Are the X2 processors worth the $$$$?

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
X2s do everything faster than a single core at the same clock speed.

If you look at benchmarks in games, single core and dual core are pretty close- BUT that is only in benchmarks- NOT in the real world. Make no mistake, dual core is the way to go for online gaming.

If you play games online- get dual core!

Benchmarks on review sites are done under perfect conditions, on clean installs, with nothing at all running in the background. They certainly aren't online hooked up to a 64 person server sending hundreds of TCP packets every second, and moving the mouse around and mashing buttons- and of course antispyware, antivirus, firewall, VOIP, team speak, IM, IE, high quality sounds, Controller Software for joysticks and such, and blah blah blah... THIS is real world gaming that you never see benchmarks for on review sites. This is the reason that dual core STOMPS single core in REAL-WORLD gaming!

Ever benchmark your computer using Sandra software? when you run a bench, it says "don't move your mouse- benchmarking!" haha how lame- you don't want to move your mouse around because it'll affect your benchmark negatively.. Well, last time I checked- I use my mouse when I play games.

The point is that with dual core you never have to wait for CPU time to accomplish a given task. With single core, you often do - especially when you are playing games and the CPU is maxed out.

You make it seem like the CPU is more important than the GPU in gaming.

Edit: Ow ya, I had like 5% cpu usage from Itunes+BT+Firefox in the background. I don't know how that will DRASTICALLY affect gaming performance at all. Norton ghost/ZA were on too btw.(Not that norton ghost was doing anything )

 

[Chopstick217]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: KDOG
I think I'll go with the ASRock mobo and the 3000+ Venice. Later on, I'll get 2 SATA hdds in RAID as my boot/Windows drive, and use my current Maxtor 160GB IDE HDD as a storage drive. Any opinions on decent, "economical" 7200RPM SATA150 drives, I was looking at a couple of Seagates' and Hitatchi Deskstars.....

That mobo has some nifty features, but if overclocking is most important to you, it's not really a good choice. It will overclock, but is quite limited and you'll never acheive the max overclock from a good overclocking cpu.

That said, I'm getting the same mobo, but for the AGP/PCI-e and M2 socket. I don't plan on overclocking.

I have the same mobo. I purchased it mainly for the AGP/PCIX. Overall a good value board.

 

[Markbnj]

[You make it seem like the CPU is more important than the GPU in gaming.

They're both important. The GPU doesn't calculate physics, do hit testing, process sound, update world state, etc.

Sorry man, but you are in the slim minority on this issue. The X2 makes a huge difference in processing throughput in Windows. The feel of it is completely different from a single core cpu, because there is no competition when you have something going and want to start something else. Watch a DVD during your virus scan? No problem. Play a game while downloading and installing a large app? You can, and not even notice that the other activity is going on. Finally, with the beta nVidia drivers DirectX games are making very significant use of both cores. This has been conclusively demonstrated and there is really no room for debate on it. If BF2 can use 75% of both cores, then one core is going to be slower, end of story.

 

[John]

I just built an x2 3800+ rig for a customer. If I didn't have a 3200+ @ 2.6GHz then I would pick one up for myself. However I can't justify $350 for the purchase since I just dropped a wad on a 7800GTX. Maybe in 4 months........

 

[Hacp]

Watch a DVD while doing a virus scan? Wholy possible with a single core cpu. Downloading a large ap? Get a better connection. Installing it? Nope, won't make much of a difference while playing a game.

And finally, the drivers issues? Ya its a good thing, sure, but really, you people should consider how it is in real life before making theoretical situations up. It is no slower playing games on a single core than it is on an x2. You also won't have to spend the huge price premium. It seems almost like you have to go out of your way to make use of the x2s. Thats how it was with me. I constantly went out of my way to make use of both cores, because I had 2 cores. I took the extra effort to tax both of my cores, for not much more reason than taxing both cores. I encoded video files while playing games just for the heck of it, even though I could have done it at night because I always leave BT on at night. I Left huge tabs of firefox there for no reason, even though it was messy like hell.

 

[mechBgon]

In my own case, I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn while also using my PC for normal office work and network-administration type stuff. It'll be nice to (1) see those encode times reduced about 40% (second core + faster per core), and (2) not have to tiptoe around Adobe's fierce all-out consumption of my only CPU core.

With the increasing amount of media encoding that people do, I could see where even a gamer might justify having an extra 2GHz of CPU cycles on tap. Granted, the price differential is proportional, especially if you can score a 3000+ for $100 in FS/T. Just make an informed decision... you can upgrade to dual-core later if you want, too.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Chopstick217
I have the same mobo. I purchased it mainly for the AGP/PCIX. Overall a good value board.

I couldn't find an ASRock with PCI-X, link?

 

[Hacp]

I think he meant PCI-E

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
In my own case, I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn while also using my PC for normal office work and network-administration type stuff. It'll be nice to (1) see those encode times reduced about 40% (second core + faster per core), and (2) not have to tiptoe around Adobe's fierce all-out consumption of my only CPU core.

With the increasing amount of media encoding that people do, I could see where even a gamer might justify having an extra 2GHz of CPU cycles on tap. Granted, the price differential is proportional, especially if you can score a 3000+ for $100 in FS/T. Just make an informed decision... you can upgrade to dual-core later if you want, too.

Exactly. you can upgrade to a dual core when they are going to be cheaper in the future .

 

[John]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Chopstick217
I have the same mobo. I purchased it mainly for the AGP/PCIX. Overall a good value board.

I couldn't find an ASRock with PCI-X, link?

PCI-E
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813157081

 

[ElTorrente]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
X2s do everything faster than a single core at the same clock speed.

If you look at benchmarks in games, single core and dual core are pretty close- BUT that is only in benchmarks- NOT in the real world. Make no mistake, dual core is the way to go for online gaming.

If you play games online- get dual core!

Benchmarks on review sites are done under perfect conditions, on clean installs, with nothing at all running in the background. They certainly aren't online hooked up to a 64 person server sending hundreds of TCP packets every second, and moving the mouse around and mashing buttons- and of course antispyware, antivirus, firewall, VOIP, team speak, IM, IE, high quality sounds, Controller Software for joysticks and such, and blah blah blah... THIS is real world gaming that you never see benchmarks for on review sites. This is the reason that dual core STOMPS single core in REAL-WORLD gaming!

Ever benchmark your computer using Sandra software? when you run a bench, it says "don't move your mouse- benchmarking!" haha how lame- you don't want to move your mouse around because it'll affect your benchmark negatively.. Well, last time I checked- I use my mouse when I play games.

The point is that with dual core you never have to wait for CPU time to accomplish a given task. With single core, you often do - especially when you are playing games and the CPU is maxed out.

You make it seem like the CPU is more important than the GPU in gaming.

Edit: Ow ya, I had like 5% cpu usage from Itunes+BT+Firefox in the background. I don't know how that will DRASTICALLY affect gaming performance at all. Norton ghost/ZA were on too btw.(Not that norton ghost was doing anything )

5% of the CPU turns a 2.4 into a 2.28.

You are one of the few people that doesn't care if their game stutters or hiccups, or loses frames per second in your favorite game. Most people do care.

If you are a discrimminating buyer get an X2, if not than don't.

With the exception of Hacp, X2 buyers seem to be the discrimminating type who want the best performance.

Whether I am burning a DVD, or playing a game, or rebooting, or ummm ANYTHING- my X2 is faster and smoother. If you don't care about this stuff, then there's no sense bothering with it- just buy a P4 and be done with it.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Chopstick217
I have the same mobo. I purchased it mainly for the AGP/PCIX. Overall a good value board.

I couldn't find an ASRock with PCI-X, link?

He must've meant PCI-Express, this unusual trinket here that has PCI-E x16, AGP 8x, and a Frankenstein Slot that you can drop a CPU-upgrade board into so you can use Socket M2 later. So strange it's almost cool

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
In my own case, I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn while also using my PC for normal office work and network-administration type stuff. It'll be nice to (1) see those encode times reduced about 40% (second core + faster per core), and (2) not have to tiptoe around Adobe's fierce all-out consumption of my only CPU core.

With the increasing amount of media encoding that people do, I could see where even a gamer might justify having an extra 2GHz of CPU cycles on tap. Granted, the price differential is proportional, especially if you can score a 3000+ for $100 in FS/T. Just make an informed decision... you can upgrade to dual-core later if you want, too.

what exactly is "I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn"? is the video coming form a dvd camera? if so, what format does it come in as?

 

[John]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
If you don't care about this stuff, then there's no sense bothering with it- just buy a single core AMD and be done with it.

fixed :evil:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Chopstick217
I have the same mobo. I purchased it mainly for the AGP/PCIX. Overall a good value board.

I couldn't find an ASRock with PCI-X, link?

He must've meant PCI-Express, this unusual trinket here that has PCI-E x16, AGP 8x, and a Frankenstein Slot that you can drop a CPU-upgrade board into so you can use Socket M2 later. So strange it's almost cool

Bah! I want PCI-X.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
X2s do everything faster than a single core at the same clock speed.

If you look at benchmarks in games, single core and dual core are pretty close- BUT that is only in benchmarks- NOT in the real world. Make no mistake, dual core is the way to go for online gaming.

If you play games online- get dual core!

Benchmarks on review sites are done under perfect conditions, on clean installs, with nothing at all running in the background. They certainly aren't online hooked up to a 64 person server sending hundreds of TCP packets every second, and moving the mouse around and mashing buttons- and of course antispyware, antivirus, firewall, VOIP, team speak, IM, IE, high quality sounds, Controller Software for joysticks and such, and blah blah blah... THIS is real world gaming that you never see benchmarks for on review sites. This is the reason that dual core STOMPS single core in REAL-WORLD gaming!

Ever benchmark your computer using Sandra software? when you run a bench, it says "don't move your mouse- benchmarking!" haha how lame- you don't want to move your mouse around because it'll affect your benchmark negatively.. Well, last time I checked- I use my mouse when I play games.

The point is that with dual core you never have to wait for CPU time to accomplish a given task. With single core, you often do - especially when you are playing games and the CPU is maxed out.

you don't have to get dc for online games. my rig in sig keeps a nice average of 60+ fps (according to fraps benchmark) in bf2 @ 1280x960 6AA when playing online with 50-60+peeps on a real server, no synthetic benchmark.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
X2s do everything faster than a single core at the same clock speed.

If you look at benchmarks in games, single core and dual core are pretty close- BUT that is only in benchmarks- NOT in the real world. Make no mistake, dual core is the way to go for online gaming.

If you play games online- get dual core!

Benchmarks on review sites are done under perfect conditions, on clean installs, with nothing at all running in the background. They certainly aren't online hooked up to a 64 person server sending hundreds of TCP packets every second, and moving the mouse around and mashing buttons- and of course antispyware, antivirus, firewall, VOIP, team speak, IM, IE, high quality sounds, Controller Software for joysticks and such, and blah blah blah... THIS is real world gaming that you never see benchmarks for on review sites. This is the reason that dual core STOMPS single core in REAL-WORLD gaming!

Ever benchmark your computer using Sandra software? when you run a bench, it says "don't move your mouse- benchmarking!" haha how lame- you don't want to move your mouse around because it'll affect your benchmark negatively.. Well, last time I checked- I use my mouse when I play games.

The point is that with dual core you never have to wait for CPU time to accomplish a given task. With single core, you often do - especially when you are playing games and the CPU is maxed out.

You make it seem like the CPU is more important than the GPU in gaming.

Edit: Ow ya, I had like 5% cpu usage from Itunes+BT+Firefox in the background. I don't know how that will DRASTICALLY affect gaming performance at all. Norton ghost/ZA were on too btw.(Not that norton ghost was doing anything )

5% of the CPU turns a 2.4 into a 2.28.

You are one of the few people that doesn't care if their game stutters or hiccups, or loses frames per second in your favorite game. Most people do care.

If you are a discrimminating buyer get an X2, if not than don't.

With the exception of Hacp, X2 buyers seem to be the discrimminating type who want the best performance.

Whether I am burning a DVD, or playing a game, or rebooting, or ummm ANYTHING- my X2 is faster and smoother. If you don't care about this stuff, then there's no sense bothering with it- just buy a P4 and be done with it.

Btw Op, I have to say again nice choice on the venice. You'll get at least 2.2 unless yours is a total dud, and to tell you the truth, the single core AMD cpus are awesome . Let us know the oc results, and the general feel of you system! Good luck!

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Chopstick217
I have the same mobo. I purchased it mainly for the AGP/PCIX. Overall a good value board.

I couldn't find an ASRock with PCI-X, link?

He must've meant PCI-Express, this unusual trinket here that has PCI-E x16, AGP 8x, and a Frankenstein Slot that you can drop a CPU-upgrade board into so you can use Socket M2 later. So strange it's almost cool

Bah! I want PCI-X.

Draw an X on teh PCI slot. Then you'll have a speedy pci-X slot .

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: mechBgon
In my own case, I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn while also using my PC for normal office work and network-administration type stuff. It'll be nice to (1) see those encode times reduced about 40% (second core + faster per core), and (2) not have to tiptoe around Adobe's fierce all-out consumption of my only CPU core.

With the increasing amount of media encoding that people do, I could see where even a gamer might justify having an extra 2GHz of CPU cycles on tap. Granted, the price differential is proportional, especially if you can score a 3000+ for $100 in FS/T. Just make an informed decision... you can upgrade to dual-core later if you want, too.

what exactly is "I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn"? is the video coming form a dvd camera? if so, what format does it come in as?

In my case, it's MiniDV tape captured from a Sony HandyCam via Firewire, and the captured video starts off as full-bore .AVI files in Adobe's interface. Adobe then uses them at full quality as the basis for whatever I want done next, which is usually just to filter out motor noise and hiss from the audio, boost the overall volume of whatever is left, and squash the ~93 minutes of a MiniDV tape onto a single-layer DVD+R disc so we can mail them off to our Child Welfare program's funder as per our contractual obligation (the CW people used to convert these to VHS cassette, ewww ewww! ). The Clinical team also has me do this stuff sometimes, or taping visiting seminar speakers who are giving trainings, stuff like that. Kinda keeps the creative spark going

Anyway, with the encode-&-burn phase taking about 3 hours on a Winchester 3000+, it limits how many I can do in a day and gets to be a bit of a nuisance to have the system lagging under the load. Dual-core should be a noticable help.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: mechBgon
In my own case, I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn while also using my PC for normal office work and network-administration type stuff. It'll be nice to (1) see those encode times reduced about 40% (second core + faster per core), and (2) not have to tiptoe around Adobe's fierce all-out consumption of my only CPU core.

With the increasing amount of media encoding that people do, I could see where even a gamer might justify having an extra 2GHz of CPU cycles on tap. Granted, the price differential is proportional, especially if you can score a 3000+ for $100 in FS/T. Just make an informed decision... you can upgrade to dual-core later if you want, too.

what exactly is "I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn"? is the video coming form a dvd camera? if so, what format does it come in as?

In my case, it's MiniDV tape captured from a Sony HandyCam via Firewire, and the captured video starts off as full-bore .AVI files in Adobe's interface. Adobe then uses them at full quality as the basis for whatever I want done next, which is usually just to filter out motor noise and hiss from the audio, boost the overall volume of whatever is left, and squash the ~93 minutes of a MiniDV tape onto a single-layer DVD+R disc so we can mail them off to our Child Welfare program's funder as per our contractual obligation (the CW people used to convert these to VHS cassette, ewww ewww! ). The Clinical team also has me do this stuff sometimes, or taping visiting seminar speakers who are giving trainings, stuff like that. Kinda keeps the creative spark going

Anyway, with the encode-&-burn phase taking about 3 hours on a Winchester 3000+, it limits how many I can do in a day and gets to be a bit of a nuisance to have the system lagging under the load. Dual-core should be a noticable help.

In that situation, I would leave the winny to do the capturing, while doing other work on the laptop, or the 2nd home desktop .

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: mechBgon
In my own case, I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn while also using my PC for normal office work and network-administration type stuff. It'll be nice to (1) see those encode times reduced about 40% (second core + faster per core), and (2) not have to tiptoe around Adobe's fierce all-out consumption of my only CPU core.

With the increasing amount of media encoding that people do, I could see where even a gamer might justify having an extra 2GHz of CPU cycles on tap. Granted, the price differential is proportional, especially if you can score a 3000+ for $100 in FS/T. Just make an informed decision... you can upgrade to dual-core later if you want, too.

what exactly is "I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn"? is the video coming form a dvd camera? if so, what format does it come in as?

In my case, it's MiniDV tape captured from a Sony HandyCam via Firewire, and the captured video starts off as full-bore .AVI files in Adobe's interface. Adobe then uses them at full quality as the basis for whatever I want done next, which is usually just to filter out motor noise and hiss from the audio, boost the overall volume of whatever is left, and squash the ~93 minutes of a MiniDV tape onto a single-layer DVD+R disc so we can mail them off to our Child Welfare program's funder as per our contractual obligation (the CW people used to convert these to VHS cassette, ewww ewww! ). The Clinical team also has me do this stuff sometimes, or taping visiting seminar speakers who are giving trainings, stuff like that. Kinda keeps the creative spark going

Anyway, with the encode-&-burn phase taking about 3 hours on a Winchester 3000+, it limits how many I can do in a day and gets to be a bit of a nuisance to have the system lagging under the load. Dual-core should be a noticable help.

In that situation, I would leave the winny to do the capturing, while doing other work on the laptop, or the 2nd home desktop .

The laptop? If I want a laptop, I'd have to buy that myself too. We're Broke with a capital B. Just laid off 30% of our work force, thanks to funding cuts that originated at the federal level and trickled down to hit us hard. You got a good idea with the divide-&-conquer approach, though, I'm already kicking around the idea of snagging one of the now-idle Pentium3's for mere email/Word/Excel/utility usage.

Adobe Premiere Elements is somewhat multithreaded, so it'll be interesting to see what the real-world effect is, anyway. Bottom line, I want those jobs to be completing faster.

 

[KDOG]

Well its a done deal now. The ASRock mobo and a Venice 3000+ is on the way. How well do you think it will overclock on stock HS/F? I have a case with the "air guide" that I extend right up to the CPU fan so it constantly gets a fresh supply of air.

 

[Hacp]

As always your results may vary, but 2.4GHZ is not out of the question.

 

[Gadzookie]

you can probably justt run it on stock hsf venice's dont get that hot

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: mechBgon
In my own case, I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn while also using my PC for normal office work and network-administration type stuff. It'll be nice to (1) see those encode times reduced about 40% (second core + faster per core), and (2) not have to tiptoe around Adobe's fierce all-out consumption of my only CPU core.

With the increasing amount of media encoding that people do, I could see where even a gamer might justify having an extra 2GHz of CPU cycles on tap. Granted, the price differential is proportional, especially if you can score a 3000+ for $100 in FS/T. Just make an informed decision... you can upgrade to dual-core later if you want, too.

what exactly is "I use Adobe Premiere Elements to do DVD capture-encode-&-burn"? is the video coming form a dvd camera? if so, what format does it come in as?

In my case, it's MiniDV tape captured from a Sony HandyCam via Firewire, and the captured video starts off as full-bore .AVI files in Adobe's interface. Adobe then uses them at full quality as the basis for whatever I want done next, which is usually just to filter out motor noise and hiss from the audio, boost the overall volume of whatever is left, and squash the ~93 minutes of a MiniDV tape onto a single-layer DVD+R disc so we can mail them off to our Child Welfare program's funder as per our contractual obligation (the CW people used to convert these to VHS cassette, ewww ewww! ). The Clinical team also has me do this stuff sometimes, or taping visiting seminar speakers who are giving trainings, stuff like that. Kinda keeps the creative spark going

Anyway, with the encode-&-burn phase taking about 3 hours on a Winchester 3000+, it limits how many I can do in a day and gets to be a bit of a nuisance to have the system lagging under the load. Dual-core should be a noticable help.

i see, i am familiar with premiere as i have used it since v5 i think or maybe even before that, can't remember. makes sense now.