Dual-Core procs

[friedrice]

Howdy all,
I've been looking at articles related to the Pentium Dual-core processors. As I'm sure everyone is aware by now, it seems that it is basically two processors glued together, while the Extreme Edition has Hyper-Threading on it.

Now, I think dual procs are a great way to go, and it will really open the doors for future possibilities. I mean, just look at SLI. While over priced and somewhat limited, it does indicate what putting two CPU's (or GPU's) together can do.

Now, the point of this is right now there are games that somewhat support dual processors. The most famous of them all is non other then Quake III. I assume newer games may support dual procs but Q3 is the only one I know of for sure. Awhlie ago Maximum PC did an article on dual procs, and the findings were that Q3 did perform faster with the two processors vs. one... But not by much. I think this was on a Win2k O/S by the way.

Enter today. Windows XP still doesn't fully support dual procs, and the apps that support it are also limited. Also to all Anandtech readers, you've prolly read the article about the top 10 things Longhorn needs. http://www.wincustomize.com/articles.aspx?AID=70936&u=0

In it you'll find him talking about SMP and how it doesn't really help much and that Longhorn needs to support it better.

Case in point, there's been so much coverage about dual processors and such, that no one has seemed to stop and say "where's the software?" Games, Macromedia Flash, and Adobe Photoshop are prolly the 3 most intensive apps I use. I know photoshop supports the dual procs, but what about future games and flash? If dual core processors are basically two procs glued together, then what in the world is so exciting about it when you consider dual processors have been out and in use forever.

My final thoughts are, the world of CPU's are moving very fast. We've had the upgrade to 64 bit, and just not getting a 64-bit Windows. But there is still very limited app support. Now we are jumping into dual cores. While a program does not need to be specially written to work on a dual core system, it will not be optimized. On the other side, hearing about how a faster Athlon XP proc was getting really boring a couple years ago. Nice to have a lot of innovation coming so fast

 

[jiffylube1024]

To answer your question "where's the software" - regarding games, it's not here yet.

Unfortunately, there has been a relative impasse in clockspeed over the past year and a half in the CPU market regarding clockspeed. It's becoming harder and harder to ramp up those clockspeeds, so the move to dual core is necessary and inevitable to improve performance.

Like most things, there's good with the bad. I haven't had to upgrade (or felt the need to upgrade) my P4 2.8C @ 3.3 GHz in almost two years now.

If you're a heavy PC gamer, it's annoying since we've had ~3 Ghz CPU's for some time now and something faster would help keep those video cards fed with even more data.


What makes dualcore so exciting is that it's feasible, affordable (soon) dual CPU for the masses. There is no mainstream dual CPU solution, and dual CPU has traditionally required two sockets, two heatsinks, two sets of RAM chips connected to each CPU, etc. Dualcore, by putting it all into one socket, simpliefies the layout greatly and because of this, will make dual CPU solutions much more affordable for the layman user.

SLI is a completely different beast compared to dualcore. SLI works because pixel processing in games is a predictable process involving rendering and outputting all of the pixels on screen one frame at a time. Adding more pipelines, shader units, etc will always improve performance since there's thousands or millions (depending on resolution) of pixels on screen at once. Adding more CPU's requires a conscientious effort by the developers to tailor their game/3d app for multiple CPU's (ie coding it to run parallel threads).

 

[LTC8K6]

Why worry about software that will use both processors?

I will be delighted to play a game while burning a disc, for example.

You will see the benefits of dual core even without specific software other than an OS that supports 2 physical processors.

 

[TStep]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Why worry about software that will use both processors?

I will be delighted to play a game while burning a disc, for example.

You will see the benefits of dual core even without specific software other than an OS that supports 2 physical processors.

I agree. While I like affordable speed as much as the next guy, smooth multitask is the benefit I'm most looking forward to.

 

[dguy6789]

"Enter today. Windows XP still doesn't fully support dual procs, and the apps that support it are also limited"

What do you mean Windows XP doesnt fully support dual processors? It supports them 100% to the full extent of the law with no limitations. The apps are not here yet, as the dual cores have just got here. Wait a little while. There wasn't a whole slew of DX9 games at the Radeon 9700 Pro's launch no was there? No to educate you on dual core, as you, like many others, are expecting the wrong things from dual core.

The dual core processors perform NO DIFFERENTLY than they were expected to. Because most people have zero education in the field of multi processing, they dont know what to expect, and they dont get what they expected.

Dual core WILL NOT improve a single threaded application AT ALL. Dont expect it to. A 3.2Ghz dual core will be no faster than a 3.2Ghz single core in a single threaded application such as a current game.

Dual core is designed to allow you to do more things at the same time without losing speed. It is not designed to improve the performance of a single threaded app. If you want to see an improvement in a single application from a dual core processor, wait till they release a multithreaded version of the application you are wanting an improvement in.

Most reviews dont know or dont tell you how dual core benefits the user. Most reviews I have read set it up, run benchmarks in games, then tell you it is no faster and not worth the money. The best article on dual core on the web that I know of at the moment is Anandtech's. They go in depth to explain how it works, as well as tell you their experiences with multitasking.

Here is how dual core (multi processing in general actually) will work in general. Have 2 systems with exact same specs except one is a dual core. If you play a game, they will be exactly the same. If you open ms word, they will be the same. If you scan for a virus, they will all be the same. If you burn a cd or dvd, they will still be the same. If you host a game server, they will perform the same. HOWEVER, if you do all of this at once on each system, one will perform twice as fast as the other. Guess which one?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Good post dguy6789.

As to the concern over the lack of software, don't expect that to last too much longer in relative terms, I think it is a losing bet. Intel has stated they expect to make dual-core 75% of their desktop market and AMD will have their's out too. Given their combined market share and industry influence, it is a safe bet supporting software will be plentiful. The only reason for the traditional lack of consumer level SMP supporting software has been that very few have had the hardware, that will change soon so there is a financial impetus now.

 

[lightiv]

I am wondering how do these Dual Core processors compare to Dual CPUs eg. Dual Xeons or Dual P4s?

Will cost be the difference? From reading the AnandTech review of Dual Core it would appear that a Dual Core CPU would be cheaper than buying Dual CPU system.

It appears that the advantage of Dual Core over a Single CPU is multi-threading/tasking. To me that like announcing with great fanfare that cars are faster than horses.

What do you think?

 

[friedrice]

I guess I misread some things. Special thanks to dguy6789 for the clear up. What I thought was that while Windows XP does support multiple cpu's, it won't use them to their fullest extent. Like it doesn't shift the load from one processor to the other. On another note, how much is dual-cores really needed. Programs I use at the same time are Macromedia Flash, Adobe Photoshop, and usually have a firefox browser open. But I'm only actually using one program at a time. So while photoshop will be at 0% CPU usage, it'll still be using RAM. Meanwhile I'm working in Flash. And, I do presentation work in Flash, usually it is taking up close to 600MB of RAM.

So, the way I see it, right now you actually have to use two programs at the same time. Someone said something about playing games while burning a cd. How do you add files to your cd to burn in nero while playing Doom3? I suppose if you have it burning and then alt-tab to the game you can do that. But then again, can't you already do this if your hard drive is on SATA?

I thought programs like 3D Studio Max were optimized for dual CPU's. In that when you render a movie it will use two processors instead of just one. Isn't this optimization built into the software code?

I'm not saying Dual CPU's are worthless. Obviously if you are doing graphics and server stuff, it's a need. But what I need is better memory managment, faster FSB, and heck, maybe even a quad memory controller?

So, what's the low down on dual cpu's. Do you need to be running programs and USING them at the same time to see the advantages? Will programs learn to split the load between the two CPU's? Will they actually be affordable? (ok ok, that one was waaaay out there, especially considering Intel is making them)

 

[Duvie]

3d stdio max is multithreaded...It gets a nice 19-22% boost now with P4 processors using HT versus HT off....It is very nice scaling in dual cpu systems as well...like 80% versus a single cor...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

quoting 2cpu.com, "becaues 2 is better than 1". I'm pretty sure I'm going to love dual cores if only for the greater multi tasking. Those who may not notice it or realise it would be because they've probably never played around on a dual processor system.

Even P4 with HT is pretty restrictive compared to 2 physical cores, its definately going to be sweet.

The real ugly truth is actually "if you can't afford it, you're SOL"

 

[friedrice]

I think the ugly truth that could exist is that two cores will not be as good as made out to be. I have no problem running multiple programs at one time on my Athlon64. The only thing that hinders it is how much RAM i have.

 

[cornholio2]

Technology is very fast.....ordinary people like me can't catch -up with it. They're expensive, since it will need a new mobo. I haven't upgraded my computer for three years and the hardware updates now are overwhelming. To some, this seems to be a big problem since they don't like to be left behind. I'm going to upgrade my computer system soon. I like the SLI mobos but they're too much for me, same is true with the FX series and the Extreme Edition of CPUs.
Remember, these companies are running a business and they don't care about your pocket. They keep on upgrading things with a small improvement from the previous hardware they made.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: friedrice
I think the ugly truth that could exist is that two cores will not be as good as made out to be.

What, are uneducated people claiming it'll be 2x as fast in everything out there? The thought of reaching 3GHz with Venice vs. my current 2.5GHz Winchester doesn't offer as much promise as to what I might be able to do with a 1.8GHz dual core, especially if it can overclock to a generous 2-2.2GHz... (2.4+ would be nice obviously ) Games show they don't need much more than a 1.8GHz A64, that'd leave what I can get done with the system, and that's should be quite a bit with multi-threaded apps and multi-tasking. Then again I get the feeling most users on this forum use their rigs to surf and play first and foremost, and thus should have no reason to be envious of those who go dual core until games are written to take advantage of it - which shouldn't be anytime too soon.

I have no problem running multiple programs at one time on my Athlon64. The only thing that hinders it is how much RAM i have.

Then you don't run multiple CPU intensive programs. Anything that maxes out your CPU now will bennefit greatly from dual cores as it can go full steam as you were used to and you'll still be able to function with the other core. Then there's the matter if a program crashes and is still eating up processor power, you'll be able to close it down and get out of the mess a lot quicker and easier because of the other core.

 

[harrkev]

Can somebody explain to me why it would be to hard for a game to take advantage of two processors? It seems to me that you could have one processor handle graphics processing and sound, while the other handled physics and enemy AI. It may not be 100% balanced between the two processors, but should still work well as a first attempt.

 

[liebremx]

Yes, the multithreaded software is not here for the masses yet but there's a bunch of us that do need to multitask and/or use applications that are readily parallel.
A simple example:
Software development in a system with 2+ processors works like a charm since compilation is a highly parallel task:
Do a 'make -jN' and still have a responsive system to continue editing the source code, looking at a spec document in PDF format, open an e-mail (that needs to go through the filters) and debugging at the same time.

These kind of customers are part of the market for workstations that come with a hefty price tag and because of that the SMP/MP market is a niche one.

Now take a dual-core processor and now you have an SMP system at an affordable price for the masses.
As a customer used to the performance of SMP/MP @ my job, now I can have some of that at home because the price barrier is mostly gone (no, no big pockets here).

For me this is what is exciting about this first generation of dual-core processors. After some critic mass of N-cored systems out there you'll start seeing more multithreaded applications (including games) that will take advantage of the N-cores. In the case of games you'll get a more rich gaming experience as harrkev mentioned: AI, lots of physics, more things to interact with, etc.
I think that, as usual, the gaming industry will push the limits of the available processing power in N-cores.

But.. at the same time you'll see a more buggy software because alas, programming multithreaded applications, even with the right tools, can be (and will be) a pain.

But things will mature. I for one, I'm excited

Harrkev:
A few wild guesses (I'm not a game developer):
One hard thing to do is to synchronize everything so the results are combined at the right time.
And another reason maybe that the current game architectures are so optimized that everything is entangled and hard to separate.

 

[deveraux]

Originally posted by: harrkev
Can somebody explain to me why it would be to hard for a game to take advantage of two processors? It seems to me that you could have one processor handle graphics processing and sound, while the other handled physics and enemy AI. It may not be 100% balanced between the two processors, but should still work well as a first attempt.

I love the way you say it. You make it sound so easy. Unfortunately, it's not. I've done multi-threaded programming before and I can say that even for a simple programming, balancing the load and really taking advantage of a multi-core system is not easy.

Let's take a simple example of one core handling physics while the other handles graphics and AI. You will now be faced with the problem of one thread waiting for the other to finish if you do not load balance them perfectly and with different calculations/scenes, you will most likely get it wrong.

If they end up waiting for each other, you've successfully canceled the gains from using multi-threading. Another worry is IPC (inter-process communication). Since you now have multiple threads running the same program, they need to talk to each other to tell each other intermediate results and/or tell each other what to do next. If you are not careful, you will end up with the IPC taking up more CPU time than the calculations themselves which also negates the gains from multi-threading.

By the way, this analogy only works for games since for other software like Photoshop, you're end result is clearly defined whilst for games, it is ever changing responding to the user.

Of course there are ways around these problems but not every programmer is schooled in the arts of multi-threaded programming as much as the arts of single threaded programming AFAIK.

It is really much easier said than done to try to just split the calculations into physics, graphics and AI and divide them amongst the cores hence why software will take some time to follow suit. I think one of the developers/programmers for UE3 did a very good interview on multi-threaded programming although I can't remember where it is now.

My 0.02.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: TStep

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Why worry about software that will use both processors?

I will be delighted to play a game while burning a disc, for example.

You will see the benefits of dual core even without specific software other than an OS that supports 2 physical processors.

I agree. While I like affordable speed as much as the next guy, smooth multitask is the benefit I'm most looking forward to.

I thought you were supposed to get that with hyperthreading?

 

[deveraux]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: TStep

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Why worry about software that will use both processors?

I will be delighted to play a game while burning a disc, for example.

You will see the benefits of dual core even without specific software other than an OS that supports 2 physical processors.

I agree. While I like affordable speed as much as the next guy, smooth multitask is the benefit I'm most looking forward to.

I thought you were supposed to get that with hyperthreading?

From what I know of hyperthreading, yes, it does improve the multi-tasking experience but no where to the degree of actually having two physical cores. Hyper-threading was introduced to sort of "hide" some of the inefficiencies of the P4's design so it will always be inferior to dual cores since the amount of avaible processing power with dual cores actually goes up while with hyper-threading, you are just making use of "empty" pipelines and hence are limited to the same maximum processing power.

 

[TStep]

Exactly what deveraux said above. HT does not = 2 cpus, more like 1.1 or 1.2 if it can be viewed in that respect. I loved my BP6 and VP6 setups from yesteryear with regard to smoothness. Just never found a particular dually motherboard from the P4/XP era that had all the overclocking goodness of the single cpu solutions w/ dually cpus. So I opted for more speed and OC options rather than the ultimate smoothness of workstation boards and expensive cpus. I am eternally on the hunt for the modern day equivalent of the BP6/dual cpu setup. Dual core should bring something very close on a tricked out board.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: TStep
Exactly what deveraux said above. HT does not = 2 cpus, more like 1.1 or 1.2 if it can be viewed in that respect. I loved my BP6 and VP6 setups from yesteryear with regard to smoothness. Just never found a particular dually motherboard from the P4/XP era that had all the overclocking goodness of the single cpu solutions w/ dually cpus. So I opted for more speed and OC options rather than the ultimate smoothness of workstation boards and expensive cpus. I am eternally on the hunt for the modern day equivalent of the BP6/dual cpu setup. Dual core should bring something very close on a tricked out board.

never tempted by dual opterons?

 

[TStep]

Could never come to grips with the entry price and the ECC DDR.

 

[ribbon13]

ECC DDR is cheap as hell compared to back in the day... and Opterons don't require ECC. They require registered/buffered.

512mb $81 Corsair CM72SD512RLP-3200
1024mb $166 Corsair CM72SD1024RLP-3200

 

[TStep]

Oooppps, meant reg not ECC, stands corrected. As soon as I get done playing with(and selling off) all the mobile P4/Celeron stuff i've been toying with lately, I might just grab an entry level opteron setup and see what it's all about. Would be looking for an affordable dual cpu mobo with nice OC options; I like to tinker. Any suggestions to save me the research? I don't know of any.

Edit: don't need alot of extended features, ie: SCSI, fast network, etc