Are the X2 processors worth the $$$$?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
[its obvious you will defend your purchase! ]

I don't mean it that way, exactly. I could have bought whatever processor I wanted. It's one of the few consolations of age and having stayed out of most really bad trouble. I looked at the FX-55-57 with price tags above $800. I looked at the X2 4800+ too. I read up on this board and a few others. I used to write Windows applications full time, and already knew a multprocessor architecture would suit the Windows application environment very well. I didn't know at the time that nVidia was already working on dual-core optimized drivers. I also didn't know how much real-world benefit the dual core would get me in day to day use.

I come at this from two perspectives: 1) I am enthusiastic about the X2, because it is in the middle of the AMD price range, and performs incredibly well in Windows; and 2) there are a lot of really clueless comments made about multitasking and thread scheduling in Windows, and the kinds of apps that benefit from multiprocessor architectures. I really don't care who shares (1), but I admit to being bugged by (2). It's irrational, I know.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,107
16,017
136
Originally posted by: Makaveli
whatever u say, as I mentioned in my post i've used X2 rigs I have a few friends that have them, so you believe what u want! its obvious you will defend your purchase!

Well, Once you have experienced the power for quite some time like us, you may feel different. As many have said, you don't know what you are missing until you use one.

X2 rules. If you can afford it, go for it.
 

tooltime

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2003
1,029
0
0
seriously, i check the prices each day hoping to see a little more of a drop...i am going to get one, i know it and my wallet knows it.

i think or heard at the end of the month there is supposed to be a price drop by amd...can't wait, keep watching
 

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,966
1,561
136
The question is not that I can't afford it. I could easily go pickone up 2morrow if I wanted. But I won't for the same Reason I won't upgrade my X800XTPE even tho the GTX is faster. With my current usage everything is fine.

When I do upgrade I tend to do them when my needs warrant them.

When the time is right, possibly sometime next year, summer 06 then I might look at a upgrade here or there.

I have 1GB system ram now. I would upgrade to 2GB's before replacing my venice with a dual core chip.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Markbnj
[Does Windows boot faster? Never noticed that, though a few of the rigs I'm talking about have had fast SCSI drives, that sure helps.
Apps load faster? Sure with those fast SCSI drives they will, not because of two CPU's.
Etc etc.]

Yes, and yes, actually. I don't have any SCSI drives, and both the OS and applications load faster, as you would expect with two processors chewing through threads.

[Oh and one common misunderstanding seems to be that just because an application has several threads open, it will benefit from SMP]

Explain this please. If more than one thread has work to do at the same time, then the app will benefit from multiple processors. If an app is simply using a thread to idle and poll a resource or something, then you're right, it won't benefit. However, only an idiot would create a multi-threaded app just for that purpose in Windows. You have too many other, simple options for occasional wake-up tasks.

No offense, but please learn how to use the quote function in this forums...this way makes the posts rather nasty to read :)

Anyway, I'd say if you're CPU bound during your Windows boot process, something is wrong with your rig as it's for the most part a disk I/O bound process, same with starting most apps.
As for threading, my wording could have been clearer, what I mean is that a program won't just be able to see a measurable performance increase unless you take the time to optimize it.
If a program has 10 threads running, but 9 of those are in a sleep state because they're waiting for one of the threads to get done with something, you won't see any gain from additional CPU's, and this is the case with most programs today, which is why I don't think SMP is worth it for most people, since most people don't encode video while playing games for example.
 

aatf510

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2004
1,811
0
0
Originally posted by: Markbnj
He asked us if the X2 was worth the money. Everyone who has one says yes. All those who say no don't have one. Enough said.

I said no and I have one.
X2 is only good
if you use muti-thread software (NOT GAMES)
and/or
if you always have apps that utilize 100% of your CPU, and you have to do something else on the computer.
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Originally posted by: toattett
Originally posted by: Markbnj
He asked us if the X2 was worth the money. Everyone who has one says yes. All those who say no don't have one. Enough said.

I said no and I have one.
X2 is only good
if you use muti-thread software (NOT GAMES)
and/or
if you always have apps that utilize 100% of your CPU, and you have to do something else on the computer.

games are going to start being SMP aware though, so pretty soon it will be a MAJOR advantage to have a dual core, even for games.
 

aatf510

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2004
1,811
0
0
Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
Originally posted by: toattett
Originally posted by: Markbnj
He asked us if the X2 was worth the money. Everyone who has one says yes. All those who say no don't have one. Enough said.

I said no and I have one.
X2 is only good
if you use muti-thread software (NOT GAMES)
and/or
if you always have apps that utilize 100% of your CPU, and you have to do something else on the computer.

games are going to start being SMP aware though, so pretty soon it will be a MAJOR advantage to have a dual core, even for games.

I don't it will be too late to get an X2 (by then they would be as cheap as the 3000+) when game finally take full advantages of dual core.

Option #1
Buy a X2 3800+ now for $350
Enjoy the gaming performane of a A64 3200+ on current and next years games.
Wait and be patient.
SMP widespreaded.
Finally enjoy true gaming performance of X2 3800+ several years later.

Option #2
Buy a 3700+ now for $250
Enjoy the gaming performane of a A64 3700+ on current and next years games.
Wait and be patient.
SMP widespreaded.
Purchase (maybe better than 3800+) s939 x2 processor for $150 from the $100 saved from the beginning + $50 sell off 3700+.
Finally enjoy SMP gaming performance of X2 (more than 3800+? )several years later.

Bottom line:
If you can make use of a dual-core CPU now, then sure, get it.
If you cannot make use of it right now, single core is a much better deal for higher performance. It won't be too late to get dual-core when applications are ready for it; it's not like applications will suddenly not run on single core anymore.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
19,759
6,844
136
Originally posted by: toattett

Option #1
Buy a X2 3800+ now for $350
Enjoy the gaming performane of a A64 3200+ on current and next years games.
Wait and be patient.
SMP widespreaded.
Finally enjoy true gaming performance of X2 3800+ several years later.

Option #2
Buy a 3700+ now for $250
Enjoy the gaming performane of a A64 3700+ on current and next years games.
Wait and be patient.
SMP widespreaded.
Purchase (maybe better than 3800+) s939 x2 processor for $150 from the $100 saved from the beginning + $50 sell off 3700+.
Finally enjoy SMP gaming performance of X2 (more than 3800+? )several years later.

don't forget overclocking, for those who are into that. That makes the X2 an even more viable solution than a singlecore at same priec, unless you're on a budget and go for a 3000+ Venice.
 

aatf510

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2004
1,811
0
0
Originally posted by: biostud
don't forget overclocking, for those who are into that. That makes the X2 an even more viable solution than a singlecore at same priec, unless you're on a budget and go for a 3000+ Venice.

Yup, with a signifciant overclock,
it would be more like the
x2 2.4GHz-2.6GHz/512k
-vs.-
A64 2.6GHz-2.8GHz/1024k
 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
Just because you play games that aren't multi-threaded doesn't mean your games won't benefit from a dual core CPU. With a dual core CPU you'll have a core for the programs you have running in the background such as virus scanning software, instant messaging clients, e-mail clients, web browsers, file sharing software, firewall software, etc. and your game won't have to share a core with all those things that occasionally use some CPU cycles. Not to mention nVidia has a beta driver that's multi-threaded and improves performance up to 30% (IIRC) in some situations.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
[No offense, but please learn how to use the quote function in this forums]

No offense, but I think repeatedly including all the previous posted content in every reply is stupid.

[If a program has 10 threads running, but 9 of those are in a sleep state because they're waiting for one of the threads to get done with something, you won't see any gain from additional CPU's, and this is the case with most programs today]

This is not the case for most multithreaded programs today. I would like to see any technical information that backs up this claim.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
[if you use muti-thread software (NOT GAMES)]

This is just incorrect, though it is apparent that regardless of how many times that point is made, it will be ignored.

So here is a challenge: find me a DirectX-based game that creates only one thread, or that uses 0% of core 2 on a dual core machine. Ought to be simple enough, since all games are single-threaded according to the legions of single core chip owners ;).
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Markbnj
No offense, but I think repeatedly including all the previous posted content in every reply is stupid.
I agree, though that has nothing to do with what I said.

[If a program has 10 threads running, but 9 of those are in a sleep state because they're waiting for one of the threads to get done with something, you won't see any gain from additional CPU's, and this is the case with most programs today

This is not the case for most multithreaded programs today. I would like to see any technical information that backs up this claim.

Not that I feel like looking around for programs that specify if they're SMP optimized or not, but for kicks, start up Firefox(or whatever browser), load a heavy page, watch CPU util.
100% on one CPU, 0% on the other(unless it's busy doing something else).

And yeah, while it's been a while since I played games on an SMP rig, they showed the same behaviure.
Chances are, I've used SMP rigs far more than most X2/P-D owners, so the argument that "Everyone who oens a single core think it sucks" doesn't hold quite true.
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Originally posted by: toattett

I don't it will be too late to get an X2 (by then they would be as cheap as the 3000+) when game finally take full advantages of dual core.

Option #1
Buy a X2 3800+ now for $350
Enjoy the gaming performane of a A64 3200+ on current and next years games.
Wait and be patient.
SMP widespreaded.
Finally enjoy true gaming performance of X2 3800+ several years later.

Option #2
Buy a 3700+ now for $250
Enjoy the gaming performane of a A64 3700+ on current and next years games.
Wait and be patient.
SMP widespreaded.
Purchase (maybe better than 3800+) s939 x2 processor for $150 from the $100 saved from the beginning + $50 sell off 3700+.
Finally enjoy SMP gaming performance of X2 (more than 3800+? )several years later.

Bottom line:
If you can make use of a dual-core CPU now, then sure, get it.
If you cannot make use of it right now, single core is a much better deal for higher performance. It won't be too late to get dual-core when applications are ready for it; it's not like applications will suddenly not run on single core anymore.

the X2 will never be that cheap, and also the X2 will still be faster in games than its equivalent A64 (in terms of mhz). how can it not be? windows services will run on one core and the game will run on the other...its pretty simple. your 'philosophy' sounds reasonable, but only if you are an unreasonable person, so if the shoe fits...

it wont be several years from now when dual core is being heavily optimized by software. nvidia is starting to do it now like someone else said. everyone putting it down has either never used one or needs to remove their head from their anus. i can sacrifice 5 fps by having a 2.0ghz dual core instead of a 2.4ghz single core, since the graphics card will make the most difference for that anyway.
 

Shenkoa

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2004
1,707
0
0
About the economical HDD.

Maxtor Makes some down right fast SATA HDD's, I have owned a few and they wipe the floors with the other WD drives I have owned.

Seagate is on the slower side, but they are very reliable.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
[Not that I feel like looking around for programs that specify if they're SMP optimized or not, but for kicks, start up Firefox(or whatever browser), load a heavy page, watch CPU util.
100% on one CPU, 0% on the other(unless it's busy doing something else).

And yeah, while it's been a while since I played games on an SMP rig, they showed the same behaviure.]

I guarantee that is not IE's behavior on XP, but I haven't tested it. Would be more than surprised if it used only one core. As for games, I have personally tested BF2 and Call of Duty, and found that both make significant use of multiple cores. When you install the 80.xx series nVidia drivers "significant" becomes "very significant." Test results are posted on this board. Here is one thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1702435&enterthread=y

There are a lot of assumptions and statements in these debates about the behavior of threaded programs in Windows that are just flat-out wrong.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Wouldn't know about IE since I don't use it, and like I said, it's been a while since I played games on an SMP rig, so I wouldn't know about recent games such as BF2 either, talking mostly about games in the P-iii era and earlier.
Quake III was a damn good exception, it gained quite a bit by enabling r_smp, especially on slower rigs(I remember testing that on a dual P2-350, huge gain there), but that was specifically optimized for SMP, and I do remember Carmack stating that it wasn't easy in his .plan file.
Come to think of it, I seem to remember Carmack stating quite recently that optimizing threading for big gains on SMP rigs would prolong development cycles quite a bit.

And I have no problem imagining nVidia's drivers will help, let me know when they're out of beta, if they show worthwhile gains I might just pick up an X2, they're not terribly expensive at all, certainly not compared to buying an SMP rig a few years ago.
But for now, they're beta.

Oh and your benchmarks would be nicer with actual in game benchmarks.
 

vgrigor4

Member
Oct 16, 2005
28
0
0
T think it may be interesting for other people... (and to judje.)

I record strory and deliver to people over the world
for objective consideration.

Crafty people must be condemned strongly [with no sorry!]
- fair - despite importance.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
[And I have no problem imagining nVidia's drivers will help, let me know when they're out of beta, if they show worthwhile gains I might just pick up an X2, they're not terribly expensive at all, certainly not compared to buying an SMP rig a few years ago.
But for now, they're beta.

Oh and your benchmarks would be nicer with actual in game benchmarks.]

The drivers were released yesterday. Worth checking out at least. The benchmarks were less than perfect, I admit. Others have done subsequent tests. The ones I ran, some of them, were in-game if you mean "was I logged in and playing."

I checked IE last night. It uses both cores. Of the 39 processes running on my system at the mo, all but two make some use of both cores.
 

NeonFlak

Senior member
Sep 27, 2000
550
7
81
I love my x2 3800 so much I got a second setup identical to my first one. It's not really how much faster it is, but how much more I can do at once now before my system comes to a limp. My "old" computers were A64 3200+ at 2.4 and 2.5ghz, I could barely backup a dvd and play a game at the sametime... Now with my dual core setups, even at 2.4ghz (both do 2.6ghz on the stock cooler at 1.45v 24/7) everything "feels" faster. Not to mention I can now have two games open and backup two dvds at once and still be able to do other crap like browse the internet. That was impossible before. I am a major multitasker, when I'm playing an MMORPG I'm doing other crap during times that I'm waiting for this or that. So the x2 has been an eye opener to me. The only way I can put it is that I can do more, faster.
 

prodesma

Junior Member
Oct 2, 2005
13
0
0
Just a few opinions...
Many still aren't sold on duals yet. IMHO, that's okay.
Those posting it's worth it, are right.
If the $100-ish dollar increase is steep, here are a few considerations.

AMD is good about maintaining their platform, so mobo's can accept newer cpu's (X2 runs on Socket 939 for instance).
That means longevity with whatever you buy NOW, and/or could upgrade later (newer socket). HOWEVER, this major re-design (M2 Socket planned release first half of 2006) will REQUIRE DDR2 memory, from all accounts and reports so far.

Games are always fastest with technology to market, so games will most certainly take advantage of duals by next year.

Background application performance is mesmerizing compared to single cores.

Microsoft also is planning release of new OS: Vista, pro'lly by holidays 2006, with 64-bit multi-threaded support.
MS Office relase 12 is due out mid-2006 also.

If it's not in your budget to take advantage of X2's (the X2 3800+ is a pretty good value even right now, even still being a new product)...
You can wait until next year. If you are (like me), a person that only like to buy things once and get great value (performance to cost), go dual. I had to buy NOW b/c my only computer was recently stolen (had Mac Powrbook laptop). I expect to only buy a new computer once every 4-5 years or so, as my requirements increase.

If you're planning to build a new rig from scratch, and are NOT just upgrading a cpu, maybe waiting until at least spring 2006 makes sense- here's why:
Get the M2 boards, and don't pay needlessly for upgrades (like if you buy XP Pro o/s now and upgrade in 1 year to Vista). MS Office is also slated to have release of Office 12 by mid-2006. Bottom line: WANNA SAVE MONEY? Saving the $100-ish on the cpu now doesn't make sense on its own. The performance gains justify the cost. But if you're going for the BEST cost savings, adding in the hundreds MORE $ you'll save in upgrades for software NEXT YEAR, waiting a bit before buying makes the most sense.

For these reasons, X2 was my choice and I'm amazed. Also, a ridiculously easy overclock to 2.6 GHz from 2.0 GHz on the 3800+. Cheers.