9 out of 9 people found this review helpful.
Don't Drink the Kool-aid!
Date of Review: Oct 28, 2005
The Bottom Line: Unless you play games exclusively do not buy this life-sapping copy of an Intel CPU.
I built my desktop computer using an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ after years of using Intel CPUs. It seems every corner of the Web contained another review or forum post raving about the superiority of the AMD CPUs to Intel's. So I jumped with both feet into the water and sank straight down. Believing all those reviews was a big mistake. Don't make the same one I did.
It is true that in many benchmarks, and apparently for games, the AMD scores higher or seems faster. I suppose if I played games all the time or the primary use of my computer was running benchmark software then everything would be just fine. I use my desktop heavily. I use business applications like Excel and Word. I process video. I keep databases. I surf the Web. In fact I do just about everything you can do with PC except I don't play games and rarely run benchmark software.
So even though the system scores excellently at game playing and benchmarking, it is downright horrid for any real-world use. Particularly ANY kind of multi-tasking. I am not referring to heavy, extreme multi-tasking, like encoding a video while simultaneously extracting multiple GB of data while also surfing the Web and crunching spreadsheets. No, I'm talking about maybe surfing the Web and searching for a file. Or perhaps running a virus scan and sending an e-mail. Just about any multi-tasking type activity, including those with very little CPU usage but some disk activity, like defragmenting or searching files or indexing something (the disk activity is a task) while simultaneously doing something else will bring the computer to its knees screaming. You too will be there shortly as the computer you spent thousands of dollars on slows to a crawl reminiscent of your old '286.
Do a little research on-line and here and there (including on AMD's Web site) you'll find some references to this CPUs inability to do any sort of multi-tasking.
And the problem is not related to any sort of "user error" or problem in another component. I have spent several months trying to work on this issue the AMD's (and other manufacturer's) technical support. I have the right Athlon 64 /SLI certified power supply. I have a fast hard-drive and fast memory. Everything is tuned just right. I have swapped memory, motherboards, graphics cards, hard-drives, am on my fifth re-installation of XP Pro (including x64 version for 2 installations) on a freshly formatted hard-drive and all the experts suggestions and advice and all the hardware I throw at this processor has not helped. It just will not do two things at once. Sort of like some-one who can't chew gum and walk simultaneously. Or breath and watch TV at the same time. Imagine watching television, you need to breath, so you close your eyes, inhale, exhale, open your eyes again, watch a little bit, uh, but you need more air, so you close your eyes again. Keep repeating this until you can't make sense of the TV program any more and you will have the AMD experience.
A little more Web research reveals other things as well. Like 90% of the reviews that rave about the AMD CPUs utilize some form of game for its benchmarking software. Few and far between are the real world tests or simulation of a multi-tasking environment. In those you will find Intel Pentium CPUs handily trouncing the AMD CPUs. Its a very minor technological difference between the CPUs that makes all the difference in the world: Hyper-threading. The ability to run two tasks, at the thread level, is the key. Why the Windows architecture so heavily favors this I can only surmise from anecdotal experience: XP is a busy little operating system. While you are doing something, like playing solitaire or looking at photos or sending e-mail there are all kinds of other things going on. Most people know this and for the Intel CPU it hardly matters. But each one of those processes that a Pentium handles in stride is like a speed bump the size of a Buick to the Athlon 64. One process, okay, the AMD CPU screams. But if you run a background virus checker, or a software firewall, or if your system is a normal XP configuration where by default about 20 processes at a minimum run at the same time (and that's before you actually open up your word processor to do some work) you can kiss your productivity goodbye as your system grinds to a screeching halt.
Intel introduced Hyper-threading for a reason: because it works. Arguably with XP its a necessity. It is so critical that Intel's newest dual-core CPU at the top of the speed range offered (currently 3.2Ghz for dual-core) comes in two different versions. One version is called the 840 D, the other 840 D Extreme Edition. These are the two tops of Intel's CPU line right now and they command a hefty price. Right now, October 2005, the D 840's best street price is around $500. The D 840 EE (Extreme Edition) is more than DOUBLE the price of the non-Extreme Edition at over a thousand dollars. For a single CPU. The difference between the CPUs? Hyper-threading. The D 840 EE has it, the D 840 doesn't. Over 500 dollars for that single feature. Why? Because that little feature is that important to CPU performance.
So, if you run benchmarks for a living all day, the AMD is a great choice. If you actually use your computer to do what computers were invented to do (i.e. process information) don't get the AMD.
Don't do what I did. Don't drink the Kool-aid.
