Are dualcores a MUST???

[Markbnj]

[Did I make a good choice?]

Tell you what... you use it for a couple of days and then come back and tell us whether you think you made a bad choice .

 

[0roo0roo]

how snappy a system feels is important, esp when its under some stress. but no its not a must, people get by without ferraris after all.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Pix3lDezigner

I am a graphic designer, so I use Photoshop and Illustrator a lot. From what I understand the X2 will benefit from Photoshop. Is this true? I also do some gaming, especially BF2. Did I make a good choice? I will be doing graphic design as well as gaming on this machine. Thanx!

You can put your worries to rest. Photoshop does, indeed, use the second core. It also handles BF2 very well and some say even better than single core machines, though I personally haven't seen any benchmarks. Then again, I haven't been looking either.

You definately made the right choice. Especially given the real work you do on the pc.

 

[S13SilviaK]

Originally posted by: Pix3lDezigner
Hearing all this back and forth talk is starting to worry me. On Friday, I ordered an ASROCK 939Dual-SATA2 M1695 RT motherboard and a 4400+ X2 processor from Newegg. I also ordered 2 gb (2 x 1 gb) of OCZ Platinum PC3200 ram. This is an upgrade from a 2500+ mobile Barton running at 2.3 ghz, an Abit NF7-S v2.0 and 1 gb (2 x 512 mb) PC3200 Corsair.

I am a graphic designer, so I use Photoshop and Illustrator a lot. From what I understand the X2 will benefit from Photoshop. Is this true? I also do some gaming, especially BF2. Did I make a good choice? I will be doing graphic design as well as gaming on this machine. Thanx!

That's my old setup (Barton/NF7) and that is similar to my new setup (ASRock/X2 3800 for me) and I have to say that I am extremely happy.


As for the single vs. dual core debat:

One thing I hated was whenever I wanted to encode a DVD->Divx my computer became unusable, now I can still surf the web/listen to music/etc. and the machine still runs smoothly.

This may seem like something that most people don't do but, I have found that a lot of people like burning DVDs/extracting files/encoding video/etc. But they hate the downtime it forces on their computers, with a dual core they no longer have the downtime or it is significantly lessened.

Another thing for gamers, I know when I was gaming heavily in a league I usually had teamspeak and other apps running in the background that diminished performance, with a dual core you can offload those apps to the second core (or for MMPORG gamers who want to surf the web while leveling up.)

Just my opinion but I think that as usual there are people who are pushing the right product to the wrong people and there are people yelling "hype" and "what a waste" when they have never even used the product.

 

[Pix3lDezigner]

Originally posted by: S13SilviaK

Originally posted by: Pix3lDezigner
Hearing all this back and forth talk is starting to worry me. On Friday, I ordered an ASROCK 939Dual-SATA2 M1695 RT motherboard and a 4400+ X2 processor from Newegg. I also ordered 2 gb (2 x 1 gb) of OCZ Platinum PC3200 ram. This is an upgrade from a 2500+ mobile Barton running at 2.3 ghz, an Abit NF7-S v2.0 and 1 gb (2 x 512 mb) PC3200 Corsair.

I am a graphic designer, so I use Photoshop and Illustrator a lot. From what I understand the X2 will benefit from Photoshop. Is this true? I also do some gaming, especially BF2. Did I make a good choice? I will be doing graphic design as well as gaming on this machine. Thanx!

That's my old setup (Barton/NF7) and that is similar to my new setup (ASRock/X2 3800 for me) and I have to say that I am extremely happy.


As for the single vs. dual core debat:

One thing I hated was whenever I wanted to encode a DVD->Divx my computer became unusable, now I can still surf the web/listen to music/etc. and the machine still runs smoothly.

This may seem like something that most people don't do but, I have found that a lot of people like burning DVDs/extracting files/encoding video/etc. But they hate the downtime it forces on their computers, with a dual core they no longer have the downtime or it is significantly lessened.

Another thing for gamers, I know when I was gaming heavily in a league I usually had teamspeak and other apps running in the background that diminished performance, with a dual core you can offload those apps to the second core (or for MMPORG gamers who want to surf the web while leveling up.)

Just my opinion but I think that as usual there are people who are pushing the right product to the wrong people and there are people yelling "hype" and "what a waste" when they have never even used the product.

Thank you very much Silvia, that's very good to know. I was also afraid because every time a made a leap to a new CPU, I never really noticed any real world difference. Which is why I stuck with my 2500+ Mobile Barton for so long. I figured the jump from a single core 32 bit cpu, to a dual core 64 bit chip with almost twice the performance should be a big enough jump to notice a difference.

With your upgrade did you notice a big difference in real world performance, not just benchmarks? This was definitely the time for me to upgrade and I put it off long enough. In Photoshop it was starting to get overloaded and run slower when working on larger sized images, etc. After exiting BF2 it would take minutes for my computer to catch up as well. I just noticed things getting bogged down, and I also encode video a lot which made things run slower.

I agree that there are too many people crying out hype and they're a waste without really trying them. I guess I will make my own decision on it when it comes later this week.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Markbnj
[Your graphs show that AMD X2s are great at extracting parallelization (unlike Intel which has a horrible dual core architecture). It doesn't measure improvements in choppy areas at all.]

They don't say anything about which subjective areas of gaming performance are affected. But what they do undeniably show is that BF2 and CoD are utilizing both processors at levels that would saturate a single core. End of story. If there were one core then both games would get less work done per tick, i.e. they perform better on the dual core.

i will have to run bf2 on my machine with ht on and off, since the os sees 2 cpus, just like a dc (i know the architecture is different, but it is what the os sees here and how it offloads other threads since bf2 is basically a single threaded game with other smaller threads )

and i will do it at 1280x960. like i said earlier, you don't need the extreme hardware unless you are playing @ 1920x1440

wow, i have to eat some of my own words.....

i ran the performance monitor and set it to 25mins, played a bit of bf2 with ht on and ht off. ht (ie 1 processor) 100% was hit the majority of the time, with ht on it was about a 60/40split, thus confirming what Markbnj has been stating. this confirms 2 things to me - 1 bf2 uses more than a 3.0GHz cpu (small o/c) and it does work well with duallies (i guess the os does a good job of offloading the other threads). i must wonder if it is because i am pinging the processor capabilities. maybe another o/c to 3.2 and see if the theory holds...(i really doubt an extra 200MHz will do anything, but who knows).

so i am changing my view to my next machine will probably be the uli agp/pci-e board with a dc (but i will wait for them to come down in $$$). in the mean time i will look for a nice new psu and start the build slow....

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Pix3lDezigner

Originally posted by: S13SilviaK

Originally posted by: Pix3lDezigner
Hearing all this back and forth talk is starting to worry me. On Friday, I ordered an ASROCK 939Dual-SATA2 M1695 RT motherboard and a 4400+ X2 processor from Newegg. I also ordered 2 gb (2 x 1 gb) of OCZ Platinum PC3200 ram. This is an upgrade from a 2500+ mobile Barton running at 2.3 ghz, an Abit NF7-S v2.0 and 1 gb (2 x 512 mb) PC3200 Corsair.

I am a graphic designer, so I use Photoshop and Illustrator a lot. From what I understand the X2 will benefit from Photoshop. Is this true? I also do some gaming, especially BF2. Did I make a good choice? I will be doing graphic design as well as gaming on this machine. Thanx!

That's my old setup (Barton/NF7) and that is similar to my new setup (ASRock/X2 3800 for me) and I have to say that I am extremely happy.


As for the single vs. dual core debat:

One thing I hated was whenever I wanted to encode a DVD->Divx my computer became unusable, now I can still surf the web/listen to music/etc. and the machine still runs smoothly.

This may seem like something that most people don't do but, I have found that a lot of people like burning DVDs/extracting files/encoding video/etc. But they hate the downtime it forces on their computers, with a dual core they no longer have the downtime or it is significantly lessened.

Another thing for gamers, I know when I was gaming heavily in a league I usually had teamspeak and other apps running in the background that diminished performance, with a dual core you can offload those apps to the second core (or for MMPORG gamers who want to surf the web while leveling up.)

Just my opinion but I think that as usual there are people who are pushing the right product to the wrong people and there are people yelling "hype" and "what a waste" when they have never even used the product.

Thank you very much Silvia, that's very good to know. I was also afraid because every time a made a leap to a new CPU, I never really noticed any real world difference. Which is why I stuck with my 2500+ Mobile Barton for so long. I figured the jump from a single core 32 bit cpu, to a dual core 64 bit chip with almost twice the performance should be a big enough jump to notice a difference.

With your upgrade did you notice a big difference in real world performance, not just benchmarks? This was definitely the time for me to upgrade and I put it off long enough. In Photoshop it was starting to get overloaded and run slower when working on larger sized images, etc. After exiting BF2 it would take minutes for my computer to catch up as well. I just noticed things getting bogged down, and I also encode video a lot which made things run slower.

I agree that there are too many people crying out hype and they're a waste without really trying them. I guess I will make my own decision on it when it comes later this week.

the problem is that too many people that are not using their machines hard are getting them. you use your machine hard, but if you go sams club or best buy and buy a new rig, they will try to pedal a dc on people who would be fine with a 1.6GHz machine.

imo, for you work you are really utilizing a pc for true work and it does require a lot of power especially for the larger images you probaby work with and the video encoding.

 

[Bona Fide]

I'm gonna hurt the next person who says "dual core is useless unless you multitask". Evidently you haven't used it if you're ignorantly saying garbage like that.

Pentiumoble - Go for the X2 3800+. And get the Sapphire X800GTO2. It can easily be unlocked to a full X850XT Platinum, which should be more than suitable for your gaming. And the added power of X2 is definitely going to blow you away. Make sure to get a decent HSF, and you should get some stellar overclocks.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
I'm gonna hurt the next person who says "dual core is useless unless you multitask". Evidently you haven't used it if you're ignorantly saying garbage like that.

Pentiumoble - Go for the X2 3800+. And get the Sapphire X800GTO2. It can easily be unlocked to a full X850XT Platinum, which should be more than suitable for your gaming. And the added power of X2 is definitely going to blow you away. Make sure to get a decent HSF, and you should get some stellar overclocks.

for the most part you don't really gain unless you are using your machine hard and your statement is too general and please tell me how a x2 would benefit over a 3000venice with a person who does no multitasking? especially when the x2 is at least 2x the price. you have to understand that you might fully utilize your x2, but many, many people don't fully utilize their 2GHz machines.

i have owned dual processor machine before and agree that they are snappy, but i was using them for video encoding with smp software, which saturaded both cpus @ 100%.

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
I'm gonna hurt the next person who says "dual core is useless unless you multitask". Evidently you haven't used it if you're ignorantly saying garbage like that.

Pentiumoble - Go for the X2 3800+. And get the Sapphire X800GTO2. It can easily be unlocked to a full X850XT Platinum, which should be more than suitable for your gaming. And the added power of X2 is definitely going to blow you away. Make sure to get a decent HSF, and you should get some stellar overclocks.

for the most part you don't really gain unless you are using your machine hard and your statement is too general and please tell me how a x2 would benefit over a 3000venice with a person who does no multitasking? especially when the x2 is at least 2x the price. you have to understand that you might fully utilize your x2, but many, many people don't fully utilize their 2GHz machines.

i have owned dual processor machine before and agree that they are snappy, but i was using them for video encoding with smp software, which saturaded both cpus @ 100%.

With a single-core processor, both the Windows background tasks and your main task must be loaded onto the same core. You'll find that with a dual-core equivalent, you often see noticeable improvement. This is because the X2 loads all the background processes on one core and your main task goes on the second core. So one entire core can be devoted to your application without losing 10-15% of CPU cycles (maybe more) to the OS tasks, firewall, etc.

The price is daunting, but if you're upgrading, dual-core is seriously worth a second-look. It's more of an investment than anything else. You will see improvement with your single-threaded applications, and most definitely with your multi-threaded apps. Also, the effect will be felt when you're doing more than one thing at once. Not to mention that the next wave of PC games are all going to support dual-core processors.

In my opinion, it's fully worth it. But if price is too much of a constraint, I guess you should stick to single-core. But an X2 3800+ and an X800GTO2 should be within your budget, I would assume.

 

[Markbnj]

Bona Fide is correct, everyone multitasks. And as for BF2 and other games, if you thought they were making decent use of the dually before, you should see what the traces look like with the new nVidia beta drivers.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
I'm gonna hurt the next person who says "dual core is useless unless you multitask". Evidently you haven't used it if you're ignorantly saying garbage like that.

Pentiumoble - Go for the X2 3800+. And get the Sapphire X800GTO2. It can easily be unlocked to a full X850XT Platinum, which should be more than suitable for your gaming. And the added power of X2 is definitely going to blow you away. Make sure to get a decent HSF, and you should get some stellar overclocks.

for the most part you don't really gain unless you are using your machine hard and your statement is too general and please tell me how a x2 would benefit over a 3000venice with a person who does no multitasking? especially when the x2 is at least 2x the price. you have to understand that you might fully utilize your x2, but many, many people don't fully utilize their 2GHz machines.

i have owned dual processor machine before and agree that they are snappy, but i was using them for video encoding with smp software, which saturaded both cpus @ 100%.

With a single-core processor, both the Windows background tasks and your main task must be loaded onto the same core. You'll find that with a dual-core equivalent, you often see noticeable improvement. This is because the X2 loads all the background processes on one core and your main task goes on the second core. So one entire core can be devoted to your application without losing 10-15% of CPU cycles (maybe more) to the OS tasks, firewall, etc.

The price is daunting, but if you're upgrading, dual-core is seriously worth a second-look. It's more of an investment than anything else. You will see improvement with your single-threaded applications, and most definitely with your multi-threaded apps. Also, the effect will be felt when you're doing more than one thing at once. Not to mention that the next wave of PC games are all going to support dual-core processors.

In my opinion, it's fully worth it. But if price is too much of a constraint, I guess you should stick to single-core. But an X2 3800+ and an X800GTO2 should be within your budget, I would assume.

i understand how windows does its work, but what i am saying is that unless you are using the pc pretty heavily, most people will not notice the difference. i am not saying you are incorrect in that it will make the compute snappier, as it will and did when i ran my dual processor machine, i am just saying that people who don't even stress a single core machine are getting these dc due to the hype and not the necessity.

and yes i know that future games will be multithreaded, but they will probably not be out for more than a year.

we are pretty much on the same page, but imo unless you are a heavy or "power" user, the $$$ is not worth the benefit since you really won't have a benefit.

 

[S13SilviaK]

Originally posted by: Pix3lDezigner
Thank you very much Silvia, that's very good to know. I was also afraid because every time a made a leap to a new CPU, I never really noticed any real world difference. Which is why I stuck with my 2500+ Mobile Barton for so long. I figured the jump from a single core 32 bit cpu, to a dual core 64 bit chip with almost twice the performance should be a big enough jump to notice a difference.

With your upgrade did you notice a big difference in real world performance, not just benchmarks? This was definitely the time for me to upgrade and I put it off long enough. In Photoshop it was starting to get overloaded and run slower when working on larger sized images, etc. After exiting BF2 it would take minutes for my computer to catch up as well. I just noticed things getting bogged down, and I also encode video a lot which made things run slower.

I agree that there are too many people crying out hype and they're a waste without really trying them. I guess I will make my own decision on it when it comes later this week.

I notice it everyday, overall things seem more responsive but mostly it is my ability to have processor intensive apps running while I surf the web and not have my whole system grind to a halt to the point that I have to walk away.

 

[S13SilviaK]

Originally posted by: bob4432the problem is that too many people that are not using their machines hard are getting them. you use your machine hard, but if you go sams club or best buy and buy a new rig, they will try to pedal a dc on people who would be fine with a 1.6GHz machine.

imo, for you work you are really utilizing a pc for true work and it does require a lot of power especially for the larger images you probaby work with and the video encoding.

Well yes DC is the new hotness and they are being put into more expensive machines so all the Best Buy/Compusa/Circuit City/'insert local computer store' employees are going to push them whether the user needs it or not but, if it wasn't DC chips it would be EE/FX or telling grandma she needs at least 1GB of ram. I do see your point 100% though, top tier products should not be peddled in the budget sector and there are a lot of shady characters just looking to make their monthly sales figures.

I do honestly think more people could benefit from DC than people are giving credit for, even my Aunt is doing DVD authoring now, DV cam + new Dell + tons of grandkids = resourceful grandmas that want digital memories

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: S13SilviaK

Originally posted by: bob4432the problem is that too many people that are not using their machines hard are getting them. you use your machine hard, but if you go sams club or best buy and buy a new rig, they will try to pedal a dc on people who would be fine with a 1.6GHz machine.

imo, for you work you are really utilizing a pc for true work and it does require a lot of power especially for the larger images you probaby work with and the video encoding.

Well yes DC is the new hotness and they are being put into more expensive machines so all the Best Buy/Compusa/Circuit City/'insert local computer store' employees are going to push them whether the user needs it or not but, if it wasn't DC chips it would be EE/FX or telling grandma she needs at least 1GB of ram. I do see your point 100% though, top tier products should not be peddled in the budget sector and there are a lot of shady characters just looking to make their monthly sales figures.

I do honestly think more people could benefit from DC than people are giving credit for, even my Aunt is doing DVD authoring now, DV cam + new Dell + tons of grandkids = resourceful grandmas that want digital memories

i too see your point, maybe the scope at which i view the world in is too small....

 

[Pix3lDezigner]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Bona Fide is correct, everyone multitasks. And as for BF2 and other games, if you thought they were making decent use of the dually before, you should see what the traces look like with the new nVidia beta drivers.

Mark, where can I get these new beta drivers that you speak of? Are they pretty stable drivers, and do they work good? Thank you!

 

[Markbnj]

http://downloads.rojakpot.com/details.php?file=128

http://www.tweaksrus.com/index.php?opti...docman&task=cat_view&gid=135&Itemid=41

They seem stable on my system, but your mileage may definitely vary. I would say these are much closer to release than the last few iterations.