C2D users. do you phisically notice the speed differences from your old system?

[tgx78]

Sorry this sound like newbie question but I am just curious.

Comparing to my single core 3700+ @ 2.7ghz with 7900gt, would i notice big
speed increase going to C2D? I guess things will be little bit more snappier...

I mainly use my computer to browse internet, play game and work on photoshop.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Unless you are hellbent on watching the fps counter and the timer in photoshop I doubt you'll notice anything at all. If you do some complex filters in photoshop you may notice it finishes quicker than you might remember.

In general you won't feel a difference but you will see it on paper (benchmarks).

 

[Dulanic]

I notice a difference, I can surf the web etc with something else running in the background, I didnt have a dual core before. Games are a huge difference, but I also upgraded from a 6800GT to a x1900xt.

 

[broly8877]

A64 3000+ to a 2.5GHz E6300

Big difference. Multitasking is sooo much smoother, encoding is taking like half the time

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Unless you are hellbent on watching the fps counter and the timer in photoshop I doubt you'll notice anything at all. If you do some complex filters in photoshop you may notice it finishes quicker than you might remember.

In general you won't feel a difference but you will see it on paper (benchmarks).

What did you use before you upgraded to a C2D?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: broly8877
A64 3000+ to a 2.5GHz E6300

Big difference. Multitasking is sooo much smoother, encoding is taking like half the time

Firstly going from any single core to a dual core where you can set the affinity is going to be nicer when you run multiple things. And then you say "encoding is taking like half the time" that's a guess, but possibly true at the same time. This is what I was talking about...most general tasks will be exactly the same. Unless you plan to encode video while watching a DVD and typing up a report you aren't going to notice an immediate change in how things work. Again, unless you rely on pure numbers.

 

[zsdersw]

Compared to my old setup (P4 2.4B, 1GB pc1066 RDRAM, 850E chipset) yes, I do notice a difference with this E6300 (at stock speed).. and not just from it being a fresh install of Windows either. I particularly notice it when doing multiple things at once. Doing a big copy from one HDD to another (as in, copying stuff from the hard drive of my old setup to the new hard drive) and, say, installing a program or making various system tweaks.. results in almost no interruption of all tasks.

I suspect this is primarily because it's a dual-core processor.. but I'll tell ya.. Windows sure boots quicker. I barely even see the Windows XP splash screen.

New computers at work that I've made images for don't boot so quickly.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Unless you are hellbent on watching the fps counter and the timer in photoshop I doubt you'll notice anything at all. If you do some complex filters in photoshop you may notice it finishes quicker than you might remember.

In general you won't feel a difference but you will see it on paper (benchmarks).

That is generalising and misleading.

First of all, his 3700+ is a single core CPU, so multitasking and multithreading capable apps will receive a big performance boost.

Secondly, more games are becoming SMP aware, with Oblivion and Q4 being the main examples. Oblivion would definitely see an improvement in CPU limited scenes, as they can bog down to 30fps or below.

Gaming still depends largely on the GPU though so if you run at resolutions with details @ max then a faster CPU won't help much. The exceptions are flight sims and RTS games which definitely benefit from a faster CPU.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Unless you are hellbent on watching the fps counter and the timer in photoshop I doubt you'll notice anything at all. If you do some complex filters in photoshop you may notice it finishes quicker than you might remember.

In general you won't feel a difference but you will see it on paper (benchmarks).

What did you use before you upgraded to a C2D?

X2 3800+ at 2.6Ghz, 2GB DDR500 Memory, DFI Lanparty UT SLI-D, 7800GT

And I don't own a C2d but I just finished a build for a friend who wanted a gaming PC and prety much gave unlimited funds (soft cap of $3k). The games were faster in benchmarks, but when playing them it was the same. I didn't run faster, shoot more accurately or anything. When doing general tasks like email, web, music listening it was the same. When encoding a video (divx) it was faster sure, but unless I really watched the timer I wouldn't have noticed much. Usually when I encode something (mp3, video etc) I am surfing the web anyway so I don't even pay attention to the time.

I just didn't "feel" a difference but you can 'see" it in the benchmarks and if you time certain tasks. Disk access and all that general stuff was the same (depending on drive speed of course).

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Unless you are hellbent on watching the fps counter and the timer in photoshop I doubt you'll notice anything at all. If you do some complex filters in photoshop you may notice it finishes quicker than you might remember.

In general you won't feel a difference but you will see it on paper (benchmarks).

That is generalising and misleading.

First of all, his 3700+ is a single core CPU, so multitasking and multithreading capable apps will receive a big performance boost.

Secondly, more games are becoming SMP aware, with Oblivion and Q4 being the main examples. Oblivion would definitely see an improvement in CPU limited scenes, as they can bog down to 30fps or below.

Gaming still depends largely on the GPU though so if you run at resolutions with details @ max then a faster CPU won't help much. The exceptions are flight sims and RTS games which definitely benefit from a faster CPU.

It's not misleading. Again you're talking about FPS numbers and when I play a game, when most everyone plays a game I don't think they look at the FPS ticker. That being said I can see what you mean in areas limited by your CPU where there could be a slight hickup corrected by a dual core. So yes I believe that is going to be noticable. However, my statement refers to general things. Most games ran flawlessly on my A64 3000+ @2.4Ghz and I didn't have stutters or anything (my 7800gt was sufficient for my LCD's 1280x1024 resolution). Then I went to a x2 3800+ and clocked it at 2.6Ghz. Now I only see a change in the fps of a timedemo. The game felt the same to play.

I don't see how you can actually feel a difference.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Unless you are hellbent on watching the fps counter and the timer in photoshop I doubt you'll notice anything at all. If you do some complex filters in photoshop you may notice it finishes quicker than you might remember.

In general you won't feel a difference but you will see it on paper (benchmarks).

What did you use before you upgraded to a C2D?

X2 3800+ at 2.6Ghz, 2GB DDR500 Memory, DFI Lanparty UT SLI-D, 7800GT

And I don't own a C2d but I just finished a build for a friend who wanted a gaming PC and prety much gave unlimited funds (soft cap of $3k). The games were faster in benchmarks, but when playing them it was the same. I didn't run faster, shoot more accurately or anything. When doing general tasks like email, web, music listening it was the same. When encoding a video (divx) it was faster sure, but unless I really watched the timer I wouldn't have noticed much. Usually when I encode something (mp3, video etc) I am surfing the web anyway so I don't even pay attention to the time.

I just didn't "feel" a difference but you can 'see" it in the benchmarks and if you time certain tasks. Disk access and all that general stuff was the same (depending on drive speed of course).

Ohhh, so you dont own one yet? You just have a friend who has one? For now i will believe all the others in here who do have one. Seems that they are saying the same thing.

 

[harpoon84]

I forgot to mention that online FPS games like BF2 and CS:S also require beefy CPUs to maintain contsant 60fps+.

I have a pretty slow CPU by todays standards, a P4C @ 3.3GHz and a slightly less outdated X850XT, and in BF2 and CS:S minimum framerates can drop down to around 30fps during heavy firefights. I'm not GPU limited either as I've dropped down details and resolutions and performance doesn't improve a whole lot.

For comparison in a BF2 forum I participate in, an overclocked E6400 user says he maintains almost a constant 100fps in BF2, with minimum framerates only dipping into the 90s.

Now his 3700+ @ 2.7GHz is still much faster than my P4C @ 3.3GHz, so the difference won't be as big when upgrading to a C2D, but it goes to show that modern online FPS games can be very CPU intensive.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
I forgot to mention that online FPS games like BF2 and CS:S also require beefy CPUs to maintain contsant 60fps+.

I have a pretty slow CPU by todays standards, a P4C @ 3.3GHz and a slightly less outdated X850XT, and in BF2 and CS:S minimum framerates can drop down to around 30fps during heavy firefights. I'm not GPU limited either as I've dropped down details and resolutions and performance doesn't improve a whole lot.

For comparison in a BF2 forum I participate in, an overclocked E6400 user says he maintains almost a constant 100fps in BF2, with minimum framerates only dipping into the 90s.

Now his 3700+ @ 2.7GHz is still much faster than my P4C @ 3.3GHz, so the difference won't be as big when upgrading to a C2D, but it goes to show that modern online FPS games can be very CPU intensive.

Is that online? There's alot more going on in a game being played online than one being played locally (i.e single player).

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: harpoon84
I forgot to mention that online FPS games like BF2 and CS:S also require beefy CPUs to maintain contsant 60fps+.

I have a pretty slow CPU by todays standards, a P4C @ 3.3GHz and a slightly less outdated X850XT, and in BF2 and CS:S minimum framerates can drop down to around 30fps during heavy firefights. I'm not GPU limited either as I've dropped down details and resolutions and performance doesn't improve a whole lot.

For comparison in a BF2 forum I participate in, an overclocked E6400 user says he maintains almost a constant 100fps in BF2, with minimum framerates only dipping into the 90s.

Now his 3700+ @ 2.7GHz is still much faster than my P4C @ 3.3GHz, so the difference won't be as big when upgrading to a C2D, but it goes to show that modern online FPS games can be very CPU intensive.

Is that online? There's alot more going on in a game being played online than one being played locally (i.e single player).

Yup, online. 64 player servers in BF2, 32 player in CS:S. They are very taxing on the CPU, something that prerecorded timedemos won't show. It's hard to benchmark online games FPS wise because every session is different, but from my experience the faster the CPU the better, obviously.

 

[eelw]

Running both my 3.4c and E6400, don't see much responsiveness difference between the two. But as others, encoding is simple night and day. I can encode h.264 in real time with my Conroe. The same can't be said for my old trusty Northwood. And now that I have both systems running side by side, can encode videos even faster.

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Unless you are hellbent on watching the fps counter and the timer in photoshop I doubt you'll notice anything at all. If you do some complex filters in photoshop you may notice it finishes quicker than you might remember.

In general you won't feel a difference but you will see it on paper (benchmarks).

What did you use before you upgraded to a C2D?

X2 3800+ at 2.6Ghz, 2GB DDR500 Memory, DFI Lanparty UT SLI-D, 7800GT

And I don't own a C2d but I just finished a build for a friend who wanted a gaming PC and prety much gave unlimited funds (soft cap of $3k). The games were faster in benchmarks, but when playing them it was the same. I didn't run faster, shoot more accurately or anything. When doing general tasks like email, web, music listening it was the same. When encoding a video (divx) it was faster sure, but unless I really watched the timer I wouldn't have noticed much. Usually when I encode something (mp3, video etc) I am surfing the web anyway so I don't even pay attention to the time.

I just didn't "feel" a difference but you can 'see" it in the benchmarks and if you time certain tasks. Disk access and all that general stuff was the same (depending on drive speed of course).

Ohhh, so you dont own one yet? You just have a friend who has one? For now i will believe all the others in here who do have one. Seems that they are saying the same thing.

it was asked ...and he gave his opinion...a valid one IMHO...maybe not always the majority but worth considering...

He tried and saw no difference and he was the one who built it..why would he lie....when I moved from single A64 3200@2750 to DC opteron@2700-2800..I saw little difference....not worth it overall IMHO

I am no fanboy and will buy what I want and that which provides best performance and bang for the buck.....