVD?

Only, if oyu were to copy a non-protected standard / Home Made DVD from your DVD Drive to your HD, how long does it take?

 

[easyrider]

i dont see any option for 2 pass in dvd shrink.


i stick a dvd in, open it with dvd shrink and select backup and adjust the output size i want and it takes about 3 minutes to finish

Nice quality backups you are making there!

LOL

 

[tomos]

i dont see any option for 2 pass in dvd shrink.


i stick a dvd in, open it with dvd shrink and select backup and adjust the output size i want and it takes about 3 minutes to finish

dont see how that is possible for a dual layer (assuming it is DL), @ 16x it would take longer than 3 mins to read the disk let alone anything CPU intensive