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?
if dual cores are so great, why wasn't dual socket more popular?
- Thread starter her34
- Start date
$$$$$$
EDIT: The motherboards are more expensive, and I think dual core actually runs slightly faster than two separate CPU's
EDIT: The motherboards are more expensive, and I think dual core actually runs slightly faster than two separate CPU's
Dual CPU = Expensive. Dual Opteron = 500$-1000$ for a CPU. Motherboard = 300-600$.
You could build a system with that.
(Prices in the older days)
You could build a system with that.
(Prices in the older days)
Plus sometimes they require ECC/Registered memory, often dual CPU boards aren't built for general use (limited overclocking options) and come with more workstation type slots (PCI-X slots/64 bit 66MHz PCI slots).
Dual core CPU's are made for the average users, in the main dual CPU setups never were. The only exception I can think of is a 875 (Canterwood?) board from Asus IIRC which was for dual Xeons and aimed at the desktop market (AT had a review of it a while back).
Dual core CPU's are made for the average users, in the main dual CPU setups never were. The only exception I can think of is a 875 (Canterwood?) board from Asus IIRC which was for dual Xeons and aimed at the desktop market (AT had a review of it a while back).
Been there done that.
But still those boards doens't offer the latest technology, and the OC options is somewhat limited. I am not saying those are bad boards, but overall, the options with dual cpu is just limited relative to single cpu system. With X2, we get much more options, and don't having to deal with hassels like needing a high end PSU or louder system because two cpus are running.Originally posted by: rchiu
Been there done that.
Meh. Asus K8N-DL + Dual Opteron 275 + 7800GTX = Funky.
Alot of people still use those three boards.. The K8N-DL is a new release too..
I myself love them so since I can get another dual-cpu folding rig up for half the cost of a dual-core rig.
1) higher cost for just smp rated cpu...look at the cost of a 175 then related to a 4400+ X2...should be the same...
2) higher cost for other components, mobo, etc. To be fair the mobo usually have some high end stuff like pci-x slots, onboard scsi controllers, etc...
3) at the time need expensive large power supplies...dual cores are way down in power requirements for being effectively 2 cpus....Heck you can run a dual core 4400+@2.5ghz with a 380watt antec...Lets see you do that with dual 3.0ghz xeons or dual opteron 250s....notta!!!
4) sometimes requires expensive ECC ram
5) more heat, more fans, more noise!!!!
2) higher cost for other components, mobo, etc. To be fair the mobo usually have some high end stuff like pci-x slots, onboard scsi controllers, etc...
3) at the time need expensive large power supplies...dual cores are way down in power requirements for being effectively 2 cpus....Heck you can run a dual core 4400+@2.5ghz with a 380watt antec...Lets see you do that with dual 3.0ghz xeons or dual opteron 250s....notta!!!
4) sometimes requires expensive ECC ram
5) more heat, more fans, more noise!!!!
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,016
- 15,961
- 136
ECC ram isn't that big of a deal. $879 each for processor's (when I got my 848's) and $430 for the mobo, and a humungous case and PSU. My order was $2850 with NO hard drives at all or Optical drives !! And you can;t OC at all.
My 4400+ running 15% or more OC'ed, was $640 and dropped into a $100 mobo on a standard case and PSU.
Also, PCI-X in virtually all mobos, has one channel that runs at 66/100, and the other channel runs at 133. BIG difference if you have a large disk array and a great controller, but $$$$$$$
Edit, and no SSI PSU, just EPS ATX 12v. Was $129 I think for my Antec true power 550.
My 4400+ running 15% or more OC'ed, was $640 and dropped into a $100 mobo on a standard case and PSU.
Also, PCI-X in virtually all mobos, has one channel that runs at 66/100, and the other channel runs at 133. BIG difference if you have a large disk array and a great controller, but $$$$$$$
Edit, and no SSI PSU, just EPS ATX 12v. Was $129 I think for my Antec true power 550.
Uhhh. About a year ago I built a dual 240 for someone for $175 on the board and $350 for both chips.
Also several people got in on the dual 1.6 xeon deal for $120 and picked up mobos for between 100 and 200$.
Reason noone cared about dual cpu was because there weren't marketing schmucks telling them they needed it. All these people blathering on about how wonderfully "smooth" dual core makes everything are idiots. Sorry, but that's the way things are.
Dual 240s.. Dual 1.6s... Not quite so high end.
I myself love duallies, very good for office work.
Opterons always required registered memory AFAIK.
As for the OP's question, I believe that apart from steep hardware prices (as pointed out by many in this thread) you also have to consider that it took a while before common apps were reasonable to run on SMP rigs.
E.g. prior to Windows NT 4 (released in 1996), you would actually see a performance _degradation_ using PhotoShop on a system with more than one CPU. MS moved GDI into the kernel to solve that particular issue. (ref: "Inside Windows 2000" by Mark Russinovich and David Solomon)
Even as late as five years ago (shortly after the launch of Windows 2000), people complained that Creative's Soundblaster drivers weren't SMP aware at all. Thanks to Intel making hyperthreading available to common users, they were finally whipped into compliance, but up to that point, the choice of hardware was limited, if not downright hostile...
Personally I've been drooling over dual CPU rigs for years, but there were always some trade-offs involved. I finally took the plunge in May, and armed with Tyan's K8WE motherboard I finally feel I've found the sweet spot as far as features and cost are concerned. I'll eventually go dual-core as well, but I'm thinking of the Opteron 275's successor, and of course two... (assuming they'll make a socket 940 version of that part)
Bottom line: Something doesn't become popular until many people use the technology in question. Dual socket has always been useful, but mostly for chosen applications. Now "everybody" has them, and it is obvious that with today's technology the only way you can increase processing speed is spreading the load across several cores. In the past it was easier to merely raise the clockrate or IPC count. So the industry has evolved from "cool feature" to "no way around it".
Dual sockets weren't meant for primetime, and now with dual cores we are further along in the developmental stage... it's as simple as that. Gaining greater acceptance, and/or going mainstream also translates into cheaper, more available, less demanding, more flexable and option-rich goods and services.
I am an idiot because I descirbe how my system runs on my system? The vast majorty of dual processer solutions before dual core chips came out were past my budget. I guess I must be an idiot because I could not afford that solution. "The way things are" is that AMD and Intel both have a product out in dual core that makes it practical for a great deal more people to afford a two processer solution. There is no marketing. Goto AMDzone.. they were shocked when they saw 1 amd ad on tv. X2 is getting word of mouth advertisement. If you cannot figure out that diffrence, then your the idiot.
PKing
The reason dual cores are so popular is that they come at a time when Intel and AMD are having trouble making their single cores significantly faster. When dual sockets were coming out, CPU makers were still increasing single core speeds by significant margins quite easily. So from a cost vs performance comparison, having dual anything wasn't real competitive with just making a faster single core till now.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,016
- 15,961
- 136
Why don't you ask MichaelD about all the problems he had with his dual 1.6's @(not sure, maybe 2.4). He just ordered at 4400+. And you statement above :
Is stupid, and un-informed. Do you own an AMD dual-core ? If not shut up. You are bordering on trolling.
No, it's not uninformed. Anyone who's system has any potential for becoming "smoother" in desktop work is doing something wrong. It's retarded marketing BS to suggest that a single core processor has any problems at all running everyday tasks. That's like saying that you can get to work faster in a Ferrari in rush hour traffic than in a Cavalier. Both can do 0-4mph just fine. Dual core only came out because AMD and Intel KNOW they can't ramp up Mhz enough to keep selling chips as fast as they want to, so this lets them squeeze a few more years out before they have to count on process improvements to yield the massive results sustaining the current US market demands. It has absolutely zero to do with filling any actual consumer need.
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.
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.
Everything is relative, but saying that dual cores/CPUs run "smoother" doesn't mean someone necessarily believe a single single-core won't cope with "running everyday tasks" at all.
I have a single socket 754 3000+ at work and dual Opteron 244 at home. Both systems manage quite well, but there's no doubt that even for simple single-threaded tasks, it is comforting having another core at the ready in case I want to do something else at the same time. ALT-TAB'ing away from a game is very snappish now -- it sure didn't use to be like that. In short: A smoother experience. The penalty for context switching should not be underrated.
At the same time I get a huge boost in apps like Photoshop (and raw->tiff conversions), so the smoothness is really just an added (but very welcome) bonus.
Both AMD and Intel seem to think that multi-cores is the way forward, so keep on debating this if you will, but in the end it is very unlikely that you will be able to avoid a dual-core system. We can all be Luddites at times.
Dual cores arn't so hot anyway. Unless ur doing serious multi-threading, u don't really need a dual core. On single threaded processes half the processor simply doesn't work.
Athlon MPs were fairly chip, espeically if you modded XPs to work as MPs, however the motherboards they used had outdated chipsets and you wouldn't get top single core performance out of them. You'd get a faster experience going with a single core at a higher speed. For that matter, Xeons were never the speed of the fastest single cores. Now with the X2s, they're already offering top end single core performance instead of severely limited.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter