Is it worth it? Do you really get twice the speed? Which is better, AMD or Intel for dual processing? Please give me you 2 cents on this. thanks.
*>* Dual Processing *<*
- Thread starter Nkcowboy
- Start date
Hmm, I didn't even know AMD supported dual...
Anyway, you should go for Intel since their dual support has been around for a long time and you would most likely have much more stability with a more developed chipset for dual processors from Intel.
Anyway, you should go for Intel since their dual support has been around for a long time and you would most likely have much more stability with a more developed chipset for dual processors from Intel.
AMD chips have supported dual setups for a while now, but as far as I know there aren't any motherboards that will allow you to run them this way. I'm in the process of upgrading my system to a dual setup, but I'm using Dual PIII450s since I already had one PIII450
right now you hafta use intel cuz the amd chipset that supports dual amd procs isnt out yet...bummer
[edit]
wanted to add some more...2 procs are onyl good if you do lots of multitasking and have an OS that supports 2 procs. if you run 98/Me then one of the chips will just sit idle all the time. but if you run linux, NT4, 2k (or other server type OSes) then when you do multiple things the processes will be split between the cpus. so if your ripping mp3s while fragging your computer wont seem like its running at a snail's pace. some programs (Photoshop and Q3A are two) are capable of using both processors to work on the same thing thus speeding up render times, etc. mainly it comes down to what do you plan to do with a system. if your gonna be doing lots of things at once or running several servers off of it then 2 procs (and mucho RAM) is the way to go...hope this helps some.
[/edit]
[edit]
wanted to add some more...2 procs are onyl good if you do lots of multitasking and have an OS that supports 2 procs. if you run 98/Me then one of the chips will just sit idle all the time. but if you run linux, NT4, 2k (or other server type OSes) then when you do multiple things the processes will be split between the cpus. so if your ripping mp3s while fragging your computer wont seem like its running at a snail's pace. some programs (Photoshop and Q3A are two) are capable of using both processors to work on the same thing thus speeding up render times, etc. mainly it comes down to what do you plan to do with a system. if your gonna be doing lots of things at once or running several servers off of it then 2 procs (and mucho RAM) is the way to go...hope this helps some.
[/edit]
I am converting one of my systems in to a dual-cpu workstation/server. It's a PIII 550 and I am getting another identical PIII 550 from a friend who is upgrading. I'm going to replace the motherboard with a dual-Slot1 piece, and run it with 512MB RAM. It'll be used for burning CD's, cracking RC5, serving my DSL and printer, as well as "normal" PC application use.
GT1999
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 1999
- 5,261
- 1
- 71
I see it like this:
It all depends on how you are going to be using the system. If you are 100% sure you don't want to use Win2000 or anything NT based then you won't be doing an SMP system, right off the bat. As for what you do with the system - if you're stiricly a gamer, you obviously will notice a boost, but if all you are doing is playing the game and aren't running anything in the background, your money should be saved up for that high end video card about to come out.
On the other hand, if you tend to want to do many, many things on the computer at once still have most operations completely very fast, then an SMP system is for you. Especially if you're into SCSI, you'll notice the same thing for an SMP system from IDE. Almost nobody I know will benefit (considering cost, here) from SMP, but there are a select few who must have the best and do notice a huge performance gain, since they stress their systems harder than most end users.
A good example of this is a friend of mine at work: he isn't a hardare genious, but understands that a system with 512MB of RAM, and dual processors is a must for him, he runs at least 10 apps and likes to leave all of his IE windows open constantly. Me, on the other hand, would benefit from a T-Bird w/ DDR or a Pentium IV, since gaming is my priority, and all I really care about is frames - and of course the best video card I can afford and consider reasonable.
G|T
It all depends on how you are going to be using the system. If you are 100% sure you don't want to use Win2000 or anything NT based then you won't be doing an SMP system, right off the bat. As for what you do with the system - if you're stiricly a gamer, you obviously will notice a boost, but if all you are doing is playing the game and aren't running anything in the background, your money should be saved up for that high end video card about to come out.
On the other hand, if you tend to want to do many, many things on the computer at once still have most operations completely very fast, then an SMP system is for you. Especially if you're into SCSI, you'll notice the same thing for an SMP system from IDE. Almost nobody I know will benefit (considering cost, here) from SMP, but there are a select few who must have the best and do notice a huge performance gain, since they stress their systems harder than most end users.
A good example of this is a friend of mine at work: he isn't a hardare genious, but understands that a system with 512MB of RAM, and dual processors is a must for him, he runs at least 10 apps and likes to leave all of his IE windows open constantly. Me, on the other hand, would benefit from a T-Bird w/ DDR or a Pentium IV, since gaming is my priority, and all I really care about is frames - and of course the best video card I can afford and consider reasonable.
G|T
let me get this straight
is I have duel cpu setup
then i can burn cd with my IDE cdrw(not burn proof)
and surf internet, or listen to mp3 at the same time?
since one cpu work on burning
the other work on mp3
is that right? or it is just don't work like that?
is I have duel cpu setup
then i can burn cd with my IDE cdrw(not burn proof)
and surf internet, or listen to mp3 at the same time?
since one cpu work on burning
the other work on mp3
is that right? or it is just don't work like that?
It may be more feasible with an SMP system, but don't count on it. CPU utilization isn't the only thing that messes up a burn (though it is an important factor). I personally have an all SCSI system so I don't have any such problems, but...the only other thing you have to worry about is inadequate transfer rates, IDE does NOT multitask well and if your HD is struggling to keep up with your burner and then you try to load a 6MB MP3 from your hard drive it just might be enough to push it over the edge. Or even if you are going from CD to CD, there's the limitation of only one device on a channel being able to "speak" at a time, so accesses to the hard drive might interfere with whichever device happens to be on the same channel. However, assuming that your HD has no trouble keeping up, and your channels are configured optimally and you never do CD to CD burns, SMP may help your IDE system.
NO! You must use Linux, Win NT or Win2k!
If you really want to burn cds while doing anything, SMP and SCSI would be the best.
My last couple days with my new SMP system I have noticed a nice improvement during IDE access, but if you're doing alot while burning that could be pushing it
If you really want to burn cds while doing anything, SMP and SCSI would be the best.
My last couple days with my new SMP system I have noticed a nice improvement during IDE access, but if you're doing alot while burning that could be pushing it
Ok... let me put this way.
I can burn a CD and play games at the same time with my BP6 and a SCSI Yamaha.
Good enough?
I can burn a CD and play games at the same time with my BP6 and a SCSI Yamaha.
Good enough?
Indeed. I can even defrag while burning on my system, while listening to MP3s, while browsing the internet. And that's before the SMP. 
how about, I can defrag, play games, encode an mp3, listen to an mp3, and play q3 on my dual processor system.
oh. No windows 98 system? I am a mega gamer but like running things in the background, but not much. SO should I go with a P4/tbird?
It seems foolish to get a P4 at this point, with its questional performance and all... I'm willing to bet that it will get better in the future when intel can really ramp up processor speeds, and if they ever manage to get a DDR SDRAM chipset for it (...RAMBUS is trying to put a stop to that, however). I'd go with a thunderbird if I was getting a new system.
Who knows what the latest chip offerings from Intel will be like by then, with the P4...but it'll cost you a lot more to get a good P4 system than a tbird system that performs similarly, or better. In a year, that might be different, but not likely in 4 months.
Of course this is just pure speculation on my part.
Of course this is just pure speculation on my part.
Go for a dual processor rig if you plan on running Windows 2000,
NT4 or Linux. Trust me, I went from a single to dual processor
system and NEVER looked back. The incremental cost isn't high
(good basic super-reliable BX-based Tyan Tiger 100 boards can
be had for around $130, and the Tiger 133 board [if you insist
on 133Mhz FSB) is not much more; a second processor is around
$200 or less if you stick to 800Mhz or slower). And the improvement
can, depending on what you're doing, be tremendous. Now, it's true
there aren't a lot of dual-processor-aware apps out there
(Photoshop and few others). But what dual processors DOES do
for you in all cases is allow you to multitask. Want to play
an MP3 while doing something else cpu intensive? No problem, your
MP3 won't stutter. Want to ENCODE a DVD to mpeg while surfing?
No problem. Want to burn a CD while surfing or playing a game?
No problem. Basically, the second processor increases response
tremendously if you're the kind of person who tends to multitask...
Kwad
NT4 or Linux. Trust me, I went from a single to dual processor
system and NEVER looked back. The incremental cost isn't high
(good basic super-reliable BX-based Tyan Tiger 100 boards can
be had for around $130, and the Tiger 133 board [if you insist
on 133Mhz FSB) is not much more; a second processor is around
$200 or less if you stick to 800Mhz or slower). And the improvement
can, depending on what you're doing, be tremendous. Now, it's true
there aren't a lot of dual-processor-aware apps out there
(Photoshop and few others). But what dual processors DOES do
for you in all cases is allow you to multitask. Want to play
an MP3 while doing something else cpu intensive? No problem, your
MP3 won't stutter. Want to ENCODE a DVD to mpeg while surfing?
No problem. Want to burn a CD while surfing or playing a game?
No problem. Basically, the second processor increases response
tremendously if you're the kind of person who tends to multitask...
Kwad
<< Anyway, you should go for Intel since their dual support has been around for a long time and you would most likely have much more stability with a more developed chipset for dual processors from Intel. >>
Syboy... you knew I would take apart this comment....
Anyway, its mostly true well kinda. AMD makes decent chipsets (their 750 and 760 are rock stable and good performers so your statement is a bit flaky (sp?)) Anyway though, you are right that Intel has been developing dual chipsets for a while now. I would however argue that the athlon dual setup would outperform a dual setup from intel because of two reasons. First, it will use DDRSDRAM which is a better solution than the i840 + rambus (note that the i850 is the only chipset that takes full advantage of rambus and makes it look somewhat good, IMHO anyway). Beyond that, the amd setup uses the ev6 bus protocol which supports point-to-point SMP. This means that each athlon will have its own dedicated 266mhz bus. The intel solution (gtl+ bus protocol) on the other hand shares its bus between the processors (133mhz for both cpu's). Even though the p4 has a new bus protocol and the fact that it will not be SMP capable for quite a while, it still utilizes the non-point-to-point nature of the past intel SMP chipsets... Anyway, its a matter of choice and timing... if you need SMP now, you have no choice... intel is the only x86 game in town... if you have some time... wait a bit and see what happnes... for all i know though, the intel solution may come out on top... i doubt it, but like all people, ive been wrong before...
You must use NT, Win2K, BeOS or Linux to take full advantage of both processors. The games will not run that much faster at equivilent clocked Single processor system. Q3A SMP is 10% faster at BEST and only in lower resolutions. It has actually slowed down my computer at higher res.
But you WILL be able to do other things while playing games, or encoding MP3s. You can also see 2x speed with those types of things. You can allocate a single processor to one program, and the rest to another.
For example. I went to a network-night over at a friends house with my system. They were in awe as I was ripping some of his CDs while playing Q3A without any lag. Then, later on, we had 8 computers on the network, and we wanted to play against bots. Not a single computer there could handle the task of creating the game and playing in it. We didn't have any extra to serve (well, a 233mmx, but it was WAY too slow!). So I decided to do both on my system. One processor was running a dedicated server, while the other was running my client! It was smooth as silk! I alt-tabbed to change server settings and then back to the game!
Anyway, I find many ways to use my SMP rig... it just really depends on what YOU want to use it for. If its just for gaming, you are better off spending your cash on the latest 3D hardware!
Hope this helps!
-Skaven
BP6 2x600mhz 192mb
SCSI 4gbUW, 6x4x24, 40max
Win2k, BeOS, Linux
But you WILL be able to do other things while playing games, or encoding MP3s. You can also see 2x speed with those types of things. You can allocate a single processor to one program, and the rest to another.
For example. I went to a network-night over at a friends house with my system. They were in awe as I was ripping some of his CDs while playing Q3A without any lag. Then, later on, we had 8 computers on the network, and we wanted to play against bots. Not a single computer there could handle the task of creating the game and playing in it. We didn't have any extra to serve (well, a 233mmx, but it was WAY too slow!). So I decided to do both on my system. One processor was running a dedicated server, while the other was running my client! It was smooth as silk! I alt-tabbed to change server settings and then back to the game!
Anyway, I find many ways to use my SMP rig... it just really depends on what YOU want to use it for. If its just for gaming, you are better off spending your cash on the latest 3D hardware!
Hope this helps!
-Skaven
BP6 2x600mhz 192mb
SCSI 4gbUW, 6x4x24, 40max
Win2k, BeOS, Linux
"Processors are like chics, one is not enough."
But two can be so much more fun.
Plus "my comp's bigger then yours"
jk
Thorin
But two can be so much more fun.
Plus "my comp's bigger then yours"
jk
Thorin
Alright. Thanks everyone. Anandtech is great..you guys are great..you seriously answer my questions...even if sometimes they are just guesses!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter