is dual core useless?

[khicon]

I have a friend disagreeing with me that dual core are useless. I will paste his comment here and you guyz out there can be the judge.

"none of the software out or coming out (vista) uses dual core
your better off getting 64 bit and preparing for the future
or getting a petium with hyperthreading"

"...but it won't really be used to its full potential for atleast a few years
and knowing how much technology changes in a year
the processor will most likely be out dated"

here we talking about how dual core OC with single core.

"... its actually degrades performance, since it doesn't clock as high"

I told him that not all cpu are made to be the same and not all cpu can be clock the same dual core or not. he seem to disagree with me.

Any comment or inputs is welcome... the more the merrier. I would like to know as much as I can. Pls give links to prove ur point if possible. Thank you.

 

[Greenman]

Why argue with him at all? Most people won't be swayed by facts in the face of higher truth. (What they already know).
Just say "sure fine go buy a dell" and you can both be happy.

 

[khicon]

thanks greenman, well the reason I post this is to show one of my other friend, who's thinking of upgrading to dual core... but this guy is giving him a reason not to and I'm giving him a reason to and stuff. So that's where the disagreement come from.

 

[DaveSimmons]

AMD X2 _is_ 64 bit.

Vista is an OS not an application, but it is perfectly capable of assigning its own threads and running applications to either core. It fully supports hyperthreading, multiple CPUs, and multiple CPU cores.

It is true that few applications will be written to use parallelism to split their most CPU-intensive tasks into mutliple threads in the next year or two.

During that time, any single running application will only gain slightly from dual-core, by the OS assigning work from other threads in the application and its own threads to the second core. Benchmarks at sites like AnandTech show this offers very little speedup.

During that time, _multiple_ applications that require a lot of CPU power will run very well. If for example you are encoding files to divx or WMV for a portable that will saturate one core, while you can use the other core to run other applications at full speed.

 

[khicon]

DaveSimmons, thansk... I did told him that X2_DUAL CORE_IS 64 BITS. I even show him the proof. The statement you just give is almost what I give to him. that's where the second quote of his come from. I'll quote it again.

...but it won't really be used to its full potential for atleast a few years
and knowing how much technology changes in a year
the processor will most likely be out dated

 

[DaveSimmons]

The only changes upcoming in processors are more speed and (for intel at least) reduced power use.

Sockets and RAM may change, but not the 64-bit instruction set or anything else really besides the speed and number of cores (which will eventually probably reach 3-4).

So no, an X2 will not be outdated in 2 or 3 years the way a DirectX 7 video card is now (missing features), it will just be slower than the fastest CPUs available then.

But that has been true for CPUs since before the IBM XT. Roughly every 18 months the number of transistors for a given cost doubles which translates roughly into a doubling of overall speed (not necessarily raw clock speed though, this doubling was a jump to dual-core).

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: khicon
DaveSimmons, thansk... I did told him that X2_DUAL CORE_IS 64 BITS. I even show him the proof. The statement you just give is almost what I give to him. that's where the second quote of his come from. I'll quote it again.

...but it won't really be used to its full potential for atleast a few years
and knowing how much technology changes in a year
the processor will most likely be out dated

It depends on what you're using it for I suppose, games wont take much advatage, but video editing/rendering on the other hand... Both the Intel and AMD dual core chips are 64bit. They run at the clock speed listed for the processor. A single core 2GHz cpu runs at the same frequency as a 2Ghz dual core cpu. Not sure where he came up with that idea... overclocking maybe? I heard vista will take advatage of dual core although i don't know that for a fact, but to some point windows xp will.

Hyperthreading... since everything takes advantage of that.. or not.

"it won't really be used to its full potential for atleast a few years" Can't we say that about anything? My 400GB hd wont be filled up for a few years and bigger ones will be out then...

Hope this helps,
Mark

 

[khicon]

Thanks wetcat007 for the input. Any more inputs out there? Anybody disagreeing with all this?

 

[Fresh Daemon]

"none of the software out or coming out (vista) uses dual core
your better off getting 64 bit and preparing for the future
or getting a petium with hyperthreading"

Actually, if you're looking at e.g. image editing, 3D modelling, audio/video software, it would be quicker to list the software that isn't multithreaded (i.e. dual-core). I believe that all dual-core processors are also 64-bit (at least on AMD's side, Intel's as well IIRC), and hyperthreading is a poor substitute for an actual second core. It's a virtual core made with CPU cycles taken from the first, or only, core. What's better, that, or a real core?

"...but it won't really be used to its full potential for atleast a few years
and knowing how much technology changes in a year
the processor will most likely be out dated"

Welcome to the computer world.

"... its actually degrades performance, since it doesn't clock as high"

2x2.6GHz > 1x3GHz. Assuming the software is available. On single-threaded software he does have a point - 1x2.6GHz < 1x3GHz. But since we seem to have reached a performance ceiling with single cores the software world is going to have to adapt to multithreading. Anyone remember BeOS? That entire system was multithreaded. Emptying your trashcan was faster with SMP.

 

[khicon]

Fresh Daemon great point. Actually everybody here give out awsome point. But I would like to see more ... Dual core is the way to go now and will be in the future. Software maker will likely have to adapt to it and write a dual core appz.

 

[Blain]

Just think of all those poor dual Xeon people out there that don't realize they have wasted $$ on a 2nd CPU.
Oh wait a minute... There are applications that take advantage of dual CPU/core/HT.

 

[khicon]

Hi Blain, can you name some application that takes advange of dual core? I just want proof so that he can see. Thanks

 

[Fresh Daemon]

There's this little program called Photoshop. Artists, retouchers etc. seem to like it.

 

[LED]

Windows Media Encoder is a perfect example of DC benefit in action...

 

[khicon]

thanks... so basicly video encoder and 3d rendering is benefit out of dual core, correct?

 

[LED]

Sure and actually any application that is multithreaded as they share between processors....then if single threaded apps are used at the same time (ie. multitasking) then the DC will benefit as well.

Edit=to add and This Link to put it in it's proper perspective

 

[lordsaytor]

Don't take this personally, but khicon, your friend needs to be slapped in the face. He says to get a Pentium with Hyperthreading to prepare for the future??? He should be hung, shot, and gutted. If he is such an Intel fan, even Intel is marketing their dual core processors as the way of the future, and in all likelihood will start to phase out HT.

I think your friend is simply blind.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: khicon
thanks... so basicly video encoder and 3d rendering is benefit out of dual core, correct?

Sure, but not all video encoders and not all 3D rendering. There aren't many applications which are multithreaded, and fewer still which are multithreaded efficiently enough to gain a significant benefit from dual processors.

Maybe every single aspect of computing will be perfectly optimized for multiple CPUs in a couple years, but that's no way to justify a CPU purchase today. Buying something more expensive as an "investment for the future" is an extremely stupid idea when that "investment" will have depriciated to about 1/50th its current value by the time the "future" shows up.

For the average person a dual core CPU is definitely a waste of money. For the average person on this forum, maybe not. If you want the best possible performance in a specific game or application, that will most likely come from a faster single core CPU. The best single core CPU you can afford should give you the best raw speed.

If you do any CPU-intensive multitasking, though, dual core can be great. If, for example, you want to play a game while you're encoding a DVD, an X2 CPU is probably what you want.

The benefit of dual core isn't how "fast" it is, it's how "not slow" it is. It totally depends on how you use your computer.

 

[Reapsy00]

I agree with Tostada, sure there are applications now that will make use of it they generally not going to be used on a home desktop pc. It comes down to money IMHO in the uk an X2 3800+ costs the same as a single core 4000+ so you are losing 400mhz clockspeed and half the cache for the second core. Perhaps if you are an overclocker you can gain this speed back and in that case it will make the x2 more appealing, otherwise the 4000+ seems a more sensible choice.

 

[Topweasel]

Couple of things that really bother me about people that talk about picking one up later because its cheaper. That doesn't fly with me very well. These are people who seem to change out CPUs every year and don't see it as a big deal. But for people who pick one up now get the piece of mind knowing hat they don't have to repurchase their CPU later and get extra value out of their purchase for the time their using them. For example Reapsy talks about losing 400 MHz and 512K of L2 cache by going Dual 3800+ X2 instead of 4000+. In games which people bring up most often cache makes almost no difference, and the only time that 400MHz is going to make a difference is at resolutions and setting that the CPU is the bottleneck, the only time I can see that as a problem would be if you were running it on a Duron 1GHz otherwise your still talking more then enough FPS. At higher at a higher res the Vid is getting so over worked that It can't handle all the information the CPU gives it anyways and your limited by your video card not the CPU. Most of the programs that would be affected by the drop in cache are the same ones that usually benifit from the extra core. Not only that but even if you don't run a single multithreaded app you still get seemless multi tasking and can do things the way I do it.

I get home and have roughly 4 hours before I should go to sleep, so on my AXP I had to choose either to rip my new Netflix arrivals or play games as it would take 2 HRs to rip the DVD If i did them both at once. So now with My 4400+ I can now Load my game (CSS:S, BF2, FarCry, DoD:S, BFME, or AoWA) ALT-TAB out set the Affinity to CPU0, start DVDshrink , set affinity to CPU1, Start rip. 15-20 Minutes later (sometimes moer on ncrypted DVDs) my drive Pops open and I ALT tab out pop in new disc, start rip, alt-tab back to game. Now I get to spend All but a couple moments playing games and don't have to worry about whether or not I can get everything ripped that night. Hell If I think about the amount of movies I get after a year of not waiting an extra day to send back, I can probably earn the extra cost of my drive back. Keep in mind I don't exactly know all the Performanc enumbers and some of this can be done on a HT CPU but 2 things happen The encoding app takes longer to finish as it doesn't get a true CPU just acouple of extra scraps and It slows down the Primary program by forcing the CPU to spend some valuable clockcycles on the encoder.

Final parting words- NVIDIA Forcware 80.** Is coming out sooner rather then later, and will utalize the second core. It apparntly does some unloading of some work to the extra core. we have seen in betas an increse of 20%-30% in a few games (and as little as 1% in others). Its basically a hack but who cares if it increases performance, untill Multithreaded games come out in force this is perfect for the people who shout up and down about games not using both cores.

 

[GamerExpress]

Tell him he is dumb, and then call it a day.

 

[harobikes333]

what is: NVIDIA Forcware 80.** Is coming out sooner rather then later, and will utalize the second core....?

Could ya Pm me more info or must post it on this thread? plz^^

 

[JonnyBlaze]

it depends on your needs. iv owned 3 dual processor systems in the past and since its going to be affordable again, my next upgrade will be dual cores.

 

[Bona Fide]

Don't waste your breath arguing. Some people are just so stupid.

 

[Griffinhart]

Your buddy is at least partially right on one statement, but it's not the whole truth either.

It's true that it will be a few years before the second core reaches its full potential, but, that doesn't mean that the second core isn't useful today or sooner than a few years.

-Windows knows how to use the second core today. For that reason alone there is a minor performance advantage with dual core over single since it can off load mundain OS tasks to the second core giving a little more room for your game.

-As was stated, there are several apps out there today that use the second core 100%. Photoshop, Video Editing software, etc. And in this front Single core, no matter how much it's overclocked won't compare.

-NVidia currently has beta drivers for their multithreaded forceware drivers. This will offer a noticable increase in video game performance when its' released in a couple/few months. So, it won't fully utilize the second core, but it will use enough of it to give it a solid advantage over single cores.

With the approaching Forceware driver and multithreaded games, the only advantage a single core processor has over Dual Core is Price. But, the real value is currently in the Dual Core chips at the moment.