Reply to: Want a new computer - which CPU, quad or i7?

[xchaotic]

I prefer AMD's because they have a much better design for utilising memory IMHO. If intel started to make memory controllers like AMD's we would have some killer machines knocking about!!!

TBH, one of the main architectural upgrades in the i7 was moving the memory controller to the CPU, which negates the only advantage that AMD had...


Also, since no one seemed to have mentioned it before, i7 is a quad-core with triple channel memory controller (which, arguably is one channel more than amd offering).
Finally, while the latest Phenoms II indeed offer great value, core i7 is simply more powerful.
An given how much contractor's time is worth, I don't think saving £50 is worth it.
Right now core i7 920 is probably the best solution + a beefy GPU if you plan on gaming...

[VectraMan]

I was developing in C++ using Intel's compiler using OpenMP.

I've always wanted to work with OpenMP, but never really had a good reason. Unfortunately I have Visual Studio standard at home, and I think it only comes with Pro.

[Churchill]

I wrote multithreaded software targeted at PCs with quad dual-core, HT CPUs. i.e 8 real cores, appearing as 16 with HT. In every test, the parallel algorithms were faster when set to use 8 cores rather than >8... I seem to recall there was a lot of blocking between HT 'cores', or simply that they shared critical resources.
It wasn't really worth using HT outside very specific cases, whereas real cores are lovely to write parallel code for, they just work (I was developing in C++ using Intel's compiler using OpenMP).

Intel must have reasons for thinking so. Maybe they've improved other areas of the architecture and been able to remove the bottlenecks that stopped hyperthreading from being as effective as it could have been.

My experience of trying to increase performance with parallelism is that the memory access becomes the bottleneck, and you don't gain much, but obviously that depends on the application. You can see that faster memory access and better and bigger caching would reduce those bottlenecks.

Perhaps the "Bottlenecks" have been moved to a not so critical area?

Yeah dh000g, me too!

[VectraMan]

Have they actually made hyperthreading useful in i7? Last time round, trying to use hyperthreading to increase parallelism was hardly worthwhile.

Intel must have reasons for thinking so. Maybe they've improved other areas of the architecture and been able to remove the bottlenecks that stopped hyperthreading from being as effective as it could have been.

My experience of trying to increase performance with parallelism is that the memory access becomes the bottleneck, and you don't gain much, but obviously that depends on the application. You can see that faster memory access and better and bigger caching would reduce those bottlenecks.

[d000hg]

That was not so much the fault of the hardware, but the software that was available at the time.

Now that multi-core processors are more common and have been around a while, there are more packages out there that benefit from parallelism.

I wrote multithreaded software targeted at PCs with quad dual-core, HT CPUs. i.e 8 real cores, appearing as 16 with HT. In every test, the parallel algorithms were faster when set to use 8 cores rather than >8... I seem to recall there was a lot of blocking between HT 'cores', or simply that they shared critical resources.
It wasn't really worth using HT outside very specific cases, whereas real cores are lovely to write parallel code for, they just work (I was developing in C++ using Intel's compiler using OpenMP).

[Churchill]

Have they actually made hyperthreading useful in i7? Last time round, trying to use hyperthreading to increase parallelism was hardly worthwhile.

That was not so much the fault of the hardware, but the software that was available at the time.

Now that multi-core processors are more common and have been around a while, there are more packages out there that benefit from parallelism.

[Platypus]

Mesh

You cannot be serious !

[d000hg]

Have they actually made hyperthreading useful in i7? Last time round, trying to use hyperthreading to increase parallelism was hardly worthwhile.

[DSW]

my understanding is that core2 quad and AMD phenom II compete with each other. i7 is head and shoulders above the rest, but will cost you. i7 integrates the memory controller and uses triple channel ddr3, most of the motherboard have 6 dimm slots! Also i7 sees the reintroduction of hyper threading and also turbo mode, so that if you are only using 1 of the cores it will increase speed of that core and slow the others with the idea the power usage is still the same.

Coming soon is i5 which doesn't use triple channel and so is a lot cheaper. AMD's next product is supposed to be a six cored monster!

core2quad/phenom II is probably enough for most fairly demanding things, but if you want the ultimate or are looking at virtualisation stuff then i7 is the dogs whatsits.

well thats me nearly all geeked out!

[Churchill]

I prefer AMD's because they have a much better design for utilising memory IMHO. If intel started to make memory controllers like AMD's we would have some killer machines knocking about!!!

I thought the idea was to put the memory controller on the same dye as the CPU. Something that AMD did first on their x86 equivalents which now intel have followed suit with on their i7s.

[minestrone]

Ah interesting - I was looking at this http://www.chillblast.com/product.ph...cat=324&page=1 which comes with Windows 7 candidate + free upgrade to final version when its released.

Now that is tempting.

[Grinder]

Thanks, I didn't know that. I don't understand the hardware angle really, beyond selecting compatible components.

Same here. I've built my last 10 PCs from components, usually carrying forward the main hard drive as a 2nd drive until I'm sure everything is carried across.

But now I am thinking off-the-shelf because I can't be asked to do all the research.

I got Quake 4 for Christmas, and then went on the bench. It plays poorly on my 3ghz single-core with a 8500GT nvidia. I'm back to old-style Unreal Tournament in my leisure-time. I've already replayed Half-Life 2 twice.

For my new system I want a 22" monitor (possibly 2) and a display-card that can drive it. The rest is not really of interest as long as its good enough to play Quake 4 it should be OK for everything else.

[Fred Bloggs]

I prefer AMD's because they have a much better design for utilising memory IMHO. If intel started to make memory controllers like AMD's we would have some killer machines knocking about!!!

Thanks, I didn't know that. I don't understand the hardware angle really, beyond selecting compatible components.

[Ardesco]

Don't discount an AMD Phenom II based machine. With a socket AM3, DDR3 ram set up it should give the intel box a run for it's money. My next project within the next few weeks is a Phenom II 720BE box based on an ASRock M3A790GXH/128M mobo.

I prefer AMD's because they have a much better design for utilising memory IMHO. If intel started to make memory controllers like AMD's we would have some killer machines knocking about!!!

[Fred Bloggs]

Looks nice.

Quick question, I noticed it comes with 6Gb RAM. Does W7 still come in 32/64 bit flavours, or is it fully 64bit and able to use >3Gb RAM in all versions?

The website says-

Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit OEM