Intel's Dual-Core Processor Shows Real Imovement

Rewired

The P4 EE 840 will be the first chip available with the dual-core architecture from Intel, with other dual-core desktop processors from its Pentium D line coming later this spring; it will use motherboards with the forthcoming 945 chip set.

View: First Tests of Intel's Dual-Core Processor

Intel's new dual-core 3.2-GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 processor made a good showing on PC World's WorldBench 5 tests in key multimedia and multitasking tests. But users looking for improvements in single-threaded applications, such as most office applications and games, will see little benefit from the new chip.

Like AMD's Athlon 64 chips and the newly released 3.73-GHz P4 EE and the new 3-GHz to 3.6-GHz Pentium 4s with EM64T, the dual-core CPU has 64-bit support. The new chip's cores each have 1MB of L2 cache, and the supporting chip set runs with either a 800-MHz frontside bus or a 1066-MHz FSB (the P4 EE 840 supports an 800-MHz FSB).

The real news here, at least for me, is that Intel's dual-core CPU chip will have 64-bit support.

Source: PCWorld

RWB

I'm considering getting this. It'd be a crazy switch I'm looking towards, going from AMD and ATI to Intel and NVidia once again.

Rewired

You'd be like Eric Clapton who switched from a Gibson SG to a Fender Stratocaster.

FAH_WW

Personally I'd wait switching till you've seen the AMD dual core - might well be that the Intel one(s) is/are better/worse, sure would be interesting.

I'm just hoping AMD will release a dual-cored A64 rather than just the Opterons, which would negate Intel's HT advantage once and for all

RWB

And I quote

RWB wrote:

I'm considering getting this.

Thrax

By all accounts, a single one of these new Smithfield cores aren't any better than a single Prescott core. When AMD releases dual core CPUs we'll be back to the old standard of Intel lagging behind all over again.

RWB

From what I have seen Intel processors can out render 3D frames than compairable AMD processors. Thus having a dual XEON setup FOR EXAMPLE would, and has, beat out dual Opterons when rendering 3D. Taking note that I am not speaking real time 3D such as games.

So how could having a dual core Intel processor no better than a single prescott? That doesn't make ANY sence Thrax!

Thrax

You misunderstand what I said.

One Athlon 64 core of any type is superior to one Pentium 4 core of any type.

The new Pentium 4s use cores that show little to no improvement over Prescotts.

Therefore, even if there are two smithfields and two athlon64 cores, the twin A64 is still going to be in the lead.

csimon

amd dual-core desktops should be out by the end of june ...or at least that's what they're shooting for.l

RWB

Thrax wrote:

You misunderstand what I said.

One Athlon 64 core of any type is superior to one Pentium 4 core of any type.

The new Pentium 4s use cores that show little to no improvement over Prescotts.

Therefore, even if there are two smithfields and two athlon64 cores, the twin A64 is still going to be in the lead.

However, in my case I have seen several times where the Intel processors of compairable and even less "performance" than an AMD processor renders a 3D frame faster then the AMD. My 'guess' is due to the sheer amount of MFLOPS the Intel processors have over AMD's.

Am I somehow wrong?

64-bitter

Has anyone tried to run 64 bit on one of these? I have since early 06 with fairly good results. However, the dell drivers which once worked with the trial versions of XP 64 failed when I recently installed the final build. It is an intel 945 P system board with integrated eithernet, and everything works great (and very fast) but the ethernet and PCI modem (which I don't use). Anyone have any experience? Thanks