if dual cores are so great, why wasn't dual socket more popular?

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: munchow2
In general, server solutions are at the forefront of technology and that is why they are so expensive. When you scale it down and make it affordable, you get desktop solutions and the praise of the people.

Anyway, Lithan is probably an angry person who thinks all new technology is a sham and has some sort of conspiracy behind it. True, single core solutions don't have problems running bare minimum essential tasks. I know P2s with windows 98 surf the web just as fast as my p4 with xp. However, everyone's everyday needs are different. Perhaps they want to burn cds and play games at the same time. Perhaps they like opening multiple programs simultaneously. It is the same reason why anyone would buy a ferrari - perhaps they care about how their car looks in traffic.

Play games and burn cd's at the same time? Hope you have Scsi or an ATA channel driving each task seperately as well as an isolated swap drive, or else dual core won't fix your lag.

I open tons of programs at once. The problem is that most high cpu demand apps are either going to be severely hampered by having to share a single memory bus, or a scrawny pci bus, or a single SATA channel (as most people's systems will have them doing), Or/and are tasks that are forefront (gaming, 3d work, etc) Basically, if dropping an extra $200-500 on dual core helps you even slightly, dropping another $0-400 on a true dual processor rig would show massive gains. Another $300-infinity on a real server and you're in business. It is working from the back of the line instead of the front, because the back of the line "fix" is cheaper.

"It is the same reason why anyone would buy a ferrari - perhaps they care about how their car looks in traffic."

I couldn't agree more.

Bikedude, Does your opteron have independant memory banks for each cpu? What drive array is it running? Photoshop is one of few apps that benefit from dual core, but the most unpleasant aspects of it (I'd say load times would be most people's choice here) fall right under the side I listed, where you're addressing perhaps the least important bottleneck. Alt -tabbing in games has more to do with memory than processing. Likely the reason you see a pause when moving back to desktop is that it's fetching it from your swap. Or else it's the pause while your monitor adjusts display properties (as my systems have with many older games that can't run my desktop's settings, all games where I can, I equalize the settings on and off desktop).


Aye Fox. I forgot the good ol MP's. About $80 for two xp1700's, mod them, and maybe $150 for a board. Now that's cheap. Only downside was that it wasn't common to see one above 150mhz FSB. (best PCI div was /4)

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Bikedude, Does your opteron have independant memory banks for each cpu?

Yup, with full NUMA support. (the motherboard designer would have to be pretty daft to not let each Opteron have a memory bank of its own.. Do such motherboards even exist?)

What drive array is it running?

No array. Just a couple of 10k SCSI drives. Nothing special.

Photoshop is one of few apps that benefit from dual core, but the most unpleasant aspects of it (I'd say load times would be most people's choice here)

Load times? Haven't noticed that much. When I set my system to chew on 30 something 100MB TIFF files (using my standard action set), it pretty much eats both CPUs. Not much disk I/O going on. (armed with 4GB memory and Win64 I manage to keep PS from using the scratch disk -- which is where you'd see the real penalty)

Alt -tabbing in games has more to do with memory than processing. Likely the reason you see a pause when moving back to desktop is that it's fetching it from your swap.

Could be, my memory fades fast of how it used to be... (I only had 1GB memory back with my Athlon 2500+ system -- can't really say I noticed much paging though)

Or else it's the pause while your monitor adjusts display properties

I've kept my old monitor for now, so that's not it.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: her34
it seems everyone who's tried dual core won't go back. yet i don't remember people giving as much praise to dual socket solutions. why?

You haven't been around long enough.

Google: "Abit BP6"


From that alone, Intel went to killing desktop multiprocessing at a lower level, and now AMD has finally done this, too. Currently, dual-CPU is not popular due to extra PSU, RAM, and mobo costs, on top of having to get CPUs that are more expensive for the amount of performance they have.

 

[keitaro]

Cerb, Exactly what I was thinking too! multi-socket solution is so much more expensive than a simple dual-core solution. To me, dual-core is the successor to the BP6 craze of the ol' days.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Personally I didn`t like them becuase it was hard to program my Cappuccino machine to run off my computer!!

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: BikeDude

Originally posted by: Lithan
Bikedude, Does your opteron have independant memory banks for each cpu?

Yup, with full NUMA support. (the motherboard designer would have to be pretty daft to not let each Opteron have a memory bank of its own.. Do such motherboards even exist?)

Well, that's kind of what dual core does...

Also, Wasnt that really cheap opteron board everyone was excited about a couple years ago running both procs through a single memory bank? I don't remember too well. K8T master Far2 it was.


Don't get me wrong, there are tons of situations where dual proc is very useful. And while to a much lesser extent, dual core is useful. But running "smoother" in common everyday apps just because you have two or three of them open is not such a situation. It's reminding me of the days when HT was Intel's celebrated feature and all the fanboys blathered on about how you couldn't play an mp3 and surf the internet at the same time without it.

 

[Dadofamunky]

I built dual-CPU machines for years, primarily NT servers. You never got objectively faster performance - what typically happened was that the OS functioned on one CPU while the apps occupied all the clock-cycles on the other core. I was able to verify this by using PerfMon instances on each CPU. I was typically using P-133s and P-200s. Darn things ran like tanks. The dual-CPU boards were pretty much always Tyan, and were never anything fancy; they just handled the SMP capabilities of the 1st-generation Pentiums really well. Their glue logic was excellent. They still are. But they were definitely not for the masses.

With a single core, as you scale upward in the number of apps you run, the system gets progressively more sluggish as more requests are met with by fewer available clock cycles. With one core handling all the OS chores, a lot more cycles are available for the tasks on top. It's common sense. The hype is kind of silly but there is a clear benefit.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Lithan

Originally posted by: BikeDude

Originally posted by: Lithan
Bikedude, Does your opteron have independant memory banks for each cpu?

Yup, with full NUMA support. (the motherboard designer would have to be pretty daft to not let each Opteron have a memory bank of its own.. Do such motherboards even exist?)

Well, that's kind of what dual core does...

No, it does not. Dual-core puts two cores on a single CPU, and they share the same memory controller, on that CPU. With multiple sockets, the CPU in another socket must make requests through the CPU on the socket which has the RAM it wants to use. It is not related to single- or dual-core CPUs.

Also, Wasnt that really cheap opteron board everyone was excited about a couple years ago running both procs through a single memory bank? I don't remember too well. K8T master Far2 it was.

Yes, and this fallacy is called a Red Herring.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: her34
it seems everyone who's tried dual core won't go back. yet i don't remember people giving as much praise to dual socket solutions. why?

You haven't been around long enough.

Google: "Abit BP6"


From that alone, Intel went to killing desktop multiprocessing at a lower level, and now AMD has finally done this, too. Currently, dual-CPU is not popular due to extra PSU, RAM, and mobo costs, on top of having to get CPUs that are more expensive for the amount of performance they have.

Uh, whatever. It's in its infancy, to begin with. How do you know it's not popular? And why would RAM and other itEms be comparatively more expensive? On AMD the socket, RAM, mobo and everything else are the same. Intel screwed up their first-gen by requiring a new mobo but the other costs are marginally the same. But dual-core is reality and will be a permanent factor - at least until quad-core becomes the norm

 

[valkator]

O yea i remember my old Athlon MP setup. Man was that a beaut. If you dedicated the right processes to the right cpus as efficient as possible, you had it made for a nice home server. But that is old news.
And Dadfamunky is right. Dual core needs time for maturing and when it matures i will be stepping up to the plate with that. Also waiting for the prices to go down i mean geezz.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: her34
it seems everyone who's tried dual core won't go back. yet i don't remember people giving as much praise to dual socket solutions. why?

You haven't been around long enough.

Google: "Abit BP6"


From that alone, Intel went to killing desktop multiprocessing at a lower level, and now AMD has finally done this, too. Currently, dual-CPU is not popular due to extra PSU, RAM, and mobo costs, on top of having to get CPUs that are more expensive for the amount of performance they have.

Uh, whatever. It's in its infancy, to begin with. How do you know it's not popular?

Because Dell and HP weren't selling them in home desktops, for one thing. Only a small set of enthusiasts generally used SMP. Quite loyally, but still, small. Even among enthusiasts, it is not common, and has been fenced off for expensive business needs

And why would RAM and other itEms be comparatively more expensive?

Because of an extra chip (for RAM), extra features, and of course, a smaller market, that puts reliability ahead of performance.

On AMD the socket, RAM, mobo and everything else are the same.

No, it isn't. For Opterons, you definitely need a different PSU and RAM, on top of the chips being more expensive.

Right now, I could get a $100 case & PSU, $80 mobo, $80 1GB of RAM, and be set for dual-core A64s. I might be able tp pull off a case and PSU for $120 or so for multiple sockets, and $150 1GB RAM, maybe $200 mobo...but then, the Opteron CPUs are still outrageously expensive: $380 for a 3800+, and $1080 for a 270. It's a bit cheaper with two single-core Opterons, but not much.

Intel screwed up their first-gen by requiring a new mobo but the other costs are marginally the same. But dual-core is reality and will be a permanent factor - at least until quad-core becomes the norm

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
1. Expensive

2. Needs expensive ECC RAM

3. Lack of overclocking options

2 = 1 really

I think 1 and 3 were the biggest reasons for myself. Because DC fits into a normal motherboard, the OC options are there and you don't quite pay for 2x chips PLUS an expensive, but relatively featureless MB.

 

[theMan]

its because dual core is just way too cool for school.

 

[Fresh Daemon]

To answer the OP:

Dual-sockets were once a lot more popular. You could dual up Pentiums and PIIs, but the chips were expensive. Then the Celeron came along, and it sucked. So they gave it some cache, and it became pretty good - only a few % off a PII and a fraction of the price. They weren't SMP, though.

At least that's what everyone supposed, and then people discovered that the PGA Celerons would run in SMP with a slocket. Now a dual rig was cheap - cheaper than a single-CPU PII. Abit caught on to this and released the BP6, which had two Socket 370s on it and was set for Celeron SMP. Quake III came out amidst all this and was supposed to have SMP support (although most people never seem to have gotten it working properly).

It turned out that the next-generation Celerons were completely and irreversibly SMP-disabled, though. If you wanted SMP now you had to get a PIII/PIV or Xeon, which made it way more expensive and priced it out of most enthusiast budgets.

The Athlon did a bit better. They released the Athlon MP, which was designed for SMP, but people discovered that cheaper XPs could be modded to MP. Some Duron cores worked in SMP, some didn't. Bearing that in mind, the Athlon XP was still a relatively expensive processor and not a budget model like the Celeron, so this still wasn't cheap. Most Athlon SMP motherboards were server/workstation level efforts with expensive features like onboard SCSI, 64-bit PCI slots and the like. There were still some cut-down efforts (the MSI K7D-Master series, I think) but these were still way pricier compared to single-socket Athlon mobos than the BP6 ever was when compared to other 440BX boards.

In summary, it's all about the benjamins. SMP was not popular until it became affordable. Then people got interested. Then it got expensive again, and people lost interest. Now it's becoming cheaper again (dual-core being comparatively priced to single-core) and people are interested again.