Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1480 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 14 - 12:04pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
 

  Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, Next >>
some guy May 26, 2005, 05:56pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: May 26, 2005, 05:57pm EDT

Replies: 61 - Views: 4778
Its not worth getting the dual core because you will never use the second core. Hardly any software out there can use both cores. The AMD 4000+ dual core is the same as a single core 4000+. Same speed same chach. If you go to run a game the game will only use 1 core so you will never use the power of the second core. It be the same speed as a single core 4000+, there is no speed differnece at all. You go do a bench mark with only useing 1 core and compare it to a single core it get the same points!. You will see no speed difference at all. Mabey windows will go a tad faster but not that much at all. Its not worth it. Thats why AMD is not making a dual core FX because games and software wont use the second core, it be only using 1 core while the other core sits there and do nothing.


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Jason Jimenez May 26, 2005, 06:08pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
Actually, I do believe that dual core has advantages. Yes, it's more expensive and that might be a turn off, but XP does a satisfactory job of splitting up workload between multiple cores. I've used a dual core and believe me running a virus scan and encoding while watching HDTV is quite fun. I'm positive this also works during gaming. Yes, single applications that are not optimized for multithreads will not benefit, but if you multitask- even with single thread applications, you'll see a great difference.

Mark Balliet May 26, 2005, 06:24pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
I have used Dual processors since P90's, and up until 2 years ago, ran Windows 2000 very acceptably on a Dual 166MMX machine. There is quite a bit of difference between a dual (core or processor) machine and a single processor machine. Windows simply responds quicker, it's able to do more and maintain a fast lag-free user interface. While it's true that not a lot of applications are multithreaded, most people don't run just one application at a time on their computer (That's called DOS). Windows and the applications all compete for processor resources. On dual systems, the application can use up the full potential of one of the cores, while the second stays available for important windows functions like disk access, graphics updates, and so on. For many the precieved slowness of their machine is simply windows fighting with their applications, and while the processor cores might be slower for dual machines, the user experiance will seem faster, and be much more pleasant.

some guy May 26, 2005, 07:02pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
AMD has said game will not be able to use both cores. There is no games out there made for dual cores and games will only use 1 core. You can go to there web site to find out. Yes you are right that video editing will take both cores and graphic software that is made for dual cores will use them but for day to day stuff not that much stuff.

Robert Templeton May 26, 2005, 07:20pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
Yes, ask anybody who does 3D CG (like me) and there is a definite advantage to dual processors over one, especially when the render engine supports it. Time is money and rendering is a time-consuming process. Anything that decreases time increases profits and work output. Sorry to sound like a Ferengi... :)

I have both a dual PIII server and a dual Xeon 'workhorse' system. There is no reason, unless you only use a computer for wordprocessing, web surfing, and email not to have dual processors. It makes for better process performance in most cases.

And I have an ASUS socket 939 64-bit system with AMD dual-core in mind when publicly available.

Robert

Everett Williams May 26, 2005, 07:24pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: AMD dual processors
AMD made no such statement. What AMD and everybody else with a lick of sense says, is that dual processors will not aid a game that is set up for single threading. Dual processors will aid a game set up for multi-threading, and some of the bottlenecks that only occasionally appear on single processor machines will disappear. Obviously, conflicts over single resources will not improve.

Thai Huynh May 26, 2005, 08:00pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: May 26, 2005, 08:04pm EDT

 
>> Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
This topic is very popular at many forums and it goes on and on...

Initially, to be able to take the full advantages of any newly available hardware, software must be written for it. Normally, software & drivers won't be available and properly tested about 3 to 6 months after the initial hardware released.

I am fairly new to the Dual Processors area and have just built my Dual Xeon about 4 weeks ago (I had a P4 3.2E HT previously) but impressed to say that the responsive of the system is much more pleasant! I mainly do video editing for fun & some rendering, and rarely playing game. The major benfit that I saw is the encoding time is reduced by at least half of what it was before and of course I can multi-task things a lot more than the previous machine. I can run a virus scan, burn a DVD, encoding some movies and the list can go on!

The truth is there are not a lot software on the market are specifically written for Dual Core but they will catch up in a short time. Most software that make use of Dual Core or more are mainly encoding, editing & math calculation. Now Windows XP 64 bit is released so people will have harder choice which way to go! I agreed that there is no game making use of Dual Core at the moment but time will change if hardware are ready for it.

My last word, I will never go back to Single Core again!!!

PS: My other machine is a Opteron and I am looking forward to the Dual Core action.

carl0s ki May 26, 2005, 08:10pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
AMD does technically claim games on Dual COre can not match single core.

AKA claiming FX is still the Crown product of runnign games.

But windows and linux while a game is running single core the second core allows windows to not interupt your game to do anything/IO writes/scans / NTFS encrytion or compression .



Windows/Linux will guarentee a second core will never be unused EVER EVER EVER!!

whenever your OS has work to do is will send it to the first available logical CPU which happens to be the second core in most cases.

Amalfi Marini May 26, 2005, 11:52pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
Yes, I heard that linux is the only Os to be able to "separate" one task to make it work in both processors (not exactly that way, but just to represent the idea). I actually think that any heavy user will benefit from dual core even in games, maybe not just now, but in the future. I think the only game that benefits from dual core/processors is Lord of The rings The Battle for Middle-earth (I'm not really sure anyway).

Suppose you travel to the past, you are in 1999 just got a brand new hot athlon 750Mhz and it's blazzing fast. So fast that you started to ask yourself why to have so much power in a system. Look at the Athlon 750Mhz today. You'll be trying to overclock it to death to survive... LOL. Well, many don't need more than 750Mhz but hey, lot of today apps are power hungry and there will always be need for more power, but however the revolution is slower compared to the 90s explotion. Games of yesterday won't benefit from dual core if you are a gamer. Games of tomorrow, surely yes... same with 64bit, maybe 64bit software is not mature enough today, but I'm sure that in the next years everything will be 64 bit and the barrier in the 32bit memory will have to brake when you load a cinematic-like game that takes 5GB of ram which is imposible in a 32bit system. Ironically is imposible even in today 64bit AMD system because of motherboards manufacturers and/or dimm limit (Intel EM64T mobos included). You can build a dual opteron with a motherboard that has 8 dimms tough. (up to 8GB of ram I think).

But of course, the whole point of this is not if we need or not dual core processors. The perfect question will be "Do we need this NOW...?"

For sure, there will be a time when you'll surely need it or does anyone still using windows 3.11? And I think dual core is more inteligent way of improving system performance than linear Mhz in one core, but that need software developers to get on the boat too, but in my opinion, they will start programming for dual core if they reach the limit in one core, and I think they surely will if the Mhz barrier persists.

My case, I compose music, I use virtual instruments. For those who don't know, virtual instruments are usually software synthesizers that sounds or sometimes try to sound like a real hardware synth. That eats CPU. Some emulates the real one so good that you won't need the real synth. some are just virtual synths that are not based on classic or existing ones. You can also program your own virtual synth without any limit. So here it comes, the system limit, which is very easy to reach, sometimes real time reendering is imposible, and I must temporally disable some virtual instruments to hear the track until I decide to make the final reendering to wav. Just load 10 to 15 instances of "RGC audio z3ta+" and CPU usage skyrockets. With dual core you could separate 7 instances of z3ta+ to one core and the rest to the other core, and problem solved.

But what if at the same time when I play/record/compose music I want other tasks to be done? for example virus scanning or file defrag? LOL I will need triple core :-D (Or better: dual processors, dual core each)

In my case, If I could I would go for dual core NOW.

Everett Williams May 27, 2005, 12:25am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: AMD dual processors
carl0s ki,

You are technically correct, because there is a certain amount of overhead involved in running the dual processor setup, both internal to the processor and in the software, even if the actual processors are the same speed as the fastest single processor, but almost every game that I have seen has weird hang points in it when the processor has to handle some task only indirectly related to the game. Those will reduce or go away, meaning that the game, while not as fast, will be more consistent. And, as several have pointed out, when multiple separate tasks are running, certain types of bottlenecks will go away, allowing work to procede relatively independently. Also, user response should be much quicker in the presence of running tasks. A properly designed and programmed game will perform much better on a dual processor system, but no such system will ever produce 2x the performance of a single processor of the same rated speed as each of the dual processors. You are fortunate when the total performance reaches 1.5x.

A_Pickle May 27, 2005, 12:40am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
"...Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?"

Sadly.... I concur.

And I'm way to tired to say anything beyond that.

dark May 27, 2005, 12:51am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
Is it just me, or do the writers for HWA and most of the forum members come across as very partial to AMD? Apparently the writers of the articles and and most of the members here are gamers. Nothing wrong with that, and AMD does have a slight edge in speed for gaming, although its hardly noticeable for most situations. But if I cared about gaming that much, I'd be playing on a PS2 which is designed to do one thing very well, instead of a computer which is designed to do 1000s of things very well.

AMD has never been able to effectively multi-task. I get lag and unresponsive programs on a 3500+ everytime my anti-virus runs or I check email. I never get this lag on any Intel system with hyperthreading enabled. Playing a game while anti-virus is scanning is all but impossible. For my $, Intel has always had a leg up on AMD for what most people do on a computer, which is multi-tasking. Not only is a P4 3.0 cheaper, but it runs everything basically the same speed and without the lag.

Its my understanding that hyperthreading was only a temporary solution for multi-tasking, until the dual core CPUs became reality. I haven't yet tried a dual core CPU, but am looking forward to seeing if it alleviates the lag and nonresponsive programs of my expensive AMD system. If dual core solves this problem for AMD, I think the claim that "performance hasn't improved significantly" is completely false. I understand that software will have to be written for dual core to work to its potential on a single program, but separate programs should be run on separate cores by the OS automatically. If dual core doesn't solve this issue, then what was the sense of doing it in the first place?

Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6
805D@4.14GHz
PX7900GTX THD Extreme
2x1g Crucial Ballistix PC2-6400 CL4
OCZ Powerstream 600w
Logitech G5
Koolance Exos2
Jason Jimenez May 27, 2005, 01:30am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
Yeah well everybody loves an underdog...maybe that's why AMD gets such a boost here, but other than Netburst, I love Intel. I've built Intel rigs for so many years. All the ones I built were pretty much %90 Intel, and then I used Intel boards and all...guaranteed compatibility. I'm not way into overclocking, so I didn't need overclocking abilities and Intel did just fine. And right now I'm still using my 2.4 Northwood from 2002 and still very happy. You're right, AMD has always been kinda laggy. I didn't like the K7 at all, even though it was a major improvement over the previous models. At that stage, Intel still had the lead. But with dual-core, AMD has done a good job of lessening the lagginess. And also, it isn't always the Processor...like a past article said: AMD chipsets are sometimes quite quirky. I'm not gonna solidify myself as only AMD or only Intel. Sometimes one company has the lead, sometimes the other. But right now between Netburst and A64, I do believe AMD has the winner...Let's just hope Dothan can really kick butt and make it interesting again!

Shadow_Ops_Airman1 May 27, 2005, 02:10am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
i like the idea os Dual Cores but imagine having a Dual Core 1 Ghz CPU(1Ghz per core) and i imagine the secondary core works with background tasks, such as running a Anti Hack Program, Firewall, FRAPS etc, Messenger Utilities, Etc.

AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (133x14= 1867MHz) (209x11= 2299MHz)
DFI LP NF2 Ultra-B (Hellfire 3EG Rev2)
Antec SX800, Neo HE 500, 4 Antec 8CM Fans
Thermalright SI-97 1 Antec Tricool 12CM Fan
CL SB XFi Xtreme Music
2x Barracuda HDs (250/400)
2x Samsung Write
Surranó May 27, 2005, 05:02am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Graphics and OS on Dual Core
Two things to make clear:

1. Graphics, based on its bare nature, _IS_ single-threaded, no matter what you try (I mean displayed graphics, not 3D rendering). One cause may be that all graphics cards are single-threaded in the first place (but I may be wrong). Recently a Sun Java newsletter wrote about multithreading and graphics and it did not explain the details, just explained that no matter what you try even in a multiproc system, you won't be able to achieve a higher framerate with multithreading than with one single rendering thread.

2. You can't (and usually don't want to) tell the OS which thread to put on which logical proc. It's the task of the OS to decide, period. Ah yes, and it's multiple threads that can be separated, not an arbitrary process. Linux, up to kernel versions 2.4.x, did a great job, but lacked the ability to redistribute threads, but 2.6.x really can do it. I dunno which of the M$ products can do this-- maybe all the NT family, maybe Servers, maybe none of them... (and would like to read a comment on this, if you happen to know the answer)

Andy Parker May 27, 2005, 06:19am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: May 27, 2005, 06:26am EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
You're missing the point - hardware developments have always lead software. Take the Athlon64 for example - came out a couple of years ago, even thought there hardly anything to use them to their full potential. Now, we have 64-bit Windows, Linux, some 64-bit patches for games (Far Cry for example). Software has always lagged behind hardware developments, because you can't write software on something that doesn't exist.

It's the same with dual core CPUs. There are a few programs around that can use them now (3DS Max, Photoshop), but as they increase their market share, it becomes more financially viable to write software specifically for them. If the market was software-led we'd still be sitting around using Pentium I processors.

Having looked at the proposed prices for the dual core processors (from AMD at least), they're not a lot more expensive than their singe-core equivalent. The X2 4200 is expected to cost $537, while the single core 4000 costs $495. $40 for a second CPU? Sounds good value to me.


Andy

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!"
Everett Williams May 27, 2005, 07:24am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: AMD dual processors
Let's assume for the moment that AMD has been behind until recently on an absolute basis (almost never on a price-performance basis). It still makes absolute sense for those of us who are knowledgeable to do everything in our power to keep AMD in business. Without them, we'd still be running something a whole lot less speedy and powerful than we have. Competition keeps Intel on their toes and forces them to dump stuff out of the labs and create new stuff a lot faster than they would like to. This is nothing new. When IBM was the monopolist in charge, large companies often bought a certain percentage of their needs from alternative sources, even when those items might be inferior to IBM products(though they seldom were). The inferiority stemmed from the financial instability imposed by competing with a monopoly. Does any of that sound familiar.

Everett Williams May 27, 2005, 08:39am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: AMD dual processors
Surrano,

I cannot imagine where you could have gotten the idea that graphics are in any way single threaded. In general, they are one of the most amenable of tasks to multi-threading. For a single frame, there are a huge number of calculations that can be done in parallel with little dependency. That's why most graphic cards have so many computation resources on board.

Variable - May 27, 2005, 09:50am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?

I was at a IT seminar last month and the HP guy was talking about the AMD dual/quad and higher core possibilities in their blade servers. One thing I haven’t seen anyone mention is heat. According to the HP rep, if both the fastest AMD and Intel CPU's are put at load the AMD runs much cooler with the same performance. This is not a big deal for the home user but, I am a Systems Administrator and our datacenter is having the AC upgraded right now, for just under $100 grand. This is an Intel shop. No one here likes AMD except me. The only reason for this thinking is because AMD's ran hotter than intel years ago and these guys have no capability of changing their minds about hardware. Heat is a big deal in a datacenter.

Another thing I don't see mentioned is cost. Licensing fee's are applied per processor. If you were to add dual cores you double the fee's (for the sake of simplicity) this is relevant to MS products especially. Assume in the near future quad cores become available and you can upgrade your quad processor servers to essentially 16 processors. The cost of running this server on 2003 and running SQL just went through the roof. For huge companies it may not be a big deal or for the ones that ignore the laws but, for the small and mid size datacenters following the rules it’s a deal breaker. If this all comes about I think you will see Linux and open source software coming to gain much wider acceptance where processing power is needed - even more so than it is now. For one reason only - Price. Bean counters rule most big decisions in IT. Open minded IT people offering solutions including AMD and Intel multiple cores will find more and more leaning towards AMD cpu's in my opinion.

One of the reps was talking about 8 core sockets. Imagine a quad cpu board with the standard cpu's replaced with essentially 32 cpu's.



Variable

some guy May 27, 2005, 10:28am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Dual core processors, AMD takes the lead?
If you are runing a game the second core wont aid windows in the background. Thats the problem the second core wont do crap. I know this for sure because my uncle works for AMD. The second core wont do nothing. Why you think they are not making the FX into dual core because the second core wont do crap. Also runing anti virus scans and stuff there wont be a big time change at all. Most of your single will be used. The second core wont be used that much because the single core is fast enough. Only time you will see a big change is if they made a dual core 2800+ thats all. But since there 4000+, 4300+ second core wont do much at all not enev for anti virus because the first core can handle it all.

Surranó May 27, 2005, 10:34am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> My uncle...
... is stronger and has a much nicer car than yours. Bah.

And if M$ OS's can't do that, it's not AMD's fault. However, what about dual proc systems? Are they all the same, the second CPU doing nothing in windows? I wouldn't be so hasty about it...


Write a Reply >>

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.