-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why the eff is Azureus such a resource hog?
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I'm using a 2400+. It's a good CPU, but the FSB is rather crippled -- 266MHz. I'm gonna upgrade to a 3000+ (400MHz FSB), it'll hopefully perform a little better. My memory is 128-bit, but of course there's a slight bottleneck when using dual channel with Athlon XP's from what I've read (and witnessed with benchmarks).
It's funny, all the benchmarks basically claim that AMD is better for raw CPU power, whereas Intel excels in memory bandwidth. You'd think something like Azureus wouldn't rely so much on memory as it would CPU cycles; mine does 9 instructions per clock, a P4 2.6 does 6...
It's funny, all the benchmarks basically claim that AMD is better for raw CPU power, whereas Intel excels in memory bandwidth. You'd think something like Azureus wouldn't rely so much on memory as it would CPU cycles; mine does 9 instructions per clock, a P4 2.6 does 6...
I'm not sure where you heard that.
Intel has always been better for apps, good for games. Hyperthreading gave intel another boost in apps efficiency.
AMD focuses on games for cheapest price, okay for apps. Though their 64 bit processors are great.
Don't dual channel with AMD XP. I mean you can, but it won't make a difference really. AMD has been way behind on memory speeds until the AMD 64 socket 939s came out. They are beasts when it comes to memory. The best chips right now for memory, actually.
I have a P4 Northwood 3.0 C (800 FSB, Northwood) overclocked to 3.5 GHz with my RAM at FSB 234 (936 MHz in dual channel) on an Abit IC7 Max III. I benched it with Sandra and it outperforms every chip on the market at stock speeds. Except for AMD 64 939s in memory benches. They beat me...barely.
When I look at task manager, I see a 1 occasionally next to Azureus, but usually 0, lol.
Yeah, you'll see a good increase with a Barton 3000+, even with Azureus.
Intel has always been better for apps, good for games. Hyperthreading gave intel another boost in apps efficiency.
AMD focuses on games for cheapest price, okay for apps. Though their 64 bit processors are great.
Don't dual channel with AMD XP. I mean you can, but it won't make a difference really. AMD has been way behind on memory speeds until the AMD 64 socket 939s came out. They are beasts when it comes to memory. The best chips right now for memory, actually.
I have a P4 Northwood 3.0 C (800 FSB, Northwood) overclocked to 3.5 GHz with my RAM at FSB 234 (936 MHz in dual channel) on an Abit IC7 Max III. I benched it with Sandra and it outperforms every chip on the market at stock speeds. Except for AMD 64 939s in memory benches. They beat me...barely.
When I look at task manager, I see a 1 occasionally next to Azureus, but usually 0, lol.
Yeah, you'll see a good increase with a Barton 3000+, even with Azureus.
teh_pwn said:
Right, but haven't you read about quantispeed architecture? 9 instructions per clock. That's why in a lot of benchmarks for more CPU intensive tasks, an AMD CPU will only be a little below a P4... in some cases higher.
See below:
Specifications
3200+ with QuantiSpeed Architecture operates at 2.2GHz
0.13 microns Barton core
L1 Cache: 128KB
L2 cache: 512KB on-chip
Total on-chip full-speed cache: 640KB
System bus speed: 400MHz
Operations per clock cycle: 9
Integer pipelines: 3
Floating point pipelines: 3
Full x86 decoders: 3
Socket A Infrastructure
Support for Double Data Rate (DDR) Memory
Dis Size: 84 mm2
Number of Gates: 37,5 Million
MMX: Yes
Enhanced 3DNow: Yes
3DNow! Professional: Yes
SSE: Yes
SSE2: No
Core Voltage: 1,65 Volt
Thermal Protection (Thermal Diode): Yes
http://www.northgate.com/Content/Pr...ories/index.cfm?Fuseaction=technote&pid=42887
Right click these images and copy and paste the URL to see them (damn hotlink protection):
Like I said... memory bandwidth is where it hurts:
Even for 3DMark 2001 the 3000+ was right below a 3.0GHz P4, the P4 having an insignificant 223 point lead (considering they were both 15,000+
).I already learned that the hard way... but then again dual channel does seem to help with framerates for games and stuff. For anything else, I really can't tell that much of a difference.
I have a P4 Northwood 3.0 C (800 FSB, Northwood) overclocked to 3.5 GHz with my RAM at FSB 234 (936 MHz in dual channel) on an Abit IC7 Max III. I benched it with Sandra and it outperforms every chip on the market at stock speeds. Except for AMD 64 939s in memory benches. They beat me...barely.
You using water cooling on that thing? Otherwise that CPU must be friggin' BURNING. 234 * 2 is 468... how'd you get it to 936MHz??
I sure as hell hope so, this CPU sucks.
When I paste the URL, I just get the block image again.
"Even for 3DMark 2001 the 3000+ was right below a 3.0GHz P4, the P4 having an insignificant 223 point lead (considering they were both 15,000+ )."
That must be a P4 3.0 533 FSB. Because the Barton series is comparible to the P4 Bs (533 FSB), while the AMD 64 Socket 754 is comparible to P4 Cs (800 FSB w/ HT).
It makes a big difference. A P4 2.6 C matches a Barton 3200+ and P4 3.2 B.
"You using water cooling on that thing? Otherwise that CPU must be friggin' BURNING. 234 * 2 is 468... how'd you get it to 936MHz??"
My RAM runs at an FSB of 234, which is DDR468 (double data rate, get it?), and then dual channel doubles it again to 936 MHz. The RAM is OCZ 4000 so it's capable of DDR500 -> 1000 MHz. Not an issue there.
The processor and motherboard can also handle DDR500, but I'm playing it safe. 3.75 GHz is when you start needing water cooling, or at least a better heatsink and fan than intel provides. Hell, a guy with liquid nitrogen cooling got it to 4.4 GHz on Abit's forums.
My processor runs at 41 Celcius idle and 50 load.
Here's my benchmarks with Sandra (I'm not bothering with video benches, because my 9800 pro bottlenecks everything):
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark:
Whetstone iSSE2 7755 MFLOPS
Dhrystone ALU 10761 MIPS
(Whetstone FPU 4404 MFLOPS)
Memory Bandwidth Benchmark:
RAM Bandwidth Int Buff'd iSSE2 5566 MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buff'd iSSE2 5561 MB/s
CPU Multimedia benchmark:
Float x4 iSSE2 38615 it/s
Integer x8 iSSE2 27049 it/s
And all newer processors at stock:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-29.html
Hm, maybe I don't know AMD processors so well. The Barton XPs are beating the 64 754s in those benches. Bah, whatever.
"Even for 3DMark 2001 the 3000+ was right below a 3.0GHz P4, the P4 having an insignificant 223 point lead (considering they were both 15,000+ )."
That must be a P4 3.0 533 FSB. Because the Barton series is comparible to the P4 Bs (533 FSB), while the AMD 64 Socket 754 is comparible to P4 Cs (800 FSB w/ HT).
It makes a big difference. A P4 2.6 C matches a Barton 3200+ and P4 3.2 B.
"You using water cooling on that thing? Otherwise that CPU must be friggin' BURNING. 234 * 2 is 468... how'd you get it to 936MHz??"
My RAM runs at an FSB of 234, which is DDR468 (double data rate, get it?), and then dual channel doubles it again to 936 MHz. The RAM is OCZ 4000 so it's capable of DDR500 -> 1000 MHz. Not an issue there.
The processor and motherboard can also handle DDR500, but I'm playing it safe. 3.75 GHz is when you start needing water cooling, or at least a better heatsink and fan than intel provides. Hell, a guy with liquid nitrogen cooling got it to 4.4 GHz on Abit's forums.
My processor runs at 41 Celcius idle and 50 load.
Here's my benchmarks with Sandra (I'm not bothering with video benches, because my 9800 pro bottlenecks everything):
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark:
Whetstone iSSE2 7755 MFLOPS
Dhrystone ALU 10761 MIPS
(Whetstone FPU 4404 MFLOPS)
Memory Bandwidth Benchmark:
RAM Bandwidth Int Buff'd iSSE2 5566 MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buff'd iSSE2 5561 MB/s
CPU Multimedia benchmark:
Float x4 iSSE2 38615 it/s
Integer x8 iSSE2 27049 it/s
And all newer processors at stock:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-29.html
Hm, maybe I don't know AMD processors so well. The Barton XPs are beating the 64 754s in those benches. Bah, whatever.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
whats Azureus ?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
ah.. thanks.
teh_pwn: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/ You may need to press ctrl+F5 on some of the pages with benchmarks, but those are the ones I was referring to.
Yeah, I get it dude, I understand how dual channel works. I didn't know you were using RAM capabile of DDR500 -> 1GHz...
Yeah, I get it dude, I understand how dual channel works. I didn't know you were using RAM capabile of DDR500 -> 1GHz...
What HSF are you using?
Diablos, that's the P4 B, 533 FSB chip. That chart is a bit old.
Here's a newer one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/index.html
I'm using the intel heatsink and fan. The new P4 Northwoods run extremely cool at stock speeds. The old Northwoods and the Prescotts run very hot. I have 6 case fans, so that helps too.
Here's a newer one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/index.html
I'm using the intel heatsink and fan. The new P4 Northwoods run extremely cool at stock speeds. The old Northwoods and the Prescotts run very hot. I have 6 case fans, so that helps too.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
I use BitComet 0.53. It seems to be the most reliable of the bunch.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked