Variable -, you might be mistaken. AFAIK M$ makes you pay per _logical_ core. Usual Windows licenses are for two logical processors. So they are legal on a dual proc or dual core or a single-core HT (I mean HyperThreading now) system, BUT they aren't legal e.g. on dual HT systems. This has been revealed when HT came to market.

As for power consuption, you are correct that they probably consume less nowadays than Intel's similar solutions.

Everett,

I meant drawing (displaying graphics), not rendering. I just don't know the English words to phrase this better After all, every display adapter is a stream somewhere (or more stream for multiple monitors). I meant something like that. And as I told, I got the idea from a Sun Java newsletter. Not the best one to get HW info, I know

I read the posts here all the time, just don't reply much. On this, I had too...
As far as licensing for M$'s OS's is concerned: M$ has stated that they will license by physical proc socket, not number of procs. So a dual core/proc in a single pkg will be treated like a single CPU for licensing purposes. Also, on the whole thread usage issue: Windows (if memory serves) will allocate threads to the second core/proc/CPU when ever the primary unit is busy, ie in a WAIT state (will have to check M$ MSDN to be sure of the number of wait cycles causes Windows to reallocate). Win server does this as well, so win64 should too. Same base code, Win 5.2. In parting... AMD Rulz!!

You guys used to doing one thing at a time on your puters, can stay with your single cores.
Leave multitasking to those of us who have the concept.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/pentiumd-820/index.x?pg=16

"I expect the Pentium D processor, teamed up with the 945G chipset, to dominate the mid-range PC market once folks discover its virtues. For everything from corporate desktops to boxes for power users, from video editing workstations to home theater PCs, the Pentium D looks tough to beat. (AMD's Athlon 64 X2 is an amazing CPU, but with prices starting at over $500, it will be a high-end choice only.) Even casual gamers will want to take a long, hard look at the Pentium D. It fuses the creamy smoothness of true symmetric multiprocessing with the simplicity and affordability of commodity desktop PC components—a combo that's awfully hard not to like. What's more, the Pentium D, P4 670, and the 945 chipset should all be available starting today, according to Intel. Make mine twins, please. "

As good as their dual core offerings look, I think AMD has been slacking off lately. They used to be all about price to performance ratio, but most of their dualies are almost cost prohibitive to the average computer enthusiast, a segment to which AMD owes much of it's success and indeed their very survival. To top it all off, the company is starting to sound much more Intel-like in their assertions, knocking off Hyperthreading based on its miserable implementation on Pentium 4, yet forgeting other succesfull ones like those on the IBM chips. To top it all off, and according to this article at Tom's (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html), their current top FX chips gets blown out of the water by, of all things, a mobile processor, the Pentium M as adapted to a desktop computer based on an aging chipset! Now according to all those in the know, the next Intel dualie will be based on that very Pentium M, and it will have the benefit off better and far newer hardware. I hope AMD takes notice 'cause it could soon find itself selling overpriced underperforming chips, hardly worth the trouble buying from those that know their value.

I owned a Pentium 3.0 with hyperthreading, and I have to admit that for all its faults it was far more responsive to my bad habbit of opening many applications at a time than my ex 939 SLI 3200+. For the most part I hate Intel, but I would still go for the bigger bang for a buck. This is why I sold my SLI AMD system and went on a holding pattern. I want to see first what the upcoming dual-core with separate memory controllers, new socket,and DDR 2, will do in benchmarking before I commit hard earned cash for an overpriced 64x2. I'm not commiting $500+ for an already obsolete 939 socket. I really wish IBM would re-enter the PC market with their Cell, 'cause whether ahead of it's time or not (according to AMD again) I would spend money to buy it.

As you can see by my previous post, I'm mainly an Intelite myself. Though I also have a Mac G4 and the AMD 64-bit system. Which brings me to why I chose the AMD over Intel at this time. My problem with Intel isn't over performance and pricing, but availability. Being a developer and faced with the software for which I develop plugins migrating to 64-bit (wherein the 32-bit plugins no longer function), the only choice is AMD. If I were to go the Intel 64-bit route, when the dual core Intels arrived (if they are even 64-bit), I would almost assuredly (that is definitely) be required to toss that system on eBay and get an entirely new one. That's how every Intel system that I built has been upgraded. And this, of course, goes for AMD's in most cases.

Ah, but the 939 socket for the AMD 64-bit cpus is compatible with dual-core AMD 64-bit cpus - with only a BIOS upgrade from what I've heard. That means that my current 64-bit system, while being a development platform for 64-bit plugins, is also primed and ready for 64-bit dual core processors. Nothing else required. The savings there should beat any price differences (cost of expensive AMD64x2 as compared to Intel64x2+mobo+ram(?)+whatever else they decide to make incompatible).

For now, I think that I've made the wise decision. Hey, when Intel has the dual-core 64-bit systems out and the ole' dual Xeon needs to go, I'll replace it. But I'll have a 64-bit dual-core system already without the hassles.

So much dross...so little time. I suspect that the AMD dual processor will come down rapidly in price and will definitely outperform the single processor Pentium D with HT, as that is not true, symmetric multiprocessing. It prevents many stalls, so expensive on the 20 stage Pentium, by having another live stream staged for immediate execution and is occasionally able to run in parallel. There is still only a uniprocessor, and there is some cost to the stream switch, but as a whole, the processor is much better used. Now, with Prescott and it's 31 stage pipeline, more than triple the AMD XP and almost triple the AMD 64 pipeline, the Pentium really needs to avoid pipeline stalls, as they are extremely expensive. Also, AMD's schedule to execute cycle is so short that partial stalls are not nearly so expensive as in the Pentium. This means that HT does not give Intel as big an advantage as might be expected by it's gross description. The Pentium will have better granularity and smoothness, but in many cases, the AMD will still outperform it in overall throughput.

Some guy,

"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."

I wish I knew where you are getting your information. I have a fair to middling understanding of scheduling mechanisms, and the worst of them can take advantage of a second core for independent processes. It really doesn't matter where your uncle works unless he is an expert in the area. Either he is misinformed or you are not understanding what he is saying.

Surrano,

The drawing part of graphics is done directly out of the graphics processor's frame buffer with almost zero involvement of the system processor, and the frame buffer is usually multi-ported, allowing independent processing resources of the GPU to write to different parts of the buffer at the same time. Properly timed, this can allow writing either ahead of or behind the transfer point. There are also proposals for more intelligent monitors, allowing multiple independent update streams, which would still probably be managed by the GPU with instructions from the system. By the way, there are already multi-beam monitors that have the ability to independently update a screen. With matrix screens, intelligent, multi-stream updating should become common, and save a lot of work at the GPU.

To sum, your sequentialization is only at the final write step, making it essentially irrelevant to the rest of the processes in the GPU.

Robert: yes, the dual core does work with 939, but at $500+ (more so in Canadian currency) it is too substantial of an investment for a socket destined to be another Sempron socket in a few months when the M (M2?)starts appearing on motherboards. Don't forget, that the new socket will almost certainly entail a change from DDR to DDR2, so the initial investment just got even bigger. NO THANKS! I'm waiting for M2 and the benchmarks before I decide on purchasing a dual core chip.
If it was $200 to $300 maybe, but not at that price. And I am pro-AMD, not pro-Intel.

Just a stand alone comment here. Possibly to the detriment of Intel and maybe a bit off topic.

I've classically always been a multi CPU fan, as well as a limited gamer. In (fairly) early days I was forced to take the performance hit of a PCI video card because I couldn't afford the PCIx versions (64 bit PCI) and because typically multi CPU boards were reserved for servers.

With the introduction of the P4 however, Intel lost me as a home customer forever by removing multi-cpu support on anything below the Xeon range. Don't get me wrong I love playing with Xeon servers, the quad configuration offers totally stonking performance and will handle virtually anything you throw at it, even with Windows 2000 (or later) Server slowing it down big style.

But with the Athlon MP CPU still hanging on by it's fingernails, It's still possible to get true dual CPU power within my limited budget availability. Still wating for a dual socket 939 config for the A64... I wonder if the wife would notice? Maybe I should put my existing kit in a new server case so that I can follow the old "as long as the box doesn't change she'll never know what's inside" theory for a bit longer. :o)

Multi tasking is a fact of life, dual core can only speed up real world computer use for most of us. Gamers won't really suffer as game programmer will just have to tidy their code up properley instead of continuing to throw CPU and GPU cycles at it. I'm getting old in the computer industry and I can remember when game code had to be manually optimised to get it running properley. (A bit grumpy old man there, but may still be true!) I don't know about now, but it was very labour intensive then and I hated coding games in assembler!!!!!

AMD is in the lead once more

Hey, they deserve a lot for there innovation & motivation

"AMD is in the lead once more"

I'll believe it when I see it. Both Intel and AMD have dual cores coming out, and Intel's still has hyperthreading which AMD's doesn't. Heat is not an issue for me as long as the CPU's life isn't substantially effected by it. Seems to me that its a bit premature to declare either one superior to the other yet.

I'm all for competition. I have no brand loyalty whatsoever. I just feel that up until now Intel has provided a better and cheaper processor for multi-tasking, which is a huge part of my computer use.

umm bro AMD has 2 to 2.2 GHZ HTT that Intel dont. This is why AMD memory bandwidth is 2 to 3 times that of Intel. You have AMD have you not noticed that your memory bandwidth is hella more then any Intel ? thats kuz Intel still uses limited FSB .

I have 5 computers and 2 laptops running on our network at any given time. This is the only one which is AMD. Please give me an example of when that memory bandwidth would be a factor, because I just don't see it.

The wife and I are both currently running 1 gig of Corsair PC4000. On her 3.2 P4, she can run an AVG scan while encoding or burning a DVD and checking email on Outlook 2003. Mine would lag and hang badly if I attempted such a feat on the Athlon64 (even when I had 2 G's of Corsair PC400), and the movie wouldn't be watchable when done. I have yet to find anything that the Athlon64 does noticeably better than the P4, besides benchmark on 3dmark. Seems to me the advantages are only on paper, and not a factor in real life.

She's got 2 X 160G on RAID0 plus 2 X 160G for backup, and I've got 2 X 120G on RAID0 plus 2 X 120G for backup. Virus scans take almost 2 hours of every day for us. The Athlon is dead in the water until the scan is done, while the scan isn't even noticeable on hers.

This is what I'm hoping the dual core will eliminate, otherwise its back to Intel for me.

I never had any lag on my AMD. I had more lag on my intel witch had the hyperthreading. I can have a game runing and alt tab back to the desktop and open firefox, have iTunes on, send and instant message, and download all at the same time with 0 lag and every thing goes quick. My old intel couldnt do that at all. My intel would crash on me.

dark whats your AMD overclocked to ? what speed of memory are you runing ? whats your HTT at. I have 3 computers as well 1 is a Intel 3.2 E runing at 3.6 GHz . I can tell a huge huge huge difrence in the bandwidth and its effects. Load times are double and so are install times. I dont know what your doing wrong bro . I can virus scan and play games same time with no lag. Hell i can multi task like no other.


hell i can virus scan, run xoftspy and ad-aware same time. be lieing if i said that didnt low it some but by no means dose it lag bad or freez hell it runs just fine. Virus scan of the system takes me 40 min 30 min at times i have 87 gig of used space to scan.

Wife has a 3.2C running at 3.82Ghz with 4 X 256 Kingston PC3200.

My 3500+ is running at 2664 (242FSB) with 2 X 512 Corsair PC4000 Pro. If I run PC400, I can't OC the CPU past 214 (2300). Thinking that's a MB glitch. I see no adjustment for HTT other than voltage (+.1v, +.2v, +.3v) in the BIOS settings. Gigabyte must have a different way of labeling things.

Load and install times are almost identical on both of our machines. No idea what's wrong either, but sure is a PITA. I have 114 gigs used X 2 to scan and scan all files. A simple game like Warcraft II - Beyond the Dark Portal lags big time during scans on the AMD, but runs smooth as silk on the P4.

Maybe you can tell what my settings are from this:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=855235

dark i like to help you if you will let me. download everest home and make a custom report. all i need is overclock section and memory benchmark section. Then ill have a better idea what its doing . The we can look at ways of fixing it. Last thing i want is some thinking his AMD system sucks next to a P4 lol. thats just not right. I wasnt kiding when i said i could play a game with no lag and virus scan same time. I bet super xp can to. Lets see if we can fix this.

I appreciate the help. Ran Everest (had to log in outside of our network for it to work on the home version) and ran a custom. Will send it to your email addy through your website. Hollar if you want it some other way. Thanx again.

Dual cores are for multitasking. If you're a gamer then dont bother.

Man this issue gets mixed up chewed and spat out so many different ways. lol.