I can't go back to single-core

[Kaido]

I started messing around with dual-core systems last February, when I got my wife an iMac. Since then I have had a variety of dual-core machines. I can never go back - I love how smooth Windows and OS X are with two cores inside. Computers are now to the point where I am mostly pretty happy with them - the computer runs fast and does just about everything I want it to lightning-quick. Yay for technology

 

[brikis98]

i have a dual core system at home (specs in sig) but use a single core laptop at work. the difference in responsiveness is very noticeable and annoying. it's especially bad with certain apps, like waiting for adobe acrobat to open, java virtual machine to load, outlook to start, quicktime to open, etc... i remember there used to be debate whether we really need dual core or if it's just a gimmick... i think now it's pretty clear how useful it is and i don't see CPU manufacturers going back. and with more multithreaded apps/games to come, it'll only get better

 

[Rubycon]

Been doing SMP since the Pentium Pro days and yes unicore systems are the drag.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: brikis98
i have a dual core system at home (specs in sig) but use a single core laptop at work. the difference in responsiveness is very noticeable and annoying. it's especially bad with certain apps, like waiting for adobe acrobat to open, java virtual machine to load, outlook to start, quicktime to open, etc... i remember there used to be debate whether we really need dual core or if it's just a gimmick... i think now it's pretty clear how useful it is and i don't see CPU manufacturers going back. and with more multithreaded apps/games to come, it'll only get better

Oh definitely - the smoothness is more than enough to justify moving to a dual-core platform. I can't wait until they come out with quad-core laptop chips - then you can run a virus scan, spyware scan, open Java or Acrobat, and surf the net all without any lag. The next bottleneck is hard drives...maybe they can invent integrated RAID 0 drives or start coming out with some cheaper solid-state solutions

 

[Nocturnal]

I hadn't put on my contacts yet and read this thread title as I am going back to single-core.

I agree with you on all points. Dual-core is the future.

 

[SparkyJJO]

This sounds promising, I have a dual core opteron on the way to replace my single core 3700+ and am hoping that it is worth the money spent

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: brikis98
i have a dual core system at home (specs in sig) but use a single core laptop at work. the difference in responsiveness is very noticeable and annoying. it's especially bad with certain apps, like waiting for adobe acrobat to open, java virtual machine to load, outlook to start, quicktime to open, etc... i remember there used to be debate whether we really need dual core or if it's just a gimmick... i think now it's pretty clear how useful it is and i don't see CPU manufacturers going back. and with more multithreaded apps/games to come, it'll only get better

Oh definitely - the smoothness is more than enough to justify moving to a dual-core platform. I can't wait until they come out with quad-core laptop chips - then you can run a virus scan, spyware scan, open Java or Acrobat, and surf the net all without any lag. The next bottleneck is hard drives...maybe they can invent integrated RAID 0 drives or start coming out with some cheaper solid-state solutions

yeah, the totally blocking I/O operations are annoying as hell... i can't wait for faster hard drives and those that can perform multiple operations in parallel... maybe flash drives can pull of both in the near future

 

[Ayah]

Dual cores weren't into laptops when I got mine.

Flash drive raid!

 

[spikespiegal]

I can't wait until they come out with quad-core laptop chips - then you can run a virus scan, spyware scan, open Java or Acrobat, and surf the net all without any lag.

Quad cores don't work quite like that. Plus, the tasks you mention are all mostly I/O bound anyways and won't gain much beyond two cores. Then again single core desktops tend to be more responsive than dual core laptops anyways. Maybe when quantum processors come out and Windows users finally start to realize they don't need to run all that garbage laptops will finally be tolerable.

I've been working on dual and quad processor architecture since the mid 90's. Hell, I used to run many Winframe servers, which was based of off Nt 3.51 on quad P-Pro 200's, and response was just as fast (if not faster) than XP on a single 2ghz P4 (I'm not kidding).

Once you use a dual core or dual processor desktop you'll never go back. However, be aware that going beyond two cores or processors dramatically slants the performance gain to the specific application's ability to take advantage of the extra cores, which is few and far between at the moment other than rendering crystal balls and such.

If Intel and AMD want to throw in extra cores for the same price, hey, I'll buy them. However, after I get two cores the rest of my money is better spent on more clock.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

I can't wait until they come out with quad-core laptop chips - then you can run a virus scan, spyware scan, open Java or Acrobat, and surf the net all without any lag.

Quad cores don't work quite like that. Plus, the tasks you mention are all mostly I/O bound anyways and won't gain much beyond two cores. Then again single core desktops tend to be more responsive than dual core laptops anyways. Maybe when quantum processors come out and Windows users finally start to realize they don't need to run all that garbage laptops will finally be tolerable.

I've been working on dual and quad processor architecture since the mid 90's. Hell, I used to run many Winframe servers, which was based of off Nt 3.51 on quad P-Pro 200's, and response was just as fast (if not faster) than XP on a single 2ghz P4 (I'm not kidding).

Once you use a dual core or dual processor desktop you'll never go back. However, be aware that going beyond two cores or processors dramatically slants the performance gain to the specific application's ability to take advantage of the extra cores, which is few and far between at the moment other than rendering crystal balls and such.

If Intel and AMD want to throw in extra cores for the same price, hey, I'll buy them. However, after I get two cores the rest of my money is better spent on more clock.

Interesting, thanks for posting that. I've been on single procs most of my life, so dual-core is definitely a treat. My next (dream) machine is a dual-processor Octo-core system (Mac Pro with dual Quad-core processors). I am into 3D graphics and rendering takes up a heck of a lot of processor power, so that will be much appreciated.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: brikis98
i have a dual core system at home (specs in sig) but use a single core laptop at work. the difference in responsiveness is very noticeable and annoying. it's especially bad with certain apps, like waiting for adobe acrobat to open, java virtual machine to load, outlook to start, quicktime to open, etc... i remember there used to be debate whether we really need dual core or if it's just a gimmick... i think now it's pretty clear how useful it is and i don't see CPU manufacturers going back. and with more multithreaded apps/games to come, it'll only get better

Oh definitely - the smoothness is more than enough to justify moving to a dual-core platform. I can't wait until they come out with quad-core laptop chips - then you can run a virus scan, spyware scan, open Java or Acrobat, and surf the net all without any lag. The next bottleneck is hard drives...maybe they can invent integrated RAID 0 drives or start coming out with some cheaper solid-state solutions

yeah, the totally blocking I/O operations are annoying as hell... i can't wait for faster hard drives and those that can perform multiple operations in parallel... maybe flash drives can pull of both in the near future

Yeah...you can really feel it in a dual-core laptop; I've learned to judge when things will launch etc. based on how the hard drive feels/sounds lol.

 

[Seekermeister]

Since I run multiboot, I've been wondering how well dual processors work with Linux?

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Since I run multiboot, I've been wondering how well dual processors work with Linux?

Multiboot? Why not just run virtual machines? That will put dual processors through a good workout

 

[Bobthelost]

I put this down to the placebo effect. I've got an OC'd 4400X2 and a Semperon 3000+, if there's a difference in smoothness i've never seen it.

 

[cparker]

Running single core A64 3000+ and 3400+ desktops with graphics cards and both are smooth as silk on xp and Vista RC1. My slower PCs without graphics cards and my laptop (P4 1.8 mhz) are not nearly so smooth, it gets more noticeable the slower the processor and then jumps down a notch when using integrated graphics.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
I put this down to the placebo effect. I've got an OC'd 4400X2 and a Semperon 3000+, if there's a difference in smoothness i've never seen it.

try this: open an adobe acrobat link through your web browser and try to do ANYTHING AT ALL on the single core machine. compare to dual core machine.

 

[cparker]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
I put this down to the placebo effect. I've got an OC'd 4400X2 and a Semperon 3000+, if there's a difference in smoothness i've never seen it.

try this: open an adobe acrobat link through your web browser and try to do ANYTHING AT ALL on the single core machine. compare to dual core machine.

I tried that on Vista using single core 3400+ (Adobe Acrobat for Vista RC1 is installed). No problem whatsoever. I was running excel and a Firefox browser at the same time and there wasn't even a hiccup.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: cparker

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
I put this down to the placebo effect. I've got an OC'd 4400X2 and a Semperon 3000+, if there's a difference in smoothness i've never seen it.

try this: open an adobe acrobat link through your web browser and try to do ANYTHING AT ALL on the single core machine. compare to dual core machine.

I tried that on Vista using single core 3400+ (Adobe Acrobat for Vista RC1 is installed). No problem whatsoever. I was running excel and a Firefox browser at the same time and there wasn't even a hiccup.

that's... interesting... to say the least. because on every single core computer i've ever used, opening acrobat locks the system for at least a few seconds... same with quicktime, the jvm starting up and several other apps... i find it very tough to believe your system is super responsive while any of those are starting up.

edit: i haven't used vista yet, maybe it handles things differently than xp...

 

[Smartazz]

I feel the same way, dual core is great.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: cparker

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
I put this down to the placebo effect. I've got an OC'd 4400X2 and a Semperon 3000+, if there's a difference in smoothness i've never seen it.

try this: open an adobe acrobat link through your web browser and try to do ANYTHING AT ALL on the single core machine. compare to dual core machine.

I tried that on Vista using single core 3400+ (Adobe Acrobat for Vista RC1 is installed). No problem whatsoever. I was running excel and a Firefox browser at the same time and there wasn't even a hiccup.

lol Excel and Firefox only require like a 400mhz processor to run like greased lightning. Try some real apps, like, uh. Half-life 2

 

[SparkyJJO]

A PDF file in a browser window would cause my single-core system to completely halt. But recently it stopped doing that, I think it was a glitch in the software more than anything.

 

[cparker]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: cparker

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
I put this down to the placebo effect. I've got an OC'd 4400X2 and a Semperon 3000+, if there's a difference in smoothness i've never seen it.

try this: open an adobe acrobat link through your web browser and try to do ANYTHING AT ALL on the single core machine. compare to dual core machine.

I tried that on Vista using single core 3400+ (Adobe Acrobat for Vista RC1 is installed). No problem whatsoever. I was running excel and a Firefox browser at the same time and there wasn't even a hiccup.

lol Excel and Firefox only require like a 400mhz processor to run like greased lightning. Try some real apps, like, uh. Half-life 2

Actually I think it has to do with Vista and maybe the Vista release of Acrobat. I notice that happening on another machine that's running windows 2000 and is x1, although it's a much slower cpu. I think they fixed up acrobat and/or the OS. Probably was a flaw in Acrobat that caused that. And it happened with anything I ran (I don't have any games, sorry). But it's very different with Vista and the new Acrobat.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: cparker

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: cparker

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
I put this down to the placebo effect. I've got an OC'd 4400X2 and a Semperon 3000+, if there's a difference in smoothness i've never seen it.

try this: open an adobe acrobat link through your web browser and try to do ANYTHING AT ALL on the single core machine. compare to dual core machine.

I tried that on Vista using single core 3400+ (Adobe Acrobat for Vista RC1 is installed). No problem whatsoever. I was running excel and a Firefox browser at the same time and there wasn't even a hiccup.

lol Excel and Firefox only require like a 400mhz processor to run like greased lightning. Try some real apps, like, uh. Half-life 2

Actually I think it has to do with Vista and maybe the Vista release of Acrobat. I notice that happening on another machine that's running windows 2000 and is x1, although it's a much slower cpu. I think they fixed up acrobat and/or the OS. Probably was a flaw in Acrobat that caused that. And it happened with anything I ran (I don't have any games, sorry). But it's very different with Vista and the new Acrobat.

Interesting, sounds like they are taking an OS X-style approach to it...in OS X, PDF is integrated into the GUI like Windows Explorer, kind of...very fast, no slowdowns. I agree, I think it was an Acrobat flaw, because with Reader 7 and Firefox 2.0 I don't have that issue anymore.

 

[Rubycon]

Or you can use FoxIT reader instead of the Adobe bloatware.

 

[cparker]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Or you can use FoxIT reader instead of the Adobe bloatware.

That's what I did on my really slower old pcs. Running acrobat reader would just destroy things and would linger on in ram taking up the resources. The FoxIT reader is lightweight and it releases ram when you close it.