Do dual core processors provide any real benefit?

[Zim]

I've had my Athlon X2 for a few months now and the time has come to be honest with myself. I bought the chip mainly out of curiosity, expecting big things from it. Now that the honeymoon is over I have had a sober look at the benefits I've received from having a dual core processor. I have come to the conclusion that they are very few.

Prior to my X2 I had a mobile Athlon XP Barton overclocked to about an XP 3000+. It did all I needed it to in a timely fashion: surfing, video encoding, Visual Studio development, etc.. Enticed by the lure of the next stage in processor evolution, I bought an X2. (Of course I also needed a new mobo and video card, but was mercifully spared the expense of new memory). Having used the X2 for a while now, I am going to propose that I see no, yes *no*, substantial benefits from it over my older cpu.

I have the Windows task manager in my system tray and have been training an eye on it over the last few months. Almost never does it go above 50%. If I look closely, it?s usually only one core that?s getting hammered, while the other one is on holiday. Even applications that I assume are multi-threaded don?t seem to distribute well over the cores. Also, my feeling is that my system just isn?t as responsive as it should be at times. When one core is getting hammered, the system becomes noticeably less responsive. This isn?t the fault of the cpu, of course, it?s an issue of how software (not least the OS) is using it. Still, we can?t spend our days drooling over benchmarks. Sooner or later we want to use these things for something practical.

I realize that each person?s experiences will be different because each person uses their computer in different ways. However, I propose that multi-core processors are currently ahead of their time, and until we get some software that can get the most from them, single core processors are every bit as useful.

 

[Pabster]

You must be a minority

I've enjoyed HUGE benefits going the X2 route. Does all my daily tasks quick and makes a HELL of a science project cruncher

To each their own, I suppose. It sounds like you went with an X2 when you really didn't need it.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Zim
I've had my Athlon X2 for a few months now and the time has come to be honest with myself. I bought the chip mainly out of curiosity, expecting big things from it. Now that the honeymoon is over I have had a sober look at the benefits I've received from having a dual core processor. I have come to the conclusion that they are very few.

Prior to my X2 I had a mobile Athlon XP Barton overclocked to about an XP 3000+. It did all I needed it to in a timely fashion: surfing, video encoding, Visual Studio development, etc.. Enticed by the lure of the next stage in processor evolution, I bought an X2. (Of course I also needed a new mobo and video card, but was mercifully spared the expense of new memory). Having used the X2 for a while now, I am going to propose that I see no, yes *no*, substantial benefits from it over my older cpu.

I have the Windows task manager in my system tray and have been training an eye on it over the last few months. Almost never does it go above 50%. If I look closely, it?s usually only one core that?s getting hammered, while the other one is on holiday. Even applications that I assume are multi-threaded don?t seem to distribute well over the cores. Also, my feeling is that my system just isn?t as responsive as it should be at times. When one core is getting hammered, the system becomes noticeably less responsive. This isn?t the fault of the cpu, of course, it?s an issue of how software (not least the OS) is using it. Still, we can?t spend our days drooling over benchmarks. Sooner or later we want to use these things for something practical.

I realize that each person?s experiences will be different because each person uses their computer in different ways. However, I propose that multi-core processors are currently ahead of their time, and until we get some software that can get the most from them, single core processors are every bit as useful.

Well running a single threaded app what do you expect. It can only use one core at a time.

As far as comparing it to the 2500+ you have got to be sh!tting me. There is no comparison. The X2's take a FRACTION of the time on encoding, and simply slaughter their predecessors in everything else.

Are you trying to cause problems. Read articles and what not to get your answer. Everything about this subject is on the front page of most review sites. The fact that you ask about it in here makes your motives questionable.

If none of that was truly intended then Pabster was right:

To each their own, I suppose. It sounds like you went with an X2 when you really didn't need it.

-Kevin

 

[Zim]

Originally posted by: GamingphreekAs far as comparing it to the 2500+ you have got to be sh!tting me. There is no comparison. The X2's take a FRACTION of the time on encoding, and simply slaughter their predecessors in everything else.

Are you trying to cause problems. Read articles and what not to get your answer. Everything about this subject is on the front page of most review sites. The fact that you ask about it in here makes your motives questionable.

I have read lots or articles, which is one of the reasons I bought the X2. However, from my own experience and my own usage pattern it didn't make much of a difference. I was just wondering if others felt the same. I guess a good question might be, if you do experience huge benefits, what are you using it for?

BTW video encoding is faster, but the fact that I have to wait 60 minutes instead of 90 minutes isn't a big deal to me. (BTW, DivX 6 is single threaded, as are most codecs). For all other uses, I see little improvement in performance. This is just my experience. I have no problem reporting that I spent a lot of money on a cpu for little return, although I appreciate that others might have difficulty with that admission.

 

[Pabster]

Zim: on the DiVX, Look Here.

There is a new (beta) Helium codec that REALLY makes the X2 shine.

 

[Zim]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Zim: on the DiVX, Look Here.

There is a new (beta) Helium codec that REALLY makes the X2 shine.

Yeah, I know. I'm looking forward to using it. Hopefully other software will start to follow its lead.

BTW this helps to make my point. Given that the standard version of DivX is 32-bit and single-threaded, how much real-world benefit should we expect from running it on a 64-bit dual-core processor? The fact that they are rewriting the software is a clue to the answer. And also, for those of you who might think that using one core for DivX leaves the other core totally free for other stuff, I suggest that this is not completely true. If I max out one core (in Windows XP), my system is much less responsive.

 

[RichUK]

Hey Zim fair play on your views, I am in no total need for dual cores myself, however I upgraded from a crappy 3500+ Winchester, I say crappy because it was probably the worst week proc Winchester you could get due to poor mem controllers. Anyway I had the choice to go with the single core opteron or the dual core opteron, and I just thought to myself, what was the point in just having a speed bump, when I can have an extra core, so that did it for me.

 

[Zim]

Originally posted by: RichUK
Hey Zim fair play on your views, I am in no total need for dual cores myself, however I upgraded from a crappy 3500+ Winchester, I say crappy because it was probably the worst week proc Winchester you could get due to poor mem controllers. Anyway I had the choice to go with the single core opteron or the dual core opteron, and I just thought to myself, what was the point in just having a speed bump, when I can have an extra core, so that did it for me.

For anyone with $300 in their pocket for a processor, I'd recommend the X2 3800+ without reservation. I think the X2's are superb processors. My only point is that the software world isn't quite ready for them.

BTW those Opteron's are sweet too!

 

[stevty2889]

I definatly get a noticable benifit from my X2. I have been doing a lot of video encoding lately, and the programs I am using are able to use the dual cores, cutting my times almost in half.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Nothing ever lags for me. I can be running a whole mass of crap, AV, firewall, AIM, winamp, firefox, etc, and games, and it still doesn't lag. I can alt+tab out of 2k4 and my system is as responsive as if it wasn't running, which didn't happen with my winnie 3000+.

Plus, my manchester OC's like a sunnvabitch! 2.6 on 1.37 vcore, my winchester needed like 1.6vcore do that.

 

[Capt Caveman]

If cutting your encoding time by 1/3 doesn't make you happy then something is wrong. Don't you do anything while your encoding? If no, you shouldn't have gotten a X2. If you run multiple programs at the same time, you should notice that it runs much smoother, no lag with dual-cores.

If you don't use multi-threaded apps, multi-task or run a number of background apps, a single core cpu is for you.

 

[n7]

I bought one for video encoding.

And for that, i absolutely love it.

It gets tasks done twice as fast, & if i want, i can set affinity to just one CPU 0, & set UT2k4 to CPU 1

Gaming while encoding pwns

 

[mechBgon]

If cutting your encoding time by 1/3 doesn't make you happy then something is wrong. Don't you do anything while your encoding? If no, you shouldn't have gotten a X2.

Speaking for myself, even if I'm not doing anything while I'm encoding, I still appreciate it getting done sooner. In my case, it was completing twice as fast as my 3000+.

Anyway, I think a turbocharger would make a good analogy here. At city speeds, it's basically idle, but if you're merging or passing at freeway speeds, you're probably going to appreciate what happens when you drop a gear and punch it.

 

[Duvie]

I enjoy huge amounts cause the 3 main things I do...

1) F@H....run 2 instance non stop...like having 2 2.6ghz boxes in one.....
2) Encoding...TMPGenc speed up double...AutoGK was huge increase over 1 core as well...
3) CAD rendering in ADT2004 and 3DSMax7....see 150-170% increase...

and I didn't even talk about responsiveness do to the dual cores...smooth as butter as long as you have 1 GB of memory...I have seen it not as smooth when I had 512mb temporarily...

 

[Hacp]

I'm in the same boat as you man. I do some encoding, but the benefit for dual cores is put WAY out of line. With general multitasking, you do not notice much of a difference. People may keep on reccomending the X2s, and say that they are the future, but you can't upgrade for the future . Right now, my general sense is that most people will be happy with a single core overclocked to 3800+(non x2) speeds. The 2nd core does help in offloading some applications such as firewall/ spyware(if you suck at maintaining your OS), but it doesn't help ENOUGH for the money you spend on it unless you are running multi-threaded applications.

If you just want to be a gamer, and have the hardware to play games smoothly at beautiful settings, a 7800GTX and 3200+ oced will be fine for you.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Zim
I've had my Athlon X2 for a few months now and the time has come to be honest with myself. I bought the chip mainly out of curiosity, expecting big things from it. Now that the honeymoon is over I have had a sober look at the benefits I've received from having a dual core processor. I have come to the conclusion that they are very few.

Prior to my X2 I had a mobile Athlon XP Barton overclocked to about an XP 3000+. It did all I needed it to in a timely fashion: surfing, video encoding, Visual Studio development, etc.. Enticed by the lure of the next stage in processor evolution, I bought an X2. (Of course I also needed a new mobo and video card, but was mercifully spared the expense of new memory). Having used the X2 for a while now, I am going to propose that I see no, yes *no*, substantial benefits from it over my older cpu.

I have the Windows task manager in my system tray and have been training an eye on it over the last few months. Almost never does it go above 50%. If I look closely, it?s usually only one core that?s getting hammered, while the other one is on holiday. Even applications that I assume are multi-threaded don?t seem to distribute well over the cores. Also, my feeling is that my system just isn?t as responsive as it should be at times. When one core is getting hammered, the system becomes noticeably less responsive. This isn?t the fault of the cpu, of course, it?s an issue of how software (not least the OS) is using it. Still, we can?t spend our days drooling over benchmarks. Sooner or later we want to use these things for something practical.

I realize that each person?s experiences will be different because each person uses their computer in different ways. However, I propose that multi-core processors are currently ahead of their time, and until we get some software that can get the most from them, single core processors are every bit as useful.

Well running a single threaded app what do you expect. It can only use one core at a time.

As far as comparing it to the 2500+ you have got to be sh!tting me. There is no comparison. The X2's take a FRACTION of the time on encoding, and simply slaughter their predecessors in everything else.

Are you trying to cause problems. Read articles and what not to get your answer. Everything about this subject is on the front page of most review sites. The fact that you ask about it in here makes your motives questionable.

If none of that was truly intended then Pabster was right:

To each their own, I suppose. It sounds like you went with an X2 when you really didn't need it.

-Kevin

Do you actually have an X2?
Many people in these forums have been BLINDLY reccomending an X2 just for the sake of it. Because it is an X2. This post was just a warning to those who DON'T use alot of multi-threaded applications that the X2 is not for you. I bet there are many people who perhaps run BT/Firewall/multiple firefox tabs and some other applications in their taskbar and think that they will get huge benefits from using the X2. Well, their benefits will not be as substantial as they may think. Unless you actually run alot of multi-threaded applications, CONSTANTLY, you will see very little benefits with the X2. THe OP had to constantly look at the task manager to see if he was getting any use out of the 2nd core. That says something about it in itself.

If you do use the X2 to its full extent, then yes it is a great CPU to have.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'm in the same boat as you man. I do some encoding, but the benefit for dual cores is put WAY out of line. With general multitasking, you do not notice much of a difference. People may keep on reccomending the X2s, and say that they are the future, but you can't upgrade for the future . Right now, my general sense is that most people will be happy with a single core overclocked to 3800+(non x2) speeds. The 2nd core does help in offloading some applications such as firewall/ spyware(if you suck at maintaining your OS), but it doesn't help ENOUGH for the money you spend on it unless you are running multi-threaded applications.

If you just want to be a gamer, and have the hardware to play games smoothly at beautiful settings, a 7800GTX and 3200+ oced will be fine for you.

The crap multitasking "general" you are talking about is for the dweebs who should just go get Dells anyways...

I am talking about (2) F@Hs running in background 24/7, downloading CSI episodes from 360share, 2-3 firefox pages open and updating automatically, movie encoding or playing or both....

Power multitasking not that wimpy stuff...

I have now had P4 single core...P4 single core w/ HT...A64 single core...seen a P-D 820 w/o HT ...and finally an X2 4400+...I can tell you not a whole heck of a lot of diff in general like you said from top to bottom..still noticeable...start doing what I am doing above and the single core and pretender w/ HT start tailing off noticeably... I mean in system resposiveness (assuming most idiots know how to properly confiugre drives and use of multidrives) and ofcourse getting a lot more work done in the same time....



I am assuming that a person who understands multitasking and the other inherent bottlenecks has made steps to make sure those areas are not the cause for the limited increase....However I imagine most ppl dont have a clue...

By the way Hacp most gamers would be happy with single core...that goes without saying....Multitasking is not always just about responsiveness...It is about getting more stuff done at the same time..With single core I could have F@H running in the background but as soon as my son or I launch a game no work is getting done for that 1 hour or so...NOw I can game and one core will still be getting a full workload done.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'm in the same boat as you man. I do some encoding, but the benefit for dual cores is put WAY out of line. With general multitasking, you do not notice much of a difference. People may keep on reccomending the X2s, and say that they are the future, but you can't upgrade for the future . Right now, my general sense is that most people will be happy with a single core overclocked to 3800+(non x2) speeds. The 2nd core does help in offloading some applications such as firewall/ spyware(if you suck at maintaining your OS), but it doesn't help ENOUGH for the money you spend on it unless you are running multi-threaded applications.

If you just want to be a gamer, and have the hardware to play games smoothly at beautiful settings, a 7800GTX and 3200+ oced will be fine for you.

The crap multitasking "general" you are talking about is for the dweebs who should just go get Dells anyways...

I am talking about (2) F@Hs running in background 24/7, downloading CSI episodes from 360share, 2-3 firefox pages open and updating automatically, movie encoding or playing or both....

Power multitasking not that wimpy stuff...

I have now had P4 single core...P4 single core w/ HT...A64 single core...seen a P-D 820 w/o HT ...and finally an X2 4400+...I can tell you not a whole heck of a lot of diff in general like you said from top to bottom..still noticeable...start doing what I am doing above and the single core and pretender w/ HT start tailing off noticeably... I mean in system resposiveness (assuming most idiots know how to properly confiugre drives and use of multidrives) and ofcourse getting a lot more work done in the same time....



I am assuming that a person who understands multitasking and the other inherent bottlenecks has made steps to make sure those areas are not the cause for the limited increase....However I imagine most ppl dont have a clue...

By the way Hacp most gamers would be happy with single core...that goes without saying....Multitasking is not always just about responsiveness...It is about getting more stuff done at the same time..With single core I could have F@H running in the background but as soon as my son or I launch a game no work is getting done for that 1 hour or so...NOw I can game and one core will still be getting a full workload done.

Ya, unless your doing something intensive, you won't see the extra 200 dollars benefit you much .

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'm in the same boat as you man. I do some encoding, but the benefit for dual cores is put WAY out of line. With general multitasking, you do not notice much of a difference. People may keep on reccomending the X2s, and say that they are the future, but you can't upgrade for the future . Right now, my general sense is that most people will be happy with a single core overclocked to 3800+(non x2) speeds. The 2nd core does help in offloading some applications such as firewall/ spyware(if you suck at maintaining your OS), but it doesn't help ENOUGH for the money you spend on it unless you are running multi-threaded applications.

If you just want to be a gamer, and have the hardware to play games smoothly at beautiful settings, a 7800GTX and 3200+ oced will be fine for you.

The crap multitasking "general" you are talking about is for the dweebs who should just go get Dells anyways...

I am talking about (2) F@Hs running in background 24/7, downloading CSI episodes from 360share, 2-3 firefox pages open and updating automatically, movie encoding or playing or both....

Power multitasking not that wimpy stuff...

I have now had P4 single core...P4 single core w/ HT...A64 single core...seen a P-D 820 w/o HT ...and finally an X2 4400+...I can tell you not a whole heck of a lot of diff in general like you said from top to bottom..still noticeable...start doing what I am doing above and the single core and pretender w/ HT start tailing off noticeably... I mean in system resposiveness (assuming most idiots know how to properly confiugre drives and use of multidrives) and ofcourse getting a lot more work done in the same time....



I am assuming that a person who understands multitasking and the other inherent bottlenecks has made steps to make sure those areas are not the cause for the limited increase....However I imagine most ppl dont have a clue...

By the way Hacp most gamers would be happy with single core...that goes without saying....Multitasking is not always just about responsiveness...It is about getting more stuff done at the same time..With single core I could have F@H running in the background but as soon as my son or I launch a game no work is getting done for that 1 hour or so...NOw I can game and one core will still be getting a full workload done.

Ya, unless your doing something intensive, you won't see the extra 200 dollars benefit you much .

Yep so dont be a moron and buy an X2 if you just want to game and do some "generally wimpy" multitasking...Personally i think anybody who just uses their PC for just gaming is an idiot anyways....I would just buy a PS2 for like 1/3rd the cost and not have do deal with drivers, OSes, etc.....BUT this is decision made by a buch of 16-21 year olds in here living with mommy and daddy....

Just how I see it....If I wasn't doing intensive things with a PC I wouldn't waste my time messing with them....

 

[TonyRic]

Well, I for one can say this: I have a Pentium D 830 and run VMware GSX on it for email, DNS, DHCP and webservers and still have PLENTY of horsepower to rip DVD's when I am going on the road and such and NEVER stress the system.

 

[Zim]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I am talking about (2) F@Hs running in background 24/7...

I wonder how many people bought their X2 in order to run two instances of F&H? Surely it's just a by-product of having an X2 that you can do that, and not a reason in itself to own a dual core processor.

And BTW, running an X2 at full throttle soaks up about 100W of power. You'll be paying about $10/mo on your (or someone's) electricty bill for that.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Zim

Originally posted by: Duvie
I am talking about (2) F@Hs running in background 24/7...

I wonder how many people bought their X2 in order to run two instances of F&H? Surely it's just a by-product of having an X2 that you can do that, and not a reason in itself to own a dual core processor.

And BTW, running an X2 at full throttle soaks up about 100W of power. You'll be paying about $10/mo on your (or someone's) electricty bill for that.

Nope it was a factor....I had one A64 box at 2.6ghz running 1 instance...This is getting another box at the cost of just of the X2...not having to buy another mobo, ram, power supply...You really didn't think it all out thoroughly did you!!! The system power of 2 systems even running single cores would be more then 1 dual core box....LOL!!! Dont try to anal-ize....

Other factors was a faster rendering box for my CAD, faster encoder, nad ofcurse do twice as much at the same time....

ONly the idiots cannot see that...or the gamer only crowd I mean

 

[Leper Messiah]

I must say that one of the reasons for buying an X2 was folding at home but it wasn't the only reason. Yeah, I don't do a huge ammount of multitasking, but its nice to be running a game, and someone IM's you, and it doesn't instantly bring everything to a crawl when you alt+tab out.

Plus, I like being an early adopter of technology.

 

[Markbnj]

I play games, watch movies, work on my website and write apps in Visual Studio, run Winamp, edit manuscripts, surf, answer email, and if I wanted to, and I had enough hands, I could do all that at the same time and not suffer even a little lag.

If I couldn't afford a dual core then I would be happy with a fast single core, no question. But as long as the dually is an option I will never buy another single core processor. In five years I expect single core processors to be a has-been technology.

 

[whitewarrior11]

Well, I personnally own a P4 3 GHz with HT and so far, it hasn't been lagging much when doing "non-power" multitasking (I can play UT2k4 or almost any other game while video encoding and I am not suffering a noticeable lag). As far as I'm concerned, if I had the money, I would surely buy a dual-core CPU. My problem is that I would have to upgrade my video card and my motherboard at the same time, making it costly.

As for the single-core being obsolete in 5 years, it will only happen if a quite cheap dual-core CPU is available. Don't overlook all the "normal" and office people who don't need dual-core or state-of-the-art graphics or computer. Most of these people don't look to much at their computer's parts and just straight buy it from Future$hop or big stores like this.